The Four Arguments for the Existence of God - Essay Example

Existence of God The four arguments for the existence of God are ontological, which is when God exists if we can argue and conceive this, if we baseour feelings of his existence off of intuition; cosmological, which is the belief that for the universe to exist as it does, then there must have been a God that had created it; teleological, which is when people believe that God exist because of an order and the details of a creation, such as human lives; and the moral argument, which states that there could be no morality without God. Out of these four arguments, the one that I find the most convincing is the ontological argument. I feel that this argument is the strongest because it is the one that is seen most often, especially in a religious setting. It is something that is entirely based off of faith; it is the one argument does not require evidence for a person to believe that such a thing as God does exist, which, in my opinion, makes it one of the strongest arguments. Many people believe that God is not something that should be, but needs to be. They can find no other evidence to support the creation of the universe, of humans, or of anything else that is upon this Earth. They are unable to explain what they believe to be miracles, nor do they fully understand why some things happen and others do not. Yet, while they can find no solid, concrete evidence for the existence of God, they still believe that, based on intuition and reason, God does, in fact, exist, and he is the being behind the aforementioned events. One of the reasons that I feel that this is the strongest argument is because there are so many people out there that are ready to stand up for this belief, regardless of the fact that they have nothing solid to prove for it. This act is known as faith; in this case, I believe that faith can replace the lack of evidence, even if faith is not something that can be seen or felt, though it is capable of being witnessed by others when someone believes strong enough. I am one of those people that believe the only evidence needed to prove the existence of God is the intuitive feeling of a person; if someone did not believe that something or someone existed, like God, then they would not feel it and they would leave that argument and position alone. However, if they feel so strongly about something that can yield no proof, then I think that that is all the proof that is needed. That is what faith is - acting on something because you believe it, because you feel that there is no other way or no other explanations for some things. It is not a matter of what you can see, how much evidence you can gather, or how many other people you are capable of convincing. It is entirely about how an individual person feels about something. This is the power of faith, it is faith at work. The most controversial part of this argument is whether or not God exists in reality; many people are convinced that he exists in the mind, though a thought is not necessarily something that can be proven or given evidence to. The ontological argument states that God does not necessarily have to exist in the real world, but that does not mean that he does not exist in reality. It is possible that he exist in some form, even if that form is only in our minds. However, the argument goes on, even if something does exist only in the mind, it must be greater than if it existed in reality. Therefore, God as a thought form is more greater as a thought form than he would have been if he existed in reality. God is only as great as he is conceived to be by others. As aforementioned, this is where faith comes from. Something as magnificent as God might not be possible existing in the real world, but this does not mean he does not exist, especially if there are many people that believe he exists at least in their minds. In my opinion, that is enough evidence that is needed. People then take this thought of a higher, supreme being, and give it a purpose. God simply exists because we want him to, we need him to be a real thing, regardless of whether that means in reality or in our minds; we, as individuals and as a whole, have a need for him to exist. We have something to match our feelings of intuition. Furthermore, when people try to find concrete evidence for the existence of God, they often turn to science or some other intelligible means to get this evidence. Believing in God is not something that experiments have the capability of proving; oftentimes, the "evidence" that is found is contradicting or hypocritical to the different belief systems. God is, indeed, many different things to many different people, but he is not a scientific discovery waiting to happen. The thought that Gods existence can be proven takes away what it means to have faith. It has long since been decided that God and science and experiments have no part together whatsoever, and either you believe in God or you do not. To except him would be to except the fact that there is no proof. Each person, each religious path, views God as something different. Some view him as the creator of the universe and of life, others see him as being perfect, and yet others view God as being the greatest thing in existence. No matter which one rings true for each person, God is what they need him to be. On top of there being no concrete proof that God exists, there is also no proof as to what God is or to what he really does. By following our intuition, and connecting his existence to certain things in our lives, we give him a purpose, we bring him into existence and give him reasons to continue existing. Science and solid evidence cannot come into play here, because they could make God out to be something that he is not; many religions would cease to exist or have no purpose if there was suddenly more to God than others believe. What it all comes down to, as mentioned throughout this paper, is faith. The ability for people to believe in something as amazing as God without requiring physical proof. If a persons intuition is to believe that God does exist, even though they do not have evidence to prove this, then that should be all that matters. Faith and intuition do not depend on how many sightings there are of God, or how many miracles have happened. Faith, to me, is more powerful than any amount of proof or evidence. Again, faith is proof enough itself, even though it is not physical proof that can be seen with the naked eye. The ontological argument is the strongest and most convincing of the four arguments because people do not want to require evidence when trying to prove that God does exist. They trust their intuition enough to just know that he does exist, and that is all that matters to people who believe in him. Seeing is not believing; having faith is. Frankly, I feel that if someone were to find proof either for or against Gods existence, that people would still continue to believe in him as they originally had, because now they have this relationship with a being that they believe influences the outcome of their lives. Proof or not, God is not someone or something that can be denied, especially if one already believes in him. Read More