Does God exist? This is a question that a lot of people have on their minds. People want to know how did we get here, is there a being beyond us that got us here, or did we come through from evolution. It has been studied by many philosophers to find the answer to this question. People believe what they want and most of the time ones mind cannot be changed. There are a couple of arguments that philosophers have come up with. When one is looking at different general types of arguments for God’s existence there are 2. One is a posteriori which is physical evidence and the second is a priori which is purely logical (Furman). The question is did we come from a being that is more powerful than us named God or are we existing through science evolution? …show more content…
He said that all of the links in the CB are explained by different temporal antecedents (Furman). What this means is that there are events that follow each other in a timely manner. He said the chain of being is just a group of links. David Hume had an explanation for everything that he said. He said that the reason he dose not believe in the Principle of Sufficient Reason is because the argument that Aquinas made was a failure. Hume had a lot to say about the cosmological argument and he had some critiques about it as well. David Hume spoke his peace on the argument and he also had some critiques about it. He questioned how is it really possible to make guesses on how the world works and what is causing things to happen. He says that it is really not possible to change ones mind on their philosophy such as Aquinas did in this argument. He said that one cannot say that there are certain causes for why things happen, then turn around and say that the universe we live in has a main cause. This was just one of the main critiques of this argument. Along with the past two arguments, there is another argument that deals with God’s …show more content…
This argument is also known as the Teleological Argument. Some may ask what does teleological mean? Teleology is the study of trying to explain the purpose of why things happen, It is when people are studying something and they want to find the end to something or what exactly the purpose is. What this argument is trying to prove is that there is a God and there has been evidence to prove so. An example of how this argument works is the analogy with the pocket watch. This analogy is trying to explain that everything had to come from somewhere. Like this pocket watch example, it did not just appear there had to be a creator of it, some person had to throw something together and call this a pocket watch. The universe is just like this pocket watch in almost every single way. It is a very intricate pat of our universe. The universe is a very intricate part of our lives. Since they are both intricate things the universe had to have been produced by a very smart being. God is the one being that is the most powerful and, perfect, and smart being that could get the job done. Since all of this is true there must be a god and he continues to exist in our universe. The point here is that we did not just appear, so the explanation is, that God did create us. Another analogy that is popular amongst philosophers is simply this, x has attributes a,b,c, and d. Y has attributes a,b,and c. Therefore Y has d