The Controversial Argument For The Existence Of God

The age old debate for theism is obviously whether or not God exist. But more so, theists seem to have trouble when proving their argument for the existence of a necessary intelligent being. Not only do atheists have the governing laws of science, but it seems they have logic on their side. For theists can present countless arguments without presenting any intelligible proof. We are rational, sentient human beings and we need logic in order to accept a premise. It is contradictory to human nature to accept a statement without any proof as to why that statement must be accepted as true. The famous writer Dale Carnegie once said that to persuade a listener, “your message has to focus on emotions, all the while maintaining a balance between
Now, that it is only an observation. For I am not one that does not want God to exist, but reasoning provides that we can not believe in God. To do so, would be a contradiction to our rational nature. Accordingly, In order to prove God’s nonexistence, I will use Rowe’s, The evidential argument from evil and Corey Washington’s, The Argument from Harm to argue that our notion of God as what we perceive to be true to be does not match the reality of what we know to be true. Paralleling the existence of God is the possibility of the after-life. Without the existence of God, there is no possibility of life after death; A theist must believe that he can live on after death and an atheist must believe that life stops after death. Regardless, once again, logic and faith are at a crossroads when discussing the possibility of the afterlife. This is because of what I call: the too many heavens account. In correspondence with our notion of God, the amount of religions that are followed is irreducible to the idea of God’s
Our notion of God requires that he must be omnipotent, omni-benevolent, and omniscient. Because it would be inappropriate for a human being to worship a being that is less than perfect, we rightfully hold God to the standard of being omnipotent, omni-benevolent, and omniscient. As creator of the world we live in, God must be able to have the power to craft the world as he likes, the goodness to create a world favorable for human beings, and the ability to know how to create this world. The world must provide the most optimal survival of human beings. However, this is not so. There are inherent evils in the world that put the human life in legitimate danger. Per the definition of omni-benevolence, “God should desire to have a world in which there is as little suffering as possible, perhaps none.”(Washington) Goodness is a universal concept. The goodness of human nature is consistent with the goodness that an all-powerful being must display. Of course, an all-powerful being will display a more perfected version of that goodness, but nonetheless that goodness of human nature shall derive from that of the all-powerful being. In Contrast with an all-powerful being, people like me and you hold goodness in our nature, but we lack the ability to apply that goodness to the world in a way that would