C. S. Lewis: Proving The Existence Of God

I found that Lewis' argument for God’s omnipotence being limited to that which is possible intriguing, but if I may be bold not wholly biblical. Lewis’ argument is that God’s power is limited to that which is “intrinsically possible,” that Is things in which He has established as law. However, he does not to assume that miracles do not occur, for miracles could be described as God suspending the reality of His laws, not simultaneously acting in two opposing ways. For it is not as though God's “power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense.” Nonsense is precisely described by Lewis as an “intrinsic impossibly."An example of an intrinsic impossibility that Lewis explains is that, “God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it.” What he reckons from this statement is that one is saying nothing at all if what he is saying is

Everybody possesses an internal sense of moral obligation to realize the difference between right and wrong and choose to do what is right. Lewis ascertains that the existence of this common “moral conscience,” can only be the consequential result from the existence of a god who created all humans. (about.com).

Does God Exist?C. S. Lewis once remarked that God is not the sort of thing one can be moderately interested in. After all, if God does not exist, there is no reason to be interested in God at all. On the other hand, if God does exist, then this is of paramount interest, and our ultimate concern ought to be how to be properly related to this being upon whom we depend moment by moment for our very existence. The official motto of the United States and the currency in America is inscribed stating “In God We Trust. If this is true then there must be some existence of GOD in order for our great Constitution to be established. Critics have always questioned the existence of God or a supreme being and several advocates of separation of church

So without God, rational thought is impossible. To this point we’ve briefly explained the ungodly thinking fallacy. Beyond that, C. S. Lewis had some things to say about the futility of reasoning without God:

Lewis in Book II, now discusses the types of God, one that is beyond good and evil, meaning that not one good thing is to be viewed solely as good, but as both good and evil in certain circumstances, and a God that is the depiction and manifestation of all things good. The “typical” christian or the one that views God as good also views Him as an all giving, all creating being that had only good intentions for the world. Any evil that made its way into the world is contrary of the wants and beliefs of God, and He must be separated from the world he created; for he is merely the creator, not the actual universe. Injustices and strifes that are found in the universe often raise a question of if there is an actual God. If he were to let these things happen, and if there are both just and unjust things in this world, is there even a meaning of the universe to govern those injustices?

Blaise Pascal’s position is not a yes, or a no, but bets on yes. For Pascal, there is no rational proof for or against the existence of God. However, it is unavoidable to not chose whether you believe or not. Pascal’s argument does not support the existence of God, but does support that it is a reasonable and natural tendency to believe in God. Meaning that his argument does support religion, but not the philosophical arguments that support religion. Pascal describes God as infinitely incomprehensible because he does not have parts or limits, and therefore has no affinity to us; leaving us incapable of knowing what or if He exists. Therefore, no one can blame Christians for not being able to give a reason as to why they believe in what they do, since God does not have any affinity to us.

The real is the rational, and the rational is the real. In philosophical discussion, no statement is, perhaps, more important or more controversial. Yet, this is the very position that I advocate within this paper. The equation of the rational with the real is at the heart of the argument I here consider, that being the ontological argument for the existence of God.

The question about the existence of God or, more generally speaking, of a supernatural entity that steers the course of the world, is probably as old as humanity itself. Many great philosophers were concerned with this basic and yet so important question which remains to be a controversial issue to this day! In the following I will commit myself to the above-mentioned question by firstly reconstructing Anselm´s proof of God´s existence and secondly considering his position in the light of the critique put forward by Gaunilo, Aquinas and Kant.

There have been claims of occurrences of events that are beyond human comprehension in humans’ history. Many regard these out-of-this-world experiences as miracle. Although the accounts of these events varies with places and people, the reports make people consider the possibility of miracle happening to them even at the absence of factual evidences to support many of these events. C.S. Lewis, author of “Miracles” supports this idea that miracles can be taken seriously without firm evidence to support them, due to the fact that miracle can’t be witnessed naturally, we can’t prove that there are no proofs of miracles occurring, and that advancement in science isn’t focusing on proving the existence of an entity outside of nature.

The reason for the theory of intelligent design is born from people’s lack of understanding of how evolution, natural selection, and adaptations have worked together over centuries to create life how it is seen today. Most of the skeptics of evolution find ground in their argument in religion, though this hardly

Rowan Williams is the current Archbishop of Canterbury and leader of the Church of England wrote a book based on Christian belief. He is the chief religious figure of England as such he is responsible for leading the life and witness of the Church of England in particular by his teaching and oversight, and promoting and guiding the communion of the world-wide Anglican Church. He knows his audience, they are Christians, seeking answers about God’s existence. Williams does not come across as a lecturer rather it reads as if he is having a conversation with his audience. He allows for the reader to pause and reflect what he has written. In his writings, he explains that he explains that, “The Bible has no arguments for the existence of God”, and never has a person entered into faith because of a compelling argument that

To start this off I would like to address and share a fact, just about every single culture has a religion, granted there are some atheists that believe in nothing. However if you really think about it that is stills a religion because they believe in nothing, the keyword here is believe. Everybody believes in something whether they believe in nothing such as the atheist, or something such as Christians. Some people in other cultures believe in all kinds of stuff, for example some people believe that the sun is a god, some religions believe in many gods, even thousands. The point I am trying to make here is that everybody believes in something.

The existence conceipt, this was of three ideas of how to prove existence. First there was the body, he thought people who engage in sences, moving, and eating could be prof existence. A healthy being was ruled out by testing to see if you can prove it, which you can't . The second idea was that the soul could prove existing. Last but not least, is the mind. It proves that people can only be certain of their own existence. Any state of thinking means that the mind exists. It also states that our senses are

David Hume, a philosopher of the Enlightenment, challenged the thinking of the eighteenth century by questioning transcendentalism and believing one’s knowledge comes from one’s own senses. Considered a skeptic of the eighteenth century, Hume believes “we cannot get beyond our central perceptions to discover the essence of things, therefore we cannot find the causes of things” (Sonnino 3/10/16). He instead calls this theory “constant conjunction,” when one may consider things to keep happening in the same way they had before. Previously, philosophers such as Isaac Newton believed experience explains the causes of things (Sonnino 3/10/16). Formulating the laws of motion and universal gravitation, many people regard Newton’s findings as an attribution to God for creating the world as a perfect machine.

However, we might wonder if a God existed as theists believe his existence, he would be omnipotent, omniscient, and entirely good; he would not let any act of evil happen to innocent people. This means that any actions that happen under his watch have to be good since he is the one and only creator of the cause and everything in it. It is obvious that with these many instances of evil that happen in this world, any argument to prove this existence would be refuted. Earthquakes, Hurricanes Matthew, Katrina, etc.…, are a few examples of many others. These kind of evil come and destroy the world and many people’s life especially innocent children. It is confusing if really there is a wholly God who accepts the occurrence of such evils in the world.