life :: essays research papers

In the Bible, a book meant to be the word of God, condemns such things as murder, adultery and theft. I find it hard to believe that an all-powerful, all-knowing, infinitely-good being that â€Å"created† this world and everything in it would allow any of these things to occur. He would not only condemn them in an ancient book, but abolish them altogether along with any other things evil. If God is supposed to be the â€Å"heavenly father† wouldn't he want and impose onto his children his goodness and weed out all evil? Aquinas also shows this non-existence through Objective 2 where he writes how it is expecting too much for something that can be accounted for be a few principles has been produced by many. There are other principles that can account for everything we see in our world supposing God did not exist. All things can be reduced to one principle, that of nature and therefore there is no need to suppose God's existence. Once more I agree with his rationale of this subject, for it is logical to believe in a simple, visible, measurable concept such as the principle of nature, instead of something so complex it is near in-conceivable, and not able to be seen or measured. Nature could have accounted for the gradual development of mankind and scientific theories have given us explanations for the existence of nature and proof of this gradual development. Our planet's creation has been explained as a result of â€Å"The Big Bang† and man's development from a single-cellular organism to the multi-cellular, intelligent man of today by evolution. I agree with both of Thomas Aquinas' Objectives and it is mainly because of these two arguments that I, myself do not believe in the existence of