Is It Possible to Prove the Existance of God Essay

Is it mathematical to point the subsistence of divinity fudge? Throughout snip many philosophers cast been searching for an answer to creation and whether it is effectively possible to prove (or non prove) if matinee idol make its. Some of the philosophers include Thomas Aquinas, William Paley and Blaise public address system they came up with various different theories and public debates to prove the universe of God and wherefore they taked he did exist. A nonher philosopher Karl Marx thought that his conjecture could convince people non to confide in God.One philosopher, Thomas Aquinas believed that God did exist and that he could prove this simply by arguing that the Universe could non brace been make by cypher at all, placeing that it was impractical for something to come from nonhing. He believed that the creative activity was ca employ to exist by something which itself is unca subroutined, or else at that place would be an quad regress. He thought th at the only way to relieve the start of the universe in a rational way was to take that it was created by God.I regain that Aquinas may be right, exactly I doubt that he is right as he is reflexion that God was created by nonhing alone I feel that something mustiness have created God and therefore there must have been an infinite regress. There is also no solid evidence or demonstration that God does exist and since there isnt I think that non even Aquinas is 100% sure that God exists. Also, Aquinas possibility seems rather contradictory as he says that the Universe must be caused by something and cannot upright simply be made by nothing but that God is an uncaused causer. some other Philosopher, William Paley, like Aquinas was convert that God does exist and that he could prove it. Paley invented the thought experiment to gain people to checker with him that God exists. He called his argument that Teleological argument (coming from the Greek word telas meaning purpose ). Story Imagine you ar manner of walking across open countryside with some friends. Then you suddenly come across something lying on the grass. You argon so impressed with the workmanship that you are your friend. Who do you think made this experience? The friend saysNobody made this determine it was always there Paley said that the universe, like a suck is too modify and intelligently designed to have no creator. Paley used the Analogy of the watch to argue the existence of God. Paley argues that if a simple watch has a creator because the universe, which is so much more complicated and in some ways more beautiful than a watch must have a creator and that creator must be God.I think that Paleys theory does seem reasonable but I do not fully agree with it completely. I think that the world must have a creator but not necessarily God anything could have been the creator and that the creator might not be Omnipotent, Omnibonevelant and Omniscient the creator could have simply just created the universe and then just left it or done nothing else to it. Another philosopher who also likes Aquinas and Paley believed in God and thought that he could use his theory to encourage others to do so was Blaise Pascal.However, Pascals theory was very different to Aquinas and Paleys. Pascal believed that Gods existence can neither be approved nor disapproved and whatever you decide to the highest degree this problem go away be uncertain and that your answer can be nothing more than a gamble. Pascal said that you cannot avoid reservation a gamble on Gods existence and you have to place your bet whether you like it or not. Pascal soon came to the remnant that it would be better to believe that God existed than not to as you depart not lose anything by doing so.He thought that if you believed that God existed and then after your death he truly did you would have a larger gain by going to heaven. If, however God didnt exist and you believed that you did you would n ot lose anything apart from some of your time praying and going to spectral places etc. Pascal also thought that if you did not believe in God and came to know after your death that he did you would be approximately likely to go to hell therefore have a turgid loss. He called his theory Pascals wager.I strongly disaccord with Pascals theory mainly because he only believed in God for selfish reasons and wanted people to believe in God only because of the happiness they would get in heaven which is not the actual idea. Also I think that God does not decide to aim people in heaven and hell based on whether they believe or not but by the good deeds they have done in their life, so people who believe in God just for reasons like Pascals probably would not go to heaven anyway. I think that Pascal seems rather greedy to believe in God just to go to heaven after his death.The blend philosopher Im going to talk about is Karl Marx. Marx thought that that theology is a tool of oppressio n meaning that Religion is something that you do not in truth need but use to distract yourself from other things and something that somebody just gets pleasure and happiness from. So he thought that everyone should just reject religion and this would make people aware of their own unbent situation and this may give them a chance to improve the conditions in which they live.Marx used quotes from the bible to back up quotes from the bible to back up his theory. Blessed are the poor in spirit inherit the nation Marx would argue that this quote is trying to say that it is not the rich and mighty who are virtually fortunate but actually the poor, as they will go to heaven because of all the suffering they have endured. He would say that the poor are often given quotes like this to make them essence with their own miserable lives and that religion makes a virtue of poverty and entry and unacceptable lives have been glamorised.Therefore I do not agree with Marx argument mainly becau se his theory may have been applicable at that time but it is not now, as people do not use religion just to have a distraction or something to comfort them when everything else is a mess. To conclude I think that although there are many different theories for whether God exists or not it is not actually possible to prove that God exists and that if you believe in God you should not just believe that he exists because of some theory but because you actually believe he exists and want to believe in him.Although it is probably not possible to prove whether God exists or not (unless he came tear to earth and told everyone) the most convincing way would be to experience a miracle. Miracles can prove that God exists to a certain amount because most miracles would be far too big to be just a coincidence. Even though there are many stories about miracles in the news and in religious books such as the bible you cannot actually be sure until you experience one yourself. Miracles may not pro ve that God as people know him exists (Omnipotent, Omnibonevelant and Omniscient etc) but they do prove that there is an all powering/ supernatural being.