Existence of God Debate Philosophy

universe of discourse of immortal Debate PhilosophyThe argument on whether idol is quick or non- constituteent is one that has lasted for decades. Some philosophers and theologians scram vied on both sides provided a solid reason for or against the humanity race of idol shit non been provided. However, some(prenominal) proofs for or against divinitys man have been provided. The paper argues on the footing of the non- populace of immortal from a philosophic point of view. Theories such as the problem of evil, principle of personality, and the parsimony arguments demonstrate that god does not exist and holiness is a just a mere belief created in human minds. Appargonntly, immortal is not omnipresent, omnibenevolent, omniscience, or omnipotent.IntroductionThe idea of divinity fudge is almost global among societies of the human race, although it has different cultural definitions. The arguments in punt of and those against Gods humans have been proposed by seve ral scientists, philosophers, and theologians. In accordance with Murray and Rea (2008) philosophic all(prenominal)y, the arguments for and against Gods innovation involve chiefly the ontology (nature of world) and epistemological ( speculation of knowledge) sub-disciplines as well as the system of value because perfection concepts be often connected with notions of God (157). However, the public debate on Gods reality has raised quite a number of philosophical come forwards. The main problematic issue is the existence of both polytheistic and monotheistic perceptions.Some definitions of the existence of God are so non-specific while others are self-contradictory. It is possible to draw the conclusion that all definitions given on God by humans are probably false characterizations of what God accounts for the creation of humans on earth and the universe (Everitt 159). Moreover, one can in addition conclude that the whole idea of any God has no basis breachce it is not back ed by any evidence. Thirdly, it may be suggested that the discernment of humans is probably not sufficient to analyze concepts that are suddenly based on human understanding and beliefs, such as Gods existence as a creator. The key issue here is not whether God exists or not, but whether there is sufficient evidence to support his existence or non-existence (Murray and Rea 157). The religious beliefs of Gods existence are probably out of human emotional compulsion for protection and belonging sinfulnessce there is no secure evidence to support these arguments. God does not exist.MethodologyBooks by far-famed philosophers who have written on the non-existence of God leave behind be utilize to gather sufficient information on the topic. The parole will in addition be used to demonstrate the contradictory nature of God.Discussion match to Oppy and Scott (2010), God is unlimited goodness and therefore if God truly exists so there is no evil (82). However, considering that ther e is evil in the world, God doesnt exist. This reasoning makes a lot of sense because how could it be possible that God, an quad goodness be created and as such protects a world proficient of corruption and imperfections. If God really existed and then horrible and terrible things wouldnt give-up the ghost in the world as they do today. For instance, there would be no starvation kindred there is in third world countries where thousands of handsome ups and innocent children die of hunger every year. In addition, things like evil wars which result to a lot of human anguish and suffering would not exist. In this context, the Holy Bible which is believed to be Gods absolute word condemns theft, murder, and adultery.In line with Khashaba (2006, it is quite difficult to believe that an all-knowing and powerful organism that is infinitely-good created the entire world but is not capable of controlling the things that transport place in it. Instead of just condemning them in an old -fashioned book he could probably have abolished all forms of evil (119). Moreover, the aforementioned(prenominal) Bible says that God is a heavenly father. If that was the case, then he would have let his children to be good and free from like him hence wiping-out all evil from the face of the earth.According to Murray and Rea (2008), the non-existence of God may be turn out by the principle of nature which is measurable, simple, and visible instead of believing in a complex being that can not be measured, comprehend or conceived. As a matter of fact, scientific theories have provided explanations for natures existence and hence nature could be used to account for mankinds gradual phylogeny. This development has been explained by development of an organism that is single cell to one that is multi-cellular. On the other hand, evolution has explained the intelligence of the current man while the The volumed Bang supposition has explained the creation of planet earth (Murray and Rea 158).In contrast, those in support of the existence of God argue on the basis of the cause theory. The argument states that one thing causes another and thus there will be no effect if the first cause did not exist. However, the existence of this first cause can not be proven or even determined under any circumstances. For instance, The Big Bang theory existed and that is why it is possible to base earths creation on it. Nevertheless, something else that caused the existence of this theory must have existed initially.In line with Johnson (2006), Philosophical theology writers such as St. Anselm argue that if a person understands that a greater being exists though not able to explain its existence, then it exists in existence (50). Thus, if someone understands that God exists, then he must exist in reality. This argument is absolutely futile if there is no sufficient evidence to support it. The fact that someone understands the existence of God and whole understands God does not imply that God actually exists. For instance, if one understands in their minds and entirely that ghosts exist, however this is not a guarantee that indeed ghosts exist. Its just like in movies where people entirely understand a character that they are supposed to represent and even practically portray that character. Definitely this does not make the movie character a reality (Oppy and Scott 102).Its often claimed that the scriptural God is omnipresent (everywhere at all times, omnipotent (all-powerful), omnibenevolent (unlimitedly good), and omniscient (familiar with everything). From a logical point of view, these concepts are entirely impossible implying that God doesnt exist. The Bible says that nothing is impossible with God yet there are several instances in the same Bible where he was unable to do something. In relation to Murray and Rea (2008) The book of Judges 119says that God was with Judah he drove out the mountain inhabitants but could not send away(p) the valley inhabitants, because they had iron chariots (158).If God was so compassionate then he would release people from the bondages of sin and destroy the devil who leads his people astray.At the same time, God would relieve humanity of the original sin punishment if he was omnipotent. Basically, if God was powerful and able yet he chooses to let human being suffer from sin, then its not logical to argue that he is omnibenevolent. In line with Everitt (2004), God should have erased the original sin and allowed men to be judged based on their own actions instead of paying(a) for other peoples sins (154). On the same note, Christians say that God is omnipresent sum that he is everywhere at the same time.If God was omnipresent then he would not have to walk like he says in the Bible that he shall walk with his people. There would be no need for him to relocate from one place to another in order to be with one of his since he already exist there. Similarly, God should never transplant his mi nd if at all he is omniscience because a change in mind demonstrates uncertainty. In relation to Oppy and Scott (2010) there are so galore(postnominal) instances in the Bible where God changed his mind. For example, in the Exodus story where the children of Israel worshiped idols and God decided on destroying them, he later forgave them after Moses pleaded for forgiveness. This concept brings a lot of doubt on whether God really intended on destroying the Israelites or he was unable to do so yet he knew this would come to be (110). If God was in deed omnipresent and onmibenevolent he would prevent the occurrence of sin and destructive events.Conclusion/RecommendationsThere has been a significant attack on the conception of God as religion comes under a more intense scrutiny. Several theories and concepts have shown that God indeed doesnt exist. From an objective perception of the Bible, it is easy to see that God is not omnipresent, omniscience, omni benevolent, or omnipotent as cl aimed by the Bible. It is evident that the biblical God is contradictory and it is not possible that he exists. Moreover, there is no adequate evidence that the bible is not just an ordinary book. Principles such as The Big Bang can be used to explain the existence of nature hence can replace the belief that God exists. Theories of nature sufficiently explain the human beliefs in God and the development of religion. The issue of the existence of sin greatly challenges the existence of a God who is omnibenevolent and omnipotent. It is both that God exists and sin doesnt, or God doesnt exist but sin does. The existence of both is contradictory and it is not possible. Further research and news report may be necessary in understanding the existence or non-existence of God. Basically, there exists adequate evidence that there is no God though a concrete prove has not been discovered yet.