Historically, there have been numerous attempts by religious philosophers to explain and prove the existence of God. However, it has attracted numerous attention from scholars, critics and researchers who have contributed significantly in understanding this contentious argument. Therefore, there has been different versions of the argument, which purport and indicate that it is self contradictory, denying that there exists a supreme being. Religious philosophers state that it is a reasonable belief that God exists because anybody purporting that nothing exists would have to exist, and they would be defeating their own argument. People who argue against the existence God conceive and understand that there is a supreme being, but they do not understand that it exists. This is because it is one thing to understand that an object and another thing to understand that such an object exists (Halsall para 10). For example, a painter conceives a painting before making it, and he understands it, but after finishing he understand that it exists because he made it.
Therefore, even critics against the argument of God’s existence are convinced and understand that there is a supreme being. The conception about the existence of God cannot exist in understanding alone, since if it does, its existence in reality cannot be conceived. The argument about creation provides a strong argument in proving the existence of God since “nothing can create something”. Based on this argument, even atheist believes that there was a supreme being that led to the creation and existence of the world (Campbell para 4). An argument suggesting or purporting that nothing can create or produce something is absurd. Even the most zealous skeptics of Christianity agree with this premise, asserting that there is nothing that can arise without a cause. It is utterly foolish for anyone to argue or propose that ‘nothing’ can produce anything.
There is no conception that God does not exist, and any conception of something that does not exist is not about God. Therefore, it is an irreconcilable contradiction for one to argue that they can conceive and understand a supreme being, but they cannot conceive its existence. Additionally, based on the argument that ‘nothing produces something’ there must have something that exists eternally to produce or create what exists now. Therefore, the assumption of a being existing in eternity supports the argument that there exists a supreme being existing before and after creation. An assumption that the supreme being had a beginning would bring the whole argument to a start, and standstill would exist (Gabbay, Thagard and Woods 153). For example, questions would arise such as where did the supreme being begin? Did ‘nothing create something’? Therefore, the only two possible options of something that has existed in eternity, which are the universe or something beyond the universe.
Theories such as the ‘steady state theory’ have been formulated in support that the universe has existed eternally. If such theories were correct, Christianity critics would have grounds of the claim that there is no need or a creator. However, scientific evidence such as astronomy against this theory has demolished its basis. Scientific evidence has proved overwhelmingly that the universe had a beginning and started finite time ago when physical matter, energy, space and time forming the universe came into being. The book of Genesis 1:1 affirms that the universe had a beginning stating ”in the beginning God created heavens and earth” (Campbell para 8).
Arguments about the existence of God are based on conceptual and empirical evidence, where the empirical evidence represents what has been proved scientifically and conceptual framework focuses on different concepts involved. Anselm argues that if any person has the ability of devising anything which exist in reality or in concepts, he can adapt the sequence of reasoning and conceive it in reality. If something is conceived not to exist, then such objects could have a beginning and an end, which is impossible. Therefore, based on this premise Anselm argues that the definition of God provides proof and understanding that God exists. Empirical evidence illustrates that the universe had a beginning, and hence something must have been in existence before the universe. If such evidence was not available, all the conceptual theories used in proving the existence of God would not be justified (MacIntyre 38). In addition, based on Anselm’s argument if a person can grasp the concept of God it would be impossible for God not to exist.
In conclusion, it is a reasonable belief that God exists based on the concepts and laws of logic, as well as observable empirical scientific evidence, which provides proof that God exists. Arguments against the existence of God have flopped based on their beliefs ‘nothing and nobody created and produced everything in the universe. In addition, the scriptures provide a revelation of God providing a solid ground for supporting this argument. For example, in Genesis 1:1 affirms the scientific evidence that indeed the universe had a beginning. The vast majority of the world population believes in the existence of God, supporting the universal truth that God exists and he is real.
Works Cited
Campbell, Charlie. "A Logical Argument for God's Existence." 2013. 28 September 2013 <http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php/god-evidence/137>.
Gabbay, Dov M, et al. Philosophy of Logic. Ontario: Elsevier, 2006.
Halsall, Paul. "ANSELM ON GOD'S EXISTENCE." January 1996. Fordham University. 28 September 2013 <http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/anselm.asp>.
MacIntyre, Alasdair. God, Philosophy, Universities: A Selective History of the Catholic Philosophical Tradition. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2011.
