Posted at 11.19.2018
The discussion on whether God is existent or non-existent is one which has lasted for many years. Some philosophers and theologians have argued on both attributes but a solid evidence for or contrary to the lifetime of God have not been provided. However, several proofs for or against God's lifestyle have been provided. The newspaper argues based on the non-existence of God from a philosophical perspective. Theories including the problem of evil, process of nature, and the parsimony quarrels display that God will not can be found and religion is a just a mere perception created in individuals minds. Apparently, God is not omnipresent, omnibenevolent, omniscience, or omnipotent.
The idea of God is almost global among societies of the people, although it has different ethnical definitions. The arguments in support of and those against God's life have been suggested by several experts, philosophers, and theologians. In accordance with Murray and Rea (2008) philosophically, the quarrels for and against God's lifestyle involve chiefly the ontology (nature to be) and epistemological (theory of knowledge) sub-disciplines as well as the idea of value because efficiency concepts are often connected with notions of God (157). However, the issue on God's living has raised a large number of philosophical issues. The main problematic concern is the living of both polytheistic and monotheistic perceptions.
Some definitions of the life of God are so non-specific while some are self-contradictory. It is possible to draw the conclusion that definitions given on God by humans are probably bogus characterizations of what God makes up about the being of humans on earth and the world (Everitt 159). Furthermore, you can also conclude that the whole notion of any God does not have any basis since it is not supported by any facts. Thirdly, it may be advised that the intellect of humans is probably not sufficient to analyze concepts that are absolutely based on real human understanding and values, such as God's life as a originator. The key concern here is not whether God is available or not, but whether there is sufficient evidence to aid his lifestyle or non-existence (Murray and Rea 157). The spiritual beliefs of God's living are most likely out of real human emotional dependence on protection and owed since there is absolutely no reliable evidence to support these arguments. God will not exist.
Books by famous philosophers who have written on the non-existence of God will be utilized to gather sufficient information on this issue. The Bible may also be used to demonstrate the contradictory dynamics of God.
According to Oppy and Scott (2010), "God is unlimited goodness and for that reason if God truly is present then there is no evil" (82). However, due to the fact there may be evil in the world, God doesn't exist. This reasoning makes a lot of sense because how could it be possible that God, an infinite goodness be created and as such protects a world full of problem and flaws. If God really existed then horrible and horrendous things wouldn't take place in the entire world as they do today. For instance, there would be no starvation like there exists in under-developed countries where thousands of adults and innocent children pass away of hunger each year. In addition, things like harmful wars which result to a whole lot of individual anguish and fighting would not are present. In this context, the Holy Bible which is thought to be God's absolute expression condemns robbery, murder, and adultery.
In line with Khashaba (2006, it is very difficult to assume that an all-knowing and powerful being that is infinitely-good created the complete world but is not capable of controlling things that happen in it. Instead of just condemning them in an ancient reserve he could probably have abolished all kinds of evil (119). Furthermore, the same Bible says that God is a "heavenly father". If that was the case, then he'd have let his children to be good and clear of 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 proven by the concept of character which is measurable, simple, and visible instead of believing in a sophisticated being that can't be measured, identified or conceived. As a matter of known fact, scientific theories have provided explanations for nature's lifestyle and hence aspect could be utilized to account for mankind's continuous development. This development has been described by development of an organism that is one cell to one that is multi-cellular. Alternatively, evolution has described the brains of the current man as the "The Big Bang" theory has discussed the creation of planet earth (Murray and Rea 158).
In contrast, those in support of the lifetime of God claim based on the causation theory. The argument states that a very important factor causes another and therefore there will be no impact if the first cause didn't can be found. However, the lifestyle of the first cause can not be proven or even identified under any circumstances. For instance, "THE BEST Bang" theory existed and that's the reason you'll be able to basic earth's creation on it. Nevertheless, another thing that brought on the existence of this theory will need to have existed primarily.
In collection with Johnson (2006), Philosophical theology freelance writers such as St. Anselm dispute that in case a person understands that a greater being is present though unable to explain its lifestyle, then it exists the truth is (50). Thus, if someone understands that God is accessible, then he must exist in reality. This argument is absolutely futile if there is no sufficient information to aid it. The fact that someone comprehends the lifestyle of God and totally understands God does not imply God actually exists. For example, if one is aware of in their heads and completely that ghosts are present, financial firms not a make sure that indeed ghosts exist. It's exactly like in films where people completely understand a personality that they are supposed to signify and even pretty much portray that character. Definitely this will not make the movie figure a reality (Oppy and Scott 102).
It's often claimed that the biblical God is omnipresent (all over the place at all times, omnipotent (all-powerful), omnibenevolent (unlimitedly good), and omniscient (familiar with everything). From a rational point of view, these concepts are totally impossible implying that God doesn't exist. The Bible says that there is nothing impossible with God yet there are several situations in the same Bible where he was unable to do something. With regards to Murray and Rea (2008) "The reserve of Judges 1:19 says that God was with Judah; he drove out the pile inhabitants; but could not send away the valley inhabitants, because they had iron chariots" (158). If God was so compassionate then he would release folks from the bondages of sin and demolish the devil who leads his people astray.
At once, God would ease humanity of the original sin charges if he was omnipotent. In essence, if God was powerful and able yet he selects to let human being have problems with sin, then it's not logical to dispute that he's omnibenevolent. In line with Everitt (2004), God must have erased the initial sin and allowed men to be judged based on their own activities instead of purchasing other's sins (154). On the same take note of, Christians say that God is omnipresent and therefore he is all over the place at exactly the same time.
If God was omnipresent then he'd not need to walk like he says in the Bible that he shall walk with his people. There would be no need for him to relocate in one location to another in order to be with one of his since he already can be found there. In the same way, God should never change his brain if he is omniscience because a change at heart demonstrates uncertainty. With regards to Oppy and Scott (2010) there are so many situations in the Bible where God transformed his mind. For example, in the Exodus report where in fact the children of Israel worshiped idols and God chosen destroying them, he later forgave them after Moses pleaded for forgiveness. This concept brings a lot of hesitation on whether God really meant on destroying the Israelites or he was struggling to do so yet he recognized this would come to be (110). If God is at deed omnipresent and onmibenevolent he'd prevent the occurrence of sin and destructive events.
There is a significant episode on the conception of God as faith comes under a more powerful scrutiny. Several theories and concepts have shown that God indeed doesn't are present. From a target notion of the Bible, it is not hard to see that God is not omnipresent, omniscience, omni benevolent, or omnipotent as stated by the Bible. It really is evident that the biblical God is contradictory which is not possible that he is out there. Moreover, there is absolutely no adequate data that the bible is not just an ordinary booklet. Ideas such as "The Big Bang" may be used to explain the lifetime of nature hence can replace the fact that God exists. Theories of dynamics sufficiently clarify the human beliefs in God and the development of religion. The problem of the living of sin greatly troubles the lifestyle of a God who is omnibenevolent and omnipotent. It is either that God exists and sin doesn't, or God doesn't can be found but sin will. The life of both is contradictory which is not possible. Further research and research may be necessary in understanding the lifetime or non-existence of God. In essence, there exists adequate evidence that there surely is no God though a concrete prove is not learned yet.