The argument on whether God is existent or non-existent is one that has lasted for decades. Some philosophers and theologians have argued on both sides but a solid evidence for or against the existence of God have not been provided. However, several proofs for or against God's existence have been provided. The paper argues on the basis of the non-existence of God from a philosophical point of view. Theories such as the problem of evil, principle of nature, and the parsimony arguments demonstrate that God does not exist and religion is a just a mere belief created in human minds. Apparently, God is not omnipresent, omnibenevolent, omniscience, or omnipotent.The idea of God is almost global among societies of the human race, although it has different cultural definitions. The arguments in support of and those against God's existence have been proposed by several scientists, philosophers, and theologians. In accordance with Murray and Rea (2008) philosophically, the arguments for and against God's existence involve chiefly the ontology (nature of being) and epistemological (theory of knowledge) sub-disciplines as well as the theory of value because perfection concepts are often connected with notions of God (157). However, the debate on God's existence has raised quite a number of philosophical issues. The main problematic issue is the existence of both polytheistic and monotheistic perceptions.
Some definitions of the existence of God are so non-specific while others are self-contradictory. It is possible to draw the conclusion that all definitions given on God by humans are probably false characterizations of what God accounts for the being of humans on earth and the universe (Everitt 159). Moreover, one can also conclude that the whole idea of any God has no basis since it is not backed by any evidence. Thirdly, it may be suggested that the intellect of humans is probably not sufficient to analyze concepts that are absolutely based on human understanding and beliefs, such as God's existence as a creator. The key issue here is not whether God exists or not, but whether there is sufficient evidence to support his existence or non-existence (Murray and Rea 157). The religious beliefs of God's existence are probably out of human emotional need for protection and belonging since there is no reliable evidence to support these arguments. God does not exist.Books by famous philosophers who have written on the non-existence of God will be used to gather sufficient information on the topic. The Bible will also be used to demonstrate the contradictory nature of God.According to Oppy and Scott (2010), "God is unlimited goodness and therefore if God truly exists then there is no evil" (82). However, considering that there is evil in the world, God doesn't exist. This reasoning makes a lot of sense because how could it be possible that God, an infinite goodness be created and as such protects a world full of corruption and imperfections. If God really existed then horrible and terrible things wouldn't occur in the world as they do today. For instance, there would be no starvation like there is in third world countries where thousands of grown ups and innocent children die of hunger every year. In addition, things like destructive wars which result to a lot of human anguish and suffering would not exist. In this context, the Holy Bible which is believed to be God's absolute word condemns theft, murder, and adultery.
-
0
Preparing Orders
-
0
Active Writers
-
0%
Positive Feedback
-
0
Support Agents
In line with Khashaba (2006, it is quite difficult to believe that an all-knowing and powerful being that is infinitely-good created the entire world but is not capable of controlling the things that take place in it. Instead of just condemning them in an ancient book he could probably have abolished all forms of evil (119). Moreover, the same Bible says that God is a "heavenly father". If that was the case, then he would have let his children to be good and free from like him hence wiping-out all evil from the face of the earth.According to Murray and Rea (2008), the non-existence of God may be proven by the principle of nature which is measurable, simple, and visible instead of believing in a complex being that can not be measured, perceived or conceived. As a matter of fact, scientific theories have provided explanations for nature's existence and hence nature could be used to account for mankind's gradual development. This development has been explained by development of an organism that is single cell to one that is multi-cellular. On the other hand, evolution has explained the intelligence of the current man while the "The Big Bang" theory has explained the creation of planet earth (Murray and Rea 158).In contrast, those in support of the existence of God argue on the basis of the causation theory. The argument states that one thing causes another and thus there will be no effect if the first cause did not exist. However, the existence of this first cause can not be proven or even determined under any circumstances. For instance, "The Big Bang" theory existed and that is why it is possible to base earth's creation on it. Nevertheless, something else that caused the existence of this theory must have existed initially.In line with Johnson (2006), Philosophical theology writers such as St. Anselm argue that if a person understands that a greater being exists though not able to explain its existence, then it exists in reality (50). Thus, if someone understands that God exists, then he must exist in reality. This argument is absolutely futile if there is no sufficient evidence to support it. The fact that someone understands the existence of God and entirely understands God does not imply that God actually exists. For instance, if one understands in their minds and entirely that ghosts exist, however this is not a guarantee that indeed ghosts exist. It's just like in movies where people entirely understand a character that they are supposed to represent and even practically portray that character. Definitely this does not make the movie character a reality (Oppy and Scott 102).It's often claimed that the biblical God is omnipresent (everywhere at all times, omnipotent (all-powerful), omnibenevolent (unlimitedly good), and omniscient (familiar with everything). From a logical point of view, these concepts are entirely impossible implying that God doesn't exist. The Bible says that nothing is impossible with God yet there are several instances in the same Bible where he was unable to do something. In relation to Murray and Rea (2008) "The book of Judges 1:19says that God was with Judah; he drove out the mountain inhabitants; but could not send away the valley inhabitants, because they had iron chariots" (158).If God was so compassionate then he would release people from the bondages of sin and destroy the devil who leads his people astray.
At the same time, God would relieve humanity of the original sin penalty if he was omnipotent. Basically, if God was powerful and able yet he chooses to let human being suffer from sin, then it's not logical to argue that he is omnibenevolent. In line with Everitt (2004), God should have erased the original sin and allowed men to be judged based on their own actions instead of paying for other people's sins (154). On the same note, Christians say that God is omnipresent meaning that he is everywhere at the same time.If God was omnipresent then he would not have to walk like he says in the Bible that he shall walk with his people. There would be no need for him to relocate from one place to another in order to be with one of his since he already exist there. Similarly, God should never change his mind if at all he is omniscience because a change in mind demonstrates uncertainty. In relation to Oppy and Scott (2010) there are so many instances in the Bible where God changed his mind. For example, in the Exodus story where the children of Israel worshiped idols and God decided on destroying them, he later forgave them after Moses pleaded for forgiveness. This concept brings a lot of doubt on whether God really intended on destroying the Israelites or he was unable to do so yet he knew this would come to be (110). If God was in deed omnipresent and onmibenevolent he would prevent the occurrence of sin and destructive events.Conclusion/RecommendationsThere has been a significant attack on the conception of God as religion comes under a more intense scrutiny. Several theories and concepts have shown that God indeed doesn't exist. From an objective perception of the Bible, it is easy to see that God is not omnipresent, omniscience, omni benevolent, or omnipotent as claimed by the Bible. It is evident that the biblical God is contradictory and it is not possible that he exists. Moreover, there is no adequate evidence that the bible is not just an ordinary book. Principles such as "The Big Bang" can be used to explain the existence of nature hence can replace the belief that God exists. Theories of nature sufficiently explain the human beliefs in God and the development of religion. The issue of the existence of sin greatly challenges the existence of a God who is omnibenevolent and omnipotent. It is either that God exists and sin doesn't, or God doesn't exist but sin does. The existence of both is contradictory and it is not possible. Further research and study may be necessary in understanding the existence or non-existence of God. Basically, there exists adequate evidence that there is no God though a concrete prove has not been discovered yet.