The Existence Of God Essay -- essays research papers

The Existence of God   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The existence of a God has for generations been the topic of fierce debate. This most usually occurring between members of the religious society and, everybody else. As a matter of fact the religious world itself has not always been able to agree on God. This has resulted in many a holy man to take up the fight for his deity through the realm of words. Many theories have been proposed, and all think that theirs proves beyond a doubt on whether or not God exists. To write this paper I read four of those theories by assorted men of the cloth, who all attempt to make the argument for a God in the Christian sense.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The first of the theories I looked at was that of St.Anslem of Canterbury. He supplies the ontological argument for the existence of God. The ontological argument states that by understanding the nature of God himself, we come to realize he exists. He explains this argument by first defining what God is. Anslem says that God is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived to exist, that it can not even be considered not to exist. In short, the fact that said being can not be considered not to exist, would thereby make it greater than any that could be considered not to exist. This would in all reality be the secret to God's omnipotence in Anlsem's eyes. Another point that he stresses is that just be understanding the concept of what a God is, you are proving his existence. This is because if you understand who God is, you can also accept his existence, and therefore cannot conceive that he does not exist. Therefore making him that which nothing greater can be conceived of, and which cannot be conceived not to exist which we have already defined as God.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The second argument for a God comes from St. Tomas Aquinas, who argues for the cosmological point of view. The cosmological argument states that all things in this universe have a cause, and since these causes cannot go on for ever there must be a first cause, i.e. God. He argues that there are five ways to argue for the existence of God, the first is the argument from motion. This states that everything in this world has certain potentials for motion. It also states that for these potentials to be met another object n motion must set off said potential. That object in turn would have ... ...ad and the point would be moot.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  So by looking at these paths Pascal decided to look at the risks of each wager. In the first you get infinite rewards from only one life of believing. Plus he felt that you also probably had a fulfilling and enjoyable life too. So the first, can be looked at as a win win situation in which you risked very little, and won much. The second and fourth possibilities did not really concern Pascal much because by thinking of it in terms of odds, neither seemed probable, and again wouldn't matter anyhow because you would no longer exist. The third possibility however, in which you could end up in hell, seemed to help persuade Pascal into believing in a God. He felt that for the amount you had to lose in this situation, no intelligent human would take the risk. So in conclusion, Pascal came to believe that believing in a God was a safe bet, in that it had the least risk with the highest returns.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  As for myself, after reading these papers I find myself tending to side with Pascal the most. I don't think that a little insurance could hurt, because until there is proof otherwise none of us really know.