Scholars set the question, “why bad things occur if God was thethere?” Several arguments discuss the existence and the rationalityof God’s existence. The best-known cases are cosmological,ontological, teleological and moral arguments. This paper provides asummary of the discussion from each argument.
The Cosmological Argument
This argument indicates that something far beyond itself caused theexistence of the universe. Thomas Aquinas played a critical role indemonstrating that the finite existence of things could be impossiblewithout a driving agent God himself. Thomas developed this argumentunder what he referred to as Contingency. His argument involves“five ways.”
If we attribute something to redness, it could mean that all otherthings are red. However, if this was so, we could not have noticedthe “redness” reason being characteristics of something is basedon what we observe. This idea differs with the metaphysical principlethat for any quality, it must bear a real opposite (Spitzer, 2010).
Naturally, we find that some things could be generated, transformed,turned corrupt, and some possible to be and impossible to exist.Taking the perception that everything is likely not to exist, andthen we could be having a vacant universe at some point down theroad. Assuming that this is true, then we would have nothing sincethe development of everything hinges to existing of another(Aristotle & Makin, 2006). But for anything to be contingent,there must be something non-contingent grounded in beliefs that itsexistence was not compounded by anything else, it prompted thecontingent things to exists, and will not stop to exist. This beingis God. The primary opposition to this reasoning is that ifeverything needed a cause, so would God. However, Geisler indicatedthat for the universe to exist, God must be the originator andsustainer.
The Teleological Argument
This argument applies the concept of a design, from simple to complexthat emerged from a master designer. According to Thomas Aquinas, theuniqueness of the universe is attributed to an intelligent being whopositioned everything in order and skillfully. William presented twoarguments. He pondered that if he finds a stone in the field, itcould be as a result of natural phenomena to remain at the position.To create a rationale on this, he developed the concept of finding awatch in the field. Based on its design, he argued that it was anessential tool to certain being but not a mere occurrence. This ideais translated to mean that there must be a grand designer of theuniverse. Parley developed a different perception to conquer withwhat had been laid by other philosophers (Spitzer, 2010). Hesuggested that human beings are indications of artifacts. Theconvolution in the design of the universe and its components musthave been achieved through a designer more intelligent than a humanbeing. However, some evolutionist criticizes this argument pointingthat natural selection bears the potential of positioning thingswhere they exist.
The Moral Argument
This argument emerged from Immanuel Kant. It depends on the humanreorganization of morality. Concerning the equivocation of “good”and “bad”, philosophers suggests that God cannot be in existencewithout Evil. In addition, it is argued that if there were no evil,there could not be good. This argument tries to nullify theomnipotent nature of the God, stating that there is an absolute limitin which God controls. Going by this argument, therefore, good cannotexist if there was no evil. However, some theists indicate theomnipotent nature of God by highlighting the capability imposed toour logics. Logics itself in a wonder, meaning God has the powers todo what seems impossible to the world.
This philosophy indicates that there is a moral law that governs thestandards of right, hence must have an absolute giver. Kant showedthat all human beings cannot attain full happiness in life despitethe effort they put forward. God could only provide these effects.This argument faced objections where some philosophers indicated themoral impulses were evolutionally, and that is why not all humans canenjoy life fully. Alternatively, the imperfection of human beingsdenies them the happiness (Aristotle & Makin, 2006).
The Ontological Argument
It is a priori argument since it developed during the independenteras of experience. This concept indicates that there is nothinggreater than God. If we say that a term must have a real opposite,therefore, it would be incoherent with the ontological principle.Hence, the argument that good cannot exist without evil cannot belinked when describing the existence of God. The ontologicalrequirements would mean that God created everything good but a smalldose of evil occurs as a free counterpart to evil. If non-rednesswould occur by a minute speck of red, then a correspondingrequirement would emerge to counteract well with a small dose ofevil.
Evil cannot be attributed to God but rather a free will of man. It isbecause God has endowed human being with the free will to do whatheart desires. The first order evil (such as evil) is justified bythe necessity component of the second-order good (sympathy). Thirdorder good (freedom) is deterministically a complement to the secondorder evil (cruelty). Therefore, there is no way God can be heldresponsible for these outcomes. It was not within God’s choice tocreate human beings who would dwell on good without making fallouts(Aristotle & Makin, 2006). God gave man the freedom to act in hismind. Therefore, God escapes being associated with the human wailsand painful circumstances.
In fact, his existence is more valid than that of the mind otherwiseGod would not exist. This argument actuates the necessity of theexistence of a natural part of perfection. Unlike other arguments,Ontological argument has it that God’s existence is a reality.Anselm indicated that God is a necessary being, whose existence islogical (Dawkins, 2006). Similarly, this idea obtained objection fromthe likes of Emmanuel Kant, who hypothesized that unconditionaljudgment does not lead to the complete necessity of a thing. Finally,Geisler summarized this argument by suggesting that if God exists, hecannot stop from existing.
The arguments advanced in this paper reveal that nothing could reallyhave existed out of free will. All things in the universe arebelieved to have come into existence under the influence of somedriving force. This force is associated with a supreme being who isreferred to as God. According to the cosmological argument, thisSupreme Being rules all other beings in the universe. God isportrayed as a necessary being whose existence is logical. Thisphilosophy concurs with the teleological argument which postulatesthat there must have been a master designer behind the existence ofall things in the universe. This master designer is what came to bereferred to as God.
However, it is worth noting that there is an absolute limit to thelevel of God’s control above other things. The moral argumentnullifies God’s omnipotence. A claim is made that people werecreated in different ways and that is why some people cannot enjoylife fully as they may desire. Logically, good could not have existedwithout evil. Hence the existence of God is only associated with goodtidings in life. Evil is perceived as a counteractive measure by someevil forces impacting negatively on God’s creations.
Aristotle, ., & Makin, S. (2006). Metaphysics: Book [theta].Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Dawkins, R. (2006). The God delusion. Boston: Houghton MifflinCo.
Spitzer, R. J. (2010). New proofs for the existence of God:Contributions of contemporary
physics and philosophy. GrandRapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans Pub.