The Intelligent Design Argument For The Existence Of God

The idea of a single, benevolent, perfect, and all-powerful creator is itself powerful, and has been a driving factor behind many people’s actions, and great acts of kindness and brutality have been made in the name of such a being over the course of history. Some see this idea as a dangerous and the people who hold a belief in the existence of god as misguided. Arguments for and against the existence of God are part of an age-old, yet extremely heated debate. The major arguments for the existence of God consist of the general argument, the ontological argument, the intelligent design argument, and the cosmological argument. There are many arguments specifically against these. Although the arguments against the existence of God appear to be

The argument is very simple and can be summarized as, God by His very definition must exist. Part of the definition of God is that He is perfect and all-powerful. Existence is an indispensable part of perfection and being all powerful, therefore, God must exist. Another version of this argument asserts that it is more Godly to exist that it is not to exist. If God is benevolent, perfect, and all-powerful, and the greatest of beings that can be thought of, then He must exist because a being that is benevolent, perfect, all-powerful, and existent is greater than a being that is benevolent, perfect, all-powerful, and nonexistent. There are a few arguments, which are also rational, against this reasoning. One being that just because you can imagine something such as a perfect does not mean that it exists. A stronger argument against this is that the idea of a being that is perfect and all-powerful is in it of itself impossible rather than self-proving. This can be shown through the following example. A perfect and all-powerful being should be able to create a rock that is impossible to lift. If God created one such rock, would he be able to lift it? Either way, it would show that God is, in fact, not all powerful, and that it is impossible to be all powerful. If it was possible for Him to pick up the rock, then He is not all powerful because

It is based on the premise that everything must come from or be caused by something else, which makes the argument fairly scientific in the beginning. Seemingly, everything in the universe is caused by something else, existence being an endless series of causes and effects. A domino falls because the previous domino pushed it. The earth and many of the planets are theorized to have come from a cloud of matter around the sun that condensed into large, almost spherical objects. The sun and the cloud of matter are theorized to have come from a star nursery and so on and so forth. When one comes to the question ‘where did all the matter from which these things formed?’ scientists have theorized that it all came from the Big Bang. For physicists, the Big Bang was the first domino which started the universe. Theologists, however, assert that there must have been something that caused the Big Bang, and that that something must be God. The easiest argument against the assertion that God must be the first domino in the chain of events is to apply the cosmologist’s own logic to his conclusion. If everything must have a cause, there is no reason that God would not be subject to this rule as well. This is sometimes countered with the argument that God is self-causing, which is a circular and strange argument. Addressing the search for a cause, those who argue against the existence of God may say that