Does God Exist

owe to prove his thesis about the problems of evil and atheism, Rowe asks three fundamental questions. The first question, “is there an argument for atheism based on the problem of evil that could rationally justify atheism?” Supporting his question, Rowe by uses the idea of human and animal suffering.is it reasonable for omnipotent, omniscient being(s) to permits its creation to suffer by extinguish each other for their own personal benefits. If there is such a thing as an omnibenevolent, omnipotent holy being how come the ultimate and unescapable suffering is this world has no vanish. How good is a god(s) that permits humanity to suffer greatly? In religious Christian Bible study, Jesus, many times referred to as god, vanish evil from

An important argument to try and prove the existence of God is the Cosmological Argument brought on by observations of the physical universe, made by Saint Thomas Aquinas, a thirteenth century Christian philosopher. The cosmological argument is a result from the study of the cosmos; Aquinas borrows ideas from Aristotle to make this systematically organized argument.

of such arguments is that of St. Anselm from Proslogium of St. Anselm, which states that God is

One burning and enduring problem in philosophy to which we have given considerable examination is the question of the existence of God--the superlative being that philosophers have defined and dealt with for centuries. After reading the classic arguments of St. Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas, the contentious assertions of Ernest Nagel, and the compelling eyewitness accounts of Julian of Norwich, I have been introduced to some of the most revered and referenced arguments for and against God's existence that have been put into text. All of them are well-thought and well-articulated arguments, but they have their holes. The question of God's true existence, therefore, is still not definitively answered and put to rest; the intensity of this

J. L. Mackie’s “Evil and Omnipotence” criticizes the argument that God exists by showing that religious beliefs are positively irrational and that parts of the essential theological doctrine are inconsistent with one another. The problem of evil is one of the oldest problems in philosophy. The problem of evil is a logical problem for only the people who believe that there is a God who is both (1) omnipotent and (2) wholly good; yet (3) evil exists in the world. If God is wholly good and omnipotent, then how can there be a presence of evil in the world. Given the presence of evil, we must either conclude that God does not have the power to prevent the suffering that evil causes in which case God is not omnipotent or that God does not wish

This argument for God’s existence was developed by the twelfth century theologian and philosopher, Anselm. It is based on Anselm’s declaration that God is “that which nothing greater can be conceived.”

Thus, it is possible that God exists, as there is extensive suffering for morally justified reasons resulting in a greater good not yet made aware to

In this paper, I offer a reconstruction of Descartes argument for God’s existence in the Third Meditation. Descartes tries to prove the existence of God with an argument that proceeds from the clear and distinct idea of an infinite being to the existence of himself. He believes that his clear and distinct idea of an infinite being with infinite “objective reality” leads to the occurrence of the “Special Causal Principle”. I will start by discussing and analyzing Descartes clear and distinct idea of an infinite being and how it the classification of ideas and the difference between formal and objective reality Special Causal Principle. Finally, I will examine the reasons Descartes offers for his belief in Gods existence and I will indicate the drawbacks within the proof. It will be concluded that Descartes arguments are inadequate and don’t clearly prove the existence of God.

For centuries human beings have been questioning the existence of God. This has led to numerous questions and theories. For instance, if God is all-know, all-loving, all-powerful then why does he allow tragedies, natural disasters and overall bad things to occur? Is he willing to remove all evils but not able to? Then he must not be all powerful. The Greek philosopher Epicurus stated: is he able but not willing? Then God must not be all good. Is he able and willing? Then why is there evil? Or is God neither? In that case why is there a being called God? These particular questions lead to the problem of evil argument, which is an argument against the existence of God. Evil is all things that are bad in the world. There are two types of evil, moral and natural evil. This includes physical pain, emotional suffering, unfairness and morally wrong deeds. In this world that God has created his guidance and care has been almost non-existent. There are a large number of kind, innocent people who have experienced tragedy as a result of all the evil in the world, some have even lost their lives.

To begin with, while reading Anselm and Aquinas’ views on how God exists, these important philosophers spent much of their time looking and searching for the idea that God actually exists. Therefore, of course there would be some mishaps along the way and people would try to argue against their idea of God’s existence. In this paper will be explained the proof of God and of course some objections against them that will make you wonder. With Anselm 's ontological argument and Aquinas’ ways, we can use that to help prove God’s existence. It would be self-contradictory to deny that anything greater than the all perfect God exists.

In the book, The Proslogion, written by Saint Anselm, we find the Ontological Argument. This argument made by Saint Anselm gives us proofs that he believes helps prove the existence of God. Anselm gives many reasons as to why the simple understanding of God can help prove that God himself exists, as well as mentioning how the idea of God cannot be thought not to exist. Though this argument has been looked at by people such as Guanilo, a monk, whose response to Anselm 's proofs was trying to say that there were flaws, there are more reasons as to why Anselm 's proofs work well with his argument. From the understanding of God existing, and the idea behind greatness Anselm 's argument is one that is strong and can work as a proof when trying

Without this premises his argument would fail. It must be agreed to, because it is a true statement. You do not have to believe in God in order to agree to these Premises. In agreeing to these first premises, St Anselm forces you to admit that God does exist in reality because his premises support his conclusion. St. Anselm's Theory is that if God is that which nothing greater can be conceived, the idea of God must exist, if only in the mind. To exist in reality is greater than existing in the mind (idea). Therefore God, being that which nothing greater can be conceived must exist in reality. All his premises support his conclusion, creating a valid and sound argument proving that God must exist.

Aquinas says we experience causality Nothing is the cause of itself causes are other than their effects. There cannot be an infinite regress of caused causes. If there were an infinite regress, the effects we experience here & now would not exist. Therefore, there must be some first cause and this we call "God." There is also the law of argument by design, we naturally work towards a goal, we also lack the knowing of the outcome, but we reach our goal by being pointed in the direction, therefore there is an intelligent being pointing us in the direction and that would be proof of “God”.

The existence of God is a question that has troubled and plagued mankind since it began to consider logic. Is there a God? How can we be sure that God exists? Can you prove to me that He is real? Does His existence, or lack thereof, make a significant difference? These loaded questions strike at the heart of human existence. But the real question is, can we answer any of them? These questions are answered in the arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas, Blaise Pascal and St. Anselm of Canterbury. For thousands of years, theologians, philosophers and scientists have been trying to prove or disprove God’s existence. Many, including the three mentioned above, have strong proofs and theories that attempt to confirm God’s existence. Although, without any scientific evidence, how can they be entirely sure? “Philosophical proofs can be good proofs, but they do not have to be scientific proofs,” (Kreeft). Gravity similar to God’s existence ; it cannot be seen nor explained, yet it still exists. With faith, reason, understanding and even some math, God’s existence can be verified rationally.

The question is that is it possible to prove the existence of God in a strictly scientific? Answer is incredibly straightforward that there is no individual in the world who could come back with a solid proof whether God exists or not. One of the primary difficulties is the lack of a general characterization of the existence or nonexistence of which is required to be proved. First of all, for the benefit of further narrative, I would like to give the most general definition of "God" as far as possible including all possible variations. Consider our world as a great computer stylish game or a social network. For such a system may well be the one who designed it, created, wrote and performs systemic organization (Everitt N.p.). If you doubt the presence of Facebook creator and administrator of this network, it will look at least strange.