Does God Exist?

Wayne T. Mulei                                      

4 December, 2011

Does God exist?

Since the beginning of time man has looked up at the heavens and asked the question, “Is there a God? Who made this planet? Where did it all come from? Who made the original humans? Did the universe come about in a huge big bang? Or did it come about by a Divine Mover?” Everyone seems to have an opinion about the existence of God, be they a pastor at a church or your average Joe walking down the street. If one listens carefully, one will be able to pick out one of five different arguments for the existence of God. If the person arguing for the existence of God is skilled at debate, they will interweave their arguments. However, once one is able to identify the different arguments for the existence of God, through critical thinking, one will quickly come to the conclusion by using reason and logic that there is no substantial proof for the existence of a God.

            The ontological argument, by far the most common argument, is the first argument that most people will put forth. However, even though the ontological argument is the most popular it is the most ridiculous. The ontological argument says that God’s existence is imposed by the definition or concept of God (Oppy), or more plainly, that God exists because we as humans give characteristics to God. It is because of these characteristics that God exists. For example, God is powerful, all knowing and omnipotent so therefore He exists. One of the main problems with this argument is the argument is based on unsubstantiated information; it is not really an argument because the ontological argument is basing truth on nothing. Another problem with the ontological argument is the argument uses testimony or an “open declaration or profession of evidence in support of a fact” (Oppy); however, that fact is nothing more than personal belief. Some people will hold a book and point to it and say, God exists because this book says that He exists, and it is because the book says that God exists therefore He exists (Anselm). Here it is very easy to recognize the circularity of the ontological argument. What usually follows the ontological argument is a statement of damnation or if anyone does not believe the way I believe then they are a fool. Amy Kimoto in her essay, “Should I Believe in God”, points out that when arguing against the existence of God, one will be received with “utter closed-mindedness” (Kimoto).

            The cosmological argument is another common argument that comes up when discussing the existence of God. The cosmological argument differs from the ontological in that instead of hearsay or unsubstantiated information, the cosmological argument looks for proof for the existence of God. The cosmological argument is an argument for the existence of God by affirming that the universe and its parts can be neither accidental nor self-caused and must ultimately have been brought into existence by God (Reichenbach). Or, the universe exists, and it must have been created by someone. That someone is God or a “Prime Mover” (Reichenbach). Those that believe in the cosmological argument will argue that because people exist and nature exists, God must also exist. The refutation of this argument comes in the form of infinite regression. When arguing against the cosmological argument, one only needs to ask, “Who created God?” The answer will either be in the form of the ontological argument. For example God “just is,” however, one can counter “if God ‘just is’ why cannot the universe ‘just be’.” Or one will receive the answer that God’s father created God. Then when asked, “Who created God’s father?” the answer may be, “Grandfather God.”  This is an example of infinite regression. Infinite regression is illogical because something cannot come from nothing.

            The third argument is the most compelling, for it attempts to answer the question of purpose. The teleological argument is an argument for the existence of God based on the idea that the universe and its parts give evidence of purpose and/or design and therefore require a “Divine designer” (Ratzsch). The teleological argument attempts to answer the question of what and who gave plants and trees and ecosystems a purpose. When one looks at nature it is easy to see that everything is interconnected, everything exists for a purpose (Ratzsch).  Someone who is making a teleological argument may assert “If birds, dogs, and humans have a purpose, and everything in the world has a purpose,” then there must be a Divine designer to initiate purpose. This is a great argument and hard to refute; however, using critical thinking to assess the teleological argument, the flaw in this argument becomes clear. One may try to figure out what is the purpose for plants, animals, and humans, and may come up with a number of different ideas or solutions. For example, some may say, plants and trees exist for the purpose of producing food and oxygen that life is dependant on for survival. Animals might exist, for nutrition, clothing, tools, and a means of transportation for humans. The meaning of life and purpose for humans has been debated since the dawn of man, and a score of philosophers have come up with a number of solutions. However, a very large leap is being made from the beginning part of the argument of purpose of existence to, “there must be a Divine designer.” The teleological argument consists of a conditional statement. Or more plainly, the “if” and “then” part of the statement must be true, or the statement does not work; if everything has a purpose, then there must be a Divine designer (Ratzch). The teleological argument suggests that something tangible be can created by something intangible, and that is absolutely absurd.       

            The moral argument is the fourth argument that is common when trying to prove the existence of God.  The moral argument maintains that morality must come from and be guaranteed by a “Supreme being” or God (Byrne). Some people may state that there is “goodness” in the world and people can be good. God is good, God is perfect; therefore, God exists. The moral argument is vey similar to the ontological, in which humans give a human characteristic to God, in the case of the moral argument the human characteristic is “goodness”. The moral argument, like the ontological argument uses testimony and unsubstantiated information, therefore attempts to base truth on nothing. 

            The last argument for the existence of God is usually made when the one who is attempting to prove God’s existence has run out of ideas. Balise Pascal, a 16^th century philosopher, argued that belief in the existence of God is simply the “best bet”. “A rational person should wager as though God exists. Because living accordingly [living with the belief that God exists] one has everything to gain and nothing to lose” (Hajek).  This became known as Pascal’s Wager. However, a ratiocinative person will quickly dismiss Pascal’s Wager due to the unsophisticated approach Pascal takes towards faith and belief. Believing that something exists just because belief serves ones self interest does not mean that that thing exists (Hajek).

 By understanding and by being able to identify the different arguments for and against the existence of God, one will not be easily swayed or deceived by someone who is merely a good orator. One will be able to look objectively at all the different arguments and be able to make an educated decision through critical thinking. Nevertheless, one will quickly realize that there is no substantial proof for the existence of God. God’s existence has to be taken purely on faith. However, one cannot argue against faith with reason and logic, because what is faith if not belief absent of proof, or believing in something with no proof of existence. Foolish people will say that faith is a beautiful thing; however, putting faith in a fictitious and angry God has been the cause of countless wars and death.

When reading this one may come to the conclusion that I do not believe that God exist. That is not the point I was attempting to make. The point that I want to make is that through education one will not be deceived by a good speaker who is trying to make one of these arguments. 

  

Works Cited

Adams, W. Royce., ed. Viewpoints. New York: Wadsworth, 2010. Print.

Byrne, Peter, "Moral Arguments for the Existence of God", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

Hajek, Alan, "Pascal's Wager", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

Kimoto, Amy. “Should I Believe in God?” Adams 268-269.

Oppy, Graham, "Ontological Arguments", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

Ratzsch, Del, "Teleological Arguments for God's Existence", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

Reichenbach, Bruce, "Cosmological Argument", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)