Is It Possible to Prove the Existance of God Essay

Is it possible to confirm the existence of God? Throughout time many philosophers have been searching for an answer to creation and whether it be actually feasible to confirm (or not prove) if God is out there. Some of the philosophers include Thomas Aquinas, William Paley and Blaise Pascal they came up with various distinct theories and arguments to prove the existence of God and why that they believed he did are present.

Another thinker Karl Marx thought that his theory could convince persons not to believe in God. One philosopher, Thomas Aquinas assumed that Our god did can be found and that he could prove this merely by arguing that the Universe wasn’t able to have been created by nothing at all, saying it was difficult for a thing to are derived from nothing. This individual believed that the universe was caused to exist by something which itself is uncaused, or else there would be an unlimited regress. He thought that in order to explain the start of the universe in a rational way was to say that it was created by God.

I think that Aquinas may be right, but I doubt that he is correct as he says that Goodness was created by simply nothing but That stuff seriously something need to have created Our god and therefore there must have been a great infinite regress. There is also not any solid proof or resistant that The almighty does can be found and since generally there isn’t I do think that not actually Aquinas is 100% sure God exists. Also, Aquinas’ theory seems rather contradictory as he says that the Whole world must be caused by something and cannot simply be made by simply nothing but that God can be an uncaused causer. Another Philosopher, William Paley, like Aquinas was convinced that God will exist and that he could prove this.

Paley invented’ the thought experiment to encourage people to go along with him that God exists. He known as his discussion that Teleological argument (coming from the Greek word telas’ meaning purpose). Story Envision you will be walking across open countryside with some close friends. Then you instantly come across anything lying for the grass.

You are so impressed with the craftsmanship that you are the friend. Who also do you think do this watch? The good friend saysNobody made this watch it was always there Paley declared that the whole world, like a observe is too challenging and intelligently designed to have no creator. Paley used the Analogy with the watch to dispute the existence of Goodness.

Paley states that when a simple watch has a founder then the world, which is much more complicated in addition to some techniques more gorgeous than a enjoy must have a creator and that creator has to be God. I do think that Paley’s theory really does seem affordable but I really do not completely agree with it completely. I think that the globe must have a creator but not necessarily God anything at all could have been the creator and that the creator will not be Omnipotent, Omnibonevelant and Omniscient the originator could have simply just created the universe and then only left it or carried out nothing else to it.

Another philosopher who have also wants Aquinas and Paley believed’ in Goodness and thought that he could use his theory to inspire others to do this was Blaise Pascal. Yet , Pascal’s theory was completely different to Aquinas and Paley’s. Pascal assumed that God’s existence may neither always be approved nor disapproved and whatever you choose about this trouble will be unsure and that the answer could be nothing more than a bet.

Pascal said that you cannot prevent making a big gamble on God’s existence and you have to place the bet whether you like it or not really. Pascal soon came to the conclusion that this would be far better to believe that God existed than not to whenever you will not lose anything by doing this. He thought that if you presumed that God existed after which after the death this individual actually did you would possess a big gain by going to heaven.

In the event, however The almighty didn’t exist and you thought that you would you would not really lose nearly anything apart from several of your time praying and likely to religious locations etc . Pascal also thought that if you did not believe in Goodness and found know after your loss of life that he did you would be most likely to visit hell therefore have a major loss. This individual called his theory Pascal’s wager. I actually strongly argue with Pascal’s theory for the reason that he just believed in Goodness for self-centered reasons and wanted individuals to believe in The almighty only because from the happiness they will get in heaven which is not using the idea.

Likewise I think that God will not decide to put persons in paradise and hell based on whether or not they believe or perhaps not although by the good deeds they may have done in all their life, therefore people who rely on God exclusively for reasons just like Pascal’s may not go to nirvana anyway. I think that Pascal seems rather greedy to think in God just to go to heaven after his fatality. The last philosopher I’m going to talk about can be Karl Marx. Marx thought that all that Religion is a device of oppression meaning that Religion is a thing that you do not actually need but use to distract yourself from other issues and something that someone simply gets delight and joy from.

Therefore he thought that everyone should just reject faith and this will make people conscious of their own accurate situation and this may give these people a chance to increase the conditions in which they live. Marx used quotes through the bible to support quotes in the bible to support his theory. Blessed would be the poor in spirit receive the earth Marx might argue that this quote is attempting to say it is not the rich and powerful who have are most fortunate although actually the poor, as they should go to bliss because of every one of the suffering they have endured.

He’d say that poor people are often given quotes such as this to make all of them content with their particular miserable lives and that religion makes a advantage of poverty and meekness and undesirable lives had been glamorised. I really do not believe Marx discussion mainly because his theory could have been applicable in those days but it is definitely not now, while people do not use faith just to include a muddiness or some thing to ease and comfort them when ever everything else is known as a mess.

To summarize I think that although there are numerous different theories for whether God exists or not really it is not actually possible to prove that Goodness exists and that if you have confidence in God you must not just believe he exists because of a lot of theory although because you really believe this individual exists and wish to believe in him. Although it is probably not possible to prove if God exists or certainly not (unless he came down to earth and advised everyone) one of the most convincing way would be to encounter a wonder. Miracles can be that Our god exists to some amount because most miracles would be simply too big being just a coincidence.

Even though there are numerous stories about miracles in the news in addition to religious catalogs such as the scriptures you cannot actually be sure right up until you experience one yourself. Wonders may not provide evidence that God since people know him is present (Omnipotent, Omnibonevelant and Omniscient etc) nevertheless they do provide evidence that there is an all powering/ supernatural being.