Throughout human history, very few questions have been expanded upon and ripped apart as frequently as the existence of God. What is God? According to Judeo-Christian standards, God is the apotheosis of immanence, omnipotence, omnipresence, and righteousness. Regardless of one’s religion, which in turn, influences their perception of what God is, philosophers from all ages have attempted to prove the existence of God. To make an argument God’s existence, many philosophers have made numerous efforts see God from a logical perspective.
While there are numerous arguments for God’s existence, two of these arguments are far more prevalent than the others. One of the premier arguments is the Cosmological argument. The Cosmological argument attempts to prove the existence of God based solely on ground of the existence of all things. Another one of the premier arguments is the Teleological argument. The Teleological argument attempts to prove God’s existence by stating by observing and analyzing the evidence of order, and hence nature’s design. Although neither argument is well-suited to persuade an atheist, their permanence as philosophical arguments is commendable.
The Cosmological argument goes all the way back to Plato’s days; as the argument itself is based around Plato’s laws. That being said, the Cosmological argument does not make a true appearance until it manifests itself in the writing of St. Thomas Aquinas. St. Thomas Aquinas was a Roman Catholic philosopher who had a resounding effect on Western philosophy. Throughout his writings, it is evident that he devised what he thought to be a basic premise for God’s existence. In short, his argument stands as such: All things that exist must have an origin, and a reason for its causation. Simply stated, regardless of along ago something was created or born, it has a beginning point. Generally, people who endorse this argument presume that the origin of all things is God. While this ideology is uncomplicated to say the least, it is very powerful.
127 our experts are availableright now
Having said that, this argument is not very withstanding if anyone does any research. The most prevalent issue with this argument is concealed within the argument itself. Using St. Thomas’s premise, we should assume God himself must have an origin and a creator, right? If God has any rationale behind his life, and as such, have an origin, then we can no longer refer to him as God. Any being that has an origin, or in this case, a creator is not eligible to be called a God. That said, if this is proven to be the case, God can exist because, regardless of far you look back, God’s creator had to have an origin/creator. The cosmological argument manages to contradict itself, therefore it is invalid.
The teleological argument, or the argument from design shares some roots with its counterpart, the cosmological argument. Much like the cosmological argument, the argument of design’s origin goes way back. Great minds, such as Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato all contemplated about the argument; however, the two most advanced ideas originated from St. Thomas Aquinas, and Francis-Marie Arouet. Essentially, the argument from design seeks to prove to you that the world is extremely meticulous, and its components work far too well for this to be a coincidence.
Personally, the most effective way to analyze the teleological argument is to breakdown Arouet’s acclaimed watchmaker analogy. In order to create a watch, a lot of time and effort is put into its creation. Thus, in order to create a splendid watch, one must be quite intelligent. The idea that watch could simply manifest itself from a piece of metal is preposterous. By the same token, the universe and all its matter, are far too intricate for it to have manifested by itself.
This level of design requires an intelligent designer, and that designer is God. Now, the notion of a higher power being the origin of our existence is simply referred to as intelligent design. Generally, people who support the idea of intelligent design accept the idea of irreducible complexity as an argument for God’s existence. Irreducible complexity is the idea that if a single part is missing from a complex biological function, it would cease to operate. As a result of this, it should be impossible for organisms to have evolve over time because all their past forms would be made obsolete.
One of the key issues with intelligent design is that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent would produce perfect organisms. Many, if not all, organisms are flawed, or at the very least, can develop a flaw over time. Given that these organisms are perfect, God cannot possibly be omnipotent nor omniscient. That said, the theological argument is somewhat alluring, but it still leaves much to be desired.
Even Arouet accepted the fact that the Teleological argument was prosperous in its pursuit to prove God’s existence. The argument attempts to infer that God does indeed exist; however, it does not imply that. Rather, it merely says that some higher being is the designer, but this does not mean it is omnipotent and exists outside the realm of time-space. Since the argument makes no effort to imply the existence of God, it does not make sense to call it one.
In summary, the Cosmological argument has some serious shortcomings, but it cannot be refuted by nature. The Teleological argument also has a severe shortcoming, but unlike the cosmological argument, it can be easily refuted. At the end of the day, God’s existence cannot be definitively proven by Philosophy just yet.
