Human existence

without empirical evidence of a God, wagering for the existence of God will maximize our happiness. Through his wager, one can use simple reasoning to understand that believing in a God which you cannot see may still be the most logical option to live your life. Pascal states that because there is no evidence that a God exists, nor is there any evidence that no God exists, it is entirely possible that a God exists. Wagering for the existence of an almighty God will either bring you eternal life

conceptions of God within philosophy, but the most simple and widely accepted definition would likely be a “metaphysically necessary being.” That will be the definition of God for this paper. Numerous arguments have been put forth for and against the existence of a God, and some can be grouped together according to their type. Examples of these arguments range from teleological arguments to axiological arguments to cosmological arguments (to name a few). The following paper will focus on cosmological arguments

and mere concept of a god could not be managed or captured and could not be contained by the mere usage of words. Perhaps, in the human sense, a god is the epitome of perfection, quickly the opposite of anything faulty that we human beings can conceive. God must be the perfected imperfection. There is a sense that we all originated from God, that God has created us human beings. It is a typical notion that what has come out of something must be similar to that something. People have somehow derived

Traditional Western philosophical texts concerning the existence of God (often from Christian philosophers) do not address the nature of God. There are many assumptions that are taken for granted and not discussed further. If we can ponder the existence of god then why not the mechanics? Some of the ideas I will explore are: why is God assumed to be some kind of being? Why is there a pronoun used in reference, usually a man's? Why is god assumed to be a creator of the universe? Why is the question

Aquinas’ Cosmological Arguments The Cosmological Argument for the existence of God, as propounded by Thomas Aquinas, is also known as the Third Way. It is the Third of Five ways in Aquinas's masterpiece, "The Summa" (The Five Ways). The five ways are: the unmoved mover, the uncaused causer, possibility and necessity, goodness, truth and nobility and the last way the teleological. The first three ‘ways’ are different variations of the cosmological argument.

Russell’s Decisive Refutations of the Existence of God The existence of God is arguably the most discussed and inquisitive subject to been questioned. Many philosophers have dedicated their lives assembling empirical and logical evidence to prove or disprove the existence of God. Bertrand Russell, one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century, provides rationality and clarity to this complex issue through his text “Why I Am Not a Christian” (Russell & Rouben Mamoulian Collection (Library

Aquinas, and (7) Rene DesCartes. The specific three I want to focus on being; St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and Rene Descartes. Lastly, I will proceed to relate their ideas on the existence of God and their development of these ideas. St. Augustine 's epistemology is rationalization. In his argument for the existence of God, he is referring to varying degrees of perfection otherwise know as, an Ontological argument. He believed that in pursuing truth, it

will tend to disagree. Ernest Nagel, an American philosopher, proposed a series of counterarguments to many classic arguments on behalf of God’s existence. He dismisses arguments such as the cosmological argument, the ontological argument, and the argument of design, by quickly pointing out their flaws. But just as there are people who discredit God’s existence, there are people who argue that he does exist. Richard Swinburne, a British philosopher, provides his own series of arguments on why God exists

The Cosmological argument argues for the existence of God a posteriori based on the apparent order in the universe. For Aristotle, the existence of the universe needs an explanation, a cause, as it could not have come from nothing. Nothing comes from nothing so since there is something, there must have been some other thing that is its cause. Aristotle rules out an infinite progression of causes, so, that led to the conclusion that there must be a First Cause. Likewise with motion, there must have

impossible for God not to exist? Anselm defined God as "that than which nothing greater can be thought". He said that it is logically absurd to think that such a being does not exist once you have the concept in your mind. If you were to deny the existence of such a being, that would mean that it would no longer be "that than which nothing greater can be thought". The analytic and synthetic distinctions were developed by Hume