Does God Exist?

Don't worry... well, that much. It is not a long rambling debate on whether God exists. I am going to type out an essay I wrote when I was 17 and having to jump through the hoops of a course I had to do in the sixth form at my Catholic grammar school. I was just battling with my mam about me becoming more atheist and cynical at the time. Most kids at school did not even bother to finish off the course and write this essay. i was a geek and did. But I think it had more to do with teenage angst. I am still waiting for my certificate from the Archbishop for completing the course...

The arrogance combined with an acknowledgement of having to jump through the correct hoops to pass amused me on digging it out the other day when I was rummaging through my old school work and deciding what to throw out and what to keep.

"Through time human beings have existed, we have been 'obsessed' almost with the question of the existence of God. it is necessary, some argue, that God exists and there is in fact a great design for our lives. In this essay, I intend to answer the unanwswerable question: 'Does God Exist?'

"The ontological argument is a much debated argument for the existence of God. Ontologism is a theory that we have some natural and immediate intuition of God's existence. However, the main flaw of this argument is that we cannot prove the existence of God enough to satisfy the speculative reason. The classical argument was created by St. Anselm of Canterbury, who defined God as 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived'. The idea that one needs a definition of God if only to dismiss God's existence. It is now easy to come to the conclusion that God exists in the mind and because of Anselm's idea of 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived', he has to exist in reality because he is 'greater' than us and he need something in which to compare to. However, with the argument concerning reality, it brings up a whole new philosophical question: What is reality? (If you believe the film the Matrix: "What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can hear, what you can smell, taste and feel then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.")

"In addition, the idea of God's existence is necessary to give reason to why we are here. However, Bertrand Russell said that Anselm used the word 'exist' incorrectly. He says that existence cannot predicate and does not exist. So in conclusion to the ontological argument, it seems somewhat unstable and therefore unsuccessful, as definitions are limited and it is difficult to establish a definition for God, especially seeing as we are not altogether sure that He/She exists, let alone what He/She is.

"The idea of 'MOTION', i.e. the passing of power to act as it takes place, implies a first unmoved Mover, who is God, otherwise we should postulate an infinite series of movers, which is absurd. For the same causes, we see them operating in this world imply the existence of a First Cause that is uncaused i.e. that possesses in itself the sufficient reason for its existenceand this is God. Also the fact that contigent beings exist (beings whose non-existence is recognised as possible) implies that the existence of a necessary being... or God. Also the chance of us just appearing with no cause is extremely unlikely (1/1x10133).

"Humans have a concept of 'perfection', so we will need something to compare it to- an absolute standard that is also actual and infinitely perfect, which we associate with God. there is also evidence of intelligent design, which the Universe and our world shows. it implies the existence of a supreme designer- God. The ethical argument is an idea of an internal witness of conscience to the supremacy of the moral law and therefore to the existence of a supreme lawgiver. The aesthetical argument also proves the existence and perception of beauty. This beauty has to come from somewhere and we must have some comparison as we polarise such things as beauty and ugliness.

"The cosmological argument assumes the validity of the principle of sufficient reason amounts to: that it is impossible according to the laws of human thoughtto give any rational explanation of the phenomena of outside experience and of internal conscience. Whatever exists or happens must have a reason for its existence or occurance. If it is used by a scientist and is valid to explain a phenomenom of physics, it has to be equally valid when used for the explanation of the Universe as a whole. Also the theory that certain things are effects and depend on another cause, and these causes can depend on another cause. One must also realise that our species had its origins late in the history of the universe, and from commonly accepted theories, the actual organisation of the universe has a definite beginning. If time had a definite beginning, then we had a beginning, then how did time and we originate? This happening by chance again is 1/1x10133, so extrememly unlikely then!!

"The telelogical argumentis absed on the existence of design in the universe and proves the existence of a supermundane mind of great intelligence and therefore the existence of God. The idea that we exist because of blind chance is absurd. The argument, however, is not weakened by our inability to explain somethings because we have limited knowledge of the entire design.

"The existence of evil could weaken all arguments promoted for the existence of God. Some believe that god balances evil and vice versa. God is all knowing and all powerful and benevolent, but does that make evil the opposite- not all knowing or powerful? It all seems a little hazy and seems like there is no definite answer. Why would God let evil and suffering exist if He/She is all benevolent? However, one could believe that we need to know evil and suffering to know good and happiness, and appreciate it.

"To conclude, there have been many arguments put forward for the existence of God, but there are flaws in everyone of them. I think in the end it is all to do with faith, if you believe or not. I suppose for the majority, we shall have to wait until death, either to tell us the 'truth' or confirm already stated beliefs."

What a cop out conclusion!! haha... jokes....