Etienne Gilson Book "God and Philosophy" Review Assignment

God and Philosophy
Name:
Institution:
Course:
Date:
Introduction
For most people it is easy to relate with the debate about God and the philosophies that are related to disapproving the same. This is one the oldest debates that most of the people that follow the Abrahamic faiths can identify with along with atheists. For ages the different factions have tried to bring about an argument that largely mimics their views. For the religious faithful, God exists and is the creator of all things, while the philosophers argue for the idea that it is hard for the believers to prove the same. Muslims, Jews like Christians among other religions factions that have a belief that involves a deity, they have at one point or another been faced with the debate where they have to give prove of their God. This is a classic argument that has for some time been characterized by a canon of debates, arguments and counter arguments (Gilson, 1949). There have been quite a number of arguments that have been brought forth over the course of the classical debates. One of the main debates relates to the idea that, the belief in a God is largely based on self-interests and the most rational thing to do as humans. This is also based on the consequences of believing in a God or not believing in one. Ideally, if there is a God, then we will be rewarded in heaven and if there is not a God, then there is nothing to lose after all it does not change the elemental existence of life and death. The argument further indicates that, if there is a God, there is likelihood of wrongdoers suffering in hell, while if God does not exist, there is nothing to lose either.
It much more preferable for God to exist and we receive a reward in heaven than if God exists and we receive punishment in hell. It thus in our self-interests that God exists, as the argument suggests. This argument is largely referred to as the Pascal argument. One other common argument relates to the aspect of proving that God exists using abstract reasoning. This is referred to as the ontological argument. This is to mean that, the argument has to begin with the explication of the concept of God. The concept of God is aligned with the idea that He is a perfect being, which implies that God is a symbol of perfection. The fact that, the argument is laid on a perfect God who is perfect indicates that, the subject of discussion in this case is in existence. It is not possible to describe something that does not exist. The perfection is part of the concept of God, which also indicates existence. To speak of a God that is perfect and one that is associated with the concept of God and then argue that He does not exist, would ideally be ridiculing the process of abstract reasoning. It is not possible to describe something that does not exist. The cosmological argument on the other hand relates to the existence of the universe and what keeps it in place. This means that theory tries to explain the reason for the existence of the universe (Gilson, 1949). This assuming that it must have come into being in some way and there must have been a cause for its existence. This further relates to the other beings that are in existence, as the argument tries to bring the idea that they much have come into being t...