There is a diverse family of arguments whose reasoning are based on the moral life to God’s existence. Through morality, God is understood as the sole creator of the universe. However, there are interesting moral arguments that claim otherwise because the evaluation of their soundness calls for the attention of metaethics. All the arguments are perceived as important because they are apologetic in the Christianity belief. Majority of ordinary individuals view religion as the foundation to which morality is built. As such, the moral perception for religious is less favored as compared to religious perceptions of morality. People have problems figuring out on whether morality is real or objective which suggests a further and deeper explanation of God’s reality. General people as well as staunch Christians believe in the connection between religious appearance and morality. Therefore, the majority of Christians believe that a moral foundation has a basis which is the belief in supernatural a being existence, God.
Attempting to assess and explain the existence of a supernatural being requires goals and perspectives of argument. According to Evans (2014), there are diverse views in regards to God’s existence. In essence, there are more than one or two proponents out there that may give an acceptable critique. However, the proponents are faced with situations where they cannot present digestible evidence to support their claims. A complex analysis carried out by Ewing (2016) concludes that individuals who oppose God’s existence experience denial, thus they cannot provide a rational argument. On the other hand, some arguments attempt to draw standards and present evidence to lure more people in believing God exists at all circumstances. Nevertheless, it turns out that if some of the proponents some premises of the moral argument, then the arguments are vague and stands to be approved.
It is likely that various arguments about God’s existence have proofs to show following that they increase the plausibility of the probability of God’s presence. According to Gellman (2017), people have no option to support the probability of the existence of God even though the arguments may not present enough evidence. A proponent claimed that plausibility of the existence of a supernatural being is just among the cumulative case for hold into the moral argument, but it fails to settle on a full fledge that God exists. If an argument lacks a fine-tuning from the universe physical situation, a religious belief alone is not enough to arrive at any conclusion. Some atheists agree to the existence of evidential forces, but also they observe that the evidence does not necessarily back the belief. The confusion arises on whether the atheists’ arguments are realistic because a big number of people already believe in the existence of God and it is never easy to convince them otherwise. Gellman (2017) asserts that majority of secular psychologies presume in atheism which many people including scholars have failed support despite the fact there is no evidence to support Christianity itself.
At some point of view, the presumption of atheism has faced numerous challenges in various ways. For instance, Kenny (2014) argues that God’s existence is basic and does not have to rely on propositional evidence. It is one of the many attempts to run away from the reasonable explanation because any reputable evidence does not support the outcome of basics faculty. Therefore, believing in God is just another myth that reasonable people fail to agree to without reputable evidence. Nevertheless, even the belief of the atheists is not grounded by a particular faculty. Therefore the two arguments require propositional evidence for approval.
According to Walzer (2015), the other way to challenge the presumption of atheists is questioning any implicit assumption by individuals who defend such claims. Either of the two beliefs should carry the same weight of consequences. Theists and atheists share a common problem in the sense that none of their arguments has reputable evidence. According to the arguments, believers tend to lean on the safe side while atheists tend to be careless because they believe in nothing. As such, atheists hold on to the account that fails to address the situation in any way possible as compared to staunch believers who have many things to live for including life after death. Theists believe that everything including animals and objects was created by God which basically relies on the universe character. On the other hand, atheists believe God created nothing and that everything occurs naturally. The atheists affirm that everything across the universe is finite and has no signs of being dependent on God. Alternatively, if this is the right way to reason, then atheist are on the safer side as compared to theists. However, the debate is not about the existence of single objects but all the objects on the universe.
In conclusion, both theists and atheists make the claim their belief is on the right track. However, the two arguments on the existence of God have strengths and weaknesses. God cannot be regarded as an entity because according to Christianity everything was created by God while atheists believe God does not exist.
References
Evans, C. S. (2014). Moral arguments for the existence of God.
Ewing, A. C. (2016). Value and reality: the philosophical case for theism.
Gellman, J. (2017). The mystical experience of God: A philosophical inquiry. Routledge.
Kenny, A. (2014). Five Ways: St Thomas Aquinas Vo. Routledge.
Walzer, M. (2015). Just and unjust wars: A moral argument with historical illustrations. Basic Books.
