Does God Exist: Analysis Essay Sample

Does God Exist: Analysis Essay Sample

Looks like you are using an old version of Internet Explorer – Please update your browser










  • Cart
  • Account
  • English/US

    If you already have an account, Sign in.

    View Cart

    English/US
    • Answers
    • Store
    • Outreach
    • Media
    • Kids
    • Education
    • Donate
    The New Answers Book 3
    Buy Book
    What Is the Best Argument for the Existence of God?
    Helix Nebula image by NASA/JPL-Caltech
    • Answers in Genesis

    • Answers

    • God

    • Is God Real?

    • What Is the Best Argument for the Existence of God?

    Chapter 27

    What Is the Best Argument for the Existence of God?


    by



    on


    Share:

    Email Using:

    Gmail
    Yahoo!
    Outlook
    Other

    There are a number of common arguments for the existence of God. But most of
    these arguments are not as effective as many Christians would like to think.
    Let’s consider a hypothetical conversation between a Christian and an atheist.

    Christian: “Everything with a beginning requires a cause. The universe
    has a beginning and therefore requires a cause. That cause is God.”

    Atheist: “Even if it were true that everything with a beginning requires
    a cause, how do you know that the cause of the universe is God? Why not a
    big bang? Maybe this universe sprang from another universe, as some physicists
    now believe.”

    Christian: “The living creatures of this world clearly exhibit design.
    Therefore, they must have a designer. And that designer is God.”

    Atheist: “The living creatures only appear to be designed. Natural
    selection can account for this apparent design. Poorly adapted organisms tend
    to die off, and do not pass on their genes.”

    Christian: “But living creatures have irreducible complexity. All
    their essential parts must be in place at the same time, or the organism dies.
    So God must have created these parts all at the same time. A gradual evolutionary
    path simply will not work.”

    Atheist: “Just because you cannot imagine a gradual stepwise way of
    constructing an organism does not mean there isn’t one.”

    Christian: “DNA has information in it—the instructions to form a living
    being. And information never comes about by chance; it always comes from a
    mind. So DNA proves that God created the first creatures.”

    Atheist: “There could be an undiscovered mechanism that generates
    information in the DNA. Give us time, and we will eventually discover it.
    And even if DNA did come from intelligence, why would you think that intelligence
    is God? Maybe aliens seeded life on earth.”

    Christian: “The Resurrection of Jesus proves the existence of God.
    Only God can raise the dead.”

    Atheist: “You don’t really have any proof that Jesus rose from the
    dead. This section of the Bible is simply an embellished story. And even if
    it were true, it proves nothing. Perhaps under certain rare chemical conditions,
    a dead organism can come back to life. It certainly doesn’t mean that there
    is a God.”

    Christian: “The Bible claims that God exists, and that it is His Word
    to us. Furthermore, what the Bible says must be true, since God cannot lie.”

    Atheist: “That is a circular argument. Only if we knew in advance
    that God existed would it be reasonable to even consider the possibility that
    the Bible is His Word. If God does not exist—as I contend—then there is no
    reason to trust the Bible.”

    Christian: “Predictive prophecy shows that the Bible really must be
    inspired by God. All of the Old Testament prophecies concerning Christ, for
    example, were fulfilled. The odds of that happening by chance are very low.”

    Atheist: “A low probability isn’t the same as zero. People do win
    the lottery. Besides, maybe the Gospels have embellished what Jesus did, so
    that it would agree with the Old Testament prophecies. Perhaps some so-called
    prophetic books were actually written after the events they ‘predict.’ Maybe
    certain gifted individuals have abilities not yet understood by science and
    can occasionally predict the future. It certainly doesn’t prove the Bible
    is inspired by God.”

    Christian: “I have personally experienced God, and so have many other
    Christians. He has saved us and transformed our lives. We know that He exists
    from experience.”

    Atheist: “Unfortunately, your personal experiences are not open to
    investigation; I have only your word for it. And second, how do you know that
    such subjective feelings are really the result of God? The right drug might
    produce similar feelings.”

    Not Conclusive

    It should be noted that all the facts used by the Christian in the above hypothetical
    conversation are true. Yes, God is the first cause, the designer of life,
    the resurrected Christ, the Author of Scripture, and the Savior of Christians.
    Yet the way these facts are used is not decisive. That is, none of the above
    arguments really prove that God exists.

    None of the above arguments really prove that God exists.

    Some of the above arguments are very weak: appeals to personal experience,
    vicious circular reasoning, and appeals to a first cause. While the facts are
    true, the arguments do not come close to proving the existence of the biblical
    God. Some of the arguments seem stronger; I happen to think that irreducible
    complexity and information in DNA are strong confirmations of biblical creation.
    And predictive prophecy does confirm the inspiration of Scripture. Nonetheless,
    for each one of these arguments, the atheist was able to invent a “rescuing
    device.” He was able to propose an explanation for this evidence that is compatible
    with his belief that God does not exist.

    Moreover, most of the atheist’s explanations are actually pretty reasonable,
    given his view of the world. He’s not being illogical. He is being consistent
    with his position. Christians and atheists have different worldviews—different
    philosophies of life. And we must learn to argue on the level of worldviews
    if we are to argue in a cogent and effective fashion.

    The Christian in the above hypothetical conversation did not have a correct
    approach to apologetics. He was arguing on the basis of specific evidences with
    someone who had a totally different professed worldview than his own. This approach
    is never conclusive, because the critic can always invoke a rescuing device
    to protect his worldview. 1 Thus, if we are to
    be effective, we must use an argument that deals with worldviews, and not simply
    isolated facts. The best argument for the existence of God will be a “big-picture”
    kind of argument.

    God Doesn’t Believe in Atheists

    The Bible teaches that atheists are not really atheists.

    The Bible teaches that atheists are not really atheists. That is, those
    who profess to be atheists do ultimately believe in God in their heart-of-hearts.
    The Bible teaches that everyone knows God, because God has revealed Himself
    to all (Romans 1:19). In fact, the Bible tells us that God’s existence is so
    obvious that anyone who suppresses this truth is “without excuse” (Romans 1:20).
    The atheist denies with his lips what he knows in his heart. But if they know
    God, then why do atheists claim that they do not believe in God?

    The answer may be found in Romans 1:18. God is angry
    at unbelievers for their wickedness. And an all-powerful, all-knowing God who
    is angry at you is a terrifying prospect. So even though many atheists might
    claim that they are neutral, objective observers, and that their disbelief in
    God is purely rational, in reality, they are strongly motivated to reject the
    biblical God who is rightly angry with them. So they suppress that truth in
    unrighteousness. They convince themselves that they do not believe in God. 2 The atheist
    is intellectually schizophrenic—believing in God, but believing that he does
    not believe in God. 3

    Therefore, we do not really need to give the atheist any more specific evidences
    for God’s existence. He already knows in his heart-of-hearts that God exists,
    but he doesn’t want to believe it. Our goal is to expose the atheist’s suppressed
    knowledge of God. 4 With gentleness and respect, we can show the atheist that
    he already knows about God, but is suppressing what he knows to be true.

    Exposing the Inconsistency

    Because an atheist does believe in God, but does not believe that he believes in God, he is simply a walking bundle of inconsistencies.

    Because an atheist does believe in God, but does not believe that he believes
    in God, he is simply a walking bundle of inconsistencies. One type to watch
    for is a behavioral inconsistency; this is where a person’s behavior
    does not comport with what he claims to believe. For example, consider the atheist
    university professor who teaches that human beings are simply chemical accidents—the
    end result of a long and purposeless chain of biological evolution. But then
    he goes home and kisses his wife and hugs his children, as if they were not
    simply chemical accidents, but valuable, irreplaceable persons deserving of
    respect and worthy of love.

    Consider the atheist who is outraged at seeing a violent murder on the ten
    o’clock news. He is very upset and hopes that the murderer will be punished
    for his wicked actions. But in his view of the world, why should he be angry?
    In an atheistic, evolutionary universe where people are just animals, murder
    is no different than a lion killing an antelope. But we don’t punish the lion!
    If people are just chemical accidents, then why punish one for killing another?
    We wouldn’t get upset at baking soda for reacting with vinegar; that’s just
    what chemicals do. The concepts that human beings are valuable, are not simply
    animals, are not simply chemicals, have genuine freedom to make choices, are
    responsible for their actions, and are bound by a universal objective moral
    code all stem from a Christian worldview. Such things simply do not make sense
    in an atheistic view of life.

    Many atheists behave morally and expect others to behave morally as well. But
    absolute morality simply does not comport with atheism. Why should there be
    an absolute, objective standard of behavior that all people should obey if the
    universe and the people within it are simply accidents of nature? Of course,
    people can assert that there is a moral code. But who is to say what that moral
    code should be? Some people think it is okay to be racist; others think it is
    okay to kill babies, and others think we should kill people of other religions
    or ethnicities, etc. Who is to say which position should be followed? Any standard
    of our own creation would necessarily be subjective and arbitrary.

    Now, some atheists might respond, “That’s right! Morality is subjective. We
    each have the right to create our own moral code. And therefore, you cannot
    impose your personal morality on other people!” But of course, this statement
    is self-refuting, because when they say, “you cannot impose your personal morality
    on other people” they are imposing their personal moral code on other people.
    When push comes to shove, no one really believes that morality is merely a subjective,
    personal choice.

    Logical Inconsistency

    Another inconsistency occurs when atheists attempt to be rational. Rationality
    involves the use of laws of logic. Laws of logic prescribe the correct chain
    of reasoning between truth claims. For example, consider the argument: “If it
    is snowing outside, then it must be cold out. It is snowing. Therefore, it is
    cold out.” This argument is correct because it uses a law of logic called modus
    ponens
    . Laws of logic, like modus ponens, are immaterial, universal,
    invariant, abstract entities. They are immaterial because you can’t touch them
    or stub your toe on one. They are universal and invariant because they apply
    in all places and at all times (modus ponens works just as well in Africa
    as it does in the United States, and just as well on Friday as it does on Monday).
    And they are abstract because they deal with concepts.

    Laws of logic stem from God’s sovereign nature; they are a reflection of the way He thinks.

    Laws of logic stem from God’s sovereign nature; they are a reflection of the
    way He thinks. They are immaterial, universal, invariant, abstract entities,
    because God is an immaterial (Spirit), omnipresent, unchanging God who has all
    knowledge (Colossians 2:3). Thus, all true statements will be governed by God’s
    thinking—they will be logical. The law of non-contradiction, for example, stems
    from the fact that God does not deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13). The Christian
    can account for laws of logic; they are the correct standard for reasoning because
    God is sovereign over all truth. We can know some of God’s thoughts because
    God has revealed Himself to us through the words of Scripture and the person
    of Jesus Christ.

    However, the atheist cannot account for laws of logic. He cannot make sense
    of them within his own worldview. How could there be immaterial, universal,
    invariant, abstract laws in a chance universe formed by a big bang? Why should
    there be an absolute standard of reasoning if everything is simply “molecules
    in motion”? Most atheists have a materialistic outlook—meaning they believe
    that everything that exists is material, or explained by material processes.
    But laws of logic are not material! You cannot pull a law of logic out of the
    refrigerator! If atheistic materialism is true, then there could be no laws
    of logic, since they are immaterial. Thus, logical reasoning would be impossible!

    Laws of Logic

    No one is denying that atheists are able to reason and use laws of logic. The
    point is that if atheism were true, the atheist would not be able to reason
    or use laws of logic because such things would not be meaningful. The fact that
    the atheist is able to reason demonstrates that he is wrong. By using that which
    makes no sense given his worldview, the atheist is being horribly inconsistent.
    He is using God’s laws of logic, while denying the biblical God that makes such
    laws possible.

    How could there be laws at all without a lawgiver? The atheist cannot account
    for (1) the existence of laws of logic, (2) why they are immaterial, (3) why
    they are universal, (4) why they do not change with time, and (5) how human
    beings can possibly know about them or their properties. But of course, all
    these things make perfect sense on the Christian system. Laws of logic owe their
    existence to the biblical God. Yet they are required to reason rationally, to
    prove things. So the biblical God must exist in order for reasoning to be possible.
    Therefore, the best proof of God’s existence is that without Him we couldn’t
    prove anything at all!
    The existence of the biblical God is the prerequisite
    for knowledge and rationality. This is called the “transcendental argument for
    God” or TAG for short. It is a devastating and conclusive argument, one that
    only a few people have even attempted to refute (and none of them successfully). 5

    Proof Versus Persuasion

    Transcendental Argument

    Though the transcendental argument for God is deductively sound, not all atheists
    will be convinced upon hearing it. It may take time for them to even understand
    the argument in the first place. As I write this chapter, I am in the midst
    of an electronic exchange with an atheist who has not yet fully grasped the
    argument. Real-life discussions on this issue take time. But even if the atheist
    fully understands the argument, he may not be convinced. We must remember that
    there is a difference between proof and persuasion. Proof is objective, but
    persuasion is subjective. The transcendental argument does indeed objectively
    prove that God exists. However, that does not mean that the atheists will necessarily
    cry “uncle.” Atheists are strongly motivated to not believe in the biblical
    God—a God who is rightly angry at them for their treason against Him.

    The atheist’s denial of God is an emotional reaction, not a logical one.

    But the atheist’s denial of God is an emotional reaction, not a logical one.
    We might imagine a disobedient child who is about to be punished by his father.
    He might cover his eyes with his hands and say of his father, “You don’t exist!”
    but that would hardly be rational. Atheists deny (with their lips) the biblical
    God, not for logical reasons, but for psychological reasons. We must also keep
    in mind that the unbeliever’s problem is not simply an emotional issue, but
    a deep spiritual problem (1 Corinthians 2:14). It is the Holy Spirit that must
    give him the ability to repent (1 Corinthians 12:3; 2 Timothy 2:25).

    So we must keep in mind that it is not our job to convert people—nor can
    we. Our job is to give a defense of the faith in a way that is faithful to the
    Scriptures (1 Peter 3:15). It is the Holy Spirit that brings conversion. But
    God can use our arguments as part of the process by which He draws people to
    Himself.





    Previous Chapter Why Is Mount St. Helens Important to the Origins Controversy?




    Next Chapter Do Evolutionists Believe Darwin’s Ideas about Evolution?

    The New Answers Book 3

    The New Answers Book 3

    Do you have answers to the big questions about the Christian faith, evolution, creation, and the biblical worldview? Now you get the important information you need regarding the existence of God, global warming and climate change, cloning and stem cells, human and chimp DNA, the importance of Mount St. Helens, and more.

    Read Online
    Buy Book

    Footnotes

    1. Of course, sometimes people are persuaded
      by such arguments. But that doesn’t mean the argument is cogent. After all,
      people can be persuaded by very bad arguments.
    2. This
      is called an “iterated belief ”—a belief about a belief.
    3. Self-deception is quite common. People frequently
      attempt to convince themselves of what they want to believe. The Bible tells
      us that those who hear God’s Word but do not act on it are self-deceived (James 1:22).
    4. In some cases, we can use scientific evidence to
      expose such inconsistency. Consider the evolutionist who admits that the probability
      of a cell forming by chance is infinitesimal. He is going against the odds.
      Yet, he decides to carry an umbrella with him when there is a 90 percent chance
      of rain.
    5. Perhaps
      most significantly, philosopher Michael Martin has attempted to rebut TAG indirectly
      by making a transcendental-style argument for the non-existence of God (TANG).
      Martin’s argument has been refuted by John Frame, and independently by Michael
      Butler.

    Recommended Resources

    • The Big Argument: Does God Exist? The Big Argument: Does God Exist?$10.49Sale
    • The God Who is Real eBook: eBook The God Who is Real eBook: eBook$8.19Sale
    • God
    • Is God Real?
    • Jesus Christ
    • Sin
    • Suffering
    • What Does God Want from Me?
    • Who Is God?
    Support the creation/gospel message by donating or getting involved !

    Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ .

    Learn more

    • Customer Service 800.778.3390
    • © 2018 Answers in Genesis

    AcademicHelp.net

    Academic Assignment

    • Writing an Essay

      226

      12

    • Writing a Research Paper

      41

      5

    • Writing a Review

      82

      6

    • Laboratory Report

      1

    • Process Paper

      7

    • Coursework Writing Tips

      3

    • Writing a Term Paper

      4

    • Writing a Case Study

      3

    • Writing an Annotated Bibliography

      4

    • Presentation

      1

    • Speech

      9

    Writing Guides for Students

    • Writing a Memoir

      2

    • Writing a Scholarship Essay

      3

    • Writing a Personal Statement

      7

    • Writing a Statement of Purpose

      3

    • Writing an Admission Essay

      5

    • Writing an Application Letter

      5

    Creative Writing Guides

    • Writing a Song

      3

    • Writing a Novel

      9

    • Writing a Haiku

      6

    • Interview

      5

    • Writing a Travelogue

      4

    • Writing a Memoir

      4

    • Poem

      21

    • Writing a Short Story

      13

    • Writing an Article

      82

    • Writing a Screenplay

      4

    • Writing a Book

    • Writing an Autobiography

      3

    Writing a Letter

    • Writing an Evaluation Letter

      3

    • Writing a College Deferral Letter

      3

    • Writing a Refund Letter

      1

    • Writing a Complimentary Letter

      1

    • Writing a Resignation Letter

      5

    • Writing a Complaint Letter

      4

    • Writing a Fundraising Letter

      4

    • Writing a Reconsideration Letter

      3

    • Writing a Grant Application

      2

    • Writing an Informal Letter

      3

    • Writing a Hardship Letter

      2

    • Writing a Reference Letter

      2

    • Writing a Recommendation Letter

      3

    Business Writing Guides

    • How to Make a Newsletter

      2

    • Writing a Meeting Agenda

      2

    • Writing a Business Email

      4

    • Writing a Progress Report

      2

    • Writing Meeting Minutes

      2

    • Writing a Brochure

      5

    • Business Presentation

      1

    • Writing a Business Proposal

      3

    • Writing a Press Release

      3

    • Writing a White Paper

      2

    • Writing a Business Report

      2

    • Writing a Job Application Letter

      2

    • Writing a Business Letter

      2

    • Writing a Business Plan

      3

    • Writing a Resume

      2

    • Writing a Cover Letter

      6

    General Writing Guides

    • Stages of Writing Process

      2

      12

    • Writing Essentials

      2

      17

    • Grammar Handbook

      0

      48


    Tools

    Services

    Academic Assignment

    • Writing an Essay
      • Writing an Evaluation Essay
      • Writing an Analysis Essay
      • Writing a Summary Essay
      • Writing a Reflective Essay
      • Writing a Definition Essay
      • Writing a Cause and Effect Essay
      • Writing a Descriptive Essay
      • Writing a Critical Essay
      • Writing an Expository Essay
      • Writing a Persuasive Essay
      • Writing a Narrative Essay
      • Writing a Compare and Contrast Essay

      226

      12

    • Writing a Research Paper
      • Writing a General Research Paper
      • Writing a Capstone Project
      • Writing a Dissertation
      • Writing a Thesis
      • Writing a Research Proposal

      41

      5

    • Writing a Review
      • Writing a Music Review
      • Writing Poetry Analysis
      • Writing an Article Review
      • Writing a Film Review
      • Writing a Book Review

      82

      6

    • Laboratory Report

      1

    • Process Paper

      7

    • Coursework Writing Tips

      3

    • Writing a Term Paper

      4

    • Writing a Case Study

      3

    • Writing an Annotated Bibliography

      4

    • Presentation

      1

    • Speech

      9

    Writing Guides for Students

    • Writing a Memoir

      2

    • Writing a Scholarship Essay

      3

    • Writing a Personal Statement

      7

    • Writing a Statement of Purpose

      3

    • Writing an Admission Essay

      5

    • Writing an Application Letter

      5

    Creative Writing Guides

    • Writing a Song

      3

    • Writing a Novel

      9

    • Writing a Haiku

      6

    • Interview

      5

    • Writing a Travelogue

      4

    • Writing a Memoir

      4

    • Poem

      21

    • Writing a Short Story

      13

    • Writing an Article

      82

    • Writing a Screenplay

      4

    • Writing a Book

    • Writing an Autobiography

      3

    Writing a Letter

    • Writing an Evaluation Letter

      3

    • Writing a College Deferral Letter

      3

    • Writing a Refund Letter

      1

    • Writing a Complimentary Letter

      1

    • Writing a Resignation Letter

      5

    • Writing a Complaint Letter

      4

    • Writing a Fundraising Letter

      4

    • Writing a Reconsideration Letter

      3

    • Writing a Grant Application

      2

    • Writing an Informal Letter

      3

    • Writing a Hardship Letter

      2

    • Writing a Reference Letter

      2

    • Writing a Recommendation Letter

      3

    Business Writing Guides

    • How to Make a Newsletter

      2

    • Writing a Meeting Agenda

      2

    • Writing a Business Email

      4

    • Writing a Progress Report

      2

    • Writing Meeting Minutes

      2

    • Writing a Brochure

      5

    • Business Presentation

      1

    • Writing a Business Proposal

      3

    • Writing a Press Release

      3

    • Writing a White Paper

      2

    • Writing a Business Report

      2

    • Writing a Job Application Letter

      2

    • Writing a Business Letter

      2

    • Writing a Business Plan

      3

    • Writing a Resume

      2

    • Writing a Cover Letter

      6

    General Writing Guides

    • Stages of Writing Process
      • Information Sources
      • Editing Tips
      • Writing a Final Draft
      • Writing a Second Draft
      • Writing a First Draft
      • Writing a Thesis Statement
      • Introduction to Research
      • Brainstorming Tips
      • Outlining

      2

      12

    • Writing Essentials
      • 10 Rules of Creative Writing
      • Evidence Support

      2

      17

    • Grammar Handbook

        0

        48


      Tools

      Services

      Homepage > Writing Samples > Academic Writing Samples > Essay Samples > Analysis Essay Samples > Does God Exist?

      08 Jul ’16
      1095

      5/5




      What is “God?” There are many religions, and many different ideas within each religion. Each has different views on what “God” is, and some are polytheistic. For this essay, I will consider the Christian God—the God of the Bible—believed to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent. I will consider the ontological, teleological, and cosmological arguments for God’s existence. I will consider in which contexts God exists. I expect to conclude that no argument sufficiently proves God’s existence

      (I refer to God as “he” since this is the usual interpretation of the biblical God).

      Saint Thomas Aquinas gave five proofs for God’s existence. The first two are cosmological: there can be no uncaused cause, so the universe could not have created itself, so there must be a first cause/prime mover, (Appiah, 2003, p. 322), which he calls “God.” This, in my view, does not prove anything. He is saying the universe cannot have come from nothing, but its creator can. If God is an exception to the “no uncaused cause” rule, why cannot the universe be? (Russell, 1927).

      Why is there one first cause? Multiple first causes are just as probable as one (Sober, 2009, p. 40). Even if Aquinas is correct, God does not necessarily exist. It is equally possible many gods could exist. Furthermore, Saint Thomas uses “God” as a label for the first cause. The first cause is not necessarily the Christian God (Dawkins, 2007, p. 101)—all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good (all-k.p.g.), or anything God is usually considered to be.

      God is usually considered to exist outside of space and time. If this is so, then God could only create things that are also outside of space and time, since he would have no understanding of space and time. A being that has no place in time cannot create, or interact with, beings which do, in my view. God would inhabit his own realm—with no space and time. We live in a realm with space and time. It seems to me a first cause would have to be temporal. It is possible that a temporal being created the universe, but the cosmological argument does not prove this; it merely proposes some unknown first cause and labels it “God.” What I am trying to say is that even if there was a first cause, it was not necessarily the Christian God (loc. cit.).

      Furthermore, Aquinas did not prove that there was a first cause. Is it not possible that the end of time links back with the beginning, in an infinite cycle? (bbc.co.uk). Perhaps the world’s destruction is also its beginning. I am not saying this is so, but it is possible, just as the existence of God is possible. The cosmological argument does not prove there must be a beginning to the cause-and-effect chain.

      To summarize, the cosmological argument does not seem to offer sufficient proof of God’s existence.

      The third proof of Saint Thomas Aquinas has similar problems. The argument is as follows: a being that is not contingent must exist, since contingent things did not always exist, so if everything was contingent, nothing would ever exist. There must exist a necessary being, which is called “God” (Sober, 2009, p. 47). Just like before (loc. cit), there is no reason to label this being “God” or to assume it has any of the properties usually ascribed to God.

      The fourth proof is the argument from degree: objects have properties to some degree, so there is a being with the maximum degree of all properties (Sober, 2009, p. 51). There seems to be no reason for this assumption. Dawkins relates this to smelliness: people have varying degrees of smelliness, so there is a being with the maximum possible smelliness (2007, p. 102). This is unconvincing and does not prove anything.

      The final proof from Aquinas is as follows: an object without a mind must have been created by an object with one (Sober, 2009, p. 53). This is suggesting that God created the universe. There is no proof that this must be so and once again no reason to believe God is the answer. This argument is used today in the form of the argument from design. The idea is that the world looks as though it was designed, and is so complex that it must have been designed. The harmony of “nature” is used as an example of why (Appiah, 2003, p. 325). I argue, however, that there is very little harmony in nature. Natural disasters, animals hunting, and killing other animals, and human activity (crimes, deforestation, pollution, and human-made disasters; remember, humans are part of nature too!) do not in my view showcase a harmonious “nature.”

      Simply because something looks designed does not mean it was designed (Dawkins, 2007, p. 103). Darwinian natural selection shows us that things evolve over time into what they are today. Things did not start out already made. The environment was not made to suit us; we evolved to suit it (Russell, 1927). The analogy often made is the watchmaker argument: an eye is like a watch, both are very complex and intricate, and so since a watch has a maker, so too must an eye. There is a problem of analogy here—just because something is true of a chosen analogy does not mean it is also true of the corresponding subject. A watch is a human-made phenomenon; an eye is a product of evolution.

      Furthermore, is the eye really that good? Consider three things: firstly, some people are blind, some are visually impaired, and some are color-blind. Secondly, some animals, for example hawks, have much better eyesight than humans. Finally, we can only see an incredibly small part of the electromagnetic spectrum. This is not a perfect eye which is so complex and intricate it requires a God to create it.

      To summarize, the five proofs of Saint Thomas Aquinas, in my view, do not adequately prove God’s existence.

      Another argument for the existence of God is the ontological argument, proposed by Anselm. It states that God is a being that which none greater can be conceived, and since existing is better than not existing, God must exist, otherwise something greater could be conceived—an existing God (Sober, 2009, p. 86; Appiah, 2003, p. 314). Firstly, the Christian God, i.e. the God of the Bible, should not be considered great, at least in terms of morality (he commits infanticide [Exodus 11: 5], endorses slavery [Exodus 21: 2], and punishes rape victims [Deuteronomy 22: 23-4]—there are more examples, but I will not labor the point). This is relevant, because it is this God most Christians believe in.

      Secondly, existence is not greater than non-existence. Natural disasters, wars, and crimes are much better when they do not exist, in my view.

      Thirdly, Guanilo refuted this argument by considering a perfect island (Sober, 2009, p. 89). Imagining an island that which none is greater could be conceived, but does not mean such an island exists.

      Murray and Rea point out that saying God is the greatest possible being already implies existence—Anselm is begging the question (2008, p. 129-30).

      Finally, Gasking argued (Dawkins, 2007, p. 107-8) that it would be even more impressive for God to create the world without existing. So, this is the greatest conceivable God. Thus, God does not exist. This argument does not actually prove God does not exist, but it was structured as a valid argument just like Anselm’s.

      My point here is that simply creating a valid argument and using logical tricks does not prove God exists or does not exist, and these arguments are not likely to persuade anyone of intelligence and common sense.

      To summarize, the ontological argument does not, in my view, prove God’s existence.

      Rene Descartes attempted to prove God’s existence. In his Third Meditation, he says he knows he is not perfect, so there must exist a being that is perfect to measure against (Descartes, Cottingham (ed.), 1996, pg. 31). This is the Argument from Degree I already discussed.

      He also says (ibid, pg. 33): “There must be at least as much in the cause as in the effect.” This means God must be a thinking thing and be at least as great as Descartes himself. He is trying to prove that God is the great being he is considered to be. However, he has not actually proven God’s existence in the first place.

      He rejects the possibility of multiple first causes by saying that unity of his attributes is one of God’s most important qualities. This is a problem, in my view, since he is discussing the qualities of something he has not proven exists.

      In one of the objections to Descartes (ibid, p. 95-6) it is said that using qualities or properties to try to prove God’s existence is not allowed. God must already exist to have any property (circular argument).

      Descartes considers God again in his Fifth Meditation: “the certainty and truth of all knowledge depends. . .on my awareness of. . .God” (ibid, p. 49). God gave him his knowledge, but he also says that he knows God exists because he perceives it clearly (ibid, p. 45). This is circular reasoning, since God, the thing he is trying to prove exists, is the cause of the method of proof.

      To summarize, in my view, Descartes failed to prove that God exists.

      In their Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, Murray and Rea say that just because God exists in understanding does not mean he exists in reality (2008, p. 125). This leads me to consider the context of God’s existence. We know God exists in thought, in books, films, etc., but so do superheroes and unicorns—and they do not exist in the actual world. It is my view that God exists in this and only this capacity: as a concept. Arguing God’s existence gets us nowhere, since the concept comes from the Bible (a book that also mentions unicorns [Isaiah 34: 7] and a beast with seven heads (Revelation 13: 1-3]). God exists in a story book; we should not ask if he exists in reality, in my view. Furthermore, there is no actual conclusive physical evidence for God’s existence. As Bertrand Russell said, he would say to God to explain his lack of belief: “Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence” (Dawkins, 2007, p. 131).

      Finally, I intend to show that the all-k.p.g. God could not possibly exist.

      If God is omni-benevolent, he can do no wrong; however, if God is omnipotent, he can do anything, including wrong. These two properties are incompatible (Murray and Rea, 2008, p. 134).

      If God is omnipotent, he can do anything. If he is omniscient, he knows everything. As Karen Owens asked (Dawkins, 2007, p. 101):

      Can omniscient God, who
      Knows the future, find
      The omnipotence to
      Change his future mind?

      These two properties are also incompatible.

      If God knows everything, he knows evil exists—he also created it, since he is supposed to have created everything—and therefore cooperates in evil (Leibniz, Huggard (ed.), 2005, p. 217). However, an omni-benevolent God cannot, by definition, allow for the existence of evil. These two properties are incompatible. In the words of Epicurus (Hume, Kemp Smith (ed.), 1947, p. 198):

      Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Finally, omnipotence is impossible. Can God create a rock so heavy he can’t lift it? Whether yes or no, God is not omnipotent. (philosophyofreligion.info).

      To summarize, the three properties (all-k.p.g.) God is supposed to have lead to paradoxes.

      In conclusion, there is a variety of arguments attempted to prove God exists. Saint Thomas gave five proofs (including the cosmological and teleological Arguments), Anselm proposed the Ontological Argument, and Descartes reconsidered these. I hope to have shown that none of these prove God exists. I also attempted to show that it is not possible to be all-k.p.g. I considered in which contexts God exists, and decided God exists as a concept and fictional character, but nothing more, and not in the actual world.

      So, in my view, there is insufficient proof that God exists.

      Bibliography

      • Appiah, K.A., 2003, Thinking It Through, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
      • Dawkins, R., 2007, The God Delusion (Paperback edition), London: Black Swan.
      • Descartes, R., Cottingham, J. (ed.), 1996, Meditations on First Philosophy,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
      • Hume, D., Kemp Smith, N. (ed.), 1947, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, located at http://www.anselm.edU/homepage/dbanach/dnr.htm#All [Accessed on 30 October 2010].
      • Leibniz, G.W., Huggard, E. M. (ed.), 2005, Theodicy Essays on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man and the Origin of Evil, located at http://fliiby.com/file/219936/9tmnh3od4p.html [Accessed on 6th November 2010].
      • Murray, M., Rea, M., 2008, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion,
      • Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Russell, B., 1927, Why I am Not a Christian, lecture, located at http://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html [Accessed on 3rd November 2010].
      • Sober, E., 2009, Core Questions in Philosophy: A Text With Readings (5 edition), New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall Various authors. Holy Bible, King James Version, Cambridge: Cambridge.University Press
      • bbc.co.uk, 2002, Universe in ‘Endless Cycle?, news article, located at http://news.bbc.co.Uk/l/hi/sci/tech/1951406.stm [Accessed on 7th November 2010].
      • philosophyofreligion.info. Problems with Divine Omnipotence, web page, located at http://philosophyofreligion.info/arguments-for-atheism/problems-with-divine-omnipotence [Accessed on 6th November 2010].
      essay topics , opinion essay , religion essay

      5/5




      Need Help?

      Popular Questions

      • Thesis statement and compare contrast essay asked by Admin
      • What is a good thesis statement against euthanasia asked by Anonymous
      • Gender stereotypes persuasive essay asked by Admin
      • Which of the following would best work as the title of an explanatory essay? asked by Admin
      • Divergent Novel Thesis Statement asked by Admin

      Comment/Ask an Expert

      You do not have permission to submit a question

      Related Writing Guides

      Writing an Analysis Essay

      An analysis essay assumes that you break a larger subject into subcategories and then examine each of them to form an opinion about the whole. After you have taken a problem apart, you must describe its components, explain how they are interrelated, and …

      Login

      Register

      Forgotten Password?

      Register | Lost your password?

      | Back to Login