About God Existence

The existence of God is a contentious issue in philosophy. There are numerous arguments for and against this topic. Philosophers and scientists have examined the issue and developed a number of arguments. Positions on God’s existence are divided along several axes, resulting in numerous classifications (Meister, 38). Philosophers, religious leaders, and scientists who contend that God exists do so on the basis of a number of arguments that they try to convey to others who disagree with them. The Ontological, Cosmological, and Teleological Arguments for God’s Existence will be discussed in this presentation.The Ontological argument is an argument which uses ontology or the nature of existence. According to the argument, it is not necessary to go looking for physical evidence for the existence of God. By just thinking about it, we can work out that he exists. This argument states that if the greatest being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. Many minds of the Western philosophy have found the argument worthy of their attention. In the ontological argument, philosophers believe that claiming that God does not exist is self-contradictory. The key idea behind this argument is that the definition of God includes perfect. A perfect thing cannot possibly be made any better than it is (Meister, 49). Therefore, thinking of God as being perfect means that it is impossible to conceive any being greater or God being any better than He already is. To think that God does not exist is to think that he is imperfect. However, the idea of imperfect God is just absurd.

The Ontological argument has both strengths and weaknesses. One strength is that it is a priori argument. Therefore, once one accepts the premise then the conclusion must also be true. Additionally, the argument is logically satisfying and coerces the believer to consider carefully what they mean by the term God. One shortcoming of the argument is that existence is not a predicate. Adding or taking away existence from something does not change the definition. It is impossible to define God into existence. David Hume argued that existence can only be contingent and is not a coherent concept (Meister, 52). Moreover, some critics argue that the characteristics of God are contradictory for example omnipresence. The multiverse theory criticizes this argument by arguing that if there are an infinite number of worlds which have an infinite number of possibilities then there is a world in which God does not exist.

The Cosmological argument for the existence of God explains that everything has a cause. The argument attempts to prove that God exists by observing the world around us. The most obvious thing in reality is that things exist. The argument claims that the cause of the existence of things has to be a thing like God. Since the universe had a beginning, it has to have had a cause (Meister, 41). The cause has to be outside the whole universe. God had to cause the occurrence of things since the beginning and He must be still causing things to exist currently. Not only did the universe need to have a first cause to exist it requires something to give it existence right now. The only thing that does not have to be given existence is something which exists at its own nature. This something would exist all the time with no limit. That is God.

One merit of the cosmological argument is that it provides a simple explanation. It is logical to believe that God is the creator of the universe through the simple explanation. Rejecting this requires one to come up with a stronger and more complex argument. Moreover, the argument is based on logic. Logic says that things do not cause themselves to exist. Something or someone should bring them to existence. This provides a better argument than both the Ontological argument. However, the argument also has flaws. One flaw is that it contradicts itself. It states that God is uncaused (Meister, 40). However, it also point out that everything in existence must have a cause so if God does not have a cause then he does not exist. Another mystery to solve is trying to figure out who created God.

The Teleological argument states that it takes a purposer to have purpose and therefore, where we see things that are intended for a purpose, we assume that those things were made for a reason. The universe required a designer beyond itself. This arguments that the universe is designed for life and there is no way things could randomly occur. It exposes the weaknesses of the theory of evolution. Chance cannot explain the complexity of life (Meister, 55). Even single-celled bacteria are very complex to explain without a creator.

One strength of the teleological argument is that it is supported by inductive reasoning. These are evidences that can be observed making it hard to question the complexity of the universe. Further, the argument is straight forward and simple. It uses analogy making it comprehensive. Furthermore, the argument is consistent with the Scriptures. This argument does not require perfection and is rational hence making it work better than both Ontological and Cosmological arguments. Among the flaws of the argument is that it is subjective for believing the universe was intricately designed (Meister, 55). Another shortcoming is that evolution suggests that complex systems can be achieved through a gradual process of random mutations. This makes it questionable.

In conclusion, all the above arguments are made in order to explain why some may believe that the existence of God is real. People have different opinions and critics have come forward to state why they do not believe the arguments. That is why there is theism and atheism between different people. Whether God exists or not remains a debatable topic among philosophers, scientists and other groups of people.

Work Cited

Meister, Chad. “Arguments about the Existence of God.” Philosophy of Religion. Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2014. 38-59.