Philosophy

Ontological argument
So far, different philosophers have come up with different arguments about the existence of God. Such philosophers include Anselm and Descartes both of whom have given different arguments about existence of God. According to Anselm, God is something at the apex of superiority above which nothing greater can be imagined. Anselm goes further to state that, if one understands the entire concept of God then God is prevalent in the understanding of that person. He also presumes that, one who exists in reality is much greater than one who dwells on understanding alone. Interestingly, Anselm notes that, even a fool does understand the entire concept of God (Banach, 1982). This means that in the understanding of a fool there is a God who exists. This leads us to the understanding that, God does exist in reality in the mind of a fool.

Anselm asserts that, if at all God only exists in the understanding of a fool then we can conceive something similar to what exists in the understanding of a fool though it also exists in reality. The latter conception is greater than what exists in the understanding of a fool. It follows that a fool can therefore conceive something than which nothing greater can be conceived. This leads to a contradiction in that earlier on, Anselm had assumed that God is present in the understanding of a fool. This contradicts with the later statement that a fool can conceive of something than which nothing greater can be conceived. This contradiction renders the assumption that God does not exist in reality in the mind of a fool absurd. This results to the conclusion by Anselm that God exists in reality.

Critics of this argument hold that, essence should not precede existence. They go further to sate that, no being has so far been proven to exist through priori demonstration. According to the critics, Anselms argument is rather absurd since nothing is distinctively conceivable. This implies that, there no being have a demonstratable existence.

According to Descartes, a supreme and a perfect being belongs to this nature. He cites that the essence of God can in no way be separated from existence. He relates this with how the idea of a valley cannot be separated from the mountain. Precisely, the argument by Descardes is of the opinion that the idea of existence is contained the idea of God thus God must exist.

However, critics in the likes of Moojan Momen take this discussion in a different form. He states that, the argument fails to make a difference between the real and the conceptual world making it to look non-sensical. In addition, he sates that no Human can make claim to have prove of God since mankind can only know what God chooses to reveal to them.

Problem of evil
The affinity to commit that which is considered evil has been a challenge to mankind at large. Interestingly, even the religious believers dont understand why they always end up doing that which they obviously know it is wrong. According to Kelly (author) there is need for God to step in and put to an end the evils which have so far dominated the lives of mankind.

The problem with evil is that, it is too extensive than anyone can imagine. Evil is literally everywhere considering that even the much considered religious and good ending up committing evil. The problem of evil can be divided into logical and evidential. To begin with, we have the logical problem which may be summarized as follows if a supreme being and a perfect good god exists then it follows that evil would not prevail in the universe. Still we are aware that, evil is literally everywhere in the universe. This is to mea that the Supreme Being does not exist.

We also have the evidential problem of evil. This is also called the inductive version lowers the level of truth in theism. According to Heil, the omnipotent and omniscient being should reduce instances of intense suffering ( Heil, 2003). Heil asserts that, if at all the omniscient being exists then he would prevent the incidences of suffering. This leads to the conclusion that the omnipotent and omniscient being does not exist.

However, Leibniz comes out in defense of God where he cites that humans are only aware of a negligible percentage of the universe and this should not be used to conclude that the universe is full of evil. He terms the whole idea and presumptuous since the order of the universe is beyond the judgment of anyone. In addition, he cites that the best possible universe is not devoid evil and that less overall evil is close to impossible. Finally, Leibniz argues that evil is a product of positive reality and that mankind is subject to imperfections and limitation. Consequently, he concludes that evil is necessary for created beings.
Teleological argument I
According to the Teleological argument, the order of the universe is by all means an indication that there existed an intelligent designer known as God. This opinion is also shared by one William Paley who compares the complexity of living things with the complex yet inferior watch which we consider to have been designed by an intelligent being. He categorically states that, since a watch cannot exist without a watchmaker, then living things cannot exist without the existence of an intelligent designer. According to Paley, the fact that a watch keeps time and its parts are of precise shape and size is sufficient evidence that the watch is a product of an intelligent designer. However, the argument to design according to Paley was undermined by the evolution theory by Charles Darwin. According to Charles, the biological complexity of living things is not a product of an intelligent designer but they are products of natural selection. Charles cites that, it is by the adaptation to the natural environment that living things appear to have been intelligently designed.

Teleological argument part II
Hume has also refuted the claims by Paley in the Dialogue concerning natural Religion. According to Hume, the feasibility of the design argument is based on the order and purpose. He further notes that order is often a product of unplanned and mindless processes. At the same time design can only be accounted for by order by a minimal percentage. This is an indication that the entire design argument is based on weak and incomplete analogy. According to him, the statement that the world is designed is uninformed since there is need for us to have an experience of different universes which is completely impractical (Manson, 2003). This implies that, analogy is not applicable since it involves the art of comparing.

Hume is also dissatisfied with the comparison of the world with a machine, watch for that matter. He cites that, though the design argument is successful it does not in anyway establish a robust theism. He does not refute the fact that, the universe may be a product of a well-ordered mind but his point of concern is about the designer. He argues that if the designer of the universe is God then who could have possibly designed the designer. According to him, if the universe requires a well designed designer then it goes without saying that, even the universe designer requires a special designer. Towards the end of his criticism, he cites that rather than relying on the design argument it makes senses to be contented with the fact that the universe is precisely the product of self order. Hume goes further to give a brief explanation of the teleology or the process of natural selection. He cites that, for outcome O to be achieved in the universe, an organism Z must possess a characteristic K. Precisely, Humes refutation seem to be in agreement with the natural selection process.