Believing In The Existence Of God: Theoretical Analysis

Pascal spends much of his argument refocusing discussion and putting appropriate context on different situations. The question of God is a much more pressing question in relation to human mortality. We are much more inclined to draw toward or push away from faith when we are facing unfavorable situations out of our control. We tend to look harder at the meaning of life and our moral values when we are found staring death straight in the

A weakness in Pascals argument for the existence of God, believes that God is sufficient for salvation. As seen in premise three of the argument “If one does not believe in the Christian God then if he exists then one receives an infinitely great punishment and if he does not exist then one gains little or nothing.” Pascal makes the assumption that those who believe in God will be rewarded with heaven as opposed to those who don’t believe in God will be punished with Hell. In Pascals wager, Blaise Pascal was arguing from ignorance. He is arguing the claim that God is sufficient to salvation; this claim cannot be justified. Pascals wager may not be refuted to some as the claim may be justified as there has been nothing proven in the opposition

Blaise Pascal’s position is not a yes, or a no, but bets on yes. For Pascal, there is no rational proof for or against the existence of God. However, it is unavoidable to not chose whether you believe or not. Pascal’s argument does not support the existence of God, but does support that it is a reasonable and natural tendency to believe in God. Meaning that his argument does support religion, but not the philosophical arguments that support religion. Pascal describes God as infinitely incomprehensible because he does not have parts or limits, and therefore has no affinity to us; leaving us incapable of knowing what or if He exists. Therefore, no one can blame Christians for not being able to give a reason as to why they believe in what they do, since God does not have any affinity to us.

The question "Does God Exist?" is a well-known asked question in the world. Most people believe they know the answer to it. The religious people would say, well of course he does, while the non-religious people or atheist would say no He does not exist. Because evil exist and chaos exists, God cannot be all-powerful. In the modern world, there are many different opinions as to whether a God exists or not. This has been an issue of great dispute because many people reverence different gods or no god at all. For years, many philosophers have come up with theories, proofs, and hypotheses to prove the existence of God, and a canon of arguments has been developed. The Arguments for the Existence of God sets out to explain the everyday philosophical arguments for theism, and so to explore the case for the existence of God. The arguments themselves are arranged under the following headings: The Ontological Argument, The Cosmological Argument, The Teleological Argument, and The Moral Argument will determine if there really is a God.

Throughout the course of this essay we shall examine two of the major philosophical arguments for the existence of God. The arguments that we are going to focus on shall be the Design argument and the Ontological argument. We shall compare, evaluate and discuss both the Design (or teleological) argument for the existence of God and the Ontological Argument for the existence of God, as well as highlighting philosophical criticisms of both theories too. By doing so, we shall attempt to draw a satisfactory conclusion and aim gain a greater understanding of the respective theories and their criticisms of each theory.

a) Christians believe many different things about God’s nature; due to the huge spectrum of Christians that there are. However, as a general rule they perceive God as being one of the following four things:

Whether god exists or not has been in discussion for thousands of years, and an important discussion. Whether it is rational to believe in god or not is another story, like believing in god itself, this topic has brought many discussions. It is one thing to discuss whether god is real or not and it is a complete other to discuss whether it is rational to believe in god or not. I believe that while there may not be any convincing evidence or arguments that God does exist, I do still believe that it is still rational to believe that god does exist. I think this because, believing in God is not simply just believing that he exists, but believing that it can bring good to our lives, we otherwise would not have. It teaches us to have a moral

Every philosophical position must contain a proposition. To count as a position in a given branch of Philosophy a proposition has to reflect on the fundamental issue that the branch deals with and by embracing that proposition the individual must be brought to an inevitable conclusion regarding that issue.

The existence of God has been in question for as long as mankind has existed and thought logically. Many questions have plagued the human mind in regards to God, and there have been many arguments drawn with the hopes of proving the existence of a supreme being whom we know as God. The “God” question has been presented to every individual at some point in their lives. It is a topic that will bring forth never-ending questions and an equal amount of attempted answers. Many philosophers have formulated different rationales when examining the topic of God, some of which include how the word itself should be defined, what his role is in human existence, whether or not he loves us, and ultimately, if he even exists at all. Mankind cannot

1. Examine the strengths and weaknesses of the argument for the existence of God based on religious experience. (18) 2. ‘The argument merely indicates the probability of God and this is of little value to a religious believer.’ Discuss. (12)

Truth, what is truth? This question itself has a thousand answers, no person can ever be sure of what truth is rather, truth can be justified, it can checked for reliability with strong evidences and logic. If the evidence proves to be accurate then it can be established that a certain answer is the truth. However, have we ever tried to think about what intrigues us to seek the truth? To think about a question and set foot firmly on the path of knowledge. Definitely it has! That was the very cause itself which is why this world has witnessed some of the greatest philosophers like Aristotle, Plato and Socrates etc. along with the school of thought. The ability to think and reason is one of the greatest ability humans have, it is what

in this world, and they are effects derived from a cause. The effects in turn

The existence of God has been questioned since the beginning of time. Religions thrived on answering the unanswerable questions of the universe and people were able to find solace in the answers. As science has expanded and been able to answer these questions with natural, as opposed to supernatural answers, many people stopped looking to God and religion for the causes of things and started looking towards science. God was dead, according to many scientists and people of all professions. Many philosophers, however, have different conclusions.

The famous William Paley has a different ontological argument within his text Natural Theology. The title of the reading gives insight to the theory, which focuses on something called natural design. The writing is based on an intricate and extensive analogy between the man made and the natural. For instance, Paley describes a man made watch in great detail. This intense detail sets the notion that each piece must have been put in place by someone, whom we can infer is a watchmaker. He then compares this to the intricacy of nature, which must have been made by a supreme diety. Such complexity could not have come about by chance. Only the most

I think the first clue that I would never be religious was when I started falling asleep during Sunday school. I remember being seven and not understanding how you could pray to some invisible dude in the sky. I was baptized Methodist, but my family stopped attending our church after a change in reverends when I was 8. After that, my flimsy connection to Methodism disappeared entirely. Our family had been pretty lax about religion, saying a brief grace at dinner the only religious act we performed outside of attending church. I’ve always viewed religion as having a belief in God or gods which have influence in the goings on of Earth and everything in it. If I had to label my relation with religion nowadays, agnostic would be the most accurate term. I can’t bring myself to deny the existence of deities, as there is so much about the universe that we know nothing about. That’s how I deal with the fact that some people are religious- we can’t prove that there are deities, but we also can’t prove that they don’t exist. It wouldn’t be fair to invalidate someone else’s beliefs to justify mine when even my own could be proven wrong. I can be correct and so can someone of another view because our beliefs are just our perceptions of the world- they don’t actually govern how the world really works, at least those things outside of human control. If I think that the universe formed from the Big Bang and my friend thinks that God created the universe, we’re both right because we have no