We go through life drifting from one superficial disagreement to another without truly ever taking the time to ponder about the meaning of life. Such a question will not be easily resolved but by trying to answer it we stop daydreaming and extend our conception of ourselves while gaining knowledge of the external world (Solomon 10). Unfortunately anyone who attempts to answer that question quickly realizes that it isn’t just one broad question but rather it’s the slogan to an overwhelming amount of enquiries. Out of all possible question the one that has had the most influence on humanity is the notion of whether or not God exists. Philosophers and non-philosophers alike from ancient civilizations to our modern era have contributed their own two cents to the argument. Through the course of the following pages the idea of God will be defined, explained, and defended by the Ontological Argument to ultimately prove that God exists.
In the three main Western monotheistic religions of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity God is defined as an independent being that transcends humanity and the universe he created. Furthermore God is given the attributes of being a rational moral being that is concerned with the notion of human justice and suffering because of the fact that he is all powerful, all knowing, and everywhere at once (50). Given such characteristics draws criticism and ire considering that on any given day the world as we know it is plagued by death, pain, suffering, and an overall unsatisfactory life. It goes on to say that if God was what he is thought to be and more shouldn’t his power reflect as a utopian world?
First of all, before using human suffering as an excuse to deny the existence of God it is necessary to establish the origins of suffering which fall into two categories: natural phenomena and human caused sorrows. Let’s start with the fact that God is powerful enough to control human thought and action to such a point that if he truly desired it we would not doubt his existence. Nevertheless such a doubt does exist so it can be established that humanity has the capacity to choose “a course of action from among various other alternatives (Free Will)”. Having that ability in conjunction to what many philosophers claim to be a naturally selfish human nature results in a combination were the prevailing outcome is human suffering. However not all suffering is a result of human action or inaction which brings us to the following point.
Natural disasters and diseases that claim the lives of tens of thousands cannot be easily explained with a concept such as free will. Not having an obvious explanation doesn’t signify that there exists no solution but rather that there are limitations to human knowledge. Take for example the vast uncertainty surrounding certain scientific and mathematical matters of fact when many, if not all philosophers, can agree that is attainable knowledge. If that restraint exists for such topics than the...