Existence of God

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of a series on

God
General conceptions[show]

Specific conceptions[show]

In particular religions[show]

Attributes[hide]

Eternalness
Existence
Gender
Names ("God")
Omnibenevolence
Omnipotence
Omnipresence
Omniscience
Experiences
Practices
[show]

Related topics[show]

Part of a series on

Irreligion

Irreligion[show]

Atheism[hide]

History
Demographics
Discrimination
Criticism
Lists of atheists

Forms and variations

Implicit and explicit
Negative and positive

New

State

Christian

Hindu

Jewish

Aspects
Anti-clericalism
Antireligion
Antitheism
Relationship between atheism and
religion

Existence of God
Agnosticism[show]

Nontheism[show]

Naturalism[show]

People[show]

Books[show]

Secularist organizations[show]

Related topics[show]

Irreligion by country

Part of a series on the

Philosophy of religion
Religious concepts[show]
Challenges[show]
God[hide]
Conceptions

Aristotelian
Brahman
Demiurge
Divinely simple
Holy Spirit
Maltheist
Pandeist
Personal
Process-theological
Supreme being
Unmoved mover

Existence

Arguments for
Beauty
Christological
Consciousness
Cosmological (kalm
contingency)
Degree
Desire
Experience
Fine-tuned universe
Love
Miracles
Morality
Ontological
Pascal's Wager
Proper basis
Reason
Teleological (natural law
watchmaker)
Transcendental
Arguments against

747 gambit
Atheist's Wager
Evil
Free will
Hell
Inconsistent revelations
Nonbelief
Noncognitivism
Occam's razor
Omnipotence paradox
Poor design
Russell's teapot
By religion

Abrahamic (Bah'
Christianity
Islam
Judaism
Mormonism)
Buddhism
Hinduism
Jainism
Sikhism
Wicca

Theories of religion[show]
Philosophers of religion[show]
Related topics[show]
Philosophy of religion article index

Arguments for and against the existence of God have been proposed by philosophers, theologians,
scientists, and others for thousands of years. In philosophical terms, such arguments involve
primarily the disciplines of epistemology (the nature and scope ofknowledge) and ontology (study of
the nature of being, existence, or reality) and also the theory of value, since concepts of perfection
are connected to notions of God. A wide variety of arguments exist which can be categorized
as metaphysical, logical,empirical, or subjective. The existence of God is subject to lively debate in
philosophy,[1] the philosophy of religion, and popular culture.
The Western tradition of philosophical discussion of the existence of God began
with Plato and Aristotle, who made arguments that would now be categorized as cosmological.
Other arguments for the existence of God have been proposed by St. Anselm, who formulated the
first ontological argument; Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and Aquinas, who presented their own versions of
the cosmological argument (the kalam argument and the first way, respectively); Descartes, who
said that the existence of a benevolent God waslogically necessary for the evidence of the senses to
be meaningful; and Immanuel Kant, who argued that the existence of God can be deduced from the

existence of good. Thinkers who have provided arguments against the existence of God
include David Hume,Kant, Nietzsche, and Bertrand Russell. In modern culture, the question of God's
existence has been discussed by scientists such asStephen Hawking, Francis Collins, Richard
Dawkins, and John Lennox, as well as philosophers including Richard Swinburne, Alvin
Plantinga, William Lane Craig, Daniel Dennett, Edward Feser, and David Bentley Hart.
Atheists generally maintain that arguments for the existence of God provide insufficient reason to
believe. Additionally, some contend that it is possible to affirmatively disprove the existence of God,
or of certain characteristics traditionally attributed to God such asperfection.[2]
Fideists acknowledge that belief in the existence of God may not be amenable to demonstration or
refutation, but rests on faithalone. The Catholic Church maintains that knowledge of the existence of
God is available in the "natural light of human reason".[3]Other religions, such as Buddhism, do not
concern themselves with the existence of gods at all.
Contents
[hide]

1 Philosophical issues
1.1 Definition of God

1.1.1 Ignosticism
1.2 Epistemology

1.2.1 The problem of the supernatural

1.2.2 Nature of relevant proofs/arguments

1.3 Outside of Western thought

2 Arguments for the existence of God

2.1 Empirical arguments

2.1.1 Aquinas' Five Ways

2.1.2 Rational Warrant

2.2 Deductive arguments

2.2.1 Ontological argument

2.2.2 Other arguments

2.3 Inductive arguments

2.3.1 Other arguments

2.4 Subjective arguments

2.4.1 Arguments from historical events or personages

2.4.2 Arguments from testimony

2.4.2.1 Arguments grounded in personal experiences

2.5 Hindu arguments

3 Arguments against the existence of God

o

3.1 Empirical arguments

3.2 Deductive arguments

3.3 Inductive arguments

3.4 Subjective arguments

3.5 Hindu arguments

4 Conclusions
o

4.1 Theism

4.2 Atheism

4.2.1 Positive atheism

4.2.2 Negative atheism

4.3 Agnosticism

4.3.1 Strong agnosticism

4.3.2 Weak agnosticism

4.3.3 Agnostic theism

4.3.4 Agnostic atheism

4.4 Apatheism

4.5 Ignosticism

5 Psychological aspects

6 See also

7 References

8 Further reading

9 External links

Philosophical issues[edit]
Definition of God[edit]
Main articles: God and Deity
In Classical theism, God is characterized as the metaphysically ultimate being (the first, timeless,
absolutely simple, and sovereign being, who is devoid of any anthropomorphic qualities), in
distinction to other conceptions such as Theistic Personalism, Open Theism, and Process Theism.
Despite extensive writing on the nature of God, these classical theists did not believe that God could
be defined. They believed that it would contradict the transcendent nature of God for mere humans
to define him. Robert Barron explains by analogy that it seems impossible for a two-dimensional
object to conceive of three-dimensional humans.[4]
By contrast, much of Eastern religious thought (chiefly pantheism) posits God as a force contained in
every imaginable phenomenon. For example, Baruch Spinoza and his followers use the term God in
a particular philosophical sense to mean the essential substance/principles of nature.
In modern Western societies, the concept of God typically entails a monotheistic, supreme, ultimate,
and personal being, as found in the Islamic, Christian and Hebrew traditions. In monotheisms
outside the Abrahamic traditions, the existence of God is discussed in similar terms.
In the Advaita Vedanta school of Hinduism, reality is ultimately seen as a single, qualityless,
changeless nirguna Brahman. Advaitin philosophy introduces the concept of saguna
Brahman or Ishvara as a way of talking about Brahman to people. Ishvara, in turn, is ascribed such
qualities as omniscience, omnipotence, and benevolence.[5]
Ignosticism[edit]
Ignosticism or "igtheism" is the theological position that every other theological position
(including agnosticism and atheism) assumes too much about the concept of God and many other
theological concepts.
It can be defined as encompassing two related views about the existence of God. The view that a
coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be
meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes
the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is
meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term "God" is
considered meaningless. The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips
the step of first asking "What is meant by 'God'?" before proclaiming the original question "Does God
exist?" as meaningless.
Some philosophers have seen ignosticism as a variation of agnosticism or atheism,[6] while others
have considered it to be distinct. An ignostic maintains that he cannot even say whether he is a
theist or an atheist until a sufficient definition of theism is put forth.
The term "ignosticism" was coined in the 1960s by Sherwin Wine, a rabbi and a founding figure
of Humanistic Judaism. The term "igtheism" was coined by the secular humanistPaul Kurtz in his
1992 book The New Skepticism.[7]

Epistemology[edit]
Main articles: Epistemology and Sociology of knowledge

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy which studies the nature, origin, and scope of
knowledge. Knowledge is, from an epistemological standpoint, distinguished from
merebelief by justification, warrant, or other such property the having of which is conducive to getting
at the truth.
Knowledge in the sense of "understanding of a fact or truth" can be divided into a
posteriori knowledge, based on experience or deduction (see methodology), and a prioriknowledge
from introspection, axioms, or self-evidence. Knowledge can also be described as
a psychological state, since in a strict sense there can never be a posterioriknowledge proper
(see relativism). Much of the disagreement about "proofs" of God's existence is due to different
conceptions not only of the term "God" but also the terms "proof", "truth", and "knowledge". Religious
belief from revelation or enlightenment (satori) can fall into either the first category, a
posteriori knowledge, if rooted in deduction or personal revelation, or the second, a priori class of
knowledge, if based on introspection.
Different conclusions as to the existence of God often rest on different criteria for deciding what
methods are appropriate for deciding if something is true or not, including

whether logic counts as evidence concerning the quality of existence

whether subjective experience counts as evidence for objective reality

whether either logic or evidence can rule in or out the supernatural

whether an object of the mind is accepted for existence

whether a truthbearer can justify.

The problem of the supernatural[edit]

One problem posed by the question of the existence of God is that traditional beliefs usually ascribe
to God various supernatural powers. Supernatural beings may be able to conceal and reveal
themselves for their own purposes, as for example in the tale of Baucis and Philemon. In addition,
according to concepts of God, God is not part of the natural order, but the ultimate creator of nature
and of the scientific laws. Thus, in Aristotelian philosophy, God is viewed as part of the explanatory
structure needed to support scientific conclusions, and any powers God possesses are, strictly
speaking, of the natural orderthat is, derived from God's place as originator of nature. (See
also Monadology)
Some[who?] religious apologists offer the supernatural nature of God as the explanation for the inability
of empirical methods to decide the question of God's existence. In Karl Popper's philosophy of
science, belief in a supernatural God is outside the natural domain of scientific investigation because
all scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable in the natural world. The Non-overlapping Magisteria view
proposed by Stephen Jay Gould also holds that the existence (or otherwise) of God is irrelevant to
and beyond the domain of science.
Logical positivists, such as Rudolf Carnap and A. J. Ayer viewed any talk of gods as literal
nonsense. For the logical positivists and adherents of similar schools of thought, statements about
religious or other transcendent experiences could not have a truth value, and were deemed to be
without meaning, because metaphysical naturalism, the philosophical basis for logical positivism,
automatically excludes the possibility of the supernatural a priori without proof. As the Christian
biologist Scott C. Todd put it "Even if all the data pointed to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis
is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." [8] This argument limits the domain of science
to the empirically observable and limits the domain of God to the unprovable.

Nature of relevant proofs/arguments[edit]

Since God (of the kind to which the arguments relate) is neither an entity in the universe nor a
mathematical object, it is not obvious what kinds of arguments/proofs are relevant to God's
existence. Even if the concept of scientific proof were not problematic, the fact that there is no
conclusive scientific proof of the existence, or non-existence, of God [9]mainly demonstrates that the
existence of God is not a scientific question. John Polkinghorne suggests that the nearest analogy to
the existence of God in physics are the ideas of quantum mechanics which are seemingly
paradoxical but make sense of a great deal of disparate data.[10]
Alvin Plantinga compares the question of the existence of God to the question of the existence
of other minds, claiming both are notoriously impossible to "prove" against a determined skeptic. [11]
One approach, suggested by writers such as Stephen D. Unwin, is to treat (particular versions
of) theism and naturalism as though they were two hypotheses in the Bayesiansense, to list certain
data (or alleged data), about the world, and to suggest that the likelihoods of these data are
significantly higher under one hypothesis than the other.[12] Most of the arguments for, or against, the
existence of God can be seen as pointing to particular aspects of the universe in this way. In almost
all cases it is not seriously suggested by proponents of the arguments that they are irrefutable,
merely that they make one worldview seem significantly more likely than the other. However, since
an assessment of the weight of evidence depends on the prior probability that is assigned to each
worldview, arguments that a theist finds convincing may seem thin to an atheist and vice versa. [13]
Philosophers, such as Wittgenstein, take a view that is considered anti-realist and oppose
philosophical arguments related to God's existence. For instance, Charles Taylorcontends that the
real is whatever will not go away. If we cannot reduce talk about God to anything else, or replace it,
or prove it false, then perhaps God is as real as anything else.[14]
In George Berkeley's A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge of 1710, he argued
that a "naked thought" cannot exist, and that a perception was a thought; therefore only minds could
be proven to exist, since all else was merely an idea conveyed by a perception. This viewpoint has
been used in popular fiction, including The Matrixmovie series. From this Berkeley argued that the
universe is based upon observation and is non-objective. However, he noted that the universe
includes "ideas" not perceptible to mankind (or not always perceptible), and that there must therefore
exist an omniscient superobserver, which perceives such things. Berkeley considered this proof of
the existence of the Christian god.

Outside of Western thought[edit]

Existence in absolute truth is central to Vedanta epistemology. Traditional sense perception based
approaches were put into question as possibly misleading due to preconceived or superimposed
ideas. But though all object-cognition can be doubted, the existence of the doubter remains a fact
even in nastika traditions of mayavada schools following Adi Shankara.[15] The five eternal principles
to be discussed under ontology, beginning with God or Isvara, the Ultimate Reality cannot be
established by the means of logic alone, and often require superior proof.[16] In Vaisnavism Vishnu, or
his intimate ontological form of Krishna, is equated to personal absolute God of the Western
traditions. Aspects of Krishna as svayam bhagavan in original Absolute Truth, sat chit ananda, are
understood originating from three essential attributes of Krishna's form, i.e., "eternal existence"
orsat, related to the brahman aspect; "knowledge" or chit, to the paramatman; and "bliss"
or ananda in Sanskrit, to bhagavan.[17]

Arguments for the existence of God[edit]

Empirical arguments[edit]
Aquinas' Five Ways[edit]
Main article: Quinque viae

For in depth analysis of the individual arguments, see unmoved mover, first cause, argument from
contingency, argument from degree, or teleological argument.
In the first part of his Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas developed his five arguments for God's
existence. These arguments are grounded in an Aristotelian ontology and make use of the infinite
regression argument.[18][19] Aquinas did not intend to fully prove the existence of God as he is
orthodoxly conceived (with all of his traditional attributes), but proposed his Five Ways as a first
stage, which he built upon later in his work.[20] Aquinas' Five Ways argued from the unmoved
mover, first cause, necessary being, argument from degree, and the teleological argument.

The unmoved mover argument asserts that, from our experience of motion in the universe
(motion being the transition from potentiality to actuality) we can see that there must have been
an initial mover. Aquinas argued that whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another
thing, so there must be an unmoved mover.[18]

Aquinas' argument from first cause started with the premise that it is impossible for a being
to cause itself (because it would have to exist before it caused itself) and that it is impossible for
there to be an infinite chain of causes, which would result in infinite regress. Therefore, there
must be a first cause, itself uncaused.[18]

The argument from necessary being asserts that all beings are contingent, meaning that it is
possible for them not to exist. Aquinas argued that if everything can possibly not exist, there
must have been a time when nothing existed; as things exist now, there must exist a being
with necessary existence, regarded as God.[18]

Aquinas argued from degree, considering the occurrence of degrees of goodness. He

believed that things which are called good, must be called good in relation to a standard of good
a maximum. There must be a maximum goodness that which causes all goodness. [18]

The teleological argument asserts the view that things without intelligence are ordered
towards a purpose. Aquinas argued that unintelligent objects cannot be ordered unless they are
done so by an intelligent being, which means that there must be an intelligent being to move
objects to their ends: God.[18]

Rational Warrant[edit]
Philosopher Stephen Toulmin, notable for his work in the history of ideas [21] that features the
(Rational) Warrant: a statement that connects the premises to a conclusion.
Joseph Hinman applied Toulmin's approach in his argument for the existence of God, particularly in
his book The Trace of God: A Rational Warrant for Belief. [link][22] Instead of attempting to prove the
existence of God, Hinman argues you can "demonstrate the rationally warranted nature of belief". [23]
Hinman uses a wide range of studies, including ones by Robert Wuthnow, Andrew Greeley, Mathes
and Kathleen Nobel to establish that mystical experiences are life-transformative in a way that is
significant, positive and lasting.[24] He draws on additional work to add several additional major points
to his argument. First, the people who have these experiences not only do not exhibit traditional
signs of mental illness but, often, are in better mental and physical health than the general
population due to the experience.[25] Second, the experiences work. In other words, they provide a
framework for navigating life that is useful and effective. [26] All of the evidence of the positive effect's
of the experience upon people's lives he, adapting a term from Derida, terms "The Trace of God":
the footprints left behind that point to the impact
Finally, he discusses how both religious experience and belief in God is, and has always been,
normative among humans:[27] people do not need to prove the existence of God. If there is no need to

prove, Hinman argues, and the Trace of God (for instance, the impact of mystical experiences on
them), belief in God is rationally warranted.

Deductive arguments[edit]
Ontological argument[edit]
Main article: Ontological argument
The ontological argument has been formulated by philosophers including St. Anselm and Ren
Descartes. The argument proposes that God's existence is self-evident. The logic, depending on the
formulation, reads roughly as follows:[28]
1. God is the greatest conceivable being.
2. It is greater to exist than not to exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.[28]
Thomas Aquinas criticized the argument for proposing a definition of God which, if God
is transcendent, should be impossible for humans.[29] Immanuel Kant criticized the proof from a
logical standpoint: he stated that the term "God" really signifies two different terms: both idea of God,
and God. Kant concluded that the proof is equivocation, based on the ambiguity of the word God.
[30]
Kant also challenged the argument's assumption that existence is a predicate (of perfection)
because it does not add anything to the essence of a being. If existence is not a predicate, then it is
not necessarily true that the greatest possible being exists.[31] A common rebuttal to Kant's critique is
that, although "existence" does add something to both the concept and the reality of God, the
concept would be vastly different if its referent was an unreal Being.[citation needed] Another response to
Kant is attributed to Alvin Plantinga who explains that even if one were to grant Kant that "existence"
is not a real predicate, "Necessary Existence", which is the correct formulation of an understanding
of God, is a real predicate, thus according to Plantinga Kant's argument is refuted. [32]
Other arguments[edit]
These two arguments follow from possible deductions, i.e., they can be set up as deductions and
therefore are placed here.

Argument from Meaning.

Argument from Ethics, being one type of view by ontologically considered intelligence.

Inductive arguments[edit]
Inductive arguments argue their conclusions through inductive reasoning.

Another class of philosophers asserts that the proofs for the existence of God present a fairly
large probability though not absolute certainty. A number of obscure points, they say, always
remain; an act of faith is required to dismiss these difficulties. This view is maintained, among
others, by the Scottish statesman Arthur Balfour in his book The Foundations of Belief (1895).
The opinions set forth in this work were adopted in France by Ferdinand Brunetire, the editor of
the Revue des deux Mondes. Many orthodox Protestants express themselves in the same
manner, as, for instance, Dr. E. Dennert, President of the Kepler Society, in his work Ist Gott tot?
[33]

Other arguments[edit]

The hypothesis of Intelligent design proposes that certain features of the universe and
of living things are the product of an intelligent cause.[34] Its proponents are mainlyChristians.[35]

Argument from belief in God being properly basic as presented by Alvin Plantinga. [36]
Argument from the confluence of proper function and reliability and the evolutionary
argument against naturalism, which demonstrate how naturalism is incapable of providing
humans with the cognitive apparatus necessary for their knowledge to have positive epistemic
status.[37]

Argument from Personal Identity.[38]

Argument from the "divine attributes of scientific law".[39]

Subjective arguments[edit]
Arguments from historical events or personages[edit]

Christianity and Judaism assert that God intervened in key specific moments in history,
especially at the Exodus and the giving of the Ten Commandments in front of all the tribes of
Israel, positing an argument from empirical evidence stemming from sheer number of witnesses,
thus demonstrating his existence.

The argument from the Resurrection of Jesus. This asserts that there is sufficient historical
evidence for Jesus's resurrection to support his claim to be the son of God and indicates, a
fortiori, God's existence.[40] This is one of several arguments known as the Christological
argument.

Islam asserts that the revelation of its holy book, the Qur'an, vindicates its divine authorship,
and thus the existence of God.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as Mormonism, similarly asserts
that the miraculous appearance of God, Jesus Christ, and angels to Joseph Smith and others
and subsequent finding and translation of the Book of Mormon establishes the existence of God.
The whole Latter Day Saint movement makes the same claim for example Community of
Christ, Church of Christ (Temple Lot), Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite), Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite), Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite), etc.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite), similarly asserts that the
finding and translation of the Plates of Laban, also known as the Brass Plates, into the Book
of the Law of the Lord and Voree plates by James Strang, One Mighty and Strong,
establishes the existence of God.

Various sects that have broken from the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) (such
as Church of Christ "With the Elijah Message" and Church of Christ (Assured Way)) claim
that the message brought by John the Baptist, One Mighty and Strong, to Otto
Fetting and W. A. Draves in The Word of the Lord Brought to Mankind by an
Angelestablishes the existence of God.

Arguments from testimony[edit]

Arguments from testimony rely on the testimony or experience of witnesses, possibly embodying the
propositions of a specific revealed religion. Swinburne argues that it is a principle of rationality that
one should accept testimony unless there are strong reasons for not doing so. [41]

The witness argument gives credibility to personal witnesses, contemporary and throughout
the ages. A variation of this is the argument from miracles (also referred to as "the priest stories")
which relies on testimony of supernatural events to establish the existence of God.

The majority argument argues that the theism of people throughout most of recorded history
and in many different places provides prima facie demonstration of God's existence.

Arguments grounded in personal experiences[edit]

See also: Anecdotal evidence

An argument for God is often made from an unlikely complete reversal in lifestyle by an
individual towards God. Paul of Tarsus, a persecutor of the early Church, became a pillar of the
Church after his conversion on the road to Damascus. Modern day examples in Evangelical
Protestantism are sometimes called "Born-Again Christians".

The Scottish School of Common Sense led by Thomas Reid taught that the fact of the
existence of God is accepted by people without knowledge of reasons but simply by a natural
impulse. That God exists, this school said, is one of the chief metaphysical principles that people
accept not because they are evident in themselves or because they can be proved, but
because common sense obliges people to accept them.

The Argument from a Proper Basis argues that belief in God is "properly basic"; that it is
similar to statements like "I see a chair" or "I feel pain". Such beliefs are non-falsifiable and, thus,
neither provable nor disprovable; they concern perceptual beliefs or indisputable mental states.

In Germany, the School of Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi taught that human reason is able to
perceive the suprasensible. Jacobi distinguished three faculties: sense, reason, and
understanding. Just as sense has immediate perception of the material so has reason
immediate perception of the immaterial, while the understanding brings these perceptions to a
person's consciousness and unites them to one another.[42] God's existence, then, cannot be
proven (Jacobi, like Immanuel Kant, rejected the absolute value of the principle of causality), it
must be felt by the mind.

In Emile, Jean-Jacques Rousseau asserted that when a person's understanding ponders

over the existence of God it encounters nothing but contradictions; the impulses of people's
hearts, however, are of more value than the understanding, and these proclaim clearly the truths
of natural religion, namely, the existence of God and the immortality of the soul.

The same theory was advocated in Germany by Friedrich Schleiermacher, who assumed an
inner religious sense by means of which people feel religious truths. According to
Schleiermacher, religion consists solely in this inner perception, and dogmatic doctrines are
inessential.[43]

Many modern Protestant theologians follow in Schleiermacher's footsteps, and teach that the
existence of God cannot be demonstrated; certainty as to this truth is only furnished to people by
inner experience, feeling, and perception.

Modernist Christianity also denies the demonstrability of the existence of God. According to
them, one can only know something of God by means of the vital immanence, that is, under
favorable circumstances the need of the divine dormant in one's subconsciousness becomes
conscious and arouses that religious feeling or experience in which God reveals himself. In
condemnation of this view the Oath Against Modernism formulated by Pius X, a Pope of
the Catholic Church, says: "Deum ... naturali rationis lumine per ea quae facta sunt, hoc est per
visibilia creationis opera, tanquam causam per effectus certo cognosci adeoque demostrari
etiam posse, profiteor." ("I declare that by the natural light of reason, God can be certainly
known and therefore his existence demonstrated through the things that are made, i.e., through
the visible works of creation, as the cause is known through its effects.")

Brahma Kumaris religion was established in 1936, when God was said to enter the body of
diamond merchant Lekhraj Kripalani (18761969) in Hyderabad, Sindh and started to speak
through him.[44][45]

Hindu arguments[edit]
Most schools of Hindu philosophy accept the existence of a creator god (Brahma), while some do
not. The school of Vedanta argues that one of the proofs of the existence of God is the law of karma.
In a commentary to Brahma Sutras (III, 2, 38, and 41), a Vedantic text, Adi Sankara, an Indian
philosopher who consolidated the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta, a sub-school of Vedanta, argues that
the original karmic actions themselves cannot bring about the proper results at some future time;
neither can super sensuous, non-intelligent qualities like adrstaan unseen force being the
metaphysical link between work and its resultby themselves mediate the appropriate, justly
deserved pleasure and pain. The fruits, according to him, then, must be administered through the
action of a conscious agent, namely, a supreme being (Ishvara).[46]
A human's karmic acts result in merits and demerits. Since unconscious things generally do not
move except when caused by an agent (for example, the axe moves only when swung by an agent),
and since the law of karma is an unintelligent and unconscious law, Sankara argues there must be a
conscious supreme Being who knows the merits and demerits which persons have earned by their
actions, and who functions as an instrumental cause in helping individuals reap their appropriate
fruits.[47] Thus, God affects the person's environment, even to its atoms, and for those souls who
reincarnate, produces the appropriate rebirth body, all in order that the person might have the
karmically appropriate experiences.[48] Thus, there must be a theistic administrator or supervisor for
karma, i.e., God.
The Nyaya school, one of six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy, states that one of the proofs of
the existence of God is karma;[49] 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.[49] This belief of Nyaya, accordingly, is the same as that of Vedanta.[49]

Arguments against the existence of God[edit]

Part of a series on

Atheism

Concepts
History
[show]

Types[show]
Arguments for atheism[hide]
Against God's existence
Atheist's Wager

Fate of the unlearned

Free will

God of the gaps

Hitchens's razor

Incompatible properties

Inconsistent revelation

Nonbelief

Omnipotence paradox

Poor design

Problem of evil

Problem of Hell

Russell's teapot

Theological noncognitivism

Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit

People[show]
Related stances[show]

Atheism portal
WikiProject

Each of the arguments below aims to show that a particular set of gods does not existby
demonstrating them to be inherently meaningless, contradictory, or at odds with
known scientific or historical facts)or that there is insufficient proof to say that they do exist.

Empirical arguments[edit]
Empirical arguments depend on knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation to
prove their conclusions.

The argument from inconsistent revelations contests the existence of the deity called God as
described in scripturessuch as the Jewish Tanakh, the Christian Bible, the Muslim Qur'an,
the Hindu Vedas, the Book of Mormon or the Baha'i Aqdasby identifying apparent
contradictions between different scriptures, within a single scripture, or between scripture and
known facts. To be effective this argument requires the other side to hold that its scriptural
record is inerrant, or at least to assert that a proper understanding of scripture gives rise to
knowledge of God's existence.

The problem of evil contests the existence of a god who is

both omnipotent and omnibenevolent by arguing that such a god should not permit the existence
of evil or suffering. The theist responses are called theodicies.

The destiny of the unevangelized, by which persons who have never even heard of a
particular revelation might be harshly punished for not following its dictates.

The argument from poor design contests the idea that God created life on the basis that
lifeforms, including humans, seem to exhibit poor design.

The argument from nonbelief contests the existence of an omnipotent God who wants
humans to believe in him by arguing that such a god would do a better job of gathering
believers.

The argument from parsimony (using Occam's razor) contends that since natural (nonsupernatural) theories adequately explain the development of religion and belief in gods,[50] the
actual existence of such supernatural agents is superfluous and may be dismissed unless
otherwise proven to be required to explain the phenomenon.

The analogy of Russell's teapot argues that the burden of proof for the existence of God lies
with the theist rather than the atheist. The Russell's teapot analogy can be considered an
extension of Occam's Razor.

Stephen Hawking and co-author Leonard Mlodinow state in their book The Grand
Design that it is reasonable to ask who or what created the universe, but if the answer is God,
then the question has merely been deflected to that of who created God. In this view, it is
accepted that some entity exists that needs no creator, and that entity is called God. This is
known as the first-cause argument for the existence of God. Both authors claim however, that it
is possible to answer these questions purely within the realm of science, and without invoking
any divine beings.[51] Some Christian philosophers disagree.[52]

Deductive arguments[edit]
Deductive arguments attempt to prove their conclusions by deductive reasoning from true premises.

The Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit is a counter-argument to the argument from design. The
argument from design claims that a complex or ordered structure must be designed. However, a
god that is responsible for the creation of a universe would be at least as complicated as the
universe that it creates. Therefore, it too must require a designer. And its designer would require
a designer also, ad infinitum. The argument for the existence of God is then a logical fallacy with
or without the use of special pleading. The Ultimate 747 gambit states that God does not provide
an origin of complexity, it simply assumes that complexity always existed. It also states that
design fails to account for complexity, which natural selection can explain.

The omnipotence paradox suggests that the concept of an omnipotent entity is logically
contradictory, from considering a question like: "Can God create a rock so big that He cannot
move it?" or "If God is all powerful, could God create a being more powerful than Himself?"

The omniscience paradox shows a different angle of the omnipotence paradox. "If God is
omnipotent, then he should be able to change the future to an 'alternate future' that is unknown
to him, conflicting with his omniscience." Similarly, an omniscient god would know the position of
all atoms in the universe over its ~14 billion-year history as well as its infinite future. To know
that, god's memory needs to be bigger than the infinite set of possible states in the current
universe. Also, a twist on the omnipotence paradox is that God's omniscience is logically
contradictory, since He could not think up a puzzle or code that he could not solve.

The problem of hell is the idea that eternal damnation for actions committed in a finite
existence contradicts God's omnibenevolence or omnipresence.

The argument from free will contests the existence of an omniscient god who has free will
or has allotted the same freedom to his creationsby arguing that the two properties are
contradictory. According to the argument, if God already knows the future, then humanity is
destined to corroborate with his knowledge of the future and not have true free will to deviate
from it. Therefore our free will contradicts an omniscient god. Another argument attacks the
existence of an omniscient god who has free will directly in arguing that the will of God himself
would be bound to follow whatever God foreknows himself doing throughout eternity.

A counter-argument against the Cosmological argument ("chicken or the egg") takes its
assumption that things cannot exist without creators and applies it to God, setting up an infinite
regress. This attacks the premise that the universe is the second cause (after God, who is
claimed to be the first cause).

Theological noncognitivism, as used in literature, usually seeks to disprove the god-concept

by showing that it is unverifiable by scientific tests.

The anthropic argument states that if God is omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect, He
would have created other morally perfect beings instead of imperfect humans.

Inductive arguments[edit]
Inductive arguments argue their conclusions through inductive reasoning.

The atheist-existential argument for the non-existence of a perfect sentient being states that
if existence precedes essence, it follows from the meaning of the term sentientthat a sentient
being cannot be complete or perfect. It is touched upon by Jean-Paul Sartre in Being and
Nothingness. Sartre's phrasing is that God would be a pour-soi [a being-for-itself; a
consciousness] who is also an en-soi [a being-in-itself; a thing]: which is a contradiction in terms.
The argument is echoed thus in Salman Rushdie's novelGrimus: "That which is complete is also
dead."

The "no reason" argument tries to show that an omnipotent and omniscient being would not
have any reason to act in any way, specifically by creating the universe, because it would have
no needs, wants, or desires since these very concepts are subjectively human. Since the
universe exists, there is a contradiction, and therefore, an omnipotent god cannot exist. This
argument is expounded upon by Scott Adams in the book God's Debris, which puts forward a
form of Pandeism as its fundamental theological model. A similar argument is put forward

in Ludwig von Mises's "Human Action". He referred to it as the "praxeological argument" and
claimed that a perfect being would have long ago satisfied all its wants and desires and would
no longer be able to take action in the present without proving that it had been unable to achieve
its wants fastershowing it imperfect.

The "historical induction" argument concludes that since most theistic religions throughout
history (e.g. ancient Egyptian religion, ancient Greek religion) and their gods ultimately come to
be regarded as untrue or incorrect, all theistic religions, including contemporary ones, are
therefore most likely untrue/incorrect by induction. It is implied as part of Stephen F. Roberts'
popular quotation:
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you
understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss
yours.

Subjective arguments[edit]
See also: Anecdotal evidence
Similar to the subjective arguments for the existence of God, subjective arguments against the
supernatural mainly rely on the testimony or experience of witnesses, or the propositions of
a revealed religion in general.

The witness argument gives credibility to personal witnesses, contemporary and from the
past, who disbelieve or strongly doubt the existence of God.

The conflicted religions argument notes that many religions give differing accounts as to
what God is and what God wants; since all the contradictory accounts cannot be correct, many if
not all religions must be incorrect.

The disappointment argument claims that if, when asked for, there is no visible help from
God, there is no reason to believe that there is a God.

Hindu arguments[edit]
Atheistic Hindu doctrines cite various arguments for rejecting a creator-God or Ishvara.
The Skhyapravacana Stra of the Samkhya school states that there is no philosophical place for
a creationist God in this system. It is also argued in this text that the existence of Ishvara (God)
cannot be proved and hence cannot be admitted to exist.[53] ClassicalSamkhya argues against the
existence of God on metaphysical grounds. For instance, Samkhya argue that an unchanging God
cannot be the source of an ever changing world. It says God was a necessary metaphysical
assumption demanded by circumstances.[54] The Sutras of Samkhya endeavour to prove that the
idea of God is inconceivable and self-contradictory, and some[which?] commentaries speak plainly on
this subject. The Sankhya- tattva-kaumudi, commenting on Karika 57, argues that a perfect God can
have no need to create a world, and if God's motive is kindness, Samkhya questions whether it is
reasonable to call into existence beings who while non-existent had no suffering. Samkhya
postulates that a benevolent deity ought to create only happy creatures, not an imperfect world like
the real world.[55]
Proponents of the school of Mimamsa, which is based on rituals and orthopraxy, decided that the
evidence allegedly proving the existence of God was insufficient. They argue that there was no need
to postulate a maker for the world, just as there was no need for an author to compose the Vedas or
a god to validate the rituals.[56] Mimamsa argues that the gods named in the Vedas have no existence
apart from the mantras that speak their names. In that regard, the power of the mantras is what is
seen as the power of gods.[57]

Conclusions[edit]

Europeans polled who "believe in a god", according to Eurobarometer in 2005.

North Americans polled about religious identity.

Conclusions on the existence of God can be divided along numerous axes, producing a variety of
orthogonal classifications. Theism andatheism are positions of belief (or lack of it),
while gnosticism and agnosticism are positions of knowledge (or the lack of it). Ignosticismconcerns
belief regarding God's conceptual coherence. Apatheism concerns belief regarding the practical
importance of whether God exists.

Theism[edit]
The theistic conclusion is that there is sufficient reason to believe that god or gods exists, or that
arguments do not matter as much as the "personal witness of the Holy Spirit", as argued by
preeminent apologist William Lane Craig.[citation needed] The Catholic Church, following the teachings
of Saint Paul the Apostle, Saint Thomas Aquinas, and the First Vatican Council, affirms that God's
existence "can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason".
[58]
In Christian faith, theologians and philosophers make a distinction between: (a) preambles of faith
and (b) articles of faith. The preambles include alleged truths contained in revelation which are
nevertheless demonstrable by reason, e.g., the immortality of the soul, the existence of God. The
articles of faith, on the other hand, contain truths that cannot be proven or reached by reason alone
and presuppose the truths of the preambles, e.g., the Holy Trinity, is not demonstrable and
presupposes the existence of God.

The argument that the existence of God can be known to all, even prior to exposure to any divine
revelation, predates Christianity. St. Paul made this argument when he said that pagans were
without excuse because "since the creation of the world [God's] invisible nature, namely, his eternal
power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made". [59] In this Paul
alludes to the proofs for a creator, later enunciated by St. Thomas [60] and others, but that had also
been explored by the Greek philosophers.
Another apologetical school of thought, including Dutch and American Reformed thinkers (such
as Abraham Kuyper, Benjamin Warfield,Herman Dooyeweerd), emerged in the late 1920s. This
school was instituted by Cornelius Van Til, and came to be popularly calledPresuppositional
apologetics (though Van Til himself felt "transcendental" would be a more accurate title). The main
distinction between this approach and the more classical evidentialist approach is that the
presuppositionalist denies any common ground between the believer and the non-believer, except
that which the non-believer denies, namely, the assumption of the truth of the theistic worldview. In
other words, presuppositionalists do not believe that the existence of God can be proven by appeal
to raw, uninterpreted, or "brute" facts, which have the same (theoretical) meaning to people with
fundamentally different worldviews, because they deny that such a condition is even possible. They
claim that the only possible proof for the existence of God is that the very same belief is the
necessary condition to the intelligibility of all other human experience and action. They attempt to
prove the existence of God by means of appeal to thetranscendental necessity of the belief
indirectly (by appeal to the unavowed presuppositions of the non-believer's worldview) rather than
directly (by appeal to some form of common factuality). In practice this school utilizes what have
come to be known as transcendental arguments. In these arguments they claim to demonstrate that
all human experience and action (even the condition of unbelief, itself) is a proof for the existence of
God, because God's existence is the necessary condition of their intelligibility.
Alvin Plantinga presents an argument for the existence of God using modal logic.[61] Others have said
that the logical and philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God miss the point. The
word God has a meaning in human culture and history that does not correspond to the beings whose
existence is supported by such arguments, assuming they are valid. The real question is not whether
a "most perfect being" or an "uncaused first cause" exist. The real question is
whether Jehovah, Zeus, Ra, Krishna, or any gods of any religion exist, and if so, which gods? On the
other hand, many theists equate all monotheistic or henotheistic "most perfect Beings", no matter
what name is assigned to them/him, as the one monotheistic God (one example would be
understanding the Muslim Allah, Christian Yhwh, and Chinese Shangdi as different names for the
same Being). Most of these arguments do not resolve the issue of which of these figures is more
likely to exist. These arguments fail to make the distinction between immanent gods and a
Transcendent God.
Some[who?] Christians note that the Christian faith teaches "salvation is by faith",[62] and that faith is
reliance upon the faithfulness of God. The most extreme example of this position is called fideism,
which holds that faith is simply the will to believe, and argues that if God's existence were rationally
demonstrable, faith in its existence would become superfluous. Sren Kierkegaard argued that
objective knowledge, such as 1+1=2, is unimportant to existence. If God could rationally be proven,
his existence would be unimportant to humans. [citation needed] It is because God cannot rationally be
proven that his existence is important to us. In The Justification of Knowledge,
the Calvinist theologianRobert L. Reymond argues that believers should not attempt to prove the
existence of God. Since he believes all such proofs are fundamentally unsound, believers should not
place their confidence in them, much less resort to them in discussions with non-believers; rather,
they should accept the content of revelation by faith. Reymond's position is similar to that of his
mentor Gordon Clark, which holds that all worldviews are based on certain unprovable first premises
(or, axioms), and therefore are ultimately unprovable. The Christian theist therefore must simply
choose to start with Christianity rather than anything else, by a "leap of faith". This position is also
sometimes called presuppositional apologetics, but should not be confused with the Van Tillian
variety.

Atheism[edit]
Main article: Atheism
The atheistic conclusion is that the arguments and evidence both indicate there is insufficient reason
to believe that any gods exist, and that personal subjective religious experiences are
indistinguishable from misapprehension; therefore one should not believe that a god exists.
Positive atheism[edit]
Main article: Negative and positive atheism
Positive atheism (also called "strong atheism" and "hard atheism") is a form of atheism that asserts
that no deities exist.[63][64][65] The strong atheist explicitly asserts the non-existence of gods.
Some[who?] strong atheists further assert that the existence of gods is logically impossible, stating that
the combination of attributes which God may be asserted to have
(omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, transcendence, omnibenevolence) are logically
contradictory, incomprehensible, or absurd, and therefore the existence of such a god is a
priori false. Metaphysical naturalism is a common worldview associated with strong atheism.
In Science Refutes Religion, Isaacson argues an empirical form of strong atheism. If God is in the
world (as opposed to being an abstract being), then science effectively proves there is no god.
Because "the absence of evidence is overwhelming. There is no more reason to believe that a godof-this-world exists than there is to believe that Zeus exists, or that Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy
exist, or the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot."[66] If, on the other hand, God is an "abstract being", then
it means (by definition) that god doesn't interfere in the lives of us mortals. "He doesn't answer
prayers. There was no burning bush." etc.[67]
Negative atheism[edit]
Negative atheism (also called "weak atheism" and "soft atheism") is any type of atheism other than
positive, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly
assert there to be none.[63][64][65]

Agnosticism[edit]
Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claimsespecially claims about the existence
of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claimsis unknown or unknowable.
[68]
Agnosticism as a broad umbrella term does not define one's belief or disbelief in gods; agnostics
may still identify themselves as theists or atheists.[69]
Strong agnosticism[edit]
Strong agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible for humans to know whether or not any deities
exist.
Weak agnosticism[edit]
Weak agnosticism is the belief that the existence or nonexistence of deities is unknown but not
necessarily unknowable.
Agnostic theism[edit]
Agnostic theism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. For
theism, an agnostic theist believes that the proposition at least one deity exists is true, but, per
agnosticism, believes that the existence of gods is unknown or inherently unknowable. The agnostic
theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of the god(s) they believe in. [70]
Agnostic atheism[edit]
Agnostic atheism is the view of those who do not claim to know the existence of any deity but do not
believe in any.[69]

The theologian Robert Flint explains: "If a man have failed to find any good reason for believing that
there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if
so, he is an atheist, although he assume no superhuman knowledge, but merely the ordinary human
power of judging of evidence. If he go farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of
human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to
believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist, an
agnostic-atheistan atheist because an agnostic."[71]

Apatheism[edit]
The apatheist concludes the question of God's existence or nonexistence to be of little or no
practical importance.[citation needed]

Ignosticism[edit]
The ignostic (or igtheist) usually concludes that the question of God's existence or nonexistence, like
many similar questions, is usually not worth discussing because concepts like "God" are usually not
sufficiently clearly defined.
Some philosophers have seen ignosticism as a variation of agnosticism or atheism,[6] while others
have considered it to be distinct.

Psychological aspects[edit]
See also: Evolutionary psychology of religion
Several authors have offered psychological or sociological explanations for belief in the existence of
God. Many of these views have been sought to give a naturalistic explanation of religion, though this
does not necessarily mean such views are exclusive to naturalism.
Psychologists observe that the majority of humans often ask existential questions such as "why we
are here" and whether life has purpose. Some[who?] psychologists have posited that religious beliefs
may recruit cognitive mechanisms in order to satisfy these questions. William James emphasized
the inner religious struggle between melancholy and happiness, and pointed to trance as a cognitive
mechanism. Sigmund Freud stressed fear and pain, the need for a powerful parental figure, the
obsessional nature of ritual, and the hypnotic state a community can induce as contributing factors to
the psychology of religion.
Pascal Boyer's Religion Explained (2002), based in part on his anthropological field work, treats
belief in God as the result of the brain's tendency towards agency detection. Boyer suggests that,
because of evolutionary pressures, humans err on the side of attributing agency where there isn't
any. In Boyer's view, belief in supernatural entities spreads and becomes culturally fixed because of
their memorability. The concept of "minimally counterintuitive" beings that differ from the ordinary in a
small number of ways (such as being invisible, able to fly, or having access to strategic and
otherwise secret information) leave a lasting impression that spreads through word-of-mouth.
Scott Atran's In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion (2002) makes a similar
argument and adds examination of the socially coordinating aspects of shared belief. In Minds and
Gods: The Cognitive Foundations of Religion, Todd Tremlin follows Boyer in arguing that universal
human cognitive process naturally produces the concept of the supernatural. Tremlin contends that
an agency detection device (ADD) and a theory of mind module (ToMM) lead humans to suspect an
agent behind every event. Natural events for which there is no obvious agent may be attributed to
God (c.f. Act of God).

See also[edit]

Absurdism

Apologetics

Christian existential apologetics

Efficacy of prayer

Existence of Jesus

Gdel's ontological proof

Metaphysics

Pascal's Wager

Rationalism

Spectrum of theistic probability

Relationship between religion and science

References[edit]
1.

2.

Jump up^ See e.g. The Rationality of Theism quoting Quentin Smith "God is not 'dead' in
academia; it returned to life in the late 1960s". They cite "the shift from hostility towards theism in Paul
Edwards's Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1967) to sympathy towards theism in the more
recent Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Jump up^ "The Argument From Perfection". Retrieved 2013-03-06.

3.

Jump up^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraph 47; cf. Canons of the First Vatican
Council, 2:2

4.

Jump up^ Barron, Robert (2011). Catholicism: A Journey to the Heart of the Faith. The
Doubleday Religious Publishing Group. ISBN 9780307720511.

5.

Jump up^ Hebbar, Neria Harish. "The Principal Upanishads". Retrieved 2007-01-12.

6.

^ Jump up to:a b "The Argument From Non-Cognitivism". Retrieved 2008-02-11.

7.

Jump up^ "isms of the week: Agnosticism and Ignosticism". The Economist. 2010-07-28.
Retrieved December 19, 2011.

8.

Jump up^ Scott C. Todd, "A View from Kansas on that Evolution Debate," Nature Vol. 401,
Sep. 30, 1999, p. 423

9.
10.

Jump up^ Those holding this range from Dawkins to Ward to Plantinga.
Jump up^ Polkinghorne, John (1998). Belief in God in an Age of Science. Yale University
Press.ISBN 0-300-07294-5.

11.

Jump up^ see his God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in
GodCornell (1990) ISBN 0-8014-9735-3 and Warranted Christian Belief OUP (2000) ISBN 0-19513193-2

12.
13.

Jump up^ See e.g. the Beale/Howson debate published Prospect May, 1998
Jump up^ See e.g. The Probability of God by Stephen D. Unwin its criticism in The God
Delusion, and the critical comment in that article.

14.

Jump up^ "iep.utm.edu". iep.utm.edu. 2004-08-30. Retrieved 2013-05-14.

15.

Jump up^ Klostermaier, Klaus K. (2007). A survey of Hinduism. Albany: State University of
New York Press. p. 357. ISBN 0-7914-7081-4.

16.

Jump up^ Sudesh Narang (1984)The Vaisnava Philosophy According to Baladeva

Vidybhs an a, p. 30

17.

Jump up^ Maria Ekstrand; Bryant, Edwin H. (2004). The Hare Krishna movement: the
postcharismatic fate of a religious transplant. New York: Columbia University Press. p. 7.ISBN 0-23112256-X.

18.

^ Jump up to:a b c d e f Aquinas, Thomas (1274). Summa Theologica. Part 1, Question 2, Article
3.

19.

Jump up^ Aquinas, Thomas; Kreeft, Peter (1990). Summa of the Summa. Ignatius Press.
pp. 6569. ISBN 9780898703009.

20.

Jump up^ Davies, Brian (1992). The Thought of Thomas Aquinas. Oxford University Press.
p. 26.ISBN 9780191520440.

21.
22.

23.

Jump up^ "Stephen Edelston Toulmin". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 16 June 2014.
Jump up^ Hinman, Joseph. The Trace of God: A Rational Warrant for Belief (1 ed.).
GrandViaduct. ISBN 978-0-9824087-1-1.
Jump up^ Hinman, Joseph. "On Rational Warrant". Metacrock. Retrieved 2014-06-13.

24.

Jump up^ Hinman, Joseph. The Trace of God: A Rational Warrant for Belief (1 ed.).
GrandViaduct. pp. 8592. ISBN 978-0-9824087-1-1.

25.

Jump up^ Hinman, Joseph. The Trace of God: A Rational Warrant for Belief (1 ed.).
GrandViaduct. pp. 9092. ISBN 978-0-9824087-1-1.

26.

Jump up^ Hinman, Joseph. The Trace of God: A Rational Warrant for Belief (1 ed.).
GrandViaduct. pp. 100103. ISBN 978-0-9824087-1-1.

27.

Jump up^ Hinman, Joseph. The Trace of God: A Rational Warrant for Belief (1 ed.).
GrandViaduct. pp. 104105. ISBN 978-0-9824087-1-1.

28.

^ Jump up to:a b Nolan, Lawrence. "Descartes' Ontological Argument". Stanford.

29.

Jump up^ Aquinas, Thomas (1274). Summa Theologica. Part 1, Question 2.

30.
31.

Jump up^ Kreeft, Peter (2009). Socrates Meets Kant. Ignatius Press. ISBN 9781586173487.
Jump up^ Himma, Kenneth Einar (27 April 2005). "Ontological Argument". Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved October 12, 2011.

32.

Jump up^ "Plantinga 'The Ontological Argument' Text". Mind.ucsd.edu. Retrieved 2013-0514.

33.

Jump up^ (Stuttgart, 1908)

34.

Jump up^ "Intelligent Design". Intelligent Design. Retrieved 2013-05-14.

35.

Jump up^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005) (the
writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of
Christianity). , Ruling p. 26. A selection of writings and quotes of intelligent design supporters
demonstrating this identification of the Christian god with the intelligent designer are found in the
pdf Horse's MouthArchived June 27, 2008 at the Wayback Machine (PDF) by Brian Poindexter, dated
2003.

36.

Jump up^ Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief

37.

Jump up^ Alvin Plantinga, Warrant and Proper Function

38.

Jump up^ Richard Swinburne, The Coherence of Theism

39.

40.
41.

Jump up^ This argument is articulated by Vern Poythress in chapter 1 of Redeeming Science
(pages 13-31). Available: http://www.frame-poythress.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/08/PoythressVernRedeemingScience.pdf#page=14
Jump up^ Polkinghorne, John. Science and Christian Belief. pp. 108122.
Jump up^ Swinburne, Richard (1997). Is there a God?. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19823545-3.

42.

Jump up^ (A. Stckl, Geschichte der neueren Philosophie, II, 82 sqq.)

43.

Jump up^ (Stckl, loc. cit., 199 sqq.)

44.

Jump up^ "Based on our real life experiences we clearly know that it was God, the Supreme
Soul, Shiva, Himself, had entered into his body. It was God who had revealed the truth about the
coming destruction, and of the establishment of the heavenly world which would then follow. And it
was God Himself who had given the sign that he, Dada, was to be His medium and the engine for
creating such a divine world."[dead link]

45.

Jump up^ Babb, Lawrence A. (1987). Redemptive Encounters: Three Modern Styles in the
Hindu Tradition (Comparative Studies in Religion and Society). Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-70692563-7.

46.

Jump up^ Reichenbach, Bruce R. (April 1989). "Karma, causation, and divine
intervention".Philosophy East and West (Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press) 39 (2): 135149
[145].doi:10.2307/1399374. Retrieved 2009-12-29.

47.

Jump up^ see,Theistic Explanations of Karma, pg. 146 of Causation and Divine Intervention
by BR Reichenbach at http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/reiche2.htm citing Sankara's
commentary on Brahma Sutras,III, 2, 38, and 41.

48.

Jump up^ See, Theistic Explanations of Karma, Causation and Divine Intervention by BR
Reichenbach at http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/reiche2.htm citing Sankara's commentary
on Brahma Sutras,III, 2, 38, and 41.

49.

^ Jump up to:a b c See Theistic Explanations of Karma, pg. 146 of Causation and Divine
Intervention by BR Reichenbach, citing Uddyotakara, Nyaayavaarttika, IV, 1, 21,
athttp://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/reiche2.htm

50.

Jump up^ Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought, Pascal Boyer,
Basic Books (2001)

51.
52.

Jump up^ p. 172, The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking, Leonard Mlodinow
Jump up^ Professor John Lennox (2010-09-03). "Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't
explain the universe without God | Mail Online". London: Dailymail.co.uk. Retrieved 2013-05-14.

53.

Jump up^ Skhyapravacana Stra I.92.

54.

Jump up^ Rajadhyaksha (1959). The six systems of Indian philosophy. p. 95.

55.

Jump up^ Eliot, Charles. Hinduism and Buddhism, Vol II. (of 3). p. 243.

56.

Jump up^ Neville, Robert. Religious truth. p. 51.

57.

Jump up^ Coward, Harold. The perfectibility of human nature in eastern and western thought.
p. 114.

58.

Jump up^ Vatican Council I, Dei Filius 2; quoted in Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd
edition (New York: Doubleday, 1995) n. 36, p. 20.

59.

Jump up^ Romans 1:20

60.

Jump up^ For the proofs of God's existence by Saint Thomas Aquinas see Quinquae viae.

61.

Jump up^ Plantinga, Alvin (1974). The Nature of Necessity. New York: Oxford University
Press. p. 63.

62.

Jump up^ 2 Timothy 3:1415 NIV "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and
have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy
you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in
Christ Jesus." The Holy Bible, New International Version. International Bible Society. 1984.

63.

^ Jump up to:a b Flew, Antony (1976). "The Presumption of Atheism". The Presumption of
Atheism, and other Philosophical Essays on God, Freedom, and Immortality. New York: Barnes and
Noble. pp. 14ff. Retrieved 2011-12-10. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who
positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future
ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the
latter.

64.

^ Jump up to:a b Martin, Michael (2006). The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Cambridge
University Press. ISBN 0-521-84270-0.

65.

^ Jump up to:a b "Definitions of the term "Atheism"". Ontario Consultants on Religious

Tolerance. 2007. Retrieved 2010-06-01.

66.

Jump up^ Science Refutes Religion: An essay concerning How and what it means to prove
God does not exist. "Science Refutes Religion: An essay concerning How and what it means to prove
God does not exist, revised edition (978-1481099882): Steve Isaacson: Books". Amazon.com.
Retrieved 2012-11-29., pg. 15

67.
68.

69.

Jump up^ Science Refutes Religion, pg. 24

Jump up^ Carroll, Robert (2009-02-22). "agnosticism". The Skeptic's Dictionary.
skepdic.com. Retrieved 2009-10-17.
^ Jump up to:a b Cline, Austin. "What is Agnosticism?". About.com. Retrieved 2009-01-08.

70.

Jump up^ "Introduction to Agnosticism: What is Agnostic Theism? Believing in God, but not
Knowing God". Atheism.about.com. 2012-04-13. Retrieved 2013-05-14.

71.

Jump up^ Flint, Robert (1903). "Erroneous VIews of Agnosticism". Agnosticism. C. Scribner
sons. p. 50. Retrieved 2009-11-15.

Further reading[edit]

Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Black Swan, 2007 (ISBN 978-0-552-77429-1).

Hick, John, ed. (1964). The Existence of God: Readings, in The Problems of Philosophy
Series. New York: Macmillan Co.

Plantinga, Alvin. "Two Dozen (or so) Theistic Arguments". Calvin College.

Schneider, Nathan (2013). God in Proof: The Story of a Search from the Ancients to the
Internet. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520269071.

Schneider, Nathan (December 10, 2013). "What Proofs about God Really Prove". Killing the
Buddha.

External links[edit]
Wikibooks has a book on
the topic of: God and
Religious Toleration/The
proof of God
Wikiversity has learning
materials about Existence
of God

A Philosophical Analysis of Major Epistemological Approaches to the Problem of Divine

Existence and Nature

PhilosophyOfReligion.info. Introductory articles on philosophical arguments about the

existence of God (for and against).

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, articles on philosophical arguments about the nature

and existence of God.

A Collection of Arguments for the Existence of God

Arguments for the Existence of God from the Christian Cadre.

Is There a God? by Harley Hahn. A logical discussion considering the existence of a

traditional monotheistic God.

Proofs of God's Existence: IslamAhmadiyyat

StrongAtheism.net References page

The Existence of GodCatholic Encyclopedia

The Classical Islamic Arguments for the Existence of God by Majid Fakhry

Arguments for God's Existence from a Christian perspective.

[show]

Links to related articles

Religion portal

Philosophy portal

Atheism portal

Categories:
Arguments against the existence of God

Arguments for the existence of God

Religious controversies

Philosophical arguments

Philosophy of religion

God