The Argument Of God 's Existence

1737 Words7 Pages
BEST EXPLANATION Does God exist? This question has been in debate for centuries with many opposing views, some arising from philosophers on the same side while others refute Gods existence altogether. However for this particular paper I will be taking the best explanations approach. What I mean by this is I do not have proof of God’s existence but the existence of God is the best explanation for the universe around me. With this statement in mind we will discuss arguments in support of God’s existence as well as philosopher H.J McCloskey’s article On Being an Atheist. Within McCloskey’s article he refers to three well known theist arguments as proofs the cosmological, teleological and argument from design. The Cosmological argument…show more content…
In order for a universe filled with creation, to be formed by anything other than an all-powerful being, is to say that you or I could construct the same creation. Some theorist believe the Big Bang Theory but this would constitute taking time, space and chance and exploding that into everything while subtracting your law of casualty (Wellman, 2012). Also if the universe had just exploded into the state of “being” then what was it before a “non-being” (Wellman, 2012)? The Big Bang Theory is lacking what the cosmological argument provides something had to exist you cannot just have existence from nothing. Therefore our universe in order to exist supports the existence of the uncaused all-powerful being. McCloskey’s statement in his article On Being an Atheist “to get the proof going, genuine indisputable example of design and purpose are needed.” In order for something to be indisputable you have to be beyond question and without a doubt. Theory is not claiming or making the statement that it’s a proven fact. Different from scientific evidence which is fact based. Some of the opposing theories such as Evolution or Big Bang Theory attempt to use science as proof. Although there is no scientific evidence to support these claims again leaving it to theory. No sufficient defeaters have been presented to debunk so to speak the arguments in which we are discussing
Open Document