Multidimensional Perspectives on God's Existence
In the discussion of God’s existence, several arguments can be presented that reflect both positive and negative positions, as well as illustrate the limitations of the methods used in science to resolve this issue.
Firstly, one of the classic arguments in favor of the existence of God is the cosmological argument. It is based on the widely accepted principle of causality, according to which everything that exists has its first cause. For example, one source provides the following reasoning:
"God exists. Even in a purely theoretical framework there are arguments that help an unbiased person see that the acknowledgment of God’s existence is not the product of a baseless human fantasy, but a logically justified postulate in resolving the question of meaning in both human and worldly life. Let us consider some of these arguments. 1. The cosmological argument. The cosmological argument (from the Greek 'kosmoV' – order, cosmos, world) was already proposed by ancient Greek philosophers such as Plato (347 BC), Aristotle (322 BC) and other ancient thinkers. Later, it was further developed by many. It is based on the acceptance of causality as a universal law of being. Based on this law, it is deduced that there must be a first cause of existence, that is, of all that exists."
(source: link txt, page: 466)
In addition to the cosmological argument, the ontological argument is traditionally discussed, which begins with the very concept of God as a perfect Being. According to this argument, the idea of a complete being implies its necessary existence. For example, one quote from classical literature states:
"It was Archbishop Anselm of Canterbury († 1109) who first formulated this argument. The presence of Divinity is self-evident and, therefore, cannot be proven either deductively or inductively. Only the ontological proof of God’s existence is on the right track, provided it is understood in the sense that the idea of God and the content of that idea are inseparable. An adequate expression of this proof 'was formulated not by Anselm, but, for example, by Bonaventura, Nicholas of Cusa, and Malebranche'."
(source: link txt, page: 234)
Moreover, there is the teleological argument, which appeals to the purposefulness of the design of the world and considers it as a manifestation of Reason.
One source describes this approach as follows: "The value of the teleological argument lies, first of all, in that it presents human consciousness with an alternative: either to recognize Reason as the source of such a purposefully arranged world, or to accept 'something still unknown'?The former opens up a high and sacred meaning of life for man. The latter leaves him in complete inner confusion and hopelessness. The ontological argument—the argument based on the idea of a perfect Being—was first formulated by Archbishop Anselm of Canterbury († 1109)."
(source: link txt, page: 503)
On the other hand, when discussing this topic, it is often pointed out that the methods of modern science are incapable of proving or disproving the existence of God, since religious truth belongs to different spheres of human cognition. As noted:
"Science itself, which makes the most remarkable discoveries, does not regard itself as bound by any philosophical theories. However, the assumption that science has proven the non-existence of God is not an assumption of science itself, but of the philosophical theory with which it aligns. Scientism is not science, but a flawed philosophy, and it implies faith. The non-existence of God is also an invisible matter, i.e. a matter of belief. True science, always aware of its own limits, can say nothing about God—neither negatively nor positively; it cannot prove that God does not exist, just as it cannot prove that God does exist. The existence of God belongs to a completely different sphere than that of science, which is engaged in the study of the natural world."
(source: link txt, page: 46)
It is also necessary to consider arguments based on the consensus of renowned scientists who, despite their scientific achievements, continue to maintain their faith in God:
"Let us first consider the best-known arguments for the non-existence of God. Secondly, it is naturally the scientists, the people of science, who have the most reliable knowledge about what science proves and disproves. Therefore, the fact that a vast number of the most prominent scientists believe in God and in Christ is the most convincing evidence that science does not disprove the existence of God."
(source: link txt, page: 96)
Finally, it is interesting to note that many arguments are built on a comparative evaluation of alternative worldviews. According to one author:
"However complex this issue may be, it has never prevented human consciousness from seeking the truth through a comparative evaluation of the arguments of two fundamentally mutually exclusive worldviews: the religious and the atheistic. There can only be one truth: either God exists—and therefore there is eternity and meaning in life—or God does not exist, there is no eternity, and the meaninglessness of death awaits man and humanity."
(source: link txt, page: 96)
Thus, when arguing the question of God’s existence, one can employ the following key positions:
1. The cosmological argument, which points to the necessity of a first cause for all that exists.
2. The ontological argument, which is based on the concept of a perfect God.
3. The teleological argument, which considers the design of the world as a manifestation of a higher Reason.
4. A critique of the possibility of scientific proof (whether confirmation or refutation) of God’s existence.
5. Arguments founded on the genuine convictions and perspectives of scientists, indicating that science is not devoid of the capacity to perceive the existence of God.
This wide spectrum of arguments allows the discussion to cover both the philosophical and empirical aspects of the problem, making the debate on the subject deeper and more comprehensive.