Scientifically and Philosophically Give Your Opinion: Is There a God?

Question

Provide Personal Opinions and Sources of other information to support your argument.

Answer 1

Since god is not an empirical object there can be no scientific evidence for god. There can, however, be philosophical arguments. I take it that talk about god is rational because there is a good philosophical argument for the existence of god. This particular argument is quite old and was discarded for some time because it was thought the the universe was "unchanging." I'll try to be as short as I can, but it is quite long, and for that I apologize. The argument rests on an important philosophical distinction: necessary and contingent. If you "get" that distinction you will be able to follow the argument. Something is contingent if it can be different that what it is. Something is necessary if it must be what it is. That may be confusing so I'll just let what I have written stand on its own. So, here goes:

The "Argument from Contingency" is the argument from the contingency of the world or universe to the existence of God. The argument from contingency is the most prominent form of cosmological argument historically. The classical statements of the cosmological argument in the works of Plato, of Aquinas, and of Leibniz are generally statements of the modal form of the argument.

The argument is consistent with the idea that the universe has an infinite past as well as the universe having a beginning in time.

The argument from contingency draws on the distinction between things that exist "necessarily" and things that exist "contingently."

Something is “necessary” if it could not possibly have failed to exist. The laws of mathematics are often thought to be necessary. It is plausible to say that mathematical truths such as two and two making four hold irrespective of the way that the world is. Even if the world were radically different, it seems, two and two would still make four. God, too, is often thought to be a necessary being, i.e. a being that logically could not have failed to exist.

Something is “contingent” if it is not necessary, i.e. if it could have failed to exist. Most things seem to exist contingently. All of the human artifacts around us might not have existed; for each one of them, whoever made it might have decided not to do so. Their existence, therefore, is contingent. You and I, too, might not have existed; our respective parents might never have met, or might have decided not to have children, or might have decided to have children at a different time. Our existence, therefore, is contingent. Even the world around us seems to be contingent; the universe might have developed in such a way that none of the observable stars and planets existed at all.

The argument from contingency rests on the claim that the universe, as a whole, is contingent. It is not only the case, the argument suggests, that each of the things around is us contingent; it is also the case that the whole, all of those things taken together, is contingent. It might have been the case that nothing existed at all. The state of affairs in which nothing existed at all is a logically possible state of affairs, even though it is not the actual state of affairs. For example, a pile of cheerios on a table isn't a "pile" filled with cheerios, but rather the pile is formed by the cheerios themselves. When the cheerios are gone, the "pile" is gone. So, because the cheerios are contingent --they can go away-- when they do go away the pile itself goes away, too. The contingency of the cheerios gives this same property to the "pile."

It is this that the argument from contingency takes to be significant. It is because it is thought that the universe exists contingently that its existence is thought to require explanation. If the universe might not have existed, then why does it exist? Proponents of the cosmological argument suggest that questions like this always have answers. The existence of things that are necessary does not require explanation; their non-existence is impossible. The existence of anything contingent, however, does require explanation. They might not have existed, and so there must be some reason that they do so.

Critics of the argument from contingency have sometimes questioned whether the universe is contingent, but it remains at least plausible to think that it is so. Some critics, for example, insist that there is no "universe as a whole"; that is just a linguistic artifact. Such critics would, for example, assert that there is no such thing as a shopping list: there is just a sequence of items on a piece of paper; but a "list" is purely conceptual, it is in our heads and has no independent existence. This tries to sidestep the notion that there is an "everything" which has to be explained. Yet, this seems to be equally problematic. While it is true that we cannot gather everything together in a single place and say, "Explain that." it certainly seem plausible to ask, "If all that exists could be different, then why does all that exists present itself to us in the way that it does?"

The only adequate explanation of the existence of the contingent universe, the argument from contingency suggests, is that there exists a necessary being on which its existence it rests. For the existence of the contingent universe must rest on something, and if it rested on some contingent being then that contingent being too would require some explanation of its existence. The ultimate explanation of the existence of all things, therefore, must be the existence of some necessary being. This necessary being is readily identified by proponents of the cosmological argument as God.

Answer 2

Perhaps the mysterious of quantum mechanics are caused by scientists sitting on the observational fence of the spiritual dimension. God is the sum of all spiritual energy - existing in the non-physical, it interacts with the non-physical because the patterns exerted by both dimensions overlap and interact with each other. Spiritual energy is the sum selfsustaining creative complex, which develops nodes which create new patterns to test creative principles. If those creative principles prove to be 'good' they are absorbed back into 'heavan'. If not they are destroyed for ever (hell). Religion is man's attempt to personify awareness of these forces, not that their is anything wrong with religion as a concept but we've been doing a bad job at keeping pace with changes. God doesnt need religion specifically and I cannot say to God's boundaries, but religion does assist God in being better and stronger. Religion should be about 'creation' and as animal's, humans should develop religious relationships which embrace creation of life, the Female being the highest physical incarnation of the smallest family unit - so thats a good place to start, worship Women as god's becuase they have a special connection to the greatest mystery.

Answer 3

I believe in God---belief does NOT require proof---that is the very definition of the word "belief". I guess that is my philosophical take on God---as for Science, perhaps the burden of proof lies with the Scientists to prove there isn't a God? Good question----Blessings!

Answer 4

Yes there is a God..my source is the bible and common sense miracles happen every day that cannot be explained by science..

Answer 5

Yes, there is a God. I have no need of supplying scientific or philosophical argument. Read on:


For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence. But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God--and righteousness and sanctification and redemption--that, as it is written, "He who glories, let him glory in the Lord."

Answer 6

Yes! Jesus proved it! Read the New Testament eyewitness historical accounts to verify Jesus' proof.

Answer 7

I am a witness of God so I know He exists.

Answer 8

This is not a question that can be answered with science.

Answer 9

read the bible. all the info u need is right their.

Answer 10

There is absolutely no reason to think there is one. So no.