If someone told you to put your belief in the existence of someone that you cannot physically see, hear, touch, or feel, would you? There are two groups of people in this world. One group believes in this upper power, called “God”, and the other group believes that there is none. The first group tend to believe in His existence because they think reason and faith alone are enough to be valid, and the second group tend to use their experiences and senses in order to believe their point of view is right. This is one of the most controversial topics in philosophy, because a lot of philosophers came up with numerous debates to prove the existence of “God”.
Thomas Aquinas explained that in order for the world to exist, there must have been something that started the motion in the first place and there must have been a first causer, who is “God”. In his arguments of Motion, Aquinas claims that there are moving objects in the natural world, and that any object in motion cannot be in motion unless it is moved by something else. For example, suppose there is a water bottle on the table. The water bottle cannot move unless I push it with my hand or turn the table which relates to the point Aquinas is trying to make. Aquinas uses this point to claim that in order for all of the motion in the world to exist, there must have been a creator outside of the natural world who started all of the motion in first place. His argument of causality, on the other hand, states that all events in the world have a certain cause and that it is impossible for any event to occur without a cause so there must have been a causer, in this case, “God”, in the first place who cause the world to exist. For example: The reason I failed the test is because I did not study. The event is that I failed, and the cause is that I did not study. So every event must have a cause behind it in the natural world and the event of the creation of this universe had a causer behind it since events cannot happen without a causer or a cause and in our case, this is a valid reason to believe in the existence of “God”.
Aquinas also has the argument of Contingency. Contingent things are ‘things' that depend on something in order to exist. Each ‘thing’ had or has a time that it would not exist in, so if everything is contingent, then there was a time where nothing existed. If there was a time where nothing existed, and it is true that everything is contingent, then there would be nothing in the world. So there must have been a non-contingent being who made it possible for the world to not be empty as it is now, and that being is “God”, who made it possible for all the contingent things to exist. Aquinas uses logic in all of his arguments and logic by itself. He backs up his beliefs in strong points that is hard to be argued against.
The fourth argument that Aquinas uses in order to prove that God exists is the Design Argument. This argument has a valid point since mindless objects such as cars, clothes, computers are all created by humans. Humans have a mind and desires, but objects such as cars do not have desires. Humans cannot create anything with desires and a free mind though. Humans have never created an animal, but they have created robots. Robots do not have desires though, and if they do, they are created with certain desires, but not free will or a free mind like humans have. So who created the humans and animals then? Who created mountains and seas and all of the other major objects that humans are not involved in creating? There must have been a creator, in this case, “God”, according to Aquinas.
Another philosopher who had a similar argument to that of Aquinas, William Paley. Paley created a hypothesis where he asks us to imagine if we are walking on the beach and we suddenly find a watch on the sand. Who made that watch? Certainly a watchmaker, he answers, since this complex object cannot be created at random. The watch tells time and has a purpose and works precisely so how could it exist randomly? Paley then goes on to compare the watch to the world we are living in right now. If a watch could not just exist randomly, then all of this universe could not have existed by random. This explains that it is plausible to believe that there is a designer of all life just like how there is a designer for the watch. Comparing the watch to the world might not feel right for some people, but the concept itself has a strong and believable point.
Another philosophers discovery of genes can be used to show that reason alone is enough for a “God” to be true. Gregor Mendel believed in the existence of genes through reason and theory without even having to see the actual gene or experience it. Though Mendel never saw genes in the way we see them today, his belief is proven correct because now we could see genes through microscopes. Mendel’s discovery is a prime example to how human could believe in something without having physically seeing, or experiencing firsthand.
Soren Kierkegaard taught that people should become Christians, but it required a “leap of faith”, moving beyond ethics. According to him, satisfaction comes from living in the presence of “God”. He said there were three ways a person may go, one being “the religious life”. Those who follow this life should be prepared to live in “God’s” presence, even if what God commands is absurd. Kierkegaard also said reason and science can tell you many things, but they cannot give something value or meaning. You have to do that yourself. It is up to a person to decide what the meaning of “life” is going to be. According to him, to find meaning, look to “God”. He argued that, that alone, could both offer us meaning.
All humans have the right to believe whatever they desire or they feel is right. A lot of philosophers and people might disagree with Aquinas and Mendel, but their arguments are well constructed and they use real life situations in order to make them sound even more believable. No human ever saw “God”, but that does not mean that “God” might not exist. Mendel discovered the gene without seeing it and this backs up the claim of how humans should not experience a proposition in order for it to exist. Solid arguments and hypothesis that can be connected to people’s surroundings, can be enough to prove the existence of a “God”, whether a person is Catholic, Christian, Jewish, or Muslim.