The Debate on Gods Existence - Essay Example

? The Debate on God’s existence Introduction Over the years, philosophers, theologians, and scientists have engaged each other in the debate on the existence of God or in a supreme but invisible being. Ancient Greece was one of the focal areas as stipulated in philosophy to have presented intense philosophical debates on whether God was in existence, which to some extent proved significant (Corlett, 2010). Most of the philosophers from Greece had their own argument as a way of justifying their truths and beliefs over their belief in God. Ironically, Greece was a region that did not have a one-deity system of religion as this society had multiple gods that had attachment to different functions. On the contrary, other arguments related to the existence of God suggested, that the belief on the existence of God depends on the knowledge that individual has over the subject. In order for the argument on the existence of God to be convincing, philosophers have had to contend with whether it is vital to provide evidence on this subject, which makes it a harder task. The theological argument presented by theists and apologists is the most convincing argument in relation to the existence of God. The need to have proof for the existence of God Ideally, skeptics are unavoidable aspect of living in which proof is a necessity in sustaining various subjects including those of religion. The application is similar in which many individuals seek evidence that substantiates that God exists by tearing into every aspect of God in order to create loopholes for the same. In essence, there exists a number of arguments that have been successful in convincing members of society that God is real. Additionally, the Holy Bible and other holy books provide proof of a higher being than that of man. According to philosophers, there are many arguments that support or disagree with the ideology of theology but the most convincing ones have attracted immense following. However, theology and science tend to clash as science disputes the theological approach as inconclusive and invalid because of the supposed loopholes that explain God’s existence. Pack (2010) and numerous apologists believe that everything that exists in the universe exists because there was superior force that made them be from the past to date. According to Spiegel (2010), apologists have been successful in making their argument logical but scientist dispute this by having various theories that seek to explain how the creation came into being. The most common theory is that of evolution in which it only explains how man has evolved to what he is today. However, the most disputing aspect within the argument based on evolution is that it does not give elaborate explanations on the existence of plants and other objects that have life. The implication here is that the theological argument presented by apologists is the most convincing argument in relation to the existence of God. The conflict between science and religion in relation to the existence of God As many sympathizers would argue, the interaction and relationship between religion and scientific assumptions is that it is a confusing and unclear making it a vague subject. Ideally, many view the theories presented by religion to be contrary to the thinking of scientists because they argue that it lacks logic and substance. In essence, the religious aspect in this argument bases its belief on belief and faith over the unseen while science opts to argue according to facts and visible objects (Radcliffe, 2012). This makes it harder for those in favor of religion as their choice of supporting that God does exist to proof that God exists without having proof of walking this earth. Additionally, scientists puncture into the idea that a supreme being such as God exists because the origin of this being is also a subject of dispute because there is no recorded proof of how God came into being. Evidently, their claim is that in over for things to exist they had to either evolve or be born of another being hence creating dispute on this critical area of contention. On the other hand, the religious angle that describes this matter is a complex one in terms of trinity concept in which God is one but has two other entities as part of the same trinity. This becomes confusing to discuss because of the complexities involved in describing how the Holy Spirit and Jesus become part of being God. Therefore, the conflict between science and religion on matters pertaining to God’s existence is one that would rage on for many years to come as protagonists of both ideologies seem to be waging on their claims relentlessly. Justification for the argument for atheism As much as society may view atheism as a morally incorrect approach to viewing life and the universal activities, those in support of this argument have not presented convincing views making minimal impact on common belief. According to Pack (2010), atheism refers to the unrelenting belief in the probability that God or gods do not and have never existed that tends to have an attachment to negative attitude towards religion. The idea that sustains this belief is that sympathizers of God’s existence have failed to provide sufficient proofs to substantiate their claims. On the contrary, those that have relentless belief in the non-existence of God are the strong atheists while those that have no belief in this aspect are the weak atheists. In order to present a substantive stand over belief claims, it is vital for those in support of certain belief to provide adequate facts in support of their arguments and in order to woo more people into adopting their thinking. Therefore, atheists do not provide facts, but rather rely on their ignorance of the evidence that exist in relation to God’s existence. As many would argue, those in support of this claim have many to show as evidence, but the question that begs is the fact that atheist do not have any other than puncturing the claims presented in the course of the argument. The implication her is that atheist shift the responsibility of having to provide proof theists and by challenging them to dispute their claims. In essence, those that tend to rally their belief do so by capitalizing on the ignorance that most members of society have taken comfort in by not seeking knowledge on Godly matters (Landau- Shaufer, 2012). As presented, the position held by atheists has no justification as it goes against the existing proofs, witness accounts, and documented evidence that support that God or gods exists. In addition, in order for an atheist to maintain their unwavering support for the belief held by theists they need to provide tangible arguments that may stand opposition and public debate for it to withstand. With this, theological argument presented by theists is the most convincing argument in relation to the existence of God. Morality and the non-belief in God’s existence Apologists and theists at large have been successful in sustaining the claim over God’s existence as generations have maintained these documented claims. However, the claims that atheists hold over God’s non-existence in the theist circle stands as an immoral behavioral, but not within the ethical dimension. Across the globe, those that profess to have no belief of God’s existence attract hatred and condemnation from those that are apologetic making them prone to physical and emotional attacks. However, those that are in support of the existence of God might not be privy to the knowledge that a person that does not believe in God or have the belief that God is non-existent. With this, there is no justifiable logic in judging that that share a different belief because every human being has the right to developing belief on things of their choice. In conclusion, being a non-believer in the existence of God might not be immoral basing on the arguments presented by science and evolution because the challenge lies in presenting facts to support individual arguments. Spiegel (2010) asserts that atheists tend to have association to immoral behavior hence equating their nature to immorality as compared to the upright morals for a majority of theists. In essence, the belief in God and the doctrines attached to this being serve as reference points for harmonious living with other human beings hence making it immoral to share in this non-belief. Therefore, the ideologies that thinkers, philosophers and scientists share may not quantify them as immoral as most of them have substantive evidence to back their claims, but The theological argument presented by theists and apologists is the most convincing argument in relation to the existence of God. References Corlett, J. A. (2010). The errors of atheism. New York: Continuum. Landau- Shaufer, R. (2012). Ethical Theory: An Anthology. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Press. Pack, D. C. (2007). The Existence of God Logically Proven!. The Real Truth Magazine Print. Radcliffe, P. S. (2012). A Shortgun Wedding: The Conflict Between Science and Religion Resolved. Indiana: iUniverse Publishers. Spiegel, J. (2010). The making of an Atheist: How Immorality Leads to Unbelief. Chicago: Moody Publishers Press. Read More