The Existence of God: A Philosophical Perspective

Running head: PHILOSOPHY
PHILOSOPHY
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1PHILOSOPHY
According to Dr. Mark foreman, the concept of god is not a theological study and is not
supposed to be seen with a perspective of proofs and evidences. Dr. Mark Foreman argues that
the concept of God and the existence cannot be argued in a sense as McCloseky puts it. Dr.
Foreman states that it is nearly impossible to ascertain the existence of God in a theological
sense; rather it has to be seen in a way that explains the existence of God in a philosophical
sense. Since the existence of God is not a physical matter, but more of a subconscious belief that
rests only within the inner thoughts of an individual. As the outward appearance of our thoughts
is not possible, similarly the existence of God cannot be proven in physical expression. The
intriguing processes that shape our lives or rather our destiny is not just mere cause and effect
but has deep impact in our actions. The proof of existence of God can be only explained through
justifiable reasons and not by proofs. The argument of McCloskey claims that the there are no
amount proof that can prove the existence of any Godly figure. There are no proof for the design
of our environment as well that proves the existence. To this reference Dr. Foreman states that
the processes and designs cannot provide the proof, since the realization, that these designs as
outcomes of a cosmic process is supported by some external source of creation and design that
we refer to as God. The concept of God is more of a faith, rather than just physical expression.
Dr. Foreman also justifies that the concept of God as defined by McCloskey is limited to a rigid
concept of a personified powerful figure playing with his creation and throwing humans in the
face of plight and suffering. The concept of God can vary from community to community and
therefore it must be discussed in terms of the varying perception of God.

2PHILOSOPHY
The necessary argument that Evans and Manis puts forward in their book ‘The
philosophy of religion’ confronts the argument of McCloskey stating that everything that we see
around us is created in some form by humans or nature. Therefore, the statement of McCloskey
that the mere existence of the world is not a reason enough to believe in the existence of a
supreme being cannot be approved, since all creation has to be created by someone and cannot
just exist by chance. McCloskey completely fails to put a credible argument of the existence of
the universe and states that it is just a mere existence or a happening by chance. The
cosmological argument that the universe being created by some power supreme in capacity or
just the creation and existence of the universe as a contingent generates the inner curiosity to
think about the creator. It might seem from the argument of McCloskey that the legitimacy of the
existence of the universe does not suffice the existence of God or a supreme being, cannot be
accepted as he has completely disregarded that there can be a creator or founder of the universe.
A creation, such vast and expansive with infinite possibilities and diversities cannot just exist out
of the nowhere and must have a source of creation may not be done by any being as we refer, but
some kind of energy or power that was able to simulate the creation. Thus the cosmographical
argument is one of the important elements that can initiate the thinking about some supreme
being or to what we refer to as God.