Argument for Existence of God

The assertion of existence is the truth, the reason is the truth. In philosophical discussion, any description is less important or controversial. But this is the position I proposed in this article. A reasonable and true equation is the core of the discussion I am studying here, which is an ontological argument against the existence of God. There are several versions of ontological arguments about the existence of God. That is, there are several versions.

Discussion that is most widely accepted and criticized about the existence of God. My purpose in this article is to explain why cosmological arguments are proof of the existence of God, to understand that it is the importance of posteriori posteriori discussion, and to my common argument It is to observe the position of. First of all, as a living person on earth, we can safely conclude that the majority of things that exist today have their cause. I confirmed that there is a reason.

Before attempting to explain and evaluate the moral argument about God's existence, it is beneficial to understand the purpose of God's existential argument. Of course, though the views on this are diverse, most contemporary supporters do not believe that theoretical arguments are "proof". They should provide effective arguments and prerequisites that reasonable people can not deny. Such success criterion obviously sets high criteria for success and supporters of the argument of the writer can hardly meet philosophical discussions of interesting conclusions in areas other than formal logic such criteria Correctly point out. Is the premise of these arguments reasonable, at least for reasonable people, more reasonable than rejection?

Philosophers, atheists, and agnostics raised arguments against the existence of God. Some of these arguments argue that the existence of God is not consistent with the observed facts, others argue that God does not exist because God's concept is incoherent or chaotic. Others criticize the evidence provided for the existence of God. Another argument states that the existence of the omniscient God is incompatible with the facts of free will - human beings have certainly made a choice. If God is omniscuous then he must know in advance what people will do in certain circumstances. In this case, a person can not substitute for God to actually know what he or she does, free will is an illusion. Furthermore, if a person chooses to commit a crime, can the person freely crime the crime?