Arguments for existence of god

I have always wanted to compile a history of philosophy in chronological order. But due to huge inertia and commitments I kept postponing it. Finally this weekend upon the insistence of my husband, I have tried to put together some ideas worth noting. Thanks to Wikipedia all the information is so easily available online.

In this blog I have put arguments for existence of god by eastern and western philosophies side by side. Below is a quick snapshot.

Nyaya philosophy (2 nd centuryCE)

Nyaya philosophers believed that obtaining valid knowledge was the only way to gain release from suffering, and they took great pains to identify valid sources of knowledge and distinguish these from mere false opinions. According to Nyaya philosophers, there are exactly four sources of knowledge: perception, inference, comparison, and testimony. Knowledge obtained through each of these is either valid or invalid. Nyaya developed several criteria of validity.
The ultimate purpose of the Nyaya Sutras is the attainment of salvation, attained by knowledge of the sixteen categories, which are:
1. means of valid knowledge (pramana);
2. objects of valid knowledge (prameya);
3. doubt (samshaya);
4. purpose (prayojana);
5. example (drstanata);
6. conclusion (siddhanta);
7. the constituents of a syllogism (avayava);
8. argumentation (tarka);
9. ascertainment (nirnaya);
10. debate (vada);
11. disputations (jalpa);
12. destructive criticism (vitanda);
13. fallacy (hetvabhasa);
14. quibble (chala);
15. refutations (jati); and
16. points of the opponent's defeat (nigrahasthana).

The following are nine proofs given by Nyaya philosophers to prove the existence of god.
1) Kāryāt (effect) : The universe was created by a series of cause and effects and the primary cause for the universe is god. Hence from the creation, the existence of the Creator is proved.
2) Āyojanāt (combination): Atoms are inactive and properties are unphysical. So it must be God who creates the world with his will by causing the atoms to join. Self-combination of inanimate and lifeless things is not possible; otherwise atoms would only combine at random, creating chaos. There is to be seen the hand of a wise organizer behind the systematic grouping of the ultimate atoms into dyads and molecules. That final organizer is God.
3) Dhŗité(support): Just as a material thing falls off without a support, similarly, God is the supporter and bearer of this world, without which the world would not have remained integrated. This universe is hence superintended within God, which proves his existence.
4) Padāt (word): Every word has the capability to represent a certain object. It is the will of God that a thing should be represented by a certain word. Similarly, no knowledge can come to us of the different things here unless there is a source of this knowledge. The origin of all knowledge should be omniscient and, consequently, omnipotent. Such a being is not to be seen in this universe, and so it must be outside it. This being is God.
5) Pratyatah (faith): the Hindu holy scriptures, the vedas, are regarded as the source of eternal knowledge. Their knowledge is free from fallacies and are widely believed as a source of proof. Their authors cannot be human beings because human knowledge is limited. They cannot obtain knowledge of past, present, and future, and in depth knowledge of mind. Hence, only God can be the creator of the Vedas. Hence, his existence is proved from his being the author of the Vedas, which he revealed to various sages over a period of time.
6) Shrutéh (scriptures): The Shrutis, e.g., the Vedas extol God and talk about his existence. "He is the lord of all subjects, omniscient, and knower of one's internal feelings; He is the creator, cause and destroyer of the world", say the Shrutis. The Shrutis are regarded as a source of proofs by Naiyanikas. Hence, the existence of God is proved.
7) Vākyāt (precepts): Again, the Veda must have been produced by a person because it has the nature of "sentences," i.e., the sentences of the Veda were produced by a person because they have the nature of sentences, just as the sentences of beings like ourselves. That person must have been God.
8) Samkhyāvişheshāt (from the specialty of numbers): The size of a dyad or a molecule depends on the number of the atoms that constitute it. This requisite number of the atoms that form a particular compound could not have been originally the object of the perception of any human being; so its contemplator must be God.
9) Adŗişhţāt (lit., from the unforeseen): It is seen that some people in this world are happy, some are in misery. Some are rich, and some are poor. The Naiyanikas explain this by the concept of Karma and reincarnation. The fruit of an individual's actions does not always lie within the reach of the individual who is the agent. There ought to be, therefore, a dispenser of the fruits of actions, and this supreme dispenser is God


Ontological arguments (1033 AD)

ST ANSLEM

Anselm was born in Aosta in Burgundy. He was a pious child who took to monastic life the age of 15. His most famous logical arguments for existence of god in his to major works Monologian and Prologian were “God exists because the concept of god exists”. In the book “The Existence of Nature and God” Anselm′s Argument for the Existence of God is as follows:
1. God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived
2. God may exist in the understanding.
3. To exist in reality and in the understanding is greater than to exist in the understanding alone.
4. Therefore, God exists in reality.

RENE DESCARTES

Descartes was a French philosopher and mathematician and is called the father of modern philosophy. His most famous work is “cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am)”
The intuition was formally described by Descartes in fifth meditation as follows:
1. Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing.
2. I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of God.
3. Therefore, God exists

In the light of the logical, superbly phrased and thought through arguments put forth by both eastern and western philosophers. I wonder what atheists who want to explain everything with Darwinism have to say.