The debate on the existence or not of God has lasted thousands of years. Philosophers on both sides of the debate have been making arguments for and against for some time, but neither side has reached a conclusion. With this confusing question on our hands, I think discussing the strengths and weaknesses of both sides of the argument might provide insight into your own personal conclusion. Whether you believe in gods or not, you can still learn more about the world around you and the many beliefs held there. Without further ado, let us venture into the existence of God. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original Essay Before you ask the question “Does God exist?” ", we must first define the word "God". Unfortunately, my God, it's not just an old man with a long beard hanging in the sky. God, according to the Roman Catholic definition, “is the creator and ruler of the universe and the source of all moral authority; the supreme being.” He is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. In simpler terms, he is able to see, be everywhere and love everyone. Now, with the long list of philosophers over the past few centuries providing evidence for the existence of God, choosing a strong argument can become quite a challenge. There have been several great philosophers who have done this, such as Gottfried Leibniz and Blaise Pascal, but in this multitude of philosophers and arguments, there is one philosopher and his argument that stands out: the cosmological argument of Aristotle. As one of the most popular and accepted ways of proving God, many say it is the strongest case available. The cosmological argument holds that everything that exists must have come from some other cause or thing. You are a perfect example. You are the cause of your parents' birth, your parents are the cause of their parents' birth, and your parents' parents are the cause of their parents' birth and so on. So, with the idea that everything has a cause, a big question arises. What caused the beginning of life on earth? Aristotle's cosmological argument holds that God was the first cause, the cause that started all causes! With this idea of ​​causes chained to other causes, Aristotle created the idea of ​​the existence of a chain of causality. But getting a sense of cause and effect creating a chain raises another question. How far does this chain go back? Well, with Aristotle's thinking, he believed that the chain had to stop at some point. He believed that to have this chain of causality, "there must be a cause which is not itself caused: an ultimate or original cause, a cause which in one way or another gives existence to all other things.” This “ultimate” or “original” cause ended up being God, because he is not caused by anyone or anything else and is what Aristotle calls self-caused. Although many modern philosophers agree with this, others disagree. David Hume and Immanuel Kant are two philosophers who have criticized this idea that there is a chain of causality. David Hume believed that since we have no experience of creating universes, it is not possible to argue the causes of the universe with the cause of the universe. Even with his disagreements, Hume never completely disagreed with the cosmological argument. However, the same cannot be said of Kant. He completely dismissed any idea of ​​such a phenomenon. Not only did he disagree with the idea that there is a "necessary Being" ora "God", but he also believed that since our knowledge is only acting and limited to this space and time, it is unfathomable to think of anything outside of our space. and time. Even with these disagreements, the cosmological argument still remains one of the best proofs of the existence of God for many philosophers. We think this is the case because it is simply the strongest argument. It is wrong to say that it is 100% correct, but it is also wrong to say that it is 100% incorrect, because that would only realize the fallacy of appealing to ignorance. Since the whole world is filled with many different beliefs and atheisms, there is no doubt that several philosophers have created proofs for the existence of God. One of, if not the strongest, arguments against the existence of God is the problem of evil. The problem of evil is one that has plagued humanity since our creation. You can see this by looking at our history and the amount of suffering, murder, and abusive power that has occurred in our past. When we look back on evil acts, we think of Hitler and the Auschwitz camps or the many wars that caused bloodshed. Now, with all this evil in our world, an argument against God arises. If there were a perfect, all-loving, all-seeing, all-knowing creature like God, why would evil be forever tormented in humanity. With this idea in mind, several philosophers have used it to disprove the existence of God. They say that if evil exists, then a supremely perfect being (God) could not exist. A closely related argument states that a supremely perfect being and existing evil create a logical contradiction. This is said because a supremely perfect being would never allow evil to exist while it itself exists. Even with this strong evidence against God, some philosophers disagree with this idea. Some philosophers disagree with this idea, arguing that God is not the creator of evil. They say this gives humans the ability to have free will and choose their own morals, which creates the problem of evil. Meanwhile, philosophers such as Bishop George Berkeley disagreed with this problem of evil saying that "the very imperfections and defects of nature are not useless, in the sense that they create a kind of variety pleasant and increase the beauty of the rest of creation. , as the nuances of an image serve to highlight the brightest and most illuminated parts. In simpler terms, he says that without pain and “small-term evils” nothing is good and there is a loss of balance in the idea of ​​nature. With this almost strong argument for disapproving the existence of God, it still falls into the same category of the cosmological argument discussed previously. This still does not provide a clear conclusion and to say that one or the other is indefinitely correct would be wrong and appeal to ignorance. As there is still no conclusion in sight, the next idea of ​​God's existence could be the one to follow. Now, after reviewing the proof and disproof of God's existence, it becomes apparent that there is no safe conclusion available. Both sides of the argument have their own strengths and weaknesses, but in reality, neither provides a solid conclusion. With this lack of conclusion, this third idea of ​​the existence of God comes into play. Agnostic theism. Being an agnostic means that you believe that there is not enough evidence to prove or disprove the existence of God. This means that you believe in some sort of higher being or deity, but any actual knowledge or attributes regarding.