Religion is a common topic in debates where two sides aim to prove or argue against God’s existence. The arguments in the debate are found in several philosophical disciplines, such as epistemology, ontology, theory of value, and other disciplines. Furthermore, the debate on God’s existence in contemporary society is not only limited to philosophy, but it is a common debate in contemporary popular culture. In this paper I will cover some arguments that support God’s existence, but I will mainly focus on the ontological argument. I will explain why deductive arguments, such as the Cosmological argument, are weak against criticism. I will explain why ontological arguments support God’s existence more effectively than deductive arguments. Furthermore, I will use two objections against God’s existence and defend the ontological perspective to prove its solid structure and valid conclusion. Although God’s existence mainly relies on faith, it is possible to argue for God’s existence and prove it through proper reasoning.
The Cosmological argument is frequently used to support God’s existence, but that argument has a deductive fallacy. In other words, deductive reasoning can disprove its conclusion. The Cosmological argument attempts to describe that all things need a creator. If all things need a creator, the Universe needs a creator. In conclusion, God is the Creator of the Universe. However, an objection to that argument is simple because it points the deductive fallacy in its reasoning. If everything needs a creator, God will also need a creator. In conclusion, the argument is false because an infinite regress occurs. If everything needs a creator, it is not possible to exclude God from that statement. It is not possible to define God as an omnipotent being who is the Creator of everything if there is a higher Creator than God. Arguments that attempt to prove God’s existence through deductive reasoning are always liable to objections. Ontological arguments are more effective than other types of arguments because they mainly resort to a priori reasoning and proceed to support God’s existence.
Ontological arguments are the most solid arguments in philosophy that support God’s existence. Although the classification of arguments in ontology, which aims to explain the nature of being through reasoning, is not universally determined, a typical ontological argument will mostly use a priori reasoning while neglecting empirical observations. All ontological arguments insist that God is a higher being and argue that His existence is beyond human comprehension. However, certain arguments focus on proving God’s existence through correlating his attributes. For example, Descartes claims that God exists. Furthermore, Descartes explains that God is a perfect being, and claims that existence is perfection while non-existence cannot be perfect. If God is a perfect being, he must exist because that is in His nature as a perfect being. On the other hand, Leibniz does not agree with all aspects of Descartes’ reasoning, but he agrees that a single entity can possess all perfections, so Descartes’ argument is valid. In conclusion, God exists.
A common objection against ontological arguments on God’s existence is that it is not possible to prove any form of existence using a priori reasoning. If humans have predetermined concepts of God, they can conceive that God is either existent or non-existent, so it is not a contradiction to deny God’s existence. The argument proceeds to conclude that a perfect being has no reason to exist, so God is therefore non-existent. However, that same argument does not disprove God’s existence or the validity of ontological arguments on God’s existence. In fact, that argument obviously insists that existence and non-existence are the same states of being because they are not contradictory, so it is not a logical argument. According to that argument, both sides are correct because God can be both existent and non-existent. Furthermore, if God does not exist, He cannot be a perfect being because only existence can be perfect while non-existence cannot have any attributes. If God is a perfect being, He has no choice but to exist because only existence can support perfection.
Another common objection is that God’s existence is impossible because omnipotence and omniscience are contradictory. For example, God can create any living being and give it free will, but he also knows what that being will do. Because those characteristics cannot coexist in one entity, the ontological argument on God being a coherent entity is rendered invalid. However, those two attributes do not have to be in conflict. God is omnipotent because he can create living matter and give it free will. Simultaneously, God does not interfere with the being’s free will. If he is omniscient, he only knows what will happen at a given point in time, but he has no need to interfere and invade a being’s free will. Omnipotence and omniscience can exist in coherence because they do not have to contradict each other. In conclusion, it is possible that God exist as a perfect and coherent being.
In this paper, I have argued for God’s existence. I have provided an example of deductive reasoning and its attempt to prove God’s existence, so it is obvious that ontological arguments are more effective in supporting God’s existence. Some common arguments against ontological reasoning attempt to undermine God’s necessity for existence and the possibility of coherent perfections existing in one entity. However, both arguments are invalid. God needs to exist because only existence provides attributes to beings, so it is not possible to be both perfect and non-existent at the same time. Furthermore, although some perfection can be contradictory, they do not have to be in conflict, so all perfections can exist in one single entity. Because all attributes assigned to God can exist in one being, and because existence is the only way of manifesting those attributes, it is possible to conclude that God exists.
