The argument on whether God does exist is one that has been debated by many people for a long time; philosophers on their part have based their assertions on theistic proof on rationality and logic. Some religious groups argue that this debate cannot be decided by logic alone but rather some faith is needed to understand God’s existence. However, that is not always the case; philosophers like Descartes, who is considered the father of modern day philosophy, were able to give theistic proof using valid philosophical arguments. It is hence interesting to try and answer the question of whether God exists based on philosophical arguments devoid of any fanaticism or emotional bias.
Debate on theistic proof has been unending because of one main reason, no matter how long the argument goes on, no one is ever able to show God. Unlike a debate in a court room where a party would be required to produce evidence of for example a document to show its existence, the argument on God’s existence is different. However, this does not mean that there is no validity for the theistic debate. Philosophers, for example those who believe in the Cosmological Argument on Theistic Proof, have advanced the idea that by proving the existence of the universe God’s existence can be proved. This is based on a conclusion similar to what Descartes gave in his final meditation, the existence of a universe and the unique operation of things means that there must be someone controlling it all. Under the Principle of Sufficient Reason it is argued that everything in existence is there for a reason1. Combining this argument with the one in the Cosmological Argument, it can be said that God does exist and His reason for existence is to sustain the universe.
As stated in the opening statements, the debate on theistic proof has been ongoing and different philosophers have different opinions and arguments. Take for example Bertrand Russell who believes that the world cannot be explained and mankind should stop trying to understand the universe and attaching a reason for existence to everything. This argument not only goes against the Principle of Sufficient Reason but also challenges the very existence of God. Philosophers like Russell and others of a similar thought, show that since not everything is inexistence for a reason then there is no role or room for a theistic power in the universe. According to Russell things happen sometimes randomly and not in a pre-planned way; this beats the very core principle of the argument for God’s existence which attempts to show that there is a theistic power controlling the events of this world. Russell points out that the success of the Cosmological Argument on Theistic Proof is highly dependent on people who accept its conclusion regardless of how this conclusion has been arrived at2. However, this line of thought is not true because there have been philosophers such as Descartes who had no bias in the theistic debate but still came to the conclusion that God did exist. Also, since Russell was an atheist, it can be used to discredit his argument that he was biased and had to show that God did not exist. Those against the Principle of Sufficient Reason advance a concept that does not seem to go in line with human survival; this opposing argument presupposes that no matter what measures a person puts in place they cannot stop the cause of things3. For example, that even if a driver does not drive under the influence of alcohol, there is a high chance of them causing an accident. However, this is not true; though actions like that by the driver do not stop bad things entirely, they do help reduce their occurrence. The same way, this principle helps to foster human survival.
The arguments on existence of God are philosophically challenged. It has been said that particles are fine tuned to be able to give produce. It is not right to merely proclaim that the tuning is associated with God. The principle brought forward by Newton describes the intricate balance between theism and science. He proposes that there are a number of universes out there and it is further detailed that in the universe life must be present which can be used to say that indeed God does exist. According to the Anthropic principle, life allows things to evolv4e. Alternatively the explanation of existence of life could be attributed to God. Reasonably masses and particles occur in a single universe. In this instance, the strengths and forces were mindfully selected by a Creative principle. This is what is referred to as God. The forces, strengths and masses were selected to bring forth life.
God’s existence can also be argued for the fact that there are people who have actually conversed with Him or in rare occasions met Him. A historical figure like Abraham is recorded to have received messages from God one of which included that he would have a son despite the fact that his wife Sarah was old5. The fact that Abraham later had a son shows that indeed there is a God and He is in control of the past, present and future. Though some atheists argue against the validity of such stories, it is irrational to believe in the story of some historians such as Christopher Columbus and reject others simply because what they say is not what you believe in.
According to the modern view of Newton principle, word ensembles have become very speculative. The word ensemble is backed by fine-tuning; of which fine tuning is attributable to God. His acts will be concurrent to the laws included in the ensemble. For worlds which encourage life there must be use of chance to generate the same. We cannot credit the ensemble to only chance. God has to rationally be involved in the selection of the theory. It would prove difficult to explain the fine tuning and cosmos theory independently. Assumption would have to be made of inflation. This will be used to lay emphasis on the lack of domain walls and many other features.
More so for inflation to take place it has to be supported by fine tuning. This will enable galaxies to grow through density variations produced. Unified theory can dictate the inflation. This will lead to more questions and the validity of that specific theory will be under scrutiny. An ensemble can be postulated to give account of the Unified theory in all places; this will however prove to be inappropriate. Hence, introduction of God will allow for the use of an appropriate theory and be able to provide reasons on existence of the world as it is. The fine tuning as described in the cosmos is used to strengthen the validity of God being in existence. The factors which have given it a strong case are a couple. We will analyze them step by step.
We live in a complex world; the temperatures must have been very high to warrant forces and particles to cool and disentangle due to evolution6. The big bang theory states that one has to have full understanding of the make up to believe in the existence. Consciousness has to come hand in hand with evolution despite a lack of understanding. Although life could exist in various places so long as particles met at the right speeds, it might as well have been impossible. The forces and particles could have failed to catch up with each other. This is referred to as special relativity. Through least action and quantification, energy is released in motions; not in a random way with no purpose.
Renormalizability states that life happens due to fluctuations7. These fluctuations are to be added to other fluctuations. The working of the infinite results has not been understood by people. According to Penrose physics can barely explain some factors. The Time arrow cannot describe why the gravitational pull is low thus God must exist to elude the unexplainable issues to His existence. We can summarize to say that Big bang theory, all possibilities and theories are very complex. Thus in reality experience is not easily achievable to give credit to any of the positions brought forward. Despite the fact that the experience of fine tuning is not direct, it holds good grounds. It is thus powerful and straightforward.
Most philosophers against the existence of God have been accused of incoherence which is mainly due to lack of sufficient knowledge on theistic matters8. It is hard to prove the state ‘nothing’ without first understanding ‘something’. As such, philosophers against the existence of God do not understand some of the basic concepts of theism. It has been argued that some philosophers identifying the complexity of theistic proof have opted to go the easy way and argue that there is no God. One concept that most anti-theistic existence philosophers miss out on is that God is a necessity to mankind. Aristotle pointed out that God is needed to depict a culture that is incorruptible and infallible that people can look up to. This argument points out mankind needs a theistic being, and also that the absence of such is illogical; subsequently concluding that God must exist because He is a necessity and it is impossible to think of how the world could be without this necessity- a theistic being. Though this argument has been challenged on the basis that there is nothing like a ‘logical necessity’ as stated, such criticism has been disputed on the basis that beings too can be a necessity in life. Since philosophers against theistic existence believe in the existence of abstract things like numbers and also ascertain their significance in life9, they have also been challenged to accept the existence of God on a similar approach. Though beings are abstract, it does not mean that they cannot be a necessity; this is a more coherent argument than the one advanced by atheists.
Another character of God that philosophers against His existence miss out on is the issue of God been eternal. This means that God is not bound by time. Those for the argument for God’s existence put across that there has to be something that has held humanity through the many centuries it has been in existence10. God’s existence is further reinforced here by the temporal nature of human life which shows that there must be a force superior to mankind that oversees the happenings of the universe. The randomness proposed by Russell and others of a similar opinion cannot exist for as long as humanity has without it bringing the human race to the brink of extinction. For example, Russell argues that things happen as they wish, why then has the sun never fallen and hit the world? Why then are a majority of children born with similar features to adults and not with random ones? These questions are only but a few that show the futility of thinking that randomness can sustain the world. It is indeed irrational to base the continuity and survival of mankind on pure luck, there has to be something more. Theists argue that God as an eternal being is the one who has held the world together and who ensures that everything happens for a purpose. The incoherence in the argument against God here is on the presumption most atheists have that a debate on God can only be framed to the present times or the past few years.
If one has a strong conviction it must follow that there must be proof to make their claim logic11. The evidentialist bases their approach basically on classical foundationalism. In this approach they negate the atheists’ beliefs in non-existence of events; they meet a certain obligation without providing evidence for their claims. The evidentialist have set out that belief in God cannot be termed as basic. They say that it is groundless and not able to be properly basic. This could be because the foundations are too narrow to give explanations of existence of God. It is indeed erroneous to say that without evidence a person’s preposition is arbitrary and gratuitous. Quinn gives a position that there is no existence of God12. His reasons are that people are made to consciously deny the belief of atheists and so incline towards a certain belief. No one is able to judge how immoral or presence of evil amounts in the world today; this cannot form a basis then of discrediting the existence of God. We have to be skeptical as to why rejection of theism has been propagated. One is not expected to provide evidence or reason why they disagree or agree with certain claims. You only have to listen and make an opinion regarding what your final say on the matter is. An example is on being accused of theft. Even if you do not have people to back up your whereabouts; the strong belief is basic and valid13.
The debate on theistic proof is one that has been there for a long time and does not look like is about to end. However, from the discussions above it is clear that God’s existence is a more rational and logical argument than what atheist put across. Though atheists also put across a strong argument, it is only rational for mankind to understand that he does not hold the answers to everything in life and hence cannot explain everything, for example God. God is not a being that lives in the human world, hence it is hard to understand Him fully since man’s knowledge is limited even in understanding things in his world. An important thing to note is that though it has been proved above that the philosophical and rational argument for theistic proof is valid; this does not however ascertain various qualities of God advanced by various theistic groups.
