Oh, this is more; much more, than the question of God's existence, isn't it? It's THE question. "Why am I here?" "What's it all about?". The meaning of life. For, without the existence of God, what point is there in anything? Our lives would, seemingly, be for nothing. And when we die, that would be it? What a waste! We have a choice, therefore, to either have faith and live our lives the best we can, in hope of eternal life in heaven when we are finished - or we take the view that "life is not a rehearsal" - live it the best we can, but resign ourselves to death being final.

Here we meet some isms! There is atheism, a denial of God's existence - and agnosticism, whose followers don't know what they believe - they are unsure; would like to believe; but need proof. For the most part, though, the philosophy of religion concerns theism, which believes that God exists and is omnipotent, omniscient and supremely benevolent (capable of doing anything, knowing everything and of being all-good). Well, should I say that the philosophy or religion concerns either theism or the practice of attempting to disprove theism!

Theism falls into 4 broad, main arguments - "the Design Argument", "the Anthropic Principle", "the First Cause Argument" and "the Ontological Argument".

The design argument states that everything around us is suited to the function it performs and therefore bears evidence of having been designed - and therefore proves the existence of the Creator (or Divine Watchmaker).

There are many criticisms of this argument (as there are of all the arguments), but perhaps the most important of these lies in Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Although Darwin's theory in no way disproves the argument, the whole business of evolution and, indeed, geology, does throw a spanner in the works somewhat. Not to most, who are able to believe that God created evolution itself, but to some fundamentalists who, despite the evidence to the contrary, still believe that God made the entire universe in 6 (literal) days. So strong is this view in the United States (in the name of creationism), that there has even been a movement to stop the teaching of evolution in the classroom (see The Skeptical Inquirer: Science and Religion 2001 and alsoThe National Center for Science Education¹).

The Antropotic Principle is, like the Design Argument, empirical (direct observation on the world) but argues chance, rather than design (which is rather like the National Lottery and falls apart because of that). The First Cause Argument is, not in itself, empirical, but relies on the empirical fact that the universe exists and that everything else has been caused by something else prior to it - thus, the First Cause is God. This argument contradicts itself somewhat though in that stating that everything is caused by something prior to it, invites the question "what caused God"? The Ontological Argument states that a perfect being would not be perfect if it did not exist - and as, therefore, their definition of God is as a most perfect being imaginable; He must exist.

All of these arguments and all other arguments attempting to prove the existence of God, fall down mainly due to one thing. Evil. If God is supremely benevolent, how can He allow evil? How can He be all-good if He allows atrocities to happen? Is this His way of giving us "free will"? Oh, and so the arguments go - ad infinitum!

At the end of the day, there currently is no conclusive proof of God's existence. That there will ever be such proof is doubtful too - so, it is ultimately up to each of us to make that decision for ourselves. I guess that my own personal decision almost completely mirrors the one that follows, from the author Martin Gardner. It is not a belief based on evidence or on miracles or on a promise of life everlasting. It is not based on Pascal's Wager, nor is it a quick fix for a fear of dying - or a convenient reason for being. It's just a quiet feeling; an instinct.