Solomons Book Presents Different Proofs for the Existence of God - Term Paper Example

The Greek and Roman gods and goddesses, on the other hand, had some great supernatural powers but they also often behaved like average humans in reference to how they got vengeful when denied something or acted unimpressively at times. In this paper, I will focus on one proof for the existence of God in particular that I consider most persuasive and then compare it to others that do not seem as powerful and appealing as the one discussed at length.

There is no scientific evidence supporting the existence of God, so the only notions supporting this idea are related to manmade explanations like there has to be some force starting the universe which is so perfect that no human can be held responsible for it. Also, we have to believe in God as suggested by the biblical teachings because of this faith that there is a supernatural power that is omnipotent. There is no concrete evidence really which could either prove or disprove the existence of God, but it is still healthy to accept by faith this existence as without it people would consider themselves free to act in whichever way they like without the fear of facing results at the end like in the form of Day of Judgment of the afterlife. According to the Bible, people have to judge from things around them if God exists or not and there is plenty of evidence, not concrete but symbolic, which speaks of God’s presence like the skies and the sun which are so perfect and identify the glory of God.

All the mystic and enthralling wonders of nature point to God’s presence denying which is plain adamancy. Pascal’s proof for God’s existence is a different kind of argument in itself and differs from the explanation provided by Christianity and Islam on multiple levels. While the Bible and Qur’an stress that there is no option but to believe that God exists because of many stupendous works of nature, Pascal argues that believing in God irrespective of whether he exists or not exists is a win-win situation. The tendency of not agreeing to God’s existence, in contrast, is prone to many losses. This is because if we believe in God and he actually does exist, then there is no doubt that we will be rewarded, and if we believe so and he does not exist actually, even then it is beneficial because people tend to give up many sinful pleasures in respect of this belief that God exists.

Many great scientists like Freud plainly refuse the idea of God’s existence characterizing it as very irrational. Freud does not believe thinking irrationally in terms of God is actually a bad thing and if not believing in God is irrational, then believing in God is also irrational. This is because irrationality is only defying what cannot be considered rational and second, it is also about believing in what cannot be proved. Freud characterized the existence of God to be harmful in certain instances especially when people tend to rationalize their evil actions by believing they were intended by God to happen or he would have stopped them. So, the proof for the existence of God really comes down to the marvels of nature and a person’s innate disposition to believe in God.  

In conclusion, not every proof for believing in God identified by Islam, Judaism, and Christianity is rational because actually, as argued by Kierkegaard, most explanations are irrational. The proof of God’s existence cannot be backed up by rational arguments as it is the work of faith mainly. Faith in God’s existence, however irrational it is, is an intense ideology and should not be confused with proof provided by any special religion or doctrine. But according to Freud, agreeing to God’s existence on grounds of a moral belief alone is not sufficient evidence and those who do so are irrational because they believe in what is actually harmful or pointless.