Introduction
For millennia, people have been pondering over the idea of having been created and being guided by a superior being. Represented in each culture by a unique name and an accompanying story, God, in essence, is represented by the same notions of almightiness, compassion, kindness, and wisdom. [i] Since both the theological doctrine concerning the emergence of life and the scientific one represent equal possibilities, the existence of God cannot be either proven or disproven.
Explanation of Philosophical Views
St. Aquinas (1-4)
St. Aquinas offers four essential arguments based on the nature of the world as people perceive it. Specifically, the first proof states that, with every element of the environment defined by motion, there must be a force that incited the first motion. The second argument represents a logical conclusion from the first and asserts that everything must have a specific cause, the first Cause being God. Thirdly, Aquinas argues that the existence or non-existence of elements of the universe is accidental, complete non-existence implies that elements of the universe have to come from some source that is outside of the plane of existence, which is God. Finally, the fourth argument suggests that, with every element taking a unique place at the complexity scale, the most complex element must be God. [ii]
St. Aquinas (5)
St. Aquinas also produced the fifth argument, which is typically considered separate from the remaining four. The fifth proof of God’s existence concerns the fact that the current arrangement of all elements of the universe implies that they must have a specific goal. In turn, the specified design must have been a product of work. [iii] Therefore, God’s existence is proven by the interconnected nature of elements in the Universe.
St. Anselm
The argument that St. Alselm offered as proof of the idea of God’s existence is rooted in the perception of God as the almighty being. Namely, according to St. Anselm, since God is almighty and omnipotent, he must exist. In turn, if God did not exist, he would not be omnipotent as the set condition established. [iv] Though the specified assumption could be seen as a syllogism, it can be recognized as a valid argument.
Religious Experiment
The religious experiment argument represents one of the more controversial approaches to proving the existence of God. Namely, it posits that god exists based on the individual experiences of specific people. [v] In other words, one’s religious practice and the related emotions released in its course serve as proof of god’s presence.
Internet
Though not as credible and trustworthy as academic sources, materials found on the Internet can also provide a roadmap to further discussion and analysis of core theological issues, including the very premise of the existence of God. Specifically, one of the main online arguments supporting the concept of God’s presence can be summarized as the idea that the theory of evolution as the alternative to the creationist theory and, therefore, the main means of subverting God’s existence, can be viewed as the answer to how the world was created, yet not why it was designed. [vi]
Problem of Evil
Representing a reverse argument, namely, that one disproving the existence of God, the problem of evil points out a discrepancy in the current religious doctrine. Namely, it is grounded in the premise that God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent. However, since evil exists and God does not defeat it, either God is not almighty or He is not omnibenevolent. [vii] Therefore, the very notion of God is being subverted in the problem of evil.
Hick
Hick’s argument could be seen as the counterargument to the problem of evil. Namely, Hick posits that God seeks to guide humankind through challenges and suffering to achieve redemption. [viii] Thus, since evil as the cause of suffering exists, therefore, God exists as the ultimate goal for humankind.
Kierkegaard
Finally, Kierkegaard claims that the existence of God cannot be empirically proven. The specified statement leaves the argument in limbo, dooming it to being left unresolved. Thus, pointing out the syllogism of the statements regarding God’s undeniable existence and His unfathomable nature, Kierkegaard makes it evident that the existence of God cannot possibly be proven, regardless of one’s personal experiences or the examination of the existing principles of the Christian doctrine. [ix]
My Arguments
Sr. Aquinas (1-4)
Approaching St. Aquinas’ arguments from a personal perspective, one could see the specified statement as a confirmation of the fact that God’s existence can be neither proven nor disproven. Specifically, the arguments that St. Aquinas provides for the existence of the omnipotent force could be also represented as the confirmation of the fact that people’s understanding of nature and its laws is flawed, at best. [x] Therefore, another explanation for the observed discrepancy could exist, yet people are not aware of it. Thus, the existence of God remains open for discussion despite St. Aquinas’ claim.
St. Aquinas (5)
The fifth argument of St. Aquinas also appears to be flawed since it discards other possibilities of the connection between the elements of the universe being related to one another having been developed. For instance, the evolutionary concept of other structures has proven to be unsustainable and, therefore, failed, is dismissed in the specified argument. [xi] Therefore, while St. Aquinas’ fifth statement cannot be subverted fully, it does have some dents in its fabric.
St. Anselm
In turn, St. Anselm’s argument regarding God’s boundless powers appears to be rooted deeply in a logical fallacy. Specifically, the syllogistic nature of the specified argument is grounded in the religious perception of Od as the almighty being. In other words, it sets a criterion of almightiness as the main characteristic of God only to establish that God’s omnipotence serves as the ultimate proof of His existence. [xii] Representing a circular argument that is ultimately self-referential, the described statement only further proves that no agreement can be reached on whether God exists.
Religious Experiment
In turn, the religious experiment as one of the means of proving God’s existence is also extensively flawed due to its focus on individuals’ experiences. By relying on the evidence supplied by personal accounts, the religious experiment framework introduces a major bias into the analysis. [xiii] Therefore, the extent of the argument’s credibility becomes increasingly low, which supports the idea that proving God’s existence fully and without leaving any grounds for doubt is virtually impossible.
Internet
The idea of creationism being the answer to the main reason behind the emergence of life and, therefore, the ultimate proof that God exists can be seen as a rather remarkable attempt at reconciling the two sides of the argument. However, instead of disproving the idea of God being nonexistent, it further reinforces the notion that either assumption could be ultimately correct. [xiv] Therefore, the specified statement enhances the idea of the ambivalence of God’s existence as a statement of truth.
Problem of Evil
The inherent issue within the argumentation behind the problem of evil might seem quite close to the contradiction within St. Anselm’s statement, yet the nature of the problem of evil hypothesis is slightly different. Namely, implying that the existence of evil contradicts the existence of God, the specified assumption does not take into account the possible scenarios in which what people perceive as evil could be seen as the means to a certain end defined by the Creator. [xv] Therefore, the specified argument does not disprove the existence of God, yet its flaws do not allow stating the opposite with complete certainty, either.
Hick
Similarly, the presence of grief, suffering, and the related negative experiences that affect people’s quality of life adversely does not confirm the existence of God entirely. While it does align with the established philosophical tradition of God introducing certain challenges into people’s lives to test their faith and help them achieve redemption and the resulting salvation through them, it does not provide an objective argument regarding the existence of God. The endeavor to prioritize individual experiences and perceptions of the Divine could be seen as the path to creating a series of rather divisive statements that will ultimately cause erroneous conclusions to be made. [xvi] Specifically, the lack of credibility in first-person accounts and the related evidence contributes to dismantling the idea of God’s existence. The specified argument further enhances the ambivalence of the existing argumentations regarding the presence of God, therefore, encouraging one to assume the agnostic stance on the specified issue.
Kierkegaard
Finally, addressing the statements made by Kierkegaard concerning the existence of God, one should concede that the existing proofs for the specified statement are tenuous, at best. Specifically, according to Kierkegaard, there is no ultimate proof that God exists. [xvii] Though being admittedly rather blatant and straightforward, the specified statement does not negate the possibility of the presence of God; instead, it introduces a reasonable doubt s the basis for profound theological and theosophical discussions regarding the subject matter. Furthermore, remarkably, in his assumptions, Kierkegaard ventures further than disproving the certainty of God’s existence. In addition to the specified claim, his theory implies that the existence of any phenomenon, object, or living being can be questioned and debated. In other words, Kierkegaard’s philosophy approaches the principles of solipsism, which, by definition, questions the very fabric of objective reality. [xviii] Thus, Kierkegaard’s thesis can be considered the foundational framework for the further debate regarding the construct of existence, as well as those of reality and perception.
Conclusion
Since neither of the existing theories regarding the emergence of life on Earth can either fully prove or disprove the existence of God, the notion of God in itself cannot be considered fully provable, which is why God cannot be declared either real or not real. The specified assumption leaves es a plethora of room for further speculations regarding the nature of God, the role that He plays in the emergence and development of specific phenomena, as well as the meaning of life and the purpose of human life, specifically. However, the described supposition also entails a plethora of ideas associated with the further analysis of the relationships between God and an individual, as well as God and society at large.
- [i] See Cohen 538.
- [ii] See Cohen 539.
- [iii] See Cohen 539.
- [iv]See Cohen 538.
- [v] See Cohen 538.
- [vi] See National Center for Science Education par. 3-6.
- [vii] See Cohen 540.
- [viii] See Cohen 540.
- [ix] See Cohen 542.
- [x] See Cohen 538.
- [xi] See Cohen 538.
- [xii] See Cohen 539.
- [xiii] See Cohen 540.
- [xiv] See Cohen 540.
- [xv] See Cohen 542.
- [xvi] See Cohen 540.
- [xvii] See Cohen 541.
- [xviii] See Cohen 539.
Works Cited
Cohen, Elliot D. Philosophers at Work: Issues and Practice of Philosophy. 2nd ed., Cengage Learning, 1999.
National Center for Science Education. “God and Evolution.” NCSE.com, 2016.