Philosophers have made extensive arguments on the merits of the competing perceptions regarding the rationale of theistic belief. The argument from design and the argument from analogy do not offer an outstanding reason for embracing the belief in question. Consequently, almost everyone grants the belief in their minds, which should also be granted concerning God. No belief requires proof or compelling reasons so as to be rationally supported. It is perfectly proper and right to have belief in God without having any argument or requiring any evidence at all.
The reply commonly given to individuals who allege that science can testify God does not exist is that no individual can prove an unlimited negative. An unlimited negative is an allegation to the effect that an object does not exist anywhere. Since no one can comprehensively examine each location in the universe, the response consequently goes that no one can convincingly determine the non existence of anything. Accordingly, individuals who have attempted to demonstrate that God is not existence, make use of the concept of inconsistency to provide their evidence. God is not a theoretical entity as various phenomena such as the design of the universe, origin of living beings and the universe are not just a postulation of God’s existence rather testimony of His existence (Holley, 2010).
The explanation by the contemporary science concerning these phenomena does not arrive at concluding justifications. My argument rests on the typical intuition that the belief in God is different from the belief in the ordinary material objects. This is for the straightforward reason that observation of the common material objects is possible. Observation of ordinary material objects and the belief of individuals in them are paradigmatically rational and non theoretical.
Reference
Holley, D. M. (2010). Meaning and mystery: What it means to believe in God. Chichester, West Sussex, U.K: Wiley-Blackwell.
