1.
In the teleological argument for the existence of God, it is said that a higher power must exist in order to create the specific and complex conditions for life in the universe. In essence, the existence of intelligent life itself is evidence that God exists; an intelligent creator is implied in the existence of these forms. The complexity of life, much like a pocketwatch, implies the existence of the watchmaker.
While this is a compelling argument for the existence of God, one of the main criticisms one can levy against it is the fact that this argument severely underestimates the ability of nature or natural selection to create that complexity as well. The teleological argument implies an absolute; that there HAS to be a sentient, intelligent force driving these changes and creations, otherwise it cannot possibly exist. In essence, complexity does not imply intelligent design; oftentimes, complexity in life forms can exist for random reasons and in different contexts. Keeping this in mind, the teleological argument does not completely hold water.
2.
The ontological argument for the existence of God implies that God can exist in our mind; therefore, he can exist in reality. Basically, people can imagine or be cognizant of the existence of a higher power - as a result, he can exist. With the ontological argument, anything is possible; therefore, God is possible. On the other hand, there is Pascal's Wager - in essence, Pascal argued that those who do not believe in God should believe in God anyway. If they are right, they will not know it, because they are dead and their existence will end. If they are wrong, they will end up in Hell because they did not follow God's teachings in life. Therefore, people should believe in God "just in case."
The ontological argument is far more persuasive than Pascal's Wager, if only because it acknowledges the infinite possibilities of the mind. Pascal's Wager, with its logical fallacies, is an extremely poor argument for conversion to religion. First of all, an omnipotent God would know if one was only following them for Pascal's Wager, and to make sure to not go to Hell; true love of God would be necessary for this to work. Furthermore, one could not legitimately and ardently believe if that were the reason they converted - it asks the individual to hedge their bets, and require little actual faith on their part.
3.Clearly explain the main differences between the Sufi, Buddhist, and Hindu views about the nature of God.
Sufis, in their believe in God, believe that they can become closer to God and draw him into their lives. God wants individuals to achieve a state of perfection, in which they can communicate directly with him. It is possible for Sufis to have a personal relationship with God, and God wishes to have that personal relationship right back. This is directly contrasted with Buddhism, which has no adherence to a creator. Instead, Buddhists believe the universe is united by a system of relationships that connect everything. Buddha is not a god, but a human man and a mentor to all future Buddhists.
God has a very complex nature in Hinduism, where God can be both a mother and a child; God is the mother that watches over the Hindu and causes change in the world and their lives. On the other hand, God can also be very innocent, despite the fact that he has amazing powers, omniscience and omnipotence.
Works Cited
Mitchell, Helen Buss. Roots of Wisdom. 6th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, 2008. Print.
