Custom research paper on The existence of God cannot be proved it can only be believed in

The founder of German classical philosophy Imannuil Kant in his “Critique of Pure Reason” develops the proofs of the existence of God and comes to a paradoxical result. On the one hand, he says that rational arguments can prove the existence of God, but you can not make a convincing evidence for the opposite side. In other words, if among ten believers there will be one atheist who knows how to stand up for his ideas, then he will not accept such rational evidences and present his own evidences and rebuttals that prove his point of view.
Kant explores not only the evidences themselves, but also the reasons, that made the theologian address them. These reasons Kant sees in the pursuit of mind to complete the picture of the world, to find grounds for all bases, ie to the ideal of pure reason, which is a rational presupposition of all discourse about God. Evidences may be constructed differently, but all of them have a common structure and overall logic of the movement of thought.
Here are some more of the basic proofs given by different philosophers:
Proof of Thomas Aquinas:
In nature there is a movement. Nothing can begin to move by itself, it requires an external source of action. The endless search for the source of previous actions is meaningless. Consequently, there must be something that is the original source of all movement, not being itself moved by anything else. This is God – real Propulsion.
Second proof by Thomas Aquinas:
All the objects of the world are interrelated to each other and have the relationship with each other, and their existence is possible only in the relationship. However, the endless search for prior relationship with each other is meaningless. Consequently, there must be something totally independent and totally self-sufficient. This is God.
Third proof by Thomas Aquinas:
In the surrounding world it can be noticed a consistent increase in the complexity of the hierarchical structure of objects and creatures (eg, from insect to human), unending universal desire for perfection. Consequently, there must be something absolutely perfect, which is the source of all perfection. This is God.
Fourth proof by Thomas Aquinas, teleological:
In the outside world there is some order and harmony, whose origin is impossible to attribute even to the world itself. This order suggests the existence of a rational organizing principle, set this order. This is God. custom research paper
Fifth proof, moral, anthropological (Kant):
All people tend to moral sense, the categorical imperative. Because this feeling does not always encourage people to actions that bring them to the Earth’s favor, therefore, there must be some basis, some motivation for moral behavior that lie outside this world. This necessarily requires the existence of immortality, the Supreme Court and God, establishing and approving morality, rewarding good and punishing evil.
Sixth proof by Augustine, Calvin:
Any normal person is born with the idea of God, embedded in his consciousness. This idea can be suppressed in unrighteous people. With growing up the man is clearly aware of it. Critical situations in life often encourage this idea to life.
Seventh proof by Aristotle:
Man is aware of his finitude, limitation and mortality. Where does this consciousness come from? God constantly reminds him about it through His infinity, infinity and immortality. So the finiteness of man is a proof of the existence of an infinite God (Moreland, 25-57).
Eighth proof by Pascal:
Reasonable proof of the existence of God is impossible; however, any decision about his existence or nonexistence, each of us must take. If you decide that God exists, you won’t lose anything, even if after your death, it turns out that you have been wrong. If you decide that there is no God and make a mistake, then you will be a terribly punished. If you win, you get everything, if you lose, you do not lose anything.
Stephen Gould’s opinion: such a phenomenon like God, and all based on the concept of this phenomenon (soul, spirit, heaven, hell, etc.), in principle, is not a hypothesis. It can not be used as an argument in any scientific or secular conversation, in order to refute scientific hypotheses or theories. The hypothesis of the existence of God or gods does not meet Popper’s criterion because they do not have opportunities to be tested in the scientific method. The result is that any arguments about the existence of God are not scientific, but are included into the category of rumors, fairy tales, fantasies, etc. To this I will only add that the existence of God can’t be proved, it can be only believed in. If you believe, then you don’t need any scientific proofs.

Works Citied:

Ashton J.F. The Big Argument: Twenty-Four Scholars Explore How Science, Archaelogy, and Philosophy Have Proven the Existence of God. 2006. Print
Goldstein R. 36 Arguments for the Existence of God: A Work of Fiction. 2010. Print
Hick J., Edwards P. The Existence of God (Problems of Philosophy Series). 1964. Print
Moreland J.P. Consciousness and the Existence of God: A Theistic Argument. 2009. Print
Pasquini J.J. The Existence of God: Convincing and Converging Arguments. 2010. Print