Soren Kierkegaard’s statement on the impossibility of proving the existence of God if He does not exist and the follies of making such an attempt if He really exists is very profound. The statement brings out an implication that one needs not to trouble self-concerning an unknown God which is a dangerous stance to take. A further inspection of the statement reveals some element of truth on which I concur with him on man’s limitation, a finite mind compared to an infinite mind. The conditionality of the statement sets the stage for the impossibility of proving the existence of God. An infinite God cannot be subjected to an investigation by finite minds and the fact that none has seen God does not negate His existence just the same way it cannot be denied with certainty that there are no airborne germs. Kierkegaard presents an option of faith rather than proving. Furthermore, as to the folly of attempting to prove God’s existence, affirms the first part of his statement. It is not the privilege of man to find out God but it is man’s privilege that God reveals Himself to Him. If by any means man successfully proves in totality the nature of God’s existence, then He will cease to be God. What man is privileged to have are glimpses of God in nature and revelation that begets faith.
One
…show more content…
Hume could not conceive a powerful being who could not stop all the evil tides in the world unless He enjoyed every bit of it and, therefore, He is malicious. Hume’s argument could not be anywhere near the truth, on defining what evil is. However, we cannot define evil without basing it on a standard which is the moral law. The moral law prohibits evil and, therefore, it is good and consequently, the lawgiver has to be good. Appreciably, not everything in the world is evil and the very presence of evil in itself points to an existence of a good God who is revealed in the moral