PHIL 2: Exploring Philosophical Arguments for God's Existence

This philosophy essay, titled "Defense on: Does God Exist?", delves into the ongoing debate surrounding the existence of God. It begins by outlining the objectives and challenges within the arguments for God's existence, including the presumption of atheism and responses from philosophers like Alvin Plantinga. The essay then presents a defense of theistic arguments, focusing on how the existence of God provides a better explanation for the universe's existence and objective moral values. It explores the cosmological argument, detailing premises related to the origin of the universe and the concept of a first cause. The essay also addresses the nature of this first cause, arguing for a personal, non-physical agent (God) as the most reasonable explanation. The paper concludes with a list of cited references.

Running Head: PHILOSOPHY 1
Defense on: Does God Exist?
[Author Name(s), First M. Last, Omit Titles and Degrees]
[Institutional Affiliation(s)]
Author Note
[Include any grant/funding information and a complete correspondence address.]

PHILOSOPHY 2
Defense on: Does God Exist?
There are numerous theories and arguments which have resulted behind the creation
of the never-ending debate on the topic, Does God exist? Before making attempts in the
defense of arguments of the notion, God exists, it would be better to have some outlook on
objectives of arguments for the existence of God. There are several diverse opinions and
viewpoints that exist regarding this matter, however most modern adherents of these
arguments do not get arguments from the theists in the form of proposed proofs. This is
because it is assumed that they should provide justified arguments which cannot be denied by
a reasonable individual. The advocates of theistic arguments know that no philosophical
arguments can reach the achievement standards that can set the success bar really high. It is
quite possible for some arguments in the favor of God’s existence to prove that there could be
some evidences of the existence of God as well. Such arguments that are supported by
evidences help in increasing the claim’s probability. A presumption of atheism is held by
many secular philosophers, which implies that the belief in God is similar to the belief in
leprechauns, which is something that is not believed upon by rational people without
adequate evidence (Osborn, 2017).
There are certain ways in which the presumption of atheism has been challenged.
According to Alvin Plantinga (2010), the basis of propositional evidence is not necessary for
having reasonable belief and faith in God or the concept of God. It could be properly basic.
On the basis of this opinion, it can be said that the result of a basic faculty could be rational
belief in God. Hence, it does not need no reinforcement from the arguments. In response to
this, some people might argue that even though the beliefs of theists are not educated in
sentential evidence, it still could have a requirement for non-sentential evidence like
experience (Evans, 2010). Hence, the proof challenge burden is not removed by Plantinga ‘s
views. Another way of challenging the atheism presumption is questioning an internal

PHILOSOPHY 3
assumption made by the defenders of such presumption, that is the belief in God is riskier
than not believing, in terms of epistemology (Moser, 2010). Although several defenses can be
made to this assumption. A person might think that a common belief is shared by the atheists
and theists with respect to several entities such as animals and plants, atoms, stars and
planets, etc. (Smith, 2010). Whereas, a person whose belief is in creatures such as sea
monsters as well as the above mentioned commonly accepted objects. This leads to a burden
of proof. These kinds of people believe in an additional thing and hence attract extra risk of
epistemology (Fantl & McGrath, 2007). It can be a belief of a person that God is like a sea
monster, and hence, extra burden of proof is also carried by an atheist. So according to the
arguments against God’s existence, refraining from the belief of the same should be refrained
from if there is lack of good evidence for that belief.
Now comes the defense from the theist regrading this belief. According to their
argument, the debate between the theism and atheism is not a common argument regarding
the existence of one more thing in the world. God should not be considered as an institution
or organization to the world. Any kind of organization or institution as such would not be
God by definition. There exist several reasons for one to believe in God and many theories
and arguments can prove that God does exist. Firstly, the existence of God explains the
universe’s existence in a better way. Next, God’s existence also explains objective moral
values’ existence in a better way as well. In the context of the first statement, there are three
premises. The first one implies that there are certain things that come into existence. The
second one is that the cause of existence of everything is due to some other thing. The third
one is that there cannot be a never-ending series of causes of the past. Hence, the first cause
has always been there. The first premise is uncontroversial because everything comes into
existence at some point of time. This assessment is coming into existence only as the expert
is doing it. Now according to the second premise, it is very obvious that the existence of

PHILOSOPHY 4
something can not be caused by the thing itself. Because, if something is causing its own
existence, technically, it has to exist before its own existence, which is impossible in obvious
terms. Hence, anything which is coming into existence, the cause of its existence is by
something else. Now, according to the third premise, can there be an infinite past of the
universe? There are scientific as well as philosophical reasons for thinking that the past can
never be infinite.
The beginning of the universe is not proven by the theory of big bang (Jorgensen,
2006). The theory only supports the claim. The universe’s beginning is also not proven by the
law of thermodynamics; however, it only supports the claim as well. Hence, there are
scientific as well as philosophical reasons for rejecting the concept of the existence of the
universe. There can be only three alternatives for the universe. Firstly, we can assume that the
universe has always been existing and has a past which is infinite. Second, let us say there
was no cause for the universe to exist and it popped into existence out of nothing and
nowhere. The third alternative is that the cause of the universe’s existence was due to
something outside of it. The first two alternatives cannot be true. There are strong reasons for
rejecting them. The third alternative is the most reasonable. First there comes a cause that
exists externally. The big band is caused by this cause and finally the creation of the universe
takes place. Now, why can the cause be God? Firstly, the cause is itself not a part of the
universe and exists out of it. Secondly, the cause has a great deal of power, obviously because
creating the universe is not a child’s play. Thirdly, the cause is a personal agent which means
should have the features of personhood and is not a static force. In the understanding of us
humans, the only cause which can bring such an effect in the presence of other conditions can
be a personal agent’s will. It is reasonable for holding an external cause which is a personal
and non-physical agent, to be the cause for the universe’s existence, which can be nothing
else but God.

PHILOSOPHY 5
Reference List
Byrne, P. (2013). “Moral Arguments for the Existence of God,” The Stanford Encyclopaedia
of Philosophy. Retrieved from:
<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/moral-arguments-god/>
Evans, C. S. (2010). Natural Signs and Knowledge of God: A New Look at Theistic
Arguments, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Fantl, J., & McGrath, M. (2007). “On Pragmatic Encroachment in
Epistemology,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 75(3): 558–589.
Jorgensen, P. E. (2006). The road to reality: A complete guide to the laws of the
universe. The Mathematical Intelligencer, 28(3), 59-61.
Moser, P. K. (2010). The evidence for God: Religious knowledge reexamined. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Osborn, R. (2017). Humanism and the Death of God: Searching for the Good After Darwin,
Marx, and Nietzsche, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Plantinga, A. (2010). Religion and science. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Consultado el, 10.
Smith, G. H. (2010). Atheism: The case against god. New York, USA: Prometheus Books.