There are three kinds of people in life; those who believe, those who do not, and those who pretend. But how can we prove ourselves to justify whether we believe or not?

Many believe that the argument - whether God exists - is worth the time and energy as they would argue that life itself has a purpose, therefore the creation of Earth must also have one. An argument that backs this theory is the tetra-logical argument - the statistic that an object as complex as a watch, must have a watchmaker, therefore this is used as a metaphor to defend God's existence. However, it does not prove the existence of God and many would argue that without proof, the results of this argument are invalid.

"Why is it we suffer? Where is this 'so-called' benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient God?"

Non-religious people believe that there is no God, as there is evil and suffering. However, the counter-argument will suggest that in order for balance, God will put you through difficult situations to prove your unconditional love for Him. Therefore life is seen to be a test, and in order for it to keep stability, we must go through the process of suffering.

The Cosmological argument is that everything must have a first cause from a force strong enough to create it; God. However, many would argue that this discussion cannot be plausible if it is answered by the same source that begun it:

"A rule is not a rule if it can be broken."

This argument is irrational and illogical due to the laziness of the results answered by religion. One cannot have a reason to begin with and then stop it when they're content that their point has been made.

My speculation is this:

The ability to prove God's existence has an insignificant ratio, whether it was a religious reason: God cannot be seen, heard or touched - though on the rare occasion people claimed to have seen/heard God, Himself, or a non-religious reason: the theory that this argument is irrational. To prove His existence is near - if not indefinitely - impossible as the only true way to prove something is in the presence of scientific analysis, however we cannot prove a belief in the existence of science. Therefore the question will continue to remain controversial.

"Does God exist?"

Nobody knows, and in my opinion, we never will. There are things we know, things we think we know, things we don't know and things we don't know that we don't know. All we know are the "Nows" that we live in, nothing else. The existence of God is a belief - therefore it is not a fact. However, does this not mean that God's likely-hood of non-existence is also not a fact as both cannot be proven? Therefore meaning that they are both beliefs? Which brings us to my third, and final conclusion, if we all believe in something, how can science evolve. Without the evolution of science, how can we prove unproven occurrences? How can we know what is real, and what is a belief? How can we know if God exists?

Submitted: September 18, 2015

© Copyright 2023 18cpxcma. All rights reserved.

Add Your Comments:


Bert Broomberg

Well done! I liked this essay. It is a very good subject to write about, and it is an extremely interesting subject to read about. With a bit of digging, you will unearth a whole range of books that deal with this theme, just give them a try.

Sun, September 20th, 2015 8:55pm


Thank you very much! I am please you liked it, I appreciate the recommendation and will definitely look forward to reading more about this subject.

Mon, September 21st, 2015 6:13pm

Facebook Comments

More Religion and Spirituality Essays

Other Content by 18cpxcma

Book / Science Fiction

Book / Thrillers

Essay / Religion and Spirituality