Does God Exist? Is there evidence for the existence of God?

The essay I chose to conclude my print sources was "Does God Exist?" on the gotquestions.org website. The main principle it brings to the table is: one cannot prove or disprove the existence of God; it is an act of absolute and complete faith. To validate this claim it states, “If God so desired, He could simply appear and prove to the whole world that he exits. But if He did that there would be no need for faith” (1). The essay, then, iterates the fact that this conclusion does not infer, totally, that there is no proof of God. An exegesis of what it states is that God can be proven just by looking at our environment, the wonders and magnificence of the skies, Earth, and water. The beauty and design of our planet is too sophisticated to have happened by random chance. It uses the contention that throughout human history, various cultures and civilizations have believed in at least some form of divine quintessence. This then deduces that someone or something must have consummated this feeling inside our souls. It is an endless void that must be filled with God’s presence to satisfy its unrelenting hunger. The article then goes to further its point by other arguments already acknowledged in previous writings. It’s very circulatory evidence that is ambiguous and relatively confusing in basis. In layman’s terms, the evidence is heavily repeated by all pro-Christian sources, and has no sound, raw data to support its conclusion.
As I’ve stated the evidence is circulatory, and undergoes a cycle of echoing undertones. I do agree with the underlying basis of the essay, though. There is not much evidence supporting either side, and it is by faith whether or not someone believes in God. Faith, I know, is not the most optimum foundation for a belief system, but it is a heart-felt tenet that needs just consideration. Stating this fact, faith needs just as much attention as any other evidence in my hypothesis. It should not be overlooked as a false assumption or a blind surmise. It is, indeed, one of the essential essences central to the human. I do also believe that there is a “void” or gap in our souls that cannot be filled with secular, materialistic commodities. No amount of wealth, power, or sensual delights can satisfy this all-consuming anomaly.
"Does God Exist? Is there evidence for the existence of God?." gotquestions.org. Got Questions Ministries, 2002-2010. Web. 21 Apr 2010. .

The Immoral Teachings of Christianity

The video I used for my multimedia response is a YouTube clip about a conference in Las Vegas. This conference was held July 10-12 and was a Free-thinkers gathering to share and discuss theology and other aspects of religious dogmas. The speaker was none other than the eloquent Christopher Hitchens. The segment was about the immoral teachings that Christianity imposes on its believers. Hitchens quoted C.S. Lewis to iterate his opinion that the disciples who followed Jesus would have to be sick, demented, or complete lunatics. He believes all of the teachings of Jesus were ridiculous, immoral, and absurd fabrications created by a mad man. Hitchens believes that the very foundation of Christianity is unquestionably immoral. He believes the very idea of a man taking the sins of all others is depriving us of our responsibility. One’s problems and sins should be pushed towards them; their problems should be overcome by them and only them. Hitchens says that believing in Jesus is an escape from our dilemmas, and is immoral and unethical. Hitchens believes that these teachings and beliefs are damaging physically and morally to humans. Hitchens asserted that, “The teachings of Christianity are immoral teachings that have done and continue to inflict untold moral and physical harm on our species.” He then goes on to say once we have eliminated these hysterical beliefs; we will finally be emancipated and free.
Before I make a proper response, I want to make a note that, to me, not all teachings of Christianity are harmful and many have promoted prosperity and generosity throughout the world. Hitchens is looking from a psychological perspective of how clinging to something, especially religion, could create harmful effects mentally on a person. This is very true. No one should provincially follow a dogma without first taking in all the evidence. Clinging to a religion and not taking responsibility for one’s actions is an unhealthy practice. Peering through a psychological point of view, I could absolutely see his thought process. Otherwise, the teachings of Christianity have the same morals as any other religion, such as Buddhism, of helping others and being kind to one another. I do not think you should single out religions for moral practices, when others articulate similar doctrines. But, of course, Hitchens would say that all religions are immoral and should be eradicated. I do believe, though, that religion is a guideline to becoming a better person, and that it does teach meaningful principles, even though it does promote conformity. Looking past the discrepancies, Hitchens and I do have a similar stance on some of the instances he mentioned.
"The Immoral Teachings of Christianity." YouTube. Web. 15 Apr 2010. .

Arguments for Atheism

The essay I chose was Arguments for Atheism on the Philosophy of Religion website. This source’s primary goal is to provide sufficient answers and reasoning supporting the belief in no god. Atheists and anti-theists use the presumption of atheism as a principle in their philosophy. This attaches the burden of proof on the theist and if the theist is unable to make a persuasive argument for the existence of God, then this confirms the atheist’s doctrine. The next point atheists assert is the problem of evil. It basically states that if God is omniscient, omnipotent, and forgiving why is the world in suffering, chaos, and disarray? If God is omniscient, he would know how to bring an end to all the suffering. If God is omnipotent, then he is able to bring the world out of its misery. If God is forgiving and munificent, then he would wish to save and protect his creations. The simplest conclusion, many atheists say, is that He does not do these things, because He does not exist. The problems with God’s omnipotence and omniscience, is that these are logically incoherent and cannot possibly be true because of the lack of evidence. Atheists also believe that there are flaws within the belief of divine justice. Many say that it dissents with God being all-forgiving. The Christian view of heaven and hell also seem to conflict with God’s justice. Hell is an eternal punishment for a mortal sin, and many don’t think that any sin or mistake is costly enough to be equivalent to infinite condemnation. Criticism has also been raised against the idea of immortality. Many believe that death is the final conclusion, death is the destruction of a person, and if a person is not destroyed by death then the person did not die. Also, arguments concerning prayer seem to be in contradiction with theism. If God is all-powerful and all-knowing, then prayer and worship are meaningless to this entity, and should never work to change his mind on one’s life and decisions. Atheists use psychology as a way to “explain away religious beliefs” (1). Two philosophers and critics of religion have used this process of thought: Ludwig Feuerbach and Sigmund Freud.
This paper was excellently written. It contains many intriguing philosophical arguments justifying atheism. It is definitely subject to enormous consideration and contemplation. The problem of evil was indeed a “mind-probing” argument and will definitely saturate in my thoughts on making my final decision. Many of the points were plausible and not just ridiculous, bogus thoughts, but coherent and logical conceptions.
"Arguments for Atheism." Philosophy of Religion. Technokinetics, 2008. Web. 15 Apr 2010. .

The Joy Behar Show- Hitchens vs. Wilson

The video I used for my multimedia source is a YouTube video of the Joy Behar Show with two distinguished individuals proving their arguments for the existence and non-existence of God. One is an evangelical and author named Pastor Douglas Wilson. The other is an atheist or “antitheist” analyst named Christopher Hitchens. Both were to provide evidence to support their case for the truth of God’s existence. Mrs. Behar did this segment because of the growing unrest in American life about religion and how many are turning from traditional practices in faith to atheists. Pastor Douglas Wilson tried to use what he called a “burden of proof” to support God’s reality. He was very unclear in the meaning of this and contradicted himself by saying non believers deny the self evident fact they are the burden of proof but it is only self evident to believers. So it is only self evident to believers how can non believers have the burden of proof if it is not self evident to themselves. This was just a side note I wanted to add to portray the nebulousness of this argument and how, to me, it was not very coherent. Hitchens on the other hand believed also that Wilson’s argument was not very relevant and that it was very circulatory. Hitchens believes that the great claims by the bible should be backed up by great evidence. He says that atheists do not have proof that there is no God, but there is no concrete evidence to back up that there is such an entity. Also he says that atheists do not believe in the supernatural dimension only a natural one and that there is only this one and it is the best we have been received. Pastor Wilson then says that animals could talk to Noah on his ark, because we are animals, primates, and we can talk. Hitchens retorted saying that the Presbyterians first did not believe that humans were primates, but now they do believe we are animals and came from primates. Hitchens uses the arguments that the virginal birth, resurrection, and miracles were all like other ancient mythologies and should be considered one of those fairy tales from long ago. Hitchens also believes that even a man named Jesus did exist, his doctrines, moral and ethical, were not true. Mrs. Behar then asks Pastor Wilson if he believes that God is watching him at this very moment, his answer was quite certainly, yes. The idea was, Mrs. Behar used, was that this idea of God watching you is almost viewed by Christians as a self-absorption or self-flattering ideal. Pastor Wilson then used it in a different perspective that it humbles you. Hitchens then said that it humbled you too much so that you were a servant to the Almighty Creator. After the commercial break, the debate picks up a new topic of the relevancy and need for the Ten Commandments. Whether or not humans already know this code, or that we need a divine being to council us on our decisions. Pastor Wilson believes that it is not self-evident not to kill someone or to commit adultery by human standards and that we do need divine intervention. He also states that “if someone waved a magic wand and all sin disappeared our economy would collapse.” Hitchens sidetracks and uses his argument that way before the Ten Commandments were made; Confucius gave us the golden rule: do unto others as you would want to be done unto you. He then says that the first four were made for to obey the “divine dictator.” The next two were self-evident and the others were a Bronze Age and fearful age code that should not be upheld any more.
I believe the way to respond to this source is too break down each of the three debaters’, even Mrs. Behar, cases and debates and the facts and how they presented them. I’ll start with Pastor Wilson. He is not an eloquent speaker and his words are unclear and ambiguous. It is hard to comprehend what his babble is about because of the irrelevancy of it. He did not argue his side properly to make a good judgment, and I believe that he did not have any true facts or data at all. There may have been some good points in his debate, but really I didn’t pay much attention to what he said. Let’s go on to Mr. Hitchens. He is definitely a better and more vivid speaker. He presents a better argument, and is a very articulate debater. Really his facts weren’t that impressive, just how he presented the information was. It was all in his tone, it had confidence, intelligence, expressiveness, and it had every component of a sound argument. He presented his opinion, clearly and coherently, supporting his thesis with philosophical logic. Now let’s move on to Mrs. Behar. She was extremely amusing. It was almost as if she had no place in the argument, yet she interjected often trying to be of some use. She was completely biased with Hitchens, most likely to appease her viewing audience. Her questions were very transparent and understood already to her audience. I didn’t like how she would not let the two openly debate the issue, but try to prove their thesis’s in a cemented block of time. It was a pathetic attempt to try to become CNN. All in all, it was kind of an enriching debate, but lacked all passion and vehemence. I laughed at the pointlessness of the segment, a futile attempt at an engrossing debate.
"The Joy Behar Show-Christopher Hitchens vs Pastor Douglas Wilson." YouTube. Web. 4 Apr 2010. .

Does God Exist-Scientifically?

The essay I chose is "Does God Exist-Scientifically" by an unknown author. As iterated in the title of this composition it tries to validate the existence of God scientifically rather than from a moral or philosophical point of view. It tries to use hard facts to authenticate God. The author believes that it is much easier to answer the question of God from a moral or religious stand point rather than from a scientifical one. The existence of God cannot be calculated by math or by physics, but rather by forensic evidence. The essay uses the argument of the vastness and complexity of space to affirm the existence of the Almighty Creator. Another example it gives is the intricacy of the human life. How we went from an egg inside of our mothers, to an elaborate and convolute individual. The article then asks the reader to dive into their conscience and try to adapt all of these truths with the theory of randomness and chaos. The author simplifies his answer with a few main points he uses to reaffirm or reassess the reality of a God. The first argument used by the author to validate God is causation. This basically states “that God is the best explanation for the universe and everything that it contains” (1). The alternative theory is the Big Bang Theory and that nothing exploded into a vast and intricate universe. The next contention is order. This states that God is the best answer for the world’s numbers, mathematical formulas, chemical processes and equations, and laws that nature, itself, abides by. The surrogate is that the chaotic first elements ordered themselves into byzantine information systems. The next argument is that God is the designer of the universe. He is the only coherent answer to the complexity of the planetary, stellar, chemical and biological systems. The proxy is that chance created all design. The next point he emphasizes is that God is also the only explanation for the DNA embedded in us that controls all the functions of life on Earth. The alternate theory of that is the complex code, which states that processes can appear without any type of programming. God provides an answer to the separation of the human brain and conscience. Monism is the alternate which believes that only matter exists and that the human brain only appears to be separate. God is also the best explanation for the emotional and moral fabric of human beings. The opposite theorem is that processes higher human perception and consciousness.
My exegesis of this paper is that it does prove, in a form of science, that it is possible God does exist. The science is not a complex equation that solves God’s existence, but a forensic science that evaluates clues left to us from past generations. I also agree with the paper that it is a more of an individual examination of the evidence then a true laboratory experiment. It is a self journey, a self evaluation of us to make a hypothesis of the existence of a supernatural being. We’ve been given the information from all aspects of human thought, and we should make a just judgment accordingly. It is, truly, a very arduous topic and usually is overlooked by most because of traditional values and faith they have. It is almost heterodox to question the reality of God, and some believe they will be discriminated and socially outcast if they do.
"Does God Exist-Scientifically?." All About Creation. Allaboutcreation.org, 2002-2010. Web. 4 Apr 2010. .