Existence and Nonexistence of God - Essay Example

Therefore, from the same philosophies and understandings, this essay considers that it is equally logical to believe that God may or may not be God. Despite the openness on the argument that God may or may not exist does never qualify these same arguments have the same magnitude.

In other words, a lack of positive belief is not the same thing as the presence of a negative belief. While it is perfectly fine not to believe either way, I believe it is hypocritical to assert that God does not exist. This notion will make the believer’s argument invalid for lack of sufficient evidence; however, there is also insufficient evidence for God’s nonexistence either. Both beliefs (existence and nonexistence) are of equal logical grounds and are valid depending on the weight of the argument/contribution.

For instance, believers usually note that if God never existed, then life could have been meaningless ultimately. In other words, if life was doomed until death, then it could not matter how an individual lives his or her life. This theory is actually supported by nature and natural existence. Therefore, to this limit, God exists. Despite this argument, there is no physical evidence that God does or does not exist. Beliefs that are based on false assumptions are still logically valid following the assumption (If P>Q; therefore, the statement P>Q is still true.) Since there is no physical evidence for either argument, it is impossible to determine the truth value of P; therefore, both arguments are logically valid following the initial assumptions they claim.

I believe that, in fact, it is truly impossible to prove with 100% that any initial assumption is true. Even physical evidence of widely accepted notions, for example, is detected through imperfect human sensory organs. “I see that the chair is blue> the chair is blue” is 1. Valid and is 2 (Treharne 389). The assumption that your eyes are trustworthy is impossible to verify. (the argument that you could refer to someone else, asking “is the chair blue?” fails because no matter how many people you ask, how do you know that you can trust them, or that they can trust their own eyes?

In addition, what does it really mean to be called blue, anyway?) with this mode and form of arguments, it is worth noting that any belief holds especially when a person has no reasonable doubt to believe in their thinking and imagination. Therefore, both beliefs that God exists do not hold to those beliefs on the same, either way. Additionally, Metaphysical “evidence” may be considered valid. Arguers against metaphysical evidence’s validity do not, I think, fully understand what it means to be valid.

Is any evidence provable with 100% certainty to be true? For example, in Mathematics proofs and deductions that bring about new knowledge are usually based on Theorems or Axioms (but rarely “Laws”). Therefore, while all deductions from these theorems are logically valid, should the Theorem be proven false?