Philosophical Fundamentals of the existence of God
Introduction.
The representations of God constitute the basis of the modern forms of religion. This is a very abstract issue to deal. From my positioning I do not believe in God and in case of existing it must be as an energy with incomprehensible abilities for man, this belief is born from human inability to explain the origin of life and existence itself, so it is attributed to God.
From my point of view the Church must preach the word of Jesus, but throughout history it became an element of political power. Many philosophers believe in God, Kant for example raises arguments: physical-theological where he argues that God is the final cause. In the cosmological argument it says that God is the necessary cause of the existence of everything real. In another ontological argument, he states that God is a perfect being. Kant does not deny the existence of God, but adds that the scientific knowledge of God was not possible, but yes, a type of scientific knowledge called "rational faith", only faith makes everything possible. I know that faith exists in God, although I think that the Church plays with the "faith" of people.
Another philosopher who speaks of God’s existence is René Descartes. He explained the idea of God arguing that the human being is an imperfect being, but he can think of the perfection of a being, someone perfect had to have put that idea in man and this perfect being is God. Descartes was satisfied with its existence, but we do not know that it is perfection, since everything good relates to that perfect idea is easy to think about this idea and that in that way explain the existence of God.
Developing.
On the one hand we cannot deny the existence of God, but we cannot assure it either. Christianity believes in the Bible, what is narrated there, are illogical, unbridled acts. There are studies that show that the story that is told, was translitated. There are many religions, and each one worships a God with different characteristics and different explanations on the subject. The Church has manipulated people for years about the existence of God, it is based on an end what is to preach the Word of God, love, faith, and so on. But all this business has led to the Vatican being one of the richest states in the world, created with the silver of the people who believe in faith the Church.
Over time, the Church has been losing the prominence between society a bit. People develop their ideas on a subject little by little, and many realized that what is always attributed to God, was what man wanted, since he could not find origin or explanation. We can observe that the main cause of why we continue to believe in a God, it is because we cannot find an explanation to the origin of our existence, we will surely never know if God exists or, at least that appears and shows between us. As Socrates says, I’m not going to teach anything I don’t think, and if I don’t think it’s because I’ve never seen it.
The belief about the existence of God is something very particular of each subject, many people to continue their life need to believe in something even convince there is something after death, this is done by their faith in God. I personally do not believe in this superior entity and I do not seem necessary to have to believe in it, but I cannot explain the existence of human life, thought is free and I respect all points of view for more than not share them.
In conclusion I think that the issue with the comparison between science and religion in my opinion is the easiest way to dealIn God, since only argue for this that for fear of death sincerely I do not think that being afraid of death is something bad, much less that this becomes something lower because of it, since deep down we all have some fear.
What I think is that believe in God serves you those less prepared people regarding death to live better, more comfortable thinking that there really is something after it and it is not the end. I prefer to think of death as a stage of life and it does not seem completely logical that we rely on a life expectancy after death without having any true indication of it, it is understandable, since each one in front of their fearsand concerns in the easiest way although we may not reason when trying to think.
There is still something that is not clear to me, it is believed that God created Adam and Eve, but we do not know anything about his childhood and everyone is supposed to go through the infant stage, this is not narrated either in the Bible. In addition, in religion it is said that we are all brothers, since we come from Adam and Eve, science destroys this idea, in reality it does not destroy anything, since for our existence the existence of a first organ from which we all proceed, if weGod is the supreme, he should not allow him to have evil in any of his ‘acts’, since there is no proof that God exists and does not proof that it does not exist, what there is is a possibility of believing that if the logic of theBeing human God needs it.
Other arguments would be for example the movement of an object is generated by a second object and the second object movement for a third object and so on is the movement of a cup, to move the cup I need to move your hand, and to move theHand before we need to move a muscle and rimero you need a stimulus of the good brain Aristotle was the one that raised this, that everything that had movement was moved by something, before. Many do not need God, however there are people who do. With respect to movement, a process is happening until it reaches a specific purpose.
This idea of God is related to good and evil, good for a person can be evil for another and vice versa, for this reason good and evil does not exist, since it does not have a universal definition of them that is to say thatNot everyone understands the same for good and by bad this implies that we cannot rely on trying to find out the existence of God through opinions. For example, Spaniards eat all kinds of meat and we see this well and yet in other cultures they have cows as sacred animals is what to eat meat for them is something very bad.
conclusion.
To give a closure, I quote the existentialist Jean Paul Sartre who maintains that God disappears any possibility of finding values in an intelligible sky, nowhere is it written that good exists, that you have to be honest, that you should not lie (in theExistentialism is a humanism, 1945). If God does not exist, the good either:. Sartre was happy with his atheism, and explained existentialism in a very simple way, and that many criticized, from my point of view this philosopher and its posture seem extraordinary, it is difficult to try to impose an idea and more at the time that Sartre beganWith this theory, all philosophers had strong criticisms, but it should say that their theories and likelihood of them were stronger and therefore persist in time and today we study them. Despite the notorious step of so many years, you are still tools and content to teach.
Leave feedback