Category: God

Thomas Aquinas, also known as Aquino, was a prominent philosopher of 1200s who attempted to argue Gods existence through criticizing other philosophers- such as Anselm- arguments. In his argument, Aquinas states that the existence of God is a self-evident because God appears to be something known by everything alive.

According to Aquinas (207), everything in the nature is aware of Gods existence. He says that whenever people know the meaning of the term God, God becomes self-evident. He further argues that if for instance a person does not believe in God, this would not be self-evident. For example, there have been reported cases of children been raised by wild animals such as monkeys or wolves.

Nevertheless, these children are still human with human intelligence but they are not able to know God or even know that he even exists. Even though they have human intelligence or potential for it, they will never know God hence it would not be self-evident.

According to Aquinas (90), a thing can be self-evident in itself and to us. In a nutshell, whenever a whole phrase such as the universe is round is known to everyone, the self-evident is to all. However, if either one element or all in the phrase is unknown to all, the self-evident is considered to be in itself as it is absence to those who the phrase element is not clear.

As a result, according to Aquinas (473), there are some mental concepts that are self-evidence only to the learned, as those incorporeal substances are not in space. I tend to view this explanation as a fact since the preposition God exists, is self-evident in itself since the predicate and the subject are same thing.

God is his own existence. This means that since the real meaning of God is not known to us, the preposition is self-evident in itself, thus calling for demonstration of things that are known to us in a more clear way even if they are less known in their nature.

Anselm, a renowned philosopher, used ontological arguments to explain the existence of God. Anselm believed that nothing greater than God can be conceived and if other things do exist, then God must exist. According to Anselm (88) it is ridiculous if God does not exist, because there would be a possibility of conceiving of a Being which would be greater than the one who no other greater can be conceived. In his argument, at least one empirical premise is used in an attempt to prove Gods existence.

In this empirical premise, it is normally deduced that there could have not been life if certain essential things existing in the universe were to hold a different appearance, no matter how minimal, from what they are. His ontological argument further emphasizes that from the very definition of term God, it is possible to prove that he exists.

However, as Aquinas (78) states out, it is important to note that conceptual claims do not bring about existential claims. In order to prove that a certain thing does exist, for instance bacteria, one needs to understand that more than concept reflection is crucial. Instead, more solid facts from empirical research from the field are needed to explain the existence of such a thing.

From his much concern of nature of being, Anselm (365) came up with ontological argument through distinguishing contingent being from necessary being in four philosophical statements. First, he stated that if the Being he was imagining about was the greatest imaginable, it meant that he was not greater.

Secondly, if it was not true in imagining that he was not greater, it was then not true that he was imagining of the Greatest Being imaginable. Thirdly, Being is greater than not being, and fourthly, if the being he was imagining does not exist, then it was not true that he was imagining the Greatest Being imaginable. According to Anselm (49), This meant that if whatever he was thinking was of the Greatest Being Thinkable, it was therefore true that that being exists.

In trying to emphasis on the existence of God, Anselm (23) explains that even a foolish person will understand when he hears of a being which is greater than anything else that can be conceived. Anselm (8) further explains that whatever a person understands will be according to his understanding, in which it assuredly understands alone, is not enough to conceive that, than which nothing greater can be conceived.

This according to Anselm (110), means that, supposing it exists in understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater and therefore if that, which nothing is greater can be conceived, exists in the understanding alone, the very being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, is one, than which a greater can be conceived. However, this is not possible. Therefore, Anselm (9) argues that a being greater than anything thinkable do exist not only in understanding but also in reality.

The argument brings out God as the being which is greater than any other imaginable being and that He exists in peoples mind in form of an idea. Also, Anselm (63) argues that if all other things are considered to be equal, it implies that that beings that exist in peoples mind in form of an idea as well as in reality is greater than any being existing only in peoples mind as an idea.

This shows that if God was to exist in peoples mind as an idea, there could be another thing greater than God. However, it is a fact that we cannot think of anything that is greater than God, since it is impossible to think of something greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined Anselm (309). Thus, God exists.

According to Anselm (109) if the existence of a being is necessary, then, that being is greater than one which existence is not necessary. This is another way of saying that if God only exist in peoples imaginations without existing in reality, there could be another being perceived, greater than God.

However, because God is the only greater being thinkable existing, he necessary exist in reality. This shows that necessary existence is a property. For example, if m necessarily exists, it means that its existence is independent and does not rely on any other beings existence.

Moreover, if a being is considered to necessarily exist, it means that it exists eternally in the world logically. According to Anselm (127), such a being is not just, so to speak, indestructible in this world, but indestructible in every logically possible world- and this does seem, at first blush, to be a great-making property. This is a true nature of God. His indestructibility in this world shows that His existence is eternally.

Aquinas however argues that Gods existence is self evident. Aquinas brings out an argument that Gods existence is self-evidence. Aquinas opposes the idea that claims regarding the Gods concept can be used to deduce His existence. According Aquinas (26), not everyone who hears this word God understands it to signify a being that which nothing greater can be imagined, seeing that some have believed God to be a body.

For this idea to be practical, it requires conviction of people to perceiving Gods definition similarly. Nevertheless, despite the criticism, the ontological argument can be explained without using the term God, by replacing the term with A being than which none greater can be conceived. However, a being than which none greater can be conceived will be another form of a statement referring naturally to the name of God.

In addition, according to Aquinas (39), even if it was possible for everybody to hold the same picture of God as a being than which none greater can be imagined, it does not prove that a person understands what the word signifies, rather, this shows that it only exists mentally.

Aquinas (41) argues that though we can understand the phrase a being than which none greater can be imagined we do not have a clue what this series of words really denotes. This view according to Aquinas (74) indicates that, God is unlikely than any other reality known to us; while we can easily understand concepts of finite things, the concept of an infinitely great being dwarfs finite human understanding.

No matter how appropriately we can try to intertwine the phrase a being than which none greater can be conceived with a finite concepts that we are aware of, it is clear that an appropriate description of God is nowhere near these finite concepts. This simply means that they do not provide us with clear information of Gods existence.

All in all, the effectiveness of the argument does not require us to have a complete knowledge of the concept of a natural thing which none greater can be conceived. This is so because even if we do not know what is meant by this concept, we will still understand the thing in an appropriate way which can enable us to know such a thing does or does not exist.

Therefore according to Aquinas, the success of Anselms argument does not rely on how well one understands the concept. Instead, if the concept is logical even mere understanding of it is enough in making the argument successful.

One of the Aquinas proofs of Gods existence, which brings out the difference with Anselm approaches, is the aspect of things that move things. In his explanation, he argues that each motion has something that causes it to move. He also explains that there is in the very first thing that causes motion to everything including the universe.

He considers this to be God. Through this proof, Aquinas shows that to understand the existence of God, He is to be understood. Unlike Anselm who argues that every person will understand the presence of God through internal understanding of existence of a being which no other imaginable being is greater than, Aquinass approach indicates that it is through understanding the meaning of the term God that brings out his existence through self-evident.

Nevertheless, it is evidential that Aquinas approach constitutes an improvement over Anselms. Despite the argument that understanding Gods existence requires one understanding of the term itself, Aquinas (34) approach revolves around the phrase God is a being which none greater can be imagined.

Through understanding God in a self-evident perspective, it requires this knowledge to exist in that persons mind as an idea from what the person knows, an argument initiated by Anselm. Further understanding of Gods existence through evidences such as motion of things, order efficient causes, nature of being and not being in things, gradation in things and world governance, is an integrated way of Anselms (96) argument of a being that exists as an idea in mind as well as in reality.

This is because these are thing that requires supernatural power to control hence bringing the controller as being the greatest. Furthermore, the argument that the existence of God is self-evidence is a fact that brings out Gods great nature as seen by people, a completion of Anselms argument of a God greater than any other imaginable thing.

This is because to understand God is to understand his mighty doings. However, there is evidence of originality in Aquinas argument on the effect of a person not believing in God in proving the self-evident argument. This is so because if a person is not exposed into an environment which will provide him with the meaning of God, his human intelligence will not give him understanding pertaining God and his existence.

Works Cited

Anselm Saint. The major works. London: Oxford University press. 1998. Print

Aquinas Thomas. Theologian of the Christian life. London: Ashgate Publishing 2003. Print

The philosophy of Benedict Spinoza can sometimes be complex especially to upcoming scholars. In these readings, Spinoza expounds his views on God in detail. The readings on Spinozas views on God represent a complex philosophy. However, the authors explanations make this philosophy very understandable. This philosophy addresses the authors views on unity of everything.

In addition, the readings explain how God fits into this unity. Then Spinoza outlines the impact of the above knowledge on human beings. The first part of Spinozas readings on ethics addresses God as the main subject. This paper will break down this subject into three parts. The first part will explore God as an infinite subject. The second part will investigate God as a cause while the third part will explore Spinozas views on determinism.

According to first part of Spinozas readings, God is an infinite subject. The authors general view is that there is no being that does not express Gods existence. The first statement in these readings starts with the expression that all substances are by nature prior to their modification. This means that no substance appears without having existed even though it was in another form.

This statement by the author helps us explain the nature of the universe. Human beings have the tendency to go through a lot of trouble when trying to discover origins. However, each of the discovered origin points towards another origin. For example, this nature prior to modification is the weak point in the theory of evolution.

This is because even if it can be explained that human beings previously existed as monkeys, it cannot be explained what monkeys were prior to their modification. The author also claims that when two things have nothing in common, none of them can cause the other. This can also be put into context using the evolution theory. Those advocating for evolution may take issue with this view.

This is because the interrelation between species can be faulted by this argument. The independence of species only proves the existence of a higher power. In this case, it seems like the author meant that Gods idea of different species eliminates confusion. This is why it is not possible to get a different species from the same species. The counter argument of this stand would be that some species are too similar.

According to the author, no two different substances in the universe can have identical nature and attributes. This would mean that the differences in attributes are the defining factor. Therefore, similarity does not amount to exactness. What all these arguments mean is that all substances are infinite. This is because they have neither origin nor destiny.

The author claims that this analogy explains the infinity of Gods existence. In addition, there is no Gods equal because there can never exist two substances with the same attributes. The author continues to explain the fallacies that are associated with Gods existence.

The article forwards a very interesting argument concerning where God came from. According to the article, the origin of God cannot be explained by exploring other origins. God is an origin and this means He can only cause His own existence. Following this line of thought, the article concludes that God is the first cause. This can be translated to mean that God is the origin of God.

In addition, it means that because God is the first cause, everything else must have originated from Him. This particular argument touches on other various issues. It can also help answer some frequently asked questions pertaining to Gods existence, origin, and, actions. For instance, most kids and adults alike have often found themselves confused when it comes to the origin of God.

Simply put, the question on most peoples minds is where did God come from? Spinoza answers this question by aligning several facts. Firsts, he poses the question about whose intention it was to make God exist. The answer to this question is that it was Gods intention to have God exist. Therefore, unlike many people speculate, there was no big event or accident that caused Gods existence.

It is also an accurate guess that God being the first form of existence holds the key to all other subsequent forms of existence. The other popular concern about God has to do with His actions. Given that all other forms of existence are answerable to a higher entity, people question who or what forces and laws control Gods actions.

Spinozas article answers this by noting that God is governed by laws of his own nature. According to this article, God is the reason why all things come into existence. Furthermore, the essence of all things can be explained through God. This puts God at the beginning and at the end of every other existence. The article also offers insight into Gods essence.

The discussion in this article brings us to the third part of this philosophy. Spinoza argues that all things are trained to act in a certain manner. Their trainer is the God to whom they owe their essence and existence. This means that all things are conditioned by God and consequently nothing in this world has the ability to condition itself.

This philosophy raises a storm with the common folk. This is because everybody wants to associate God with only the good actions. Whenever things happen because of negative conditioning, most people are reluctant to attribute this conditioning to God. To add to this debate, Spinoza notes that something that is conditioned cannot reverse its conditioning.

This would mean that those with conditioning that is undesirable to fellow humans do not have the capacity to change for the better. This is in spite of their efforts to try and change their conditioning. However, Spinoza addresses this presumption by arguing that God is not necessarily the source of individualistic behavior. The only reason God propagates such behavior is to offer examples of behaviors that are contrary to his own propagation.

This means that the reason evil exists is so that it highlights Gods nature. Therefore, it is up to Gods subjects to determine which behaviors are propagated for the sole reason of highlighting Gods effects. Nevertheless, it is true that the cause of all behaviors can be attributed to God. The only difference between these behaviors is that some of them are supposed to compliment Gods nature while others are supposed to contrast it.

The philosophy of causes of behavior is very dear to many people. This also touches on what causes some people to be good while others remain bad. In addition, some of the shocking behaviors that are associated with people could be explained using this philosophy. Spinozas article indicates that not all behaviors reflect Gods nature. Some ill or negative behaviors are meant to contrast Gods nature and make it more valuable.

According to the traditional conception of God, there is omnipotent entity that created the universe including humans. Furthermore, there is nothing that lies outside the power of this Supreme Being. Moreover, this entity possesses other important properties that should not be overlooked. Among them, one can distinguish omniscience or the knowledge everything that has ever taken place in the universe.

Moreover, God is supposed to be totally benevolent. These are the main assumptions that theism incorporates. Yet, this ideology also implies that human beings cannot fully understand the motives or intentions of the Supreme Being. These are the main aspects that should be singled out because they can be relevant to various epistemological or ethical questions.

Overall, theism has significant implications for various controversial areas in philosophy. For instance, one can speak about the mind-body problem which is critical for describing the behavior of an individual. To a great extent, theism implies that there may be an immaterial soul that governs the body of a human being and determines every step that a person can take.

Therefore, the theistic view contradicts materialist perspectives according to which the behavior of a person can be explained only by physiological processes. This is one of the assumptions that can be made. Admittedly, theism does not fully identify the relations between material and immaterial realms. This approach is not helpful for illustrating the causal relations between body and mind.

This is one of the limitations that can be identified. However, if an individual accepts the main premises of theism, one can also conjecture that some Supreme Being could create some links between material and immaterial worlds. This is one of the points that can be made.

Apart from that, one can focus on the questions related to free will. The principles of theism do not show whether an individual act independently. In this case, several possible scenarios can be identified. For example, one can assume that God controls every aspect of human life, and in this case, the notion of free will becomes completely irrelevant.

According to this scenario, every action of a person can eventually lead to the outcome that was presupposed by God. Yet, the Supreme Being may also endow a human being with the capacity to evaluate various decisions and choose the most rational and ethical option.

From this perspective, the universe is not deterministic or predictable. However, it is important to bear in mind that theism does not enable a person to determine whether free will exists, and this question still remains open to debate. This is one of the details that should be taken into account.

Furthermore, it is important to speak about the external world skepticism or the belief that sensory perceptions do not enable a person to learn the truth about the outside world. This issue has been discussed by various philosophers such as Plato or Rene Descartes.

To a great extent, the main premises of theism can be used to defend the idea that people may not know anything about their external environment. In particular, one can say that the universe, which was created by an all-powerful and all-knowing entity, may not be fully comprehensible or knowable to a human because he/she does not possess the qualities of the Supreme Being.

This is one of the arguments that can be put forward. Furthermore, theism may also give rise to the assumption that the information derived through sensory perception is nothing, but an illusion.

Thus, theism can be used to support the external world skepticism and lays stress on the limitations of human knowledge. Yet, one should not suppose that theism proves the external world skepticism. It is quite possible that God gave a human being the ability to understand the nature of the universe.

Additionally, it is important to speak about the objectivity of ethics. As it has been said before, the Supreme Being possesses such a quality as complete benevolence. Hence, the existence of God implies that there can be certain moral ideals that a person should try to achieve or at least emulate.

Nevertheless, theism cannot explain why moral and behavioral norms are often shaped by cultural norms. Thus, even by using the principles of theism, one cannot determine whether ethics can be objective or not. These are the main aspects that should be considered.

Overall, these examples suggest that that the main premises of theism can be used in various philosophical debates. They can be used to argue that the materialistic perception of the world may not be fully accurate or complete. For instance, one can mention mind-body problem or external world skepticism.

Nevertheless, it is important to remember that by positing the existence of God, one cannot give unequivocal answers to various epistemological or ethical questions. The problem is that even by accepting theism, people cannot fully understand the actions or motives of the Supreme Being. Thus, this ideology should not be viewed as the universal solution to various ethical or epistemological problems.

Introduction

The human population has a sizeable variance regarding the image and location of God. This is determined by the demographic characteristics and the religious beliefs (Swinburne, 2003). Theism is the belief in the existence of one God who is the creator of mankind. In this belief, God controls the organization of the entire universe and is personally present. Atheists believe that there is only one God. On the other hand, pantheism is the belief that everything is God.

This implies that God is identical to the world. Therefore, God is expressed through nature. In this case, all things that exist in the universe are united to become one single being, which is God. Panentheism believes that everything is in God. Thus, the universe consists of the body of God.

Therefore, God is greater than all things in the universe because they are all his composition. The three terms have been used to describe God and link His relationship with the world (Capucao, 2010). This paper discusses the advantages and disadvantages of each position.

Theism

God is greater than the world and its compositions because He is the one who created them. He can change everything that exists in the world through his supernatural powers. He is the superior one who controls everything that happens in the universe. Theism holds that God is beyond everything else that exists in the world. He is sensible because all creation must have been formed at some point. There must be a force behind every cause.

This means that everything is caused by something. This something is Gods supernatural abilities that explain the cause of everything that exits in the universe. From what we see, many changes come and go and the process is continued. Creatures exist and extinct from the universe with new discoveries developing every day. This implies that the process will be continuous even in the future. Therefore, this power, that is God, is eternal.

This is because if these things stopped existing, then there would be no force to cause things to happen. God was there before the existence of the human beings and will always be there to determine what happens each single day. This explains why human beings cannot tell what is in store for the future. They rely on God to determine the expected happenings in the future (Peterson, Hasker, Reichenbach & Basinger 2008).

Theism recognizes the inability of humans to define their destiny. This is because the supernatural power, which is God, controls everything. This allows believers to leave what is not in their control, and this reduces their worries and stresses. It also gives them a sense of protection because they know the supernatural being controls everything that happens to them. For instance, when misfortunes happen to other people, theists do not have to worry about the same things happening to them.

This is part of Gods plan. In this case, worrying cannot change any plan and human beings tend to experience less stresses when they believe in God. The belief in a single supernatural being, who governs the whole world, gives theists a sense of identification. All believers are regarded as good people who determine the one to be trusted because they are all under one being. They have a power that is derived from God who is their friend and who cares about them.

Looking closely at the beautiful and vast creations of the universe, there is an aspect of design. The universe was designed, and this could not have been achieved if there was nobody behind this-God. There is evidence that a supernatural being exits because of the compositions in the universe. It is not possible for these creations to happen without the control of God. They could not exist from nothing but they originated from God (Saint Thomas, 1996; Paley, 2008; Hume, 2008).

However, in as much as theists do not worry about misfortunes happening to them, when this happens, they suffer emotionally. They cannot explain why things happen to them when the supernatural being that protects them is in existence. They believe that God has the power to protect them and control what happens in their life.

Even when evil things happen, they accept them as part of Gods plan. However, they still suffer emotionally because they do not have the power to explain the happenings that occur in their lives. Theists are the ones who suffer emotionally the most (Griffiths, 2005).

Another disadvantage with this form of belief is the inability to identify God tangibly. The belief is based on faith and strengthened by the things that happen in the world. It is purely dictated by faith. Moreover, the human free will is controlled by the belief that God watches over all rights and wrongs that happen amongst mankind. Therefore, a created being has no power to decide what they should do but act according to Gods rules and regulations.

Failure to do this may result into a misfortune because God has the power to change the course of a persons life. Therefore, any actions that human beings do are not performed by the humans because everything that happens is in His power.

It implies that the evil things that humans do could have also been caused by God. In this philosophy, God is the ultimate creator and cause for everything that happens in the world. Human beings have no free will because God creates and causes everything that humans do (Griffiths, 2005; Trakakis, 2008).

Pantheism

This belief recognizes that God is everywhere and that he is the only actor. This means that there is nothing else that exists but God. It offers everything that a human could want. In this case, there is a God who grows as they do  perfect and who is present everywhere. When they look at other creations, they see God. Such a belief gives a human the comfort of an existing beloved God that forms the whole of their existence.

Therefore, these believers do not have to find God because He readily exits in them. It also implies that a person can address any object or creature for a favor from God because they represent him. They enjoy the privilege of addressing a God that they can see unlike theists who pray to God whom they cannot see. Given that all objects represent God, it is easy to agree with all statements that come from others. This is because they come from God who is represented by the creations (Mackie, 2008; Paley, 2008).

Pantheists believe that their spirituality is in the earth. They believe that people should care for nature because the earth is the paradise. The pre-conceived idea of God that is held by theists is not experienced because they can see and feel the universe. In this case, the universe portrays awe and gives a sense of belonging to human kind. This means that there should be respect for all the creations in the earth, celebrating the lives in their bodies because it is a privilege to have them.

These characteristics and practices make the pantheists remarkably naturalistic because all spiritual activities revolve around nature. Given that there is no other belief in other supernatural beings or life after death; they concentrate on making their stay in the earth fruitful. This is achieved through the care and appreciation of nature.

They also respect the scientific discoveries and methods that have been established to understand the nature. This is because the scientists and the cosmological argument creation should be respected and treated with awe (Craig, 2008).

While Theists believe that there is a greater being than self or the human kind, the pantheists too believe that it exists. For the theists, this being is God. However, for the pantheists, this being is the universe. The universe represents the awe and beauty that lives within the creatures.

This believe in the universe does not overlook logic and the evidence of existence; it does not contradict science. This can be termed as a spirituality that does not have absurdity. It does not support the assumption that science is critical in providing solutions. In addition, it does not embrace all the technological advancements since some have negative effects on nature.

There is evidence to support everything that they believe in unlike the theists who base their facts on the faith that they have in God. Pantheism promotes nature on the belief that nature is there to be used and taken care. It is part of the human kind thus should be given the same treatment as other humans (Oppy, 2008).

The challenge is that they do not know whether holiness is in existence. If it exists, then everything is holy. If it does not, then everything is unholy. The assumption that God is united with nature may imply that God is part of the evil that is there in the world. This is unthinkable for those who believe in a God that is separate from the world. God cannot be imperfect at any given point, and this means that He can be separated from the worlds evil; hence, separable from the universe.

If a person sees himself as part of God, then it is unacceptable to assume that the imperfect being makes part of the divine reality. God cannot be associated with evil. Thus, people who do evil things cannot be viewed as Gods representatives in creation (Van Inwagen, 2005).

Panentheism

Panatheism seems to accept the theism and pantheism views. The belief that everything is in God implies that God is superior to everything else in the universe. On the other hand, when everything is in God, it means that human beings and the rest of the creation form part of the divine power that is in God. Thus, human beings are part of God who is superior to everything in the universe. Panantheists and pantheists agree that God forms part of the universe.

However, Panantheists further believe that this God extents beyond the universe and has the power to control it. He is separable from nature because He has authority over nature. Panentheism provides a sense of wholeness in the universe. This is because it implies that all the composition of the universe is one and is within one supernatural being.

This is a way of discouraging evil since no human would want to hurt part of the divine unity. Believers understand than they are not superior to any of the compositions, thus must have a peaceful co-existence. Nature is part of the union between God and the universe and should not be abused. Its destruction abuses the unity. This belief is an advantage in the world because human kind preserves nature and promotes peace in the world (Oppy, 2008).

Panentheism provides a mutual agreement between science and religion. While theists disregard science and pantheists embrace it, pantheism explains the relationship between the two. When everything in the universe is in God, science forms part of the universe composition and it is in God. God is superior to the universe, thus God is beyond science and science cannot be used to answer all the questions.

There is a supernatural being that cannot be explained by science. He has authority over science. This is what gives a distinction between God and the creatures (Kierkegaard, 1985). While the creatures cannot explain the future and present events, God has the power to control all that happens in the universe. In so doing, He offers creatures choices that they can follow while in the universe because they are within Him.

All the happenings that he controls are in the interest of the universe composition. Thus, it can be concluded that God is not a person. However, He is distinct from individuals who happen to be within Him. Unlike pantheists who cannot explain evil because it is obviously not part of God, Panantheists can explain this.

Evil results from human subjectivity since human beings and the rest of creation are in God. If God did not include the human kind as part of Himself, evil could not exist because God simply cannot be associated with the evil (St. Anslem, 1965; McCord, 2003).

Panantheists experience a challenge in explaining the free will for humans to control activities. If they are within God who is all powerful, then it is assumed that God can empower all creatures to have the divine power to act on their own without His divine intervention.

Theists believe that there is divine power in God that causes all the happenings in the world. Panantheists believe that this power exists, and they are within it (Bishop, 2007). This does not explain why they have no control over the power that makes things happen. Another limitation in this belief is the explanation for suffering. Since all humankind is within God who controls everything in their interest, it is hard to explain why misfortunes happen to them (Kierkegaard, 1992).

Conclusion

Humankind has contradicting views about the existence of God. They cannot explain some things that happen in the universe and choose to attribute this to their religious beliefs. These beliefs promote global unity and peace since most of the believers recognize evil and disapprove of it. While it is hard for the believers to explain some of the events that happen in the universe like death, religion gives them hope.

Reference List

Bishop, J 2007, How a modest fideism may constrain theistic commitments: exploring an alternative to classical theism, Philosophia, vol. 35, no. 34, pp. 387402.

Capucao, D D 2010, Religion and ethnocentrism an empirical-theological study. Leiden, Brill.

Craig, WL 2008, The Cosmological Argument, in P Copan & C Meister (eds), Philosophy of religion: classic and contemporary issues, Blackwell Publishing, Malden, Massachusetts.

Griffiths, PJ 2005, Nontheistic conceptions of the divine, in W Wainwright (ed.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of religion, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Hume, D 2008, On the argument from design, in A Eshleman (ed.), Readings in philosophy of religion: East meets West, Blackwell Publishing, Massachusetts.

Kierkegaard, S 1992, Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments trans. H.V. Hong and E.H. Hong, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Kierkegaard, S 1985, Philosophical Fragments trans. H.V. Hong and E.H. Hong, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Mackie, JL 2008, Cosmological arguments, in A Eshleman (ed.), Readings in philosophy of religion: East meets West, Blackwell publishing, Malden, Massachusetts.

McCord, A M 2003, Horrendous evils and the goodness of God, in C Taliaferro & PJ Griffiths (eds), Philosophy of religion: an anthology, Blackwell, Malden, Massachusetts.

Oppy, G 2008, The ontological argument, in P Copan & C Meister, Philosophy of religion: classic and contemporary issues, Blackwell Publishing, Malden, Massachusetts.

Paley, W 2008, Evidence of design, in A Eshleman (ed.), Readings in philosophy of religion: East meets West, Blackwell Publishing, Massachusetts.

Peterson, M, Hasker, W, Reichenbach, B & Basinger, D 2008, The divine attributes: what is God like?, in A Eshleman (ed.), Readings in philosophy of religion: East meets West, Blackwell Publishing, Malden, Massachusetts.

Saint, TA 1996, Whether God exists, in GL Bowie, MW Michaels & RC Solomon (eds), Twenty questions: an introduction to philosophy, 3rd edn, Harcourt Brace, Fort Worth, Texas.

St Anslem 1965, The ontological argument, in A Plantinga (ed.), The ontological argument: from St Anslem to contemporary philosophers, Anchor Books, New York.

Swinburne, R 2003, God, in C Taliaferro & PJ Griffiths (eds), Philosophy of religion: an anthology, Blackwell Publishing, Malden, Massachusetts.

Trakakis, N 2008, Theodicy: the solution to the problem of evil or part of the problem? Philophia, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 16191.

Van Inwagen, P 2005, The Problem of Evil, in W Wainwright (ed.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of religion, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Believer: You say God is just a dream of humanity. But your own body may be a dream, the world may be a dream, the past may be a dream. The only thing you can be sure of is your mind, your own power of thinking. Starting from there, you will find Gods existence easier to demonstrate than your body, the world, and the past.

Atheist: I am sure youre mistaken. What do you mean by all this?

Believer: What I mean is simple. You can only get to understand the existence of God through your own power of thinking. By doing so, you will get the idea of the existence of a supreme being that is perfect, through necessary existence (Cottingham 88).

Atheist: What do you mean by necessary existence and a supreme being that is perfect (Cottingham 88)?

Believer: Well, take this example, there is no river that does not have a source and there is no forest that does not have animals. These examples illustrate necessary existence (Cottingham 88). In the same way, there must be a perfect being that controls the whole world (Cottingham 88). Secondly, you can agree with me that human beings are sinful and thus not perfect. However, the idea of perfection is evident in our minds. Since we ourselves are not perfect but we know well that there is such a thing as perfection then the existence of a supreme being that is perfect cannot be doubted (Hume 506).

Atheist: Well, you are talking about a perfect being. According to me, perfection means that one has all needs and wants fulfilled (Jastrow 94). Contrary to this, you believers argue that God created the whole world (Kenny 66). This to me means that God had a need that He wanted to fulfill through creating the universe (Robert 94). From this, then we can agree that if God exists, either He is not perfect or He is not the creator of the whole world (Robert 94). Can you dispute this?

Believer: I do agree that God created the entire world. However, I dont agree that He created the world out of a need or a want (Kenny 66). God created the universe because of His abundant love for human beings and nature (Kenny 67). He wanted to share his love with human beings and nature. On the other hand, even if God did have a want to create the universe, this does not mean that He is not perfect. Actually, there is no correlation between having a want and perfection.

Atheist: Well, I dont fully agree with what you say because I believe that God created the entire world deliberately and by creating something deliberately, I think there was a need that was pressuring Him to do so, hence He is not perfect.

Believer: You see, the creation of the world could have been accidental (Robert 94). If this was the case then, God did not seek to fulfill any need by creating the world.

Atheist: Now, there lies the point. The creation of the universe was a mistake. Do you think that if God was perfect, then He would have made this mistake?

Believer: Lets stick to the point that God created the world out of His abundant love then.

Atheist: As much as I may agree to some extent that God created the world, I dont agree that the world was created by a perfect God (Kenny 67). This is simply because the things we see in the world are not perfect. Due to this, I think that a perfect being cannot create imperfect things. Thus, I refute that God is perfect.

Believer: Well, here is a matter of the meaning of the word perfection. In this case, when you say that the world is not perfect, what does that imply? That the ocean, the stars and the moon are not perfect? There is no way that we can judge things as perfect or imperfect because we do not know what God had in mind while He was creating the world. At the same time, God would have created some things in the world being the way they are just for fun (Kenny 68). Thus, we cannot say that His creation is imperfect.

Atheist: So, dont you think then that if God created some things being the way they are for fun, He created these things to fulfill His needs?

Believer: I dont agree with you. God could have created some things which may look imperfect for us so as to create challenges (Jastrow 95). These challenges would then lead human beings to acknowledge the fact that a supreme being exists because they could not be able to do anything to solve the challenge. Again, some of the perfect creations of God have been made imperfect by the evil doings of men (Jastrow 95).

Atheist: So you say that men are evil and you can agree with me that the challenges that are brought about by imperfect creation cause suffering to the people (Kenny 68). So how can a moral God create evil human beings and cause his creation to suffer?

Believer: You see, when God created human beings, he gave them the freedom to choose. Some of the choices lead to actions that are evil. Thus, Gods intention is not for men to be evil but men themselves choose to be evil. On the other hand, God brings suffering to His people so that they can acknowledge His existence (Jastrow 94).

Works cited

Cottingham, John. Meditations on first philosophy: with selection from the objections and replies. Cambridge: Cambridge University press, 1999.Print

Hume, David. An Enquiry: Concerning Human Understanding. Chicago: William Benton, 1952. Print

Jastrow, Robert. God and the Astronomers. New York: W.W. Norton, 1978. Print

Kenny, Anthony. Five ways. London: Routledge, 1969.Print

In the present world, people believe that there is extreme suffering and evil. Consequently, people find it extremely hard to believe that there is an impeccable God. In case God knew all things, He would be aware of the terrible things that take place globally.

And if God had extreme mighty, He would have the power to control all the suffering and wicked occurrences. In addition, His moral perfectness would urge Him to control all the sinful happenings.

However, the world has immense suffering and miserable occurrences, which goes against the orthodox theist proclamation; a spotlessly fair God has control over the world. This poses an apparent conflict. There is a logical conflict in regard to the orthodox theism proclamations, and the existence of misery and wickedness.

This paper aims at discussing the logical conflict. Moreover, there is a focus on the different theistic reactions to this issue. Free will defense has been given keen attention, since it is the most discussed theistic reaction.

George Barna conducted a countrywide survey, in which the participants were given a chance to pose the most important question they would ask God. Seventeen percent of the participants had questions in regard to why there was extreme suffering and pain.

If God was all- dominant, knew everything, and exceptionally good, why did He let bad things happen? Moreover, a majority of the people who suffer terminal illnesses and catastrophic losses are the tender- hearted and innocent.

The concern as to why God permits bad things to happen, poses a moral protest. In questioning why God permits bad things, the majority people confess that God is not fair. Various atheists associate the presence of suffering and evil with the absence of a caring God.

These atheists assert that since the justly impeccable God has a moral imperfectness, He allows wickedness and misery to happen to the just and innocent people. Therefore, there had better be no God who people believe, but end up suffering.

The concept of elaborating the existence of God and evil is referred to as problem of evil. Some people argue that evil and God are unlikely to exist together. Wide arrays of reactions regarding this issue have been offered. There are elaborations that the decree and creation deeds from God, are one and the same thing.

The misery and wickedness that people undergo through results from Gods condemnation to the world He created. This judgment cannot be stopped as God is exceptionally mighty, His will undisputable, and He will subject His people to everlasting and endless judgment on the last day.

To some extent, this elaboration proves that God is good, since He passes good judgment to the evil. Another elaboration is that God has given free will to His people. Sometimes, Gods people misuse this free will. Moreover, spiritual and individual growth comes after a person has undergone through suffering.

If God was fair, miserable things would only happen to evil people, such as Osama bin Laden. Just and innocent people would be saved from all the misfortunes that occur in the world. Would God, who is loving and caring, permit misery and wickedness to happen to His people? Consider the recent bombings and wars.

God would have predicted them, and done His best to stop them. Are these proofs that God does not exist? A majority of the people believe that the presence of wickedness and misery in the world, is the first evidence to the inexistence of God.

Dealing with this concern amicably calls for a clear differentiation between intellectual and emotional evil problem. The intellectual issue regards giving a logical elaboration on the coexistence of evil and God.

On the other hand, the emotional issue focuses on dissolving the hate people have towards God, for allowing suffering.

It is impossible for evil and God to exist together. If evil exists, then God is inexistent, and vice versa. There is no proven consistency between evils and Gods existence. Logically, there exists no unambiguous contradiction.

Acquiring an implicit contradiction calls for hidden and true assumptions. Such premises have not been established by any philosopher.

Contemporary arguments concerning Gods existence have been criticized intensively by philosophers. However, the theologian can admit this criticism if he wills. On the other hand, he can argue that Gods existence is perceived in a non- rational manner.

It is worth emphasizing that there are rational backups for religious beliefs. On the contrary, they are usually irrational. Some portions of vital theological guidelines are inconsistent. Therefore, theologians should demonstrate a willingness to believe.

In essence, this argument proves that it is not easy to simply prove the existence of evil and God. There is a need for extra premises, to prove that wickedness and good go against each other, and that God is just.

He is in control of everything, and cares for every creature. Evil deeds can be eliminated if people use their free will meaningfully.

The battle between the good and evil has always fascinated peoples minds. Millions of books were written on the clash of the two forces, thousands of movies were shot to disclose the scale and the grandeur of this fight. In fact, many religions include a description of the absolute good and the absolute evil, the former being typically referred to as God, while the latter having countless number of names: devil, Satan, Beelzebub, Baal, and so on.

On the one hand, the latter seems a complete abomination and, therefore, does not deserve the right to exist, which is emphasized especially strongly in Christianity. The evil embraces a variety of ideas and concepts, yet it is always considered as something to get rid of once and for all. Hurting and destroying evil, however, does not seem to follow the basic principles of Christianity, which is founded on the concept of love and forgiveness.

Therefore, there is only one way to handle the concept of evil, which is to embrace it. Despite the fact that God and the Evil are traditionally opposed in Christianity, the only possible way of handling the evil should be viewed through the reconciliation of the two, since the former, as the alpha and omega of the universe, spawned the creation of the latter and is, in fact, related to it.

While the existence of the evil is confirmed by the Bible, one might still find it quite controversial that God, who, according to the Bible, represents the most just, the most virtuous and the kindest entity actually allows for the evil to exist. The very idea of God allowing for evil sounds surreal enough. Indeed, according to the basic Biblical premises, God punishes sinners, i.e., the people who do evil things.

However, it is still undeniable that evil is an integral part of the universe, which picks the question whether the two are supposed to battle with each other or to reconcile. There are several answers to this question. According to one hypothesis, the fact that the evil and God coexist can be explained by the fact that there has to be dynamics between the good and evil; otherwise, the world as we know it would have ceased to exist.

As Jacobs explains, most of the misunderstandings concerning the origin of the evil and the relation between God and the Evil stem from the lack of understanding of the true meaning of Good and Evil (Jacobs, 2003, 311). Another objection against the fact that God has control over the evil concerns the absence of any actions against the evil from God.

There is no record of any struggle between God and Satan in the Bible, there is no mentioning of any miracle happening in order to prevent the historical evil doers, numerous massacres, genocides and other hideous crimes against humanity have been committed despite the fact that God Almighty watches over the human race, according to what Christians say.

To solve the given conflict between the Biblical principles and the reality it will be required to explore the specifics of the Christian religion a bit closer. Among the answers to the given problem, Augustines Solution is mentioned most often. According to Augustine of Hippo, evil could not come from God  instead, it had to exist as a separate substance.

Augustine argues that the goodness is the natural state of humans and that evil is foreign to the natural state of existence: Evil is contrary to nature; in fact, it can only do harm to nature; and it would not be a fault to withdraw from God were it not that it is more natural to adhere him. It is that fact which makes a withdrawal a fault. That is why the choice of evil is an impressive proof that the nature is good (11.17). (Schuler, 2008, 33)

Therefore, according to Schuler, Augustines argument is perfectly viable. As Schuler explained, Thus, evil can be identified as that which works against the natural inclinations of human beings, and for Augustine, as for all Christians, humans were created to be naturally attracted to God (Schuler, 2008, 33). Truly, the given argument deserves to be mentioned as a full-fledged concept of good and evil in the Christian religion.

On the other hand, it should also be kept in mind that, according to the Christian religion, Lucifer, who practically is the evil himself, is a fallen angel, i.e., a has-been element of the Heaven and, therefore, the good (Scudder, 2001). As the recent theosophical researches say, the origin of Satan gives a lot of food for thoughts and, therefore, questions the origin of evil, allowing to suggest that the evil was spawned from the goodness.

Even though the evidence concerning the origin of the evil in general and the Satan in particular is rather vague, it is still worth mentioning that in most sources that can be defined as credible, Satan is mentioned as a has-been angel, i.e., a former resident of heaven, who decided to use his cunningness to rebel against the Lord.

There are many interpretations of the given story; as far as the traditional Biblical interpretation goes, there is no exact statement concerning the Satan being a former angel, yet the following line can be interpreted as the proof that the Satan used to reside in heaven once (according to the King James version of the Bible): How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! (Isaiah 14:12).

The fact that the Lucifer was referred to as the son of the morning, as well as the mentioning of his fall, proves the idea that he used to belong in Heaven. Consequently, it can be assumed that the Evil was spawned from goodness and virtue; logically, these two must have something in common  and, in fact, they do. Both represent the farthest extremes, both have little to do with anything related to the human world due to their extremeness, and both are magically intertwined in every single person.

Hence, it will be reasonable to assume that, when intertwined, the two neither clash, nor annihilate; instead, they represent a human being, with his/her faults, assets and moral principles. Therefore, the good and the evil cannot be considered completely incompatible; on the contrary, they mix into a peculiar meld of sin and virtue.

Hence, evil should not be fought against until it finally vanishes without a trace, for it is a completely unattainable goal; instead, the good and the evil should be reconciled. Hence, admitting the existence of evil, one will inevitably ask oneself a question concerning what the evil is needed for. There are many ways of determining the role of the evil.

From Jacobs point of view, the two primary roles that the evil plays in the Biblical stories are 1) the concept that serves as the foil for the Goodness to evolve; 2) the concept that helps one define the line between the moral and the immoral. Without the evil as an element of the human world, it would be impossible to figure out what is good and what is bad.

The evil serves as a reference point for people to draw the line between the moral and the immoral, thus, becoming able to turn into virtuous believers (Pachuau, 2007). Without the evil, one would not be able to define the concept of good actions and virtuous behavior. As a result, evil actions would be carried out eventually. The evil can be considered an element that the world needs to have as a marker for the territory that must not be trodden (Browning & Reed, 2004).

Even if there was no evil in the world, people would have eventually discovered it, for the humankind needs to know where the boundaries between what is allowed and what is prohibited lie. It would be wrong to assume that, due to the relation between God and evil, the former possesses an evil element as well. Instead, the two should be viewed as two opposite entities, one of which stems from another one.

Instead, it should be assumed that the evil must coexist with the good, since without the former, the latter cannot be defined. While absolute virtue is considered the ultimate goal of the Christianity, it is necessary to admit that the given goal is hardly attainable, which means that the humankind needs both the idea of the good and the idea of the evil in order to define the basic principles of morality and virtue to follow.

Reference List

Browning, R. L. & Reed, R. A. (2004). Forgiveness, reconciliation and moral courage: Motives and designs for Ministry in a troubled world. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Jacobs, M. R. (2003). The conceptual dynamics of good and evil in the Joseph story: An exegetical and hermeneutical inquiry. Journal of the Study of the Old Testament, 27, 309338.

Pachuau, M. (2007). Construction of good and evil in Iris Murdochs discourse. New Delhi, IN: Sales Office.

Schuler, S. J. (2008). Augustinian Auden: The influence of Augustine of Hippo on W. H. Auden. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest.

Scudder, P. (2001). How Jesus reconciled mankind to God. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse.

Evil and good are constructs, which rather exist separately but somewhat seem to work together. In many instances, where evil or hate prevails, there is no good or love and where love prevails, evil is always absent. Gods love is known to be infinite and present for all human kinds, but human hearts are maliciously evil, despite the struggle to reflect the love of God over each other.

Theodicies and the Questions of Evil

There is the longing in the hearts of many men and women toiling and living the earth from the ages past, yesterday, today, and forever. In this longing for unrestricted validation in what is called love, many are the vendettas within the hearts of human beings, struggling to know when to, and when not to love. Everyone believes in the power of a higher being, and to most of us, God is the greatest of all, the creator of all that exists. In him, there is the love that the hearts of men long for, and he offers His love liberally to whoever chooses to ask it of him. Even though Gods love is perfect, His beloved is rebellious and harbor lots of evil, but committed to loving as an obligation. Dostoevsky argues that love exists together with hate justifying why Ivan struggles to understand the concept of loving ones neighbor as he details the story of the stranger and John the Merciful (200). The saint is reported to have welcomed the stranger only as an obligation, but not out of sincerity and love for the neighbor.

From the readings, the main issue seems to be the struggle to understand the unlikely effects of evil and the suffering attached to evil, in light of Gods un-ending, and unmatched love for mankind. In many peoples minds, the understanding of why evil happens yet God, who is all-powerful, and the ever-present friend in times of need, fails to show up in such times of serious need, while evil prevails.

As Hanson notes concerning why evil closely relates to love, evil does not exist in a space within a mans heart but is stirred by the same passion that stirs the heart to love (98). From the reading in the brothers of Karamazov, consider the case of slavery of fellow mankind; torturing, and hunting fellow human beings with dogs like game meet. This is based on the concept that human beings can have free will, either choose to obey Gods directives for loving one another as to the love of oneself or be rebellious and cause harm to fellow neighbors and strangers while awaiting their share of punitive measures. According to Genschow et al., the human free-will is envisioned as a limitation to the abilities of an omniscient, omnipotent and, and omnipresent God (2017, p.1074). The thought of suffering is, therefore, seen as a disinteresting topic to God and He has left solely into the hands of men.

The readings are as valid as the opinions they seek to address. Individually, the prevailing evil in the world is a chance for God to achieve his will over every living being in the face of the earth. Being a God who is ever present and all powerful, nothing bypasses his knowledge, not even death, suffering, or the rebellion seen among men. In all these, He works at achieving his purpose for everyone, an atmosphere of constant vindications from sin and redemption from evil.

I do not find the authors persuasive especially when limiting the powers and abilities of God in handling the daily activities of our lives. This is because I believe God is everything, and he is in everything. The thought that has stuck with me is whether the childrens sufferings in life are as a result of their fathers faults. Everyone suffers in life, as a result of the first human beings to live the earth being rebellious to Gods will. From this event onwards, the life of man is biblically pointed towards suffering. In conclusion, if God had not been in existence, what do you think the world would have looked like? Do you think it would be any better than it is today?

Works Cited

Dostoevsky, Fyodor. The Brothers Karamazov. The Russian Messenger, 1880.

Genschow, Oliver, Davide Rigoni, and Marcel Brass. Belief in free will Affects Causal Attributions when Judging others Behavior.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114.38 (2017): 10071-10076.

Hanson, C. Bradley. Introduction to Christian Theology. Fortress Press, 1997.

One of the main qualitative aspects of the theological approach to tacking the divinity-related subject matter is that it is thoroughly rational. That is, in their strive to prove the existence of God, theologians mainly operate with the categories of logic, which in turn is expected to legitimize the validity of the would-be obtained insights into the issue at stake, on their part. As Velasquez noted: Literally speaking, theology means simply the rational study of God (241). To exemplify the soundness of the above-stated, we can well refer to the so-called teleological (or design) line of argumentation, which is being usually deployed by theologians, on the way of promoting the idea that God indeed exists.

According to Velasquez, the main conceptual premise of the design argument can be outlined as follows: Simply put, the design argument, or the argument from design, states that the order and purpose manifest in the works of nature indicate that they were designed by an intelligent Being (251). While trying to substantiate the validity of this argument, theologians most commonly point out the fact that there is an observable orderliness in the universe. For example, within the Solar system, the planets revolve around the Sun in exactly the manner that their orbiting-positions prescribe them to. In their turn, these positions are being defined by the objectively existing laws of gravity, which naturally implies that there must have been some sort of an intelligent force that laid them down. Furthermore, the very fact that the so-called fundamental physical constants happened to be associated with the specific numerical values is also being brought forward, as the proof the universe is rather fine-tuned. The reason for this is that, had these numerical values been even slightly different, the existence of the universe, in the way we know it, would have been deemed impossible: Atomic particles have exactly the numerical properties needed to allow them to form into the elements needed for life, such as carbon and oxygen (Velasquez 258). This, of course, does prompt one to consider the possibility that there is a creator, after all.

Another observable indication that there must have been an intelligent designer, who brought the universe into being, the advocates of the teleological argument consider the fact that there is an amazing complexity to even the most primitive life-forms  not to mention the representatives of Homo Sapiens species. Even while pondering upon such a part of just about any mammals body, like an eye, one cannot help experiencing the sensation of awe, in regards to the purposeful complexity that it happened to feature. According to Paley, quoted by Velasquez: The eye& was exactly shaped so that its lens focused light on its sensitive interior exactly in accordance with the laws of optics; the skull was hollowed out into a socket exactly sized to enclose and protect the eye& (253). Therefore, there is nothing too surprising about the fact that many people do think of the design argument, as such that represents an undisputed truth-value  this arguments main premise correlates well with the intuitive workings of ones consciousness. After all, our life-experiences do tell us that, for as long as a physical object (such as a car) appears to have been designed (due to being purposefully complex), this indeed happened to be the case.

Nevertheless, upon being closely scrutinized, the design argument will appear as such that does not hold much water. The reason for this is that, while making an inquiry into how the universe operates, people cannot help addressing the subject matter in question, well within the spatial boundaries of their senses-based perceptual apparatus. Given the fact that the representatives of our species, rarely live for longer than 80-90 years, they are naturally inclined to assess the significance of the surrounding physical reality, as such that immediately relates to their spatially limited lifespans. This, however, is far from being the case. The rationale behind this suggestion is that allegorically speaking when compared to the age of the universe (14 billion years), ones life does not even last a microsecond. However, once we assess the universes apparent orderliness on even as short, as a million-year scale, it will appear that it is, in fact, an illusion  planets fly off their orbits, stars explode, even galaxies themselves collide into each other, which in turn suggests that it is chaos, which rules the universe, and not some divine order.

The same line of reasoning can be deployed; when it comes to refuting the teleological claim that the complexity of the organic lifes emanations presupposes an intelligent design. After all, as the Darwinian Theory of Evolution points out to, the seemingly intelligent design of life-forms is nothing but a result of the forces of evolution (concerned with the principle of natural selection) having been enabling these life-forms to grow ever more complex, over the course of millions and millions of years. The mentioned forces, however, are blind, in the sense that they simply facilitate a non-intelligent mechanical process that over millions of years could produce organisms that were perfectly adapted to do what they do (Velasquez 255). What it means is that the creationist account of the universe is conceptually misleading, because it does not consider the effects of time on the organic matters innate capacity to resist entropy  without the involvement of any intelligent third party. Referring back to the earlier mentioned body-part of an eye  once we look at it, without giving much thought to the huge amount of time it has taken to evolve into what it is now, this body-part will indeed appear nothing short of yet another miracle of creation. This, however, will not be the case if we assess its present complexity, within the context of what we know about the operational principles of the laws of evolution. It is understood, of course, that the above-stated does contradict the workings of our commonsense logic. This, however, does not make it less discursively legitimate.

Thus, it will be thoroughly appropriate, on our part, to conclude this paper by reinstating once again that the teleological perspective on the origins of the universe (life) can no longer be considered discursively legitimate. The reason for this is that this perspective is being fueled by both: peoples perceptual arrogance/lack of education and by their infantile desire to have a big daddy up in the sky. Therefore, even though religion does help many people to cope with life challenges, it can be the least referred to as the source of knowledge about how the universe actually operates. Apparently, the universe is just much too enormous in order to fit into the spatially narrow paradigm of divinity, provided by the worlds organized religions.

Works Cited

Velasquez, Manuel. Philosophy, A Text with Readings. Boston: Cengage Learning, 2013. Print.

The existence of God has been a big subject in philosophy, and attempts to prove or disprove his existence have been made since time immemorial. Famous philosophers such as Rene Descartes, St. Thomas Aquinas, and William Paley have all conceived arguments to prove the existence of God. Although there are many other arguments trying to prove the existence of God, nevertheless, the arguments proposed by the three above-mentioned thinkers have the most significance in philosophy. This essay is going to provide two arguments for the existence of God.

The anthropic principle is an argument of the existence of a reasonable plan for the structure of the Universe. According to this argument, only God may create the complex structure of nature, universe, and life on the Earth. Such phenomena as a fixed distance of Earth from the Sun, the presence of the Earths rotation, the existence of a satellite of certain sizes, minerals and resources could be created only under the control of someone mighty.

The cosmological proof of the existence of God was developed by the ancients (in particular, by Aristotle) and is most often found in the following form. Everything in the world and everything, the entire universe as a whole, has a reason for its existence. Furthermore, the argument states that it is impossible to continue this sequence, the chain of causes indefinitely  somewhere there must be a root cause that is already no other is conditioned (Reichenbach, 2022). Otherwise, everything turns out to be groundless, hanging in the air.

Finally, the transcendental proof of the existence of an ideal world and God was partially discovered by Kant and can be presented as follows. There is a world outside of space and time  the spiritual world, the world of intelligence, thought, and free will, which is proved by the presence in every person of thoughts. According to the argument, this world can relate to the past and the future, that is, travel into the past and the future, as well as being instantly transported to any point in space.

Reference

Reichenbach, Bruce. (2022). Cosmological Argument.The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Web.