Thomas Aquinas believed that humans need an explanation to why the universe exists. We need to have a life of meaning and purpose. This need for an explanation …show more content…
Suffering and evil do exist. This idea completely goes against an all-powerful, omnipotent, benevolent God, which most religions claim that their God is. David Hume deployed this devastating argument. Since evil exists, God cannot be both omnipotent (ultimate power) and benevolent (good). An all-powerful God would have created a universe with no evil and no suffering; therefore, God does not exist. Why would a good God create suffering and evil? This is one of the main arguments presented against religion. The rebuttal for this argument, of course if free will. God gave us free will and we have created evil and suffering ourselves. If God exists, then so must the Devil. Eve may have truly existed and was tricked in the Garden of Eden and now we do have the knowledge and capability of being evil.
This is where Hume and Kant stepped in and questioned these thoughts. Hume didn’t understand why it had to be one almighty God. There was absolutely no need for it to be just one almighty God. Why couldn’t it be designed by a committee of Gods or an incompetent designer? He didn’t understand why everyone thought that God was and had to be perfect. The fact the evil does exist was his biggest piece of evidence that God was nowhere near perfect. We do not know enough to even guess why we are here. Hume also thought that it was logically possible that the universe was created by …show more content…
An agnostic doesn’t claim to have faith or be an atheist, but believes that the nature of God and his existence cannot be known. There are many people that are agnostic, like myself, who believe that certain knowledge about religion is impossible. If we form our beliefs without certain evidence and facts, the chances of being wrong are just too great. I think it is better to remain agnostic than to judge and live life according to stories created by man that has no evidence or proof. Descartes said it best, “I have made errors of reasoning in the past, even concerning simple matters, and so can on no occasion be certain that I am not in error again. In spite of this unavoidable uncertainty, we nevertheless form beliefs. Why should we not do the same in matters of religion?”(Holt). Having a meaningful life is important, but it does not take God and religion to give it meaning. We should have strong evidence before we believe in something as important as religion; so many decisions are based on faith and should be made with caution. It is possible to think that one day we may have all of the answers, no one knows what the future is going to bring. The question is really how much evidence is it going to take to prove or disprove the existence of God? Until that evidence and proof is known we should stay agnostic and come to the realization that no one