One of the most important attempts to demonstrate the existence of God is the ontological argument of Saint Anselm, an 11th-century theologian. Anselm’s argument maintains that God, defined as the greatest being that can be conceived, must exist, since a being that does not exist would by virtue of that fact lack an attribute that contributes to its greatness. Critics have questioned, however, whether existence actually contributes to a being’s greatness. The Cosmological Argument Another important attempt to provide a rational justification for the existence of God is the cosmological argument, also called the argument from first cause.
Aquinas and 18th-century English philosopher Samuel Clarke, among others, developed this justification. One important version of this argument contends that to explain the existence of the contingent universe it is essential to propose a necessary being, a being whose existence is not contingent on anything else. This necessary being is God. Critics have argued that the existence of the universe might be a brute facta fact without any explanation. They assert that proving the existence of a necessary being is not the same as proving the existence of God.
A necessary being might lack some of the properties considered essential to God, such as being all good. In a version of the cosmological argument found in contemporary scientific cosmology, God is postulated as the explanation for the big bang, the theory that a gigantic explosion created the material universe. Although contemporary theists, such as American philosopher William Lane Craig, maintain that a first cause is necessary to explain the big bang, critics contend that recent scientific theories indicate that the universe could have arisen spontaneously.
The Teleological Argument According to the teleological argument for the existence of Godalso known as the argument from designthe universe is like a machine. The best-known supporter of this view is 18th-century theologian William Paley. According to this theory, because machines are created by intelligent beings, and because the universe may be thought of as a single, highly complex machine, it is likely that the universe was created by a great intelligence, understood to be God.
The classic critique of this argument, presented by 18th-century Scottish philosopher David Hume, maintains that the analogy to a machine is weak and that other analogies are just as strong. For instance, the universe may be thought of as a living organism, in which case the universe would have been created by reproduction rather than by design. Which argument do I agree with? I think that the ontological argument is not really making an argument for the existence of God, but is really playing with the fact that it is impossible for humanity to define a being we are not sure exists.
Therefore, if you go by his definition God does exist. However, how do we define God? Is God the greatest being or is he simply the creator of the world. In which ways does our God need to be great? Then there’s the cosmological argument which defeats itself because if there had to be a first cause to create the universe then there had to be a first cause to great god and a first cause to create the being that created god and so onnot only that but science has told us the universe could have been created spontaneously.
The only argument I find little or no fault in is the Teleological argument. Although the universe could have arisen spontaneously, not a universe with such complexity and utter efficiency like the one we live in, a world where the scale is balanced just right to support life, a people with such intelligence. Because the world is so well designed there must be an intelligent designer that being God. Darwin’s theory of evolution and natural adaptation were simply observations of the amazing design of the world.
Our animals have been designed to adapt to changes in climate and the increase of prey. I don’t believe it’s possible for such intricacies to exist in an accidental universe. Why bother questioning God’s existence when it can never be proven? The human mind naturally demands answers. Although, intellectual answers are not sufficient to explain spiritual reality of God, there is nothing wrong with investigating his existence.
God gave us our intellectual ability it is an ability that God has inserted in us. Why should we use that ability to research science, mathematics, biology and all other fields besides that of divinity? When we use our mind and thinking processes to find evidence for the existence of god we are using a God given ability to search for the truth. Intellectual search for God should not necessarily be in conflict to spiritual or emotional search for God. Each can strengthen and enhance the other.
It is true that we cannot absolutely prove or not prove the existence of God because we cannot get God and put him in a human laboratory and analyze him. But we can look to God like a super telescope looks into the universe in quest of understanding it. No lens, no matter how large can explain the whole universe, but still these lenses teach us a lot about the universe. To use our God given intellectual lenses to look into the creator will contribute to our knowledge of God. Read the Bible as it is Truth it is the word and the word is God . Yes god does exsist!