Proving God's Existence

Two definitions: In terms of the former definition we can say the following: a conclusion follows from some premisses just in case the argument with those premisses and that conclusion is valid.

Example 1

  1. Every human being is mortal.
  2. Socrates is a human being.
     Therefore,
  3. Socrates is mortal.
Example 2
  1. If you study hard, you will pass the course.
  2. You study hard.
    Therefore,
  3. You will pass the course.
Example 3
  1. If you study hard, you will pass the course.
  2. You don't study hard.
     Therefore,
  3. You won't pass the course.
Example 4
  1. Every UR student was denied admission to an Ivy League school.
  2. Jane is a UR student.
     Therefore,
  3. Jane was denied admission to an Ivy League school.
Two more definitions: An Important Consequence: A useful principle: The form of examples 1 and 4:
  1. Every F is G.
  2. a is F.
    Therefore,
  3. a is G.
Example 5
  1. If it's warmer than 100 F. today, then it's warmer than 60 F. today.
  2. It's not warmer than 100 F. today.
    Therefore,
  3. It's not warmer than 60 F. today.
Example 6
  1. Either God exists or the Taj Mahal is green.
  2. The Taj Mahal isn't green.
     Therefore,
  3. God exists.
Perhaps what we are looking for is a sound argument the conclusion of which is that God exists and the premisses of which are acceptable to nearly every sane and reasonably intelligent person who thinks about them. (Similar standards should apply, of course, to the attempt to prove that God doesn't exist.)

A Final Distinction:

revealed theology: the attempt to discover things about God by appealing to a special source of revelation, e.g., biblical theology.

natural theology: the attempt to discover things about God by appealing to propositions that are either self-evident or acceptable to most sane and reasonably intelligent people.
 

__________________

Last updated August 2006 by Edward Wierenga
Copyright © 2006 Edward Wierenga