In Humanities last year we studied Existentialism. Although I liked some of Camus' ideas, he was a little whiner who missed the big picture. This year we studied Christianity, which is probably the most dominant religion in the U.S. and definitely in the top five globally. Almost every one has some form of religion. Not me. If you want you could say existentialist, but that is the closest representation to what I bielieve. In my life on this planet I have come to question many things that many take on as blind faith. We all know that someday we will 'physically' die,(unlike Camus I don't think this is so bleak) Yet, we continuously deny the forces working inside ourselves which want to search out the true outcome of what may or may not come after death. It's far easier for humanity to accept that they will go on to a safe haven and be forgiven for all, rather than to question the existence of a super omnipotent being. Fortunately, there are some of us who tend to question the why's and how's that come before us. We question the creation of humanity and the religious teachings received from our parents, our church and our society. This paper examines the many rational arguments for and against the existence of God. It is based on the views of some of the great philosophers and scientists of our world. I will show that there is no sufficient proof or comprehensive arguments for the existence of God. Some people search for eternal peace through the beliefs in God; but this is an impossible belief because of the chances, the plausibility, and because of science. .
The argument for God's existence from design has also stirred controversy among philosophers and society. It is said that the complex order and design of the universe is obviously the work of an intelligent architect. In Psalm 19 it's written "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his work ". Theists have used this well known argument(teleological) for thousands of years as strong evidence for the existence of God.