Introduction
The concept of the existence of God spans throughout all existing religions in the world. Divinity centered on a supreme being became the main reference point of different people across various cultures in explaining particular phenomena that has found difficult elucidation. Several concepts of God are apparent in the way different religious bodies manifest their beliefs. Yet, arguments assailing the existence of God continue to be prevalent, alongside variations on how numerous religions conceive God. Up to what extent is the concept of the existence of God controversial? This study seeks to answer that question by hypothesizing that the existence of God is controversial along the following lines – necessity, foundation of the universe, morality, conflict with science, human free will and atheism.
Is Proof For The Existence of God Necessary?
In examining the necessity of proof in verifying the existence of God, it is important to place into context the notion of necessity of the existence of God. Necessity, for the purposes of this study, employs a two-tier approach to its understanding. The first tier, logical understanding, tackles the idea that the inexistence of a God is incorrect and impossible in the logical sense. The second tier, empirical necessary, perceives the necessity of the existence of God through the lens of causality and materialism. Discussing the necessity of the existence of God provides the implication that God is omnipotent, infinite and progressive throughout time (Hick, 1960).
Studies have used the necessity of the existence of God as a measure of determining the existence of God per se. Among the most prominent is that of J. N. Findlay, who contended that God could not exist if such is determined through necessity of existence. Findlay focused his argument on logical necessity, saying that God may not exist only through explaining the necessity of such through a logical manner. Yet, such is not the case for the conception of Christianity on the existence of God because such religion does not anchor its arguments on existence through logical precepts. Thus, there is a crucial suggestion that explaining the existence of God should not fall through arguments on logical necessity (Hick, 1960).
Factual necessity treads on the material and causal aspect of explaining the necessity of God. Conceiving God as an eternal being that does not rely on any sustenance for existence is important in this aspect, for such renders the need to extract and explain material causality in proving that God exists. It thus leads to the fundamental question on whether or not God exists, for such requires not just a logical set of precepts but material and causal ones as well. Logic, in this sense, is inadequate in affirming or disputing arguments pertaining to the existence of God. Thus, factual (material and causal) proof, not logical ones, is necessary for proving the existence of God. Proof, in both material and causal form, is thus important for establishing the existence of God (Hick, 2006).
Which Argument For The Existence Of God Is Strongest?
The necessity of proving the existence of God has provided insights on the kind of argument that would stand out as the strongest one in proving the existence of God per se. With logical necessity disputed, factual necessity remains as the most reliable argument umbrella under which such arguments would prove more compelling in explaining the existence of God (Hick, 2006). Thus, the ontological argument provides the most compelling argument in proving the existence of God. The ontological argument focuses on personal religious experiences, within which the existence of God would manifest on divine phenomena that does not find easy empirical explanations. The religious experience per se would serve as the materiality and the point of reference for causality in explaining that God exists – one that may not emanate through logical arguments alone (Cock, 1917-1918).
What Are The Foundations Of The Universe And How Did It Emerge?
The universe refers to the totality of existence – that is, the cosmos in which order is in place across all prevailing matter. In relation to that, several foundations have found association with the universe – existence, matter, space and time, among others. There are several debates on explaining the origins of the universe – the most prominent being the Big Bang theory, which was tested several times by experts in the field of cosmology. Yet, there are still those that question the credence of such theory through the invocation of a law of physics stating that the universe could not begin from nothing, and that it could have been impossible to have any of the foundations existing ahead of one another (e.g. time ahead of matter). Digital physicists, for instance, has argued that the universe in itself is a whole computer, in which processes are made possible through computed values, although at this point such has not yet found credible establishment as against the Big Bang Theory (Wright, 1988).
Can One Be Moral and Not Believe In God?
Many have established connections between morality and belief in God, with many of those assuming that one cannot become moral if he does not believe in God. Yet, such assumption does not necessarily hold true, according to the perusal of relevant arguments within the literature tackling the matter. Rather, necessitating morality with belief in God has found ambiguous answers, although there are presented explanations on the dichotomous possibilities. For those who are moral and believers of God at the same time, they establish their moral actions in connection to their perception of God being the bringer of the common good. For those who are moral non-believers, their morality has foundations on individual values of right and wrong. They do not demonstrate their moral acts as an attribute to any watchful divine being. Morality per se does not have a strict adherence to belief in God. Therefore, it is possible for non-believers to become moral at the same time, for morality is not restricted to believers only (Scott, 1999).
Can God and Evil Be Reconciled?
Reconciling God and evil has served as a logical problem in the realm of theology. God, for the believers, has the characteristic of omnipotence and thus universally good. Those who believe in God are those who perceive evil as the harm and contradiction to all good things generated and protected by God. Yet, it appears logically contradictory that evil exists alongside the omnipotence of God. In examining that problem, several fallacies have come to the fore. For instance, the argument that evil cannot exist with good does not hold, for evil could exist only to the extent that it counters the good in place and vice-versa, as the case may be. The argument saying that evil is a means to good does not hold as well, as it does not abide by the premise provided by omnipotence – the prevalence of good. Saying that human free will generates evil is another paradox in this case, as the omnipotence of God manifests through the laws of causality and logic, not within time within which humans conduct their actions leading to evil. Thus, the notion of omnipotence does not find strict construction within the idea that evil should not exist. The omnipotence of God and the presence of evil can be reconciled in that sense, with the former countering any instances of the latter. The presence of one does not contradict the presence of the other (Mackie, 1955).
Are Science and Religion in Conflict?
Science and religion are two concepts that have frequently clashed with one another, either sensationally through face-value precepts or critically through the contradictions apparent in the available literature. Primarily, the conflict between the two stem from methodological underpinnings. Matters explained by religion may not qualify scientific explanations and vice-versa, as the case may be. The difficulty in explaining particular phenomena, such as the Big Bang theory has provided difficulties for those studying science and religion, with the empirical weakness of science targeted by notions of divinity by religion and vice-versa. Another is the rife on the story of the creation of the world. Religions would usually refer to their perceived first men and women on earth such as Adam and Eve in the Christian religions, while science would seek material and causal explanations for clarifying such matter. Thus, it shows that religion and science conflict with one another substantially (“Religion and Science,” 2010).
Can There Be A Reconciliation of The Omniscience of God and Human Free Will?
Reconciling the omniscience of God and the free will of humans is one that is not without controversy. Omniscience, which means being all knowing, is among the common yet controversial attributes on the notion of God. Defining omniscience forms the large part of the controversy here, with some defining omniscient beings as incapable of making mistakes or those who know the consequences of particular actions in advance. Some deny the essential omniscience of God, meaning to say that God is not naturally or not a priori omniscient. With those incongruences at hand, it is thus difficult to determine whether free will in the face of debates on omniscience holds with mutual agreement or not. Premises on essential omniscience of God alone have several divergences, so much to the point that if omniscience essentially conquers across the nature of God, then there would be no false beliefs prevalent. Yet, the presence of inconsistent beliefs and seemingly indeterminate nature of outcomes of human actions tend to tilt the argument towards the presence of free will. Free will, in this case, has disputes against the notion of omniscience being determinate of human action outcomes. If the omniscience of God holds true, then it would seem that free will would not exist because God would only allow good to happen, which would not entail humans to think over their decisions as based on their free will. Nevertheless, all the foregoing debates characterize the current lack of reconciliation between the omniscience of God and human free will (Pike, 1965).
Is There A Rational Argument For Atheism?
Atheism, the belief that God or any other equivalent does not exist, is among the highly controversial issues provided in discussing the existence of God. Atheists usually think that there is no purpose as to why they must believe in God, or if it is even necessary at all. Theists, on the other hand, deny that belief in a certain religion has connections with evidence and reason on the existence of God. Explaining atheism, thus, has a strong anchor in the argument concerning the prevalence of evil. Since evil makes humans suffer, their suffering leads them to hopelessness towards the belief that God exists. Whereas suffering somewhat leads to good things that are unobtainable outside of the evils involved, the existence of the evil itself leads suffering people to become atheists. For those suffering from evils, the omniscience of God would have prevented those evils from happening, as God would know that those things would not bring good outcomes. Thus, they could lead themselves to the premise that God, who could have prevented those evils from coming, does not exist. Such forms a rational argument for atheism, although there is understandably much debate on the matter, as partaken by atheists and theists alike (Rowe, 1979).
Conclusion
There is much controversy on debating whether God exists or not. Firstly, in determining whether proof is necessary for arguing that God exists, it is essential to identify the two-tier facets of necessity of existence of God – logical and factual. Factual necessity, being the more concrete facet in explaining the existence of God, provides a clear stand on the necessity of material and causal proof in proving that God exists. The universe, with important foundations such as existence, matter, space and time, has scientific underpinnings on the cosmological Big Bang theory, although divergent theories such as that of digital physics continue to make explanations of the universe more diverse and thus, indefinite. As for morality, there is a clear understanding that morally upright persons could also be non-believers of God, although such is normally contestable for believers, who uphold that belief in God is a prerequisite for morality. Science and religion frequently clash with one another, and such is due to their methodological differences, including explanations on phenomena such as on creation. Contending for and against human free will has variations on the involvement of the omniscient attribute of God. In this light, schools of thought have perceived human free will as a disputing factor against the omniscience of God and vice-versa. Atheism – contrary to theist thought, exists rationally through the presence of evil, which leads people to drop their beliefs in God as they undergo suffering from different evils.
References
Cock, A. (1917-1918). The ontological argument for the existence of God. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 18, 363-384.
Hick, J. (1960). God as necessary being. The Journal of Philosophy, 57(22/23), 725-734.
Mackie, J. (1955). Evil and omnipotence. Mind, 64(254), 200-212.
Religion and science. (2010). In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science/
Pike, N. (1965). Divine omniscience and voluntary action. The Philosophical Review, 74(1), 27-46.
Rowe, W. (1979). The problem of evil and some varieties of atheism. American Philosophical Quarterly, 16(4), 335-341.
Scott, C. (1999). Morality without God? Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 82(3/4), 505-517.
Wright, R. (1988, April). Did the universe just happen? The Atlantic Monthly, pp. 29-44.
