Arguments for and Against the Existence of God

Arguments for and Against the Existence of God

Introduction

Polytheistic ideologies of God were derided and criticized by monotheistic religions. Since the Enlightenment era, monotheistic perspectives have also been criticized by pantheism and atheism. The existence of God brings rise to essential and deep-seated problems in philosophical logic, metaphysics, and philosophy of language. This article aims at examining arguments for and against the existence of God. The paper also analyzes The Problem of Evil as proposed by Mackie. The document follows the case that God exists because there is no evidence, including scientific evidence, to show God does not exist or how and why the universe exists, yet the world is not a commotion.

Discussion

Most arguments used in the debate about the existence of God are philosophical. There are based on rational instead of holy scriptures, such as the Bible, Quran, and Vedas, among others. One such argument is cosmological argument, which dictates that nothing can be the cause of itself, and therefore everything (including the universe) that exists must have an origin. Paul Harrison (2000) best describes this argument when he says, “Everything must have a cause. It is impossible to continue backward to infinity with causes; therefore, there must have been a first cause, which was not conditioned by any other cause. That cause must be God” (para. 4). While tracing back through history, you find that information available goes only to the medieval period leaving a massive gap about how the universe came to being. Most cultures and religions use different myths and narratives of creation, and the fundamental similarity of most of these myths is that a Supreme Being did the creation of the universe.

However, the cosmological argument is often disputed on the ideology that the Supreme Being exists without a cause. The underlying doctrine is that everything must have an origin, and therefore, the theist must also indicate the cause of God. If they choose to say that God is unique or He is self-caused, it created the question of why the universe cannot be similarly unique or self-caused. Rebecca Goldstein (2020) is of a similar ideology when she posits, “Once you admit of exceptions, you can ask why the universe itself, which is also unique, cannot be the exception. The universe itself can either exist without a cause or else can be self-caused” (para. 52). Another flaw in the argument is the cause of an event is always connected to physical law. And most atheists question the reason for God to create the world and never appear, but instead, He gave only moral codes to be followed through religion. Therefore, using the cause as an argument for the existence of God extends into a realm that no one has an idea about.

The universe is not a commotion. Everything in the world, like stars, sun, plants, and animals, among others, has a purpose meaning someone designed them. The classical teleological argument uses the ideology that every aspect of everything in the universe is well-coordinated, meaning someone created them. Giving an example of the human body, the brain, circulatory system, digestive systems, legs, hands, among other parts of the body, have specific functions that they carry out. When one component fails, it becomes problematic. Harrison (2000) best describes this argument when he states, “Many constants of nature appear to be very finely tuned for this, and the odds against this happening by chance are astronomical” (para.6). Because there is no human designer or any other known designer to everything in the universe, the designer is presumed to be God.

Atheists use Darwin’s evolution theory and the process of replication to counter the classical teleological argument. Darwin claims that the world is always evolving, and due to the process of replication, the universe after many generations has been able to crop out errors and perfected the efficiency in offspring. That implies that a designer (God) neither exists nor is He necessary for the universe has designed itself. However, the evolution theory by Darwin is also criticized. Goldstein (2020) claims, “Evolution has no foresight, and every incremental step must be an improvement over the preceding one, allowing the organism to survive and reproduce better than its competitors” (para.58). Another flaw in Darwin’s evolution theory is that natural selection and the process of replication cannot explain the complex systems in the universe.

Analyzing the Problem of Evil proposed by J.L Mackie.

Mackie starts his article by claiming that all arguments for the existence of God have been labeled faulty by philosophers, but this should not mean there is no reason for believing in God. The aim of his paper is not to dispute the existence of God but to show that God does not exist. He posits, “if one of two contraries be infinite, then the other is excluded absolutely. But the idea of God is that of infinite good. Therefore, if God exists, there could be no evil. But evil exists. Consequently, God does not” (399). The basis of Mackie’s claims is that one of the following statements is not correct, God is omnipotent, or God is wholly good, or some evil exists. He offers two types of solutions to this problem fallacious solutions and adequate solutions. The adequate solution would mean a theologian must give up one of the above principles to ascertain that God exists. Among the fallacious solutions he gives are; good cannot exist without evil, evil is necessary as it a means to bring goodness, a universe with evil is better than one without, and evil is essential for free will.

Conclusion

This paper analyzed the arguments for and against the existence of God. The article discussed the cosmological and the classical teleological arguments used as evidence of the existence of God. The paper discovered that the cosmological argument is based on the ideology that there must be an origin for the universe, and the cause is presumed to be God. However, this argument is criticized because the cause is an assumption, and if God can be the sole cause of the universe through assumption, even the universe can be assumed to be self-caused. The classical teleological arguments dictate that everything in the world has a purpose, and only a designer (God) could have created it. This theory is criticized by Darwin’s evolution theory, which is also further disputed because evolution is said to have no foresight to only select good qualities and reproduce them.

Works Cited

Farrell, P.M. Evil and Omnipotence. Oxford Journals; Oxford University Press. 1958.

Harrison, Paul. Arguments for and Against the Existence of God. Principia Cybernetica. 2000. Accessed April 10, 2020. From http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/GODEXIST.html

Goldstein Rebecca. 36 Arguments for the Existence of God. Edge. 2020. Accessed April 10, 2020. From https://www.edge.org/conversation/rebecca_newberger_goldstein-36-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god

Nelson, Michael. Existence. Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2012. Accessed on April 10, 2020. From https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/

‘&”z2