The Existence of God
The ability to undergo cognitive orientation and the capacity to think made the ancient philosophers pose imperative questions on the existence of God. Arguably, this is an area of debate that encompasses the area of religious philosophy. The area is riddled with many questions such as: Why humans live, the question of free will and whether God exists or not. Different cultures and societies have raised their answers to some of the pertinent question as above and they have become an important basis for their religious beliefs and livelihoods. The existence of God is a discipline encompassed in areas such as epistemology, ontology and the value-based systems (Evans, 2014). In such realization, the contexts that encompass the existence of God are multifaceted. Such contexts are separate following a variety of axes and exhibiting different types of orthogonal classifications. The Concepts of theism and atheism are directed to the belief of God or non-belief (Evans, 2014). Theism is founded on the belief of the existence of one Supreme Being called God. Atheism on the other ands takes the view that gods do not exists. Both are based on philosophical orientation and present contradictory yet poignant views. The thing is that both of them cannot be true, at the same time they all cannot be false.
Whether God exist or not is a question that takes many schools of thoughts. The direction of this paper discourse is informed from a theistic perspective. In such notation, the foundation for the existence of God is traced back to the western tradition and juxtaposed with the arguments made by philosophers Plato and Socrates on cosmology. Many philosophers have fronted their arguments on the existence of God such as St. Anselm and his ontological arguments. Other religious scholars such as St. Thomas Aquinas and IbnRushd(Averroes) have provided their accounts on cosmological arguments (Koons, 2009, p. 126). Ren Descartes reiterates that the fact that God exists provides a logical standing that all senses are meaningful. Immanuel Kant, who is the main proponent of the categorical imperative connotes that good things exists due to the existence of God. William Craig ,One of the contemporary and most relished religion philosophers provides the moral arguments on why God exists from three view points: That if there is no God, then there is no moral value, that there exists objective moral value, and that in such sense God exists.. Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
The basis foundation of the contemporary cosmology that was augmented in the 20th century shows that the earth emanates some finite time (Koons, 2009, p. 126). The astronomical discoveries all point to the facts that the world has endured continuous developments, as aspects which connotes creates. The argumentation fronted in this discourse is that cosmos came from somewhere and it did originate from itself. The above ideology was fronted a long time ago by Mutakallimun (Altaie, 2008, p 152). Mutakallimun was made up of an affiliation of Muslim thinkers and theologians who taught in the 8th century and proceeded to influence the control of Islam until the 10th century. The group came up with a system of belief that is cited by many theists as kalam (Altaie, 2008, p 150). Kalam is recently fostered by William Craig, a contemporary theist and religious philosopher. The foundation of his analogy is that nothing exists out of nothingness, and as such, the universe exists since it has a reason for its existence.
On theism approach
In the recent years, the field of philosophy and religion has been marred with subjective debates on two opposing views, atheism and theism. Atheism holds the notions that belief and religion are non existence due to the ideations of reasons (logic) and science (Feinendegen, 2018, p.114). The reasons for using the theism approach in this discourse emanated from what ‘atheist’ label stand for. Notable atheist thinkers such as Quentin Smith argue that science and reason should precede unfounded belief in religion without evidence. However, the discourse of this analogy and based on the ‘new theism’ revives a natural philosophy which provides evidence-based communication for the existence of God and or other supernatural beings. The analogy of theism also presents an explanation for science using religion on a philosophical attitude augmented although not limited to aspects such as the theory of intelligent design. The ideology hinged on intelligent design takes the normative realization that some elements of the universe can be justified through intelligent analysis and not necessarily as tangential natural selection.
Facts that support theist approach
Theism and atheism mirror each other in their position as ‘enemy twin’ as popularly cited by Rener Girard. While the two approaches seem to be antagonistic to each other they both rely on each other to validate a foundation of their ideology. Both theism and atheism consider religion as a theory whose systems tends to provide the rationale through which to address the question of the existence of God (Koons, 2009, p. 130). The assumption provided by both ideologies is hinged on a type of meta-naturalism. The proponents of atheism adjudicate a methodological naturalism which, on the perception of theist encompasses metaphysical naturalism which defies the notions of any existence of God or supernatural phenomena (Forrest, 2000, p.9). On the other hand, and part of which informs why theism takes the upper hand in that it provides a natural philosophy which gives details about the natural phenomena. Moreover, the position of theism stands as defense towards the explanation of supernatural phenomena from skepticism advanced by atheist scholars. In the same vein of thought, the philosophy of religion in understanding theism subgroups to form a keener understanding (Forrest, 2000, p. 12). Such group connotes imperative fields of knowledge such as theology called apologetics. Philosophically, the apologetics forms a defenses of protecting the views of theism from attacks fronted by atheists.
Opinion
In my opinion, there exists a series of rational discussion that surround the field of religion and philosophy but none is succinct in their commitment. However, I tend to incline my thought analysis on the position that theist’s lack or insufficient rational proof on the existence of supernatural beings is compensated by faith and belief. It should be noted that faith and belief systems is not rationally or logically inclines and thus it provides a religious believer with the commitment they need in professing a belief in religion. At this juncture, it is right to perceive faith as religious merit or a gift depending on one’s angle of theological conception. In the end, I realize that the only difference between atheist and theists is that the latter are compensated with a faith system. The degree of lacking in commitment in religion or belief for the atheist emanates from the fact that they lack compensating factors. The big question to this analogy is the factors that can compensate atheists so that they reach the level of their counterparts. Such question can only be answered by addressing the position of pot-Kantian tradition of what the philosophy of religion entails.
The ideology of evil, God, and the existence of God
The foundations of God’s existence are tied with the imperative question of evil and why He lets it happen. Atheists implore the narrative that if there is God, and he is omnipotent and omnipresent, then He would not let evil prevail in the world. The question of evil has permeated to the points that even non-believers are occasionally doubtful whether God exists especially during a difficult moment. Many religious and philosophical experts wrestle with the dilemma of evil and why God does not category ban all the permitting. Many Christian question why God, who is omnipotent cannot bring the greater good without permitting evil. Again the question of omnipotence tends to suggest that God can do all the impossibilities which mean He can fulfill his promises without evil.
However, there are theodicies or rather defenses justify that God does not intentionally allow evil so that people may suffer (Wilt et al., 2016, p. 352). For example, God punishes people who do evil and thus the suffering is the consequences of the punishment received. Based on the aspects of free will theodicy, one would question why God does not block people from causing harm to others. However, the reply to this question would be that God created people and gave them free will which includes the aspects of self determination. Moreover, the act of self-determination is entirely a human choice and cannot be justified that God allowed people to cause harm to others. Natural consequences theodicy permeates on the reason that God created human beings and gave them the ability to love and to return this love to Him (Wilt et al., 2016, p. 352). However, due to the free will, human beings have held this love to both Him and on another. As such the consequences for such deeds became natural disturbances upon which they must return and seek their reunion with God. In such realization, God does not permit evil nit rather call for everyone to love him with all of their heart and soul. And even if evil were to exists, the evidence that God exist is stronger that the justification which orients that evil exists since there is no God.
Conclusion
This essay has discussed the philosophy of the existence of God using theism approach. This is an area is riddled with many questions such as: Why humans live, the question of free will and whether God exists or not. The argumentation fronted in this discourse is that cosmos came from somewhere and it did originate from itself. Moreover, theodicies provide defenses that justify that God does not intentionally allow evil so that people may suffer.
References
Altaie, M. B. (2008). Creation and the personal creator in Islamic Kalām and modern cosmology. Humanity, the world and god. studies in science and Theology, 11, 149-166.
Evans, C. S. (2014). Moral arguments for the existence of God.
Feinendegen, N. (2018). The Philosopher’s Progress: CS Lewis’ Intellectual Journey from Atheism to Theism. Journal of Inklings Studies, 8(2), 103-143.
Forrest, B. (2000). Methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism: Clarifying the connection. Philo, 3(2), 7-29.
Koons, R. C. (2009). Theism and Ultimate Explanation: The Necessary Shape of Contingency, by Timothy O’Connor.
Wilt, J. A., Exline, J. J., Grubbs, J. B., Park, C. L., & Pargament, K. I. (2016). God’s role in suffering: Theodicies, divine struggle, and mental health. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 8(4), 352.