For this motion, although atheists and Christians have a different view of whether God exists or not, however they can both agree with this motion. Christians believe that God is infinite (above human experience), so there is no way of knowing him, and unlike humans he is not limited. God is often described as being transcendent (above human experience), inscrutable and unknowable so it’s impossible for humans to comprehend what he is like. Though atheists don’t believe in God and since it can’t be scientifically proved that he is real, there is no way of knowing what he is like, if he exists. In the Bible God is described as being loving but what sort of God allows bad things to happen, it can be argued that God is unpredictable. My last argument for this motion is from an agnostic point of view how can one know about what one has never seen, heard or experienced. The Bible conveys his teachings but there is no physical proof that he exists.…
The argument that I have chosen for this assignment and feel more comfortable using when trying to convince an open-minded non-believer in the existence of God, is number 19 “The Common Consent Argument.” In my own words this argument argues that it is common that all individuals worship, respect, and admire God, many individuals has had their wrong opinion and been wrong their beliefs, and that everyone should believe in God and that God really do exist. It argues that there is some kind of God is intrinsic or innate and has existed deliberately in almost the whole humankind in history and if God didn’t exist, then God wouldn’t be as popular as he is. The strengths of the argument are that individuals all over the world people in God and a common part of the lives of individuals and their daily lives. Two of the arguments weaknesses are that it does not show the differences in the actual existence of some form of God and the desire that individuals have for God. The belief well-known in God can reflect the existence of God or the desire of the community for a protective force to have an answer for the hard questions, such as what happens after death and the reasons why it thunders. Another weakness is that the argument fit into place in a reasonable misleading notion misleading notion that is known as the bandwagon misleading notion. The attributes of God supported by the argument are: “For believing in God is like having a relationship with a person”, “God really is there, given such widespread belief in him”, “God is the result of childhood fears, that God is a projection of our human fathers: someone up there can protect us from natural forces we consider hostile”, and “God must be a cosmic projection of our human fathers.” I think that the argument might affect the non-believer intellectually and emotionally, because there are so many individuals who have their own view and their own opinions on God, many who believe that God really do exist and many who…
“Sixthly, he would be surprised to hear that the mechanism of the watch was no proof of contrivance, only a motion to induce the mind to think so.” (Page 56) William Paley confidently suggests that there must have been a designer to make such a complex piece of machinery due to the undeniable fact that, to make something so complex, a well thought out plan is needed. A watch has intricate components that have a distinct shape and position within the watch. According to Paley, all of these parts have not come together by chance because it would be unnatural for something with such a particular combination to occur. Based on this, someone must have used their intellect to plan the exact arrangement of these parts so that it comes together to serve a purpose. A watch is a complex device, but nature is even more intricate. With this in mind, nature must have a designer because everything regarding nature is complex and it is very unlikely to be created without contrivance. Convincingly, Paley came up with the notion that there must be a God or transcendent being that created the universe, as well as all of the nature within it due to the fact that it seems implausible for something so complex to have been created with no thought or planning.…
existence of god is highly improbable. I’ll put this argument in the simplest of terms. For…
Within our society, it is usually assumed that we have free will. If you were to ask a random person on the street, they would most likely respond to the question, "Do you have free will or is there Fate" with the affirmation that they make their own decisions, because God gives us free will. Yet in the assumption of the fact that God gave us free will, there is a logical disconnect that most people ignore. How can God exist in a world where we can change the outcome of a situation in a way that is unpredictable to God? It is my stipulation that the Judeo-Christian view of an omnipotent God and free will cannot exist together. Additionally, the believe in an omnipotent God necessarily affirms the concepts of fate, while the believe in free…
God may have some redeeming qualities but I refuse to believe in a "jealous" God. I understand that his jealousy arises, not from insecurity, but out of sovereignty. In which case, not only is he a jealous God but also a proud and selfish God. The way I understand it, God wants us to worship him ( and him alone) in whatever ways he wishes. That brings me to eternal damnation. God, supposedly, gives us free will but if we choose to oppose him he damns us to hell. That hardly seems like something a 'loving" and "merciful" God would do. I didn't begin to let go of my religion until I realized that God could possibly be an evil God. Dewey,a character from Malcolm in the Middle,once said something that resonated with me, " God is so much bigger and wiser than us, and trying to see what he's thinking would be like an ant trying to see what I'm thinking. Like me in my anthill. I spent days watching the ants, trying to figure out which ones were good, and which ones were bad, but they all just looked like ants, so I started smiting all of them. Those ants could have been praying to me all day, I wouldn't have heard them. I guess all we can do is live our lives and try not to dwell on God standing over us with a giant shovel". I didn't want to live my life believing in a God that was either a Bully or a God that just didn't care for humanity.…
Have you ever questioned someone's existence? Or have you ever thought of a spiritual entity as false? For thousands of years, we have been given a picture of God as the creator of everything we know of. He symbolizes a figure of faith. His spiritual being gives hope and encouragement to people as a way for them to rely on him during their toughest times. For instance, I find myself within those group of people; however, I have become aware that my belief in God is not as strong as I thought it was. During the time I was a child, Roman Catholicism was the religion practiced in my house. My family and I would go to our town¿s local church every Sunday morning at 8 o'clock. I would always be enthusiastic about going to church because I enjoyed…
The question “Does God exist?” is an extremely expansive and immense topic that has been debated for centuries. This question has plagued mankind since we began to think logically. It is difficult to say whether there may or may not be a god, or even many gods, as we have limited knowledge regarding this issue. We currently even question God’s existence today, however the answer can never certainly and truly be found. There is evidence supporting his existence, but there is also evidence suggesting that his existence is not genuine. The famous teleological and ontological theories both link to each other for this topic, as they are both recognised for agreeing through reason that God exists, however this is opposed with the situation that they are based on common sense, but not fact, a belief that Descartes would agree with. The argument about God’s possible existence also leads many to believe that we created this figure to look to for guidance, to have someone to lead us, and also to blame.…
Through my analysis of both the articles I found many parallels in both accounts about whether the reality we face is true or if it’s a falsehood. In the movie the “Matrix” it deals with the reality that we face and how it’s been a lie for most of the average person’s life. The movie deals with a character whose name is “Mr. Anderson” aka Neo and how he has been living a double life, one as a computer programmer and the other as a hacker during the night. He has a run in with a man name Morpheus who shows him that the “true” reality that he knows as truth is a lie and that all of mankind is living a lie as they are all plugged into a central hub that displays a reality in which isn’t true. This group deals with setting people’s minds free and showing what the real truth is and how the mind can only truly be free when they are not dependent on the matrix. The one issue that the average person does deal with is having their mind set free and how this is too much for some people to deal with, because it’s so much for the average mind to deal with and it’s evident in the case of Cypher and how he wants to go back to living a lie that only the Matrix can offer.…
Do you believe in God? If so, at some point in time, someone convinced you that God does exist. They used one of the ten arguments listed herein. How solid are these arguments and how do they stand up to basic science and reason?…
Ontological argument solely relies on purely logical inferences, rather than verifiable evidence. According to the premises supported by the argument, we can conclude that the claim God does exist can be conceived, but it was rather presented with assuage the doubts than to convince the skeptics. The argument begins by establishing the necessity of God’s existence through an explanation of the concept of necessary being. It is impossible to conceive of anything as coming into existence without a cause and effect. Therefore, we can say that the argument is based on the principle of causality. To grasp a better understand of causality, the following claim examined the relation between cause and effect, which God is referred to as the necessary being and “the matter, laws, and nature of everything in the universe” is called contingent beings. The next two premises entailed each other and attempt to posit a necessary being as the reason for the existence of all contingent things: “if something is contingent, then its existence is only possible. If the existence of something is only possible, then at some time it will not exist.” In other words, contingent beings exist and some time it fails to exist, they could be an event or condition that is likely but not inevitable to occur with certainty. So if everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing. For instance, the laws of mathematics are often thought to be necessary. It is plausible to say that mathematical truths such as two and two making four hold irrespective of the way that the world is. God, too, is a necessary being that logically could not have failed to exist. So if the numeric system and God were considered a contingent, it might have been the case they might not have existed at all. Therefore, the argument emphasizes the following premise stating “only a necessary being must exist at all time. Something cannot come from nothing,” otherwise stated that there is…
3. GodIsImaginary. “50 Simple Proofs.” God is Imaginary. N.p. 2007-2011. Web. 23 April 2013. <http://godisimaginary.com/index.htm>…
‘O God, help us to keep ourselves physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight, that in doing our duty to Thee and our country we may keep the honour of the Services untarnished’ …..it is the way we started our life everyday for three very important years of our life, I am just reciting it so as to refresh your memory….and to seek out the first line….”Oh God, help us to”……GOD…who is GOD….what is GOD….is it something that justifies our existence, something that bestows righteousness to our actions, …..that ..’Whom’ for we work….close your eyes gentlemen….take a minute to think about….who, what, when, where and HOW……much like the .the ‘mission statement’…….of NOPP…
How can we prove the existence of an invisible being? The Bible says in John 1:18 and 1 John 4:12, “no one has ever seen God” (Nelson, 1994), so how can we know he exists; especially with all the trouble in the world. Judging in this manner would indeed prove if anything, God doesn’t exist; however, although pain, sorrow, and sickness are in the world; God exists! The prophets of old, nature, and the scriptures prove the undeniable existence of God. The Bible says in 2 Peter 1:21, “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (Nelson, 1994). So we know God exists because we have his Word which was written by the prophets of old. In the New Testament in the book of Revelation; the Apostle John, imprisoned on the isle of Patmos for his preaching of the Gospel, received a powerful revelation from the risen Christ to the Church: “Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter” (Nelson, 1994). Again, we have proof of the existence of God working through his prophets in bringing us his divine will for the church. Nature itself testifies of the existence of God.…
The mere existence of a greater being, God has been a debate for longer than almost any other scientific in history. We are told that McCloskey refers to arguments as proofs and often implies that they cannot definitively establish the case for God, so therefore they should be abandoned. He says that because these arguments/debates, have no proof he dismisses the term argument and refers to them as “proofs”. McCloskey states that theists do not believe in God because said proofs but rather than as a result of some other significant change in their lives. Because of the fact that we cannot “prove” God exists we should not believe in such an all-powerful being. There are no proofs in Scientific Method’s either. In conducting a scientific method, the goal is not to prove a theory but merely to evidence that a theory has the potential to be correct or incorrect. Does this information mean that science is wrong? There are different proofs such as ontological proofs which carry no weight with the theist. There are three proofs cosmological, teleological, and argument from design. Theism feels there must be a cause or a “creator, someone who brought things into being and hold everything in his hands.” They believe in design and purpose which necessitated the belief in God. He states if you know nothing about evolution it is easy to misconstrue our adaption for the environment as design and purpose. He states theism is a comfortless, spine chilling doctrine. I believe the proofs are needed for a theist. The mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in such a being. The cause of the universe must be necessary because they claimed God is the reason for the existence. All things are contingent, why do they exist? This will be incomplete unless there is necessary being (a being that existence requires no explanation). There are three common objections to the argument. Temporal versions which does not know the age of the universe, so they suggest the…