Part of a series on

God

General approaches

Agnosticism · Atheism

Deism · DystheismHenotheism · Ignosticism

Monism · Monotheism

Natural theology · Nontheism

Pandeism · Panentheism

Pantheism · PolytheismTheism · Theology

Transtheism

Specific conceptions

Ahura Mazda

Alaha · Allah

Amaterasu· Susano-o

Baal · BhagavanDemiurge . Deus

Deva (Buddhism) · Deva (Hinduism)

God in Buddhism · God in Sikhism

Great Architect of the Universe · Holy Spirit

Holy Trinity · Jesus, the ChristKrishna · Monad

Kami

Nüwa 女! · Oneness (concept)Pangu 盤古 · Shang Ti

SUMMUM · Supreme BeingTetragrammaton · The Absolute

The All · Alpha and Omega

The Lord · Creator deity

General practices

Animism · Esotericism

Gnosis · Hermeticism

Metaphysics · Mysticism

New Age · PhilosophyReligion

Related topicsChaos · Cosmos

Cosmic egg · Existence

God and gender · God complex

God the Sustainer · Spiritual evolution

Problem of evil · Euthyphro dilemmaTheodicy · Transcendence

Existence of God

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Arguments against the existence of God)

Arguments for and against the existence of God have been proposed by

philosophers, theologians, and others. In philosophical terminology, existence

of God arguments concern schools of thought on the epistemology of the

ontology of God. The debate concerning the existence of God raises many

philosophical issues. A basic problem is that there is no universally accepted

definition of God. Some definitions of God's existence are so non-specific that

it is certain that something exists that meets the definition; in stark contrast,

there are suggestions that other definitions are self-contradictory. Arguments

for the existence of God typically include metaphysical, empirical, inductive,

and subjective types. Arguments against the existence of God typically include

empirical, deductive, and inductive types. Viewpoints represented include

atheism, either no belief in God or the view that God does not exist; theism,

the view that God exists; and agnosticism, the view that whether or not God

exists is unknown or unknowable. Although once regarded as a non-issue in

much of western academia, the question of the existence of God is now subject

to lively debate both in philosophy[1] and in popular culture.[2]

Contents

1 Philosophical issues

1.1 Definition of God's existence

1.2 Epistemology

1.2.1 The problem of the supernatural

1.2.2 Nature of relevant Proofs/Arguments

2 Arguments for the existence of God

2.1 Arguments from historical events or personages

2.2 Inductive arguments (for)

2.3 Arguments from testimony (for)

2.3.1 Arguments grounded in personal experience

3 Arguments against the existence of God

3.1 Empirical arguments (against)

3.2 Deductive arguments (against)

3.3 Inductive arguments (against)

3.4 Subjective arguments (against)

4 Conclusions

4.1 Theism

4.1.1 God exists and this can be demonstrated

4.1.2 God exists, but this cannot be demonstrated or

refuted

4.2 Atheism

4.2.1 Strong atheism

4.2.2 Weak atheism

4.3 Agnosticism

5 Psychological Issues

6 See also

7 Further reading

8 Notes

9 References and Further Reading

Philosophical issues

Definition of God's existence

Today in the West, the term "God" typically refers to a monotheistic concept of a Supreme Being that is unlike any other

being. Classical theism asserts that God possesses every possible perfection, including such qualities as omniscience,

omnipotence, and perfect benevolence. Of course this definition is not the only possible definition of "God". Other

philosophical approaches take a logically simple definition of God such as "the Prime Mover" or "the Uncaused Cause",[3] or

"the Ultimate Creator"[4] or "a being greater than which nothing can be conceived"[5] from which the classical properties may

be deduced.[6] By contrast Pantheists do not believe in a personal God. For example, Spinoza and his philosophical followers

(such as Einstein) use the term 'God' in a particular philosophical sense, to mean (roughly) the essential substance/principles

of Nature.[7]

In the Advaita Vedanta school of Hinduism, reality is ultimately seen as being a single, qualityless, changeless being called

nirguna Brahman. However, nirguna Brahman is understood to be beyond "ordinary" human comprehension.[8] What we

ordinarily perceive - that is, a world of many things - is brought on by consequences of our actions. Thus, 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.

Polytheistic religions use the word "god" for multiple beings with varying degrees of power and abilities. Some stories such

as those of Homer and Ovid portray gods arguing with, tricking and fighting with one another.

Epistemology

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy which studies the nature, origin, and scope of knowledge. One cannot be said to

"know" something just because one believes it. Knowledge is, from an epistemological standpoint, distinguished from belief

by justification.

Knowledge in the sense of "understanding of a fact or truth" can be divided in a posteriori knowledge, based on experience or

deduction (see methodology), and a priori knowledge from introspection, axioms or self-evidence. Knowledge can also been

described as a psychological state, since in a strict sense there can never be a posteriori knowledge 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) falls in the second,

a priori class of "knowledge".

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; some examples include

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.

The problem of the supernatural

One problem posed by the question of the existence of a 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 most concepts of God, God is not part of the natural order, but

the ultimate creator of nature and of the scientific laws.

Religious apologists offer the supernatural nature of God as one explanation of the inability of empirical methods to decide

the question of God's existence. In Karl Popper's philosophy of science, the assertion of the existence of a supernatural God

would be a non-falsifiable hypothesis, not in the domain of scientific investigation. The Non-overlapping Magisteria view

proposed by Stephen Jay Gould also holds that the existence (or otherwise) of God is beyond the domain of Science.

Proponents of intelligent design (I.D.) believe there is empirical evidence for Irreducible complexity pointing to the existence

of an intelligent creator, though their claims are challenged by most in the scientific community. Even some scientifically

literate theists appear to have been impressed by the observation that certain natural laws and universal constants seem

"fine-tuned" to favor the development of life (see Anthropic principle). However, reliance on phenomena which have not yet

been resolved by natural explanations may be equated to the pejorative God of the gaps.

Logical positivists, such as Rudolph Carnap and A. J. Ayer viewed any talk of gods as literally 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.

Nature of relevant Proofs/Arguments

Since God (of the kind to which the Proofs/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 normal scientific question. John Polkinghorne suggests that the nearest

analogy to the existence of God in Physics are the ideas of Quantum Mechanics which are paradoxical but make sense of a

great deal of disparate data.[10] However you cannot do experiments on God, and, if God exists and is indeed the creator of

reality, God created the laws of Physics and is not necessarily bound by them, so it will inevitably be more difficult to reason

reliably about God[11].

Alvin Plantinga compares the question of the existence of God to the question of the existence of other minds: both of which

are notoriously impossible to "prove" against a determined skeptic[12].

One approach, suggested by writers such as Stephen D. Unwin, is to treat (particular versions of) the existence of God or

Naturalism as though they were two hypotheses in the Bayesian sense, 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[13] 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[14].

Arguments for the existence of God

The Cosmological argument argues that there was a "first cause", or "prime mover" who is identified as God.

The Teleological argument argues that the universe's order and complexity are best explained by belief in a loving

creator God.

The Ontological argument is based on arguments about a "being greater than which can not be conceived". Alvin

Plantinga formulates this argument to show that if it is logically possible for God (a necessary being) to exist, then

God exists[15].

The mind-body problem argument suggests that the relation of consciousness to materiality is best understood in

terms of the existence of God.

Arguments that some non-physical quality observed in the universe is of fundamental importance and not an

epiphenomenon, such as justice, beauty, love or religious experience are arguments for Theism as against

Materialism.

The Anthropic argument suggests that basic facts, such as our existence, are best explained by the existence of God.

The Moral argument argues that the existence of objective morality depends on the existence of God.

The Transcendental argument for the existence of God suggests that logic, science, ethics, and other things we take

seriously do not make sense if there is no God, and that atheistic arguments must ultimately refute themselves if

pressed with rigorous consistency.

The Will to Believe Doctrine was pragmatist philosopher William James' attempt to prove God by showing that the

adoption of theism as a hypothesis "works" in a believer's life. This doctrine depended heavily on James' pragmatic

theory of truth where beliefs are proven by how they work when adopted rather than by proofs before they are believed

(a form of the hypothetico-deductive method).

Arguments based on claims of miracles wrought by God associated with specific historical events or personages.

Arguments from historical events or personages

Judaism asserts that God intervened in key specific moments in history, especially at the Exodus and the giving of the

Ten Commandments, thus demonstrating his special care for the Jewish people, and a fortiori his existence.

The argument from the life of Jesus. This asserts that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, that in this he was either

deluded, deceitful or truthful, and that it is possible to assess Jesus's character sufficiently from the accounts of his life

and teaching to rule out the first two possibilities. C S Lewis put forward this argument (the Trilemma) and it is

followed in the widely adopted Alpha Course.[16]

The argument from the Resurrection of Jesus. This asserts that there is sufficient historical evidence for Jesus's

resurrection and that this vindicates his claim to be Son of God and a fortiori God's existence.[17]

Islam asserts that the life of Muhammad and especially the revealing of the miraculous Koran by an angel similarly

vindicates Islam.

Mormonism similarly asserts that the miraculous finding of the Book of Mormon vindicates Mormonism.

Inductive arguments (for)

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 Brunetière, 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?. [18]

Arguments from testimony (for)

Arguments from testimony rely on the testimony or experience of certain 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.[19]

The witness argument gives credibility to personal witnesses, contemporary and throughout the ages. A variation of

this is the argument from miracles 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 experience

The Scotch School led by Thomas Reid taught that the fact of the existence of God is accepted by us without

knowledge of reasons but simply by a natural impulse. That God exists, this school said, is one of the chief

metaphysical principles that we accept not because they are evident in themselves or because they can be proved, but

because common sense obliges us to accept them.

The Argument from a Proper Basis argues that belief in God is "properly basic"--that is, similar to statements such as

"I see a chair" or "I feel pain." Such beliefs are non-falsifiable and, thus, neither able to be proved nor disproved; they

concern perceptual beliefs or indisputable mental states.

In Germany, the School of Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi taught that our 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 our

consciousness and unites them to one another.[20] God's existence, then, cannot be proved--Jacobi, like Immanuel

Kant, rejected the absolute value of the principle of causality--it must be felt by the mind.

In his Emile, Jean-Jacques Rousseau asserted that when our understanding ponders over the existence of God it

encounters nothing but contradictions; the impulses of our hearts, however, are of more value than the understanding,

and these proclaim clearly to us 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 (died 1834), who assumed an inner religious

sense by means of which we feel religious truths. According to Schleiermacher, religion consists solely in this inner

perception, and dogmatic doctrines are inessential.[21]

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 us by inner experience, feeling, and perception.

Modernist Christianity also denies the demonstrability of the existence of God. According to them we can only know

something of God by means of the vital immanence, that is, under favorable circumstances the need of the Divine

dormant in our subconsciousness becomes conscious and arouses that religious feeling or experience in which God

reveals himself to us. In condemnation of this view the oath against Modernism formulated by Pius X 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.")

Arguments against the existence of God

Each of the following arguments aims at showing that some particular conception of a god either is inherently meaningless,

contradictory, or contradicts known scientific and/or historical facts, and that therefore a god thus described does not exist.

Empirical arguments (against)

Empirical arguments depend on empirical data in order to prove their conclusions.

The argument from inconsistent revelations contests the existence of the Middle Eastern, Biblical deity called God as

described in holy scriptures, such as the Jewish Tanakh, the Christian Bible, or the Muslim Qur'an, by identifying

apparent contradictions between different scriptures, within a single scripture, or between scripture and known facts.

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 argument from poor design contests the idea that God created life on the basis that lifeforms exist which 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 contends that since natural (non-supernatural) theories adequately explain the

development of religion and belief in god[22], the actual existence of such supernatural agents is superfluous and may

be dismissed unless otherwise proven to be required to explain the phenomenon.

Deductive arguments (against)

Deductive arguments attempt to prove their conclusions by deductive reasoning from true premises. These arguments

inherently depend on specific definitions of the term "God".

The omnipotence paradox suggests that the concept of an omnipotent God is logically contradictory, from considering

a question like: "Can God create a rock so big that He Himself could not lift it?" or "If God is all powerful, could God

create a being more powerful than Himself?". It is reasonable to assume that God knows all the answers, then, if one

were to ask the question: Please tell me something you don't know. If God confirms, it would mean that God does not

have all the answers, which contradicts the assumption. If God knows everything, then he does not have the answer to

this particular question. The cycle continues.

Another argument suggests that there is a contradiction between God being omniscient and omnipotent, basically

asking "how can an All-Knowing Being change His mind?" See the article on omniscience for details.

The argument from free will contests the existence of an omniscient god who has free will - or has allotted the same

freedom to his creations - by 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.

The Transcendental argument for the non-existence of God contests the existence of an intelligent creator by

suggesting that such a being would make logic and morality contingent, which is incompatible with the

presuppositionalist assertion that they are necessary, and contradicts the efficacy of science. A more general line of

argument based on this argument, [23], seeks to generalize this argument to all necessary features of the universe and

all god-concepts.

The counter-argument against the Cosmological argument ("chicken or the egg") states that if the Universe had to be

created by God because it must have a creator, then God, in turn would have had to be created by some other God, and

so on. 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.

It is alleged that there is a logical impossibility in theism: God is defined as an extra-temporal being, but also as an

active creator. The argument suggests that the very act of creation is inconceivable and absurd beyond the constraints

of time and space, and the fact that it cannot be proven if God is in either. [24]

Inductive arguments (against)

Inductive arguments argue their conclusions through inductive reasoning.

The atheist-existentialist argument for the non-existence of a perfect sentient being states that if existence precedes

essence, it follows from the meaning of the term sentient that 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 novel Grimus: "That which is complete is also dead."

The "no reason" argument tries to show that an omnipotent or perfect being would not have any reason to act in any

way, specifically creating the universe, because it would have no desires since the very concept of desire is

subjectively human. As the universe exists, there is a contradiction, and therefore, an omnipotent god cannot exist.

This argument is espoused by Scott Adams in the book God's Debris.

Subjective arguments (against)

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 where specific religions give differing accounts as to what God is and what God

wants. All the contradictory accounts cannot be correct, so many if not all religions must be incorrect.

The Argument from a Proper Basis mentioned in the "Arguments From Testimony (For)" section of this article is in

itself inherently flawed. It argues that the existence of god should be accepted despite being unprovable, because

statements such as "I see a chair" or "I feel pain" can also not be proven through scientific method, when in fact they

can. Seeing a chair can be verified by asking the subject to point in the direction of the chair, whilst pain can be

detected through sudden elevated levels of serotonin and adrenaline in the brains frontal cortices responsible for the

sensation of touch and pain. Taking statements like "god exists" at face value is more comparable to accepting

similarly unprovable statements without question, such as "pigs can fly".

The "Need for an Answer" argument states that if God needs no beginning and needs no end, why does the cosmos

need a begininng and end so badly that humans need create concepts such as a divine creator and the apocalypse

without proof.

Conclusions

Conclusions on the existence of God can be roughly divided into three camps: theist, atheist, and agnostic.

Theism

The theistic conclusion is that the arguments indicate there are sufficient reasons to believe in the existence of God or gods.

God exists and this can be demonstrated

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, following the Thomist tradition and the dogmatic definition of the First Vatican

Council, affirms that it is a doctrine of the Catholic Church that God's existence has been rationally demonstrated. For the

proofs of God's existence by Saint Thomas Aquinas see Quinquae viae. Many other Christian denominations share the view

that God's existence can be demonstrated without recourse to claims of revelation.

On beliefs of Christian faith, theologians and philosophers make a distinction between:

doctrines arising from special revelation that arise essentially from faith in divinely inspired revelations, including the

life of Christ, but cannot be proved or even anticipated by reason alone, such as the doctrines of the Trinity or the

Incarnation, and

1.

doctrines arising from general revelation, that is from reason alone drawing conclusions based on relatively obvious

observations of the world and self.

2.

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 insisted 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".[25] In this Paul alludes to the proofs for a Creator, later enunciated by St. Thomas[26] and others, but that had also

been explored by the Greek philosophers.

Another apologetical school of thought, a sort of synthesis of various existing 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 called Presuppositional 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 mentioned above 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 don't 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. In other words, they

attempt to prove the existence of God by means of appeal to the alleged transcendental necessity of the belief -- indirectly (by

appeal to the allegedly 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 for

the Existence of God. 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.

God exists, but this cannot be demonstrated or refuted

Others have suggested that the several 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 Yahweh or Vishnu or Zeus, or some other deity of attested human

religion, exists, and if so, which deity. Most of these arguments do not resolve the issue of which of these figures is more

likely to exist, although all empirical arguments suggest that none of them do. Blaise Pascal suggested this objection in his

Pensées when he wrote "The God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob — not the god of the philosophers!", see also

Pascal's wager.

Some Christians note that the Christian faith teaches "salvation is by faith",[27] and that faith is reliance upon the

faithfulness of God, which has little to do with the believer's ability to comprehend that in which he trusts.

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 His existence would become superfluous. In The Justification of

Knowledge, the Calvinist theologian Robert 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 discussed above.

An intermediate position is that of Alvin Plantinga who holds that a specific form of modal logic and an appeal to

world-indexed properties render belief in the existence of God rational and justified, even though the existence of God cannot

be proven in a mathematical sense. Plantinga equates knowledge of God's existence with kinds of knowledge that are rational

but do not proceed through proof, such as sensory knowledge.[28]

Atheism

The atheistic conclusion is that the arguments indicate there are insufficient reasons to believe in the existence of God or

gods.

Strong atheism

Strong atheism is the position that a god or gods do not exist. The strong atheist explicitly asserts god's non-existence[29].

Some strong atheists further assert that the existence of some or all gods is logically impossible, for example claiming that

the combination of attributes which God may be asserted to have (For example: omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence,

transcendence, omnibenevolence) is logically contradictory, incomprehensible, or absurd, and therefore that the non-existence

of such a God is a priori true. It needs to be noted that believing the qualities of a particular God to be contradictory is not the

sole basis of strong atheist; many strong atheists would assert that, owing to the lack of evidence, even a God described in a

manner that was not contradictory is still unlikely to exist. It should also be noted that many religions credit human

achievements to God, many strong atheists consider this to be outrageous, and that human achievements are the result of

millions of years of inspiration and innovation.

Weak atheism

The term weak atheism is used of those who do not believe that a god or gods exists. This is different from agnosticism

which states that the existence of God is either unknown or unknowable. There is some controversy in the use of this term.

Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion uses the term "strong atheist" but not "weak atheist" [30]

Agnosticism

The term agnosticism refers to the philosophical position that the existence of God is unknown, specifically in distinction

from theism and atheism. A stronger form of this position, also called agnosticism, is that the question of whether or not

God exists cannot be known - this is sometimes called "strong" agnosticism. This seems to have been the position of

Thomas Huxley who coined the term[31]; however, other self-described Agnostics like Anthony Kenny hold the "weaker"

position[32].

Psychological Issues

In his book "Minds and Gods: The Cognitive Foundations of Religion," Todd Tremlin argues that universal human cognitive

process naturally produce gods. In particular, an agency detection device (ADD) and a theory-of-mind module (ToMM) lead us

to expect an agent behind every event. We err on the side of attributing agency where there isn't any - a trait that no doubt

served our ancestors well.

We ask why we are here and whether life has purpose; we are anxious about being alone. Religious beliefs may recruit the

cognitive mechanisms. 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 parent to care for

us, the obsessional nature of ritual, and the hypnotic state a community can induce.

See also

Apologetics

Conceptions of God

Elohim

God in Buddhism

God in Hinduism

God in Sikhism

Gödel's ontological proof

Metaphysics

Mythology

Philosophy of religion

Polemic

Problem of evil

Quinquae viae

Rationalism

Spectrum of Theistic Probability – a way of categorizing ones belief about the existence of a deity, first formulated by

Richard Dawkins in "The God Delusion"

Further reading

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

(http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/pg1.htm)

Philosophy of Religion.Info (http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/) Introductory articles on philosophical arguments

about the existence of God (for and against)

A collection of arguments for the existence of God (http://www.apollos.ws/philosophy-of-religion-article/)

Jesus Evidence (http://www.geocities.com/7life/Jesus.html) Arguments for the existence of God based upon the

evidence for Jesus Christ.

Christian Bible God/Jesus Truth (http://biblegod.org/) A collection of Bible quotes pertaining to the flawed morality

of God.

Arguments for the Existence of God (http://christiancadre.org/topics/cosarg.html) from the Christian Cadre.

Proofs of God's Existence - Islam - Ahmadiyyat (http://www.alislam.org/books/essence1/chap2.htm)

Arguments for Atheism (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/arguments.html) from Infidels.org

StrongAtheism.net References page (http://www.strongatheism.net/library/references/) A listing of references

containing atheistic arguments.

"50 simple proofs" (http://godisimaginary.com/) that God is imaginary.

The Existence of God - Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm)

The Rationality of Theism London: Routledge (2003) ISBN 0415263328 - a collection of essays by 13 philosophers

exploring the arguments for and against the existence of God

Does the Divine exist ? (http://www.sofiatopia.org/equiaeon/divine.htm)

Notes

^ see eg The Rationality of Theism quoting Quentin Smith "God is not 'dead' in academia; he 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

1 .

^ Consider the sales and lively discussion of The God Delusion and a whole raft of recent books arguing for and against

theism

2 .

^ Both following Aquinas, see Quinquae viae.3 .

^ A modern re-statement, see [1] (http://www.polkinghorne.org)4 .

^ Following Anselm's Ontological argument5 .

^ See Swinburne's Does God Exist? or Polkinghorne6 .

^ See the articles on them, and especially Einstein's 1940 paper in Nature7 .

^ Hebbar, Neria Harish. The Principal Upanishads (http://www.boloji.com/hinduism/037.htm) . Retrieved on 2007-01-12.8 .

^ Agreed by everyone from Dawkins to Ward to Plantinga9 .

^ Polkinghorne, John (1998). Belief in God in an Age of Science. Yale University Press. ISBN 0300072945. 10.

^ see eg Polkinghorne, John (2007). Quantum Physics & Theology: An Unexpected Kinship. Yale University Press. ISBN

9780281057672.

11.

^ see his God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God Cornell (1990) ISBN 0801497353 and

Warranted Christian Belief OUP (2000) ISBN 0195131932

12.

^ See eg the Beale/Howson debate (http://www.starcourse.org/discussion/) published in Prospect May, 199813.

^ see eg The Probability of God by Stephen D. Unwin its criticism in The God Delusion, and the critical comment in that

article.

14.

^ PLANTINGA, ALVIN (1998). God, arguments for the existence of. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. London: Routledge. Retrieved March 03, 2007, from [2]

(http://0-www.rep.routledge.com.libsys.wellcome.ac.uk:80/article/K029SECT3) he attributes this to Charles Hartshorne

15.

^ See the books by Nicky Gumbel on the subject.16.

^ Polkinghorne, John. Science and Christian Belief, pp. 108-122. Contains a highly scientifically-aware discussion of the

evidence.

17.

^ (Stuttgart, 1908)18.

^ Swinburne, Richard (1997). Is there a God?. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198235453. 19.

^ (A. Stöckl, Geschichte der neueren Philosophie, II, 82 sqq.)20.

^ (Stöckl, loc. cit., 199 sqq.)21.

^ Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought, Pascal Boyer, Basic Books (2001)22.

^ materialist apologetics (http://www.strongatheism.net/atheology/materialist.html)23.

^ Baake, David. Cosmological Arguments Against the Existence of God

(http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=726) . Retrieved on 2007-01-12.

24.

^ Romans 1:20 (http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/~jnot4610/bibref.php?book=%20Romans&verse=1:20&src=NIV)25.

^ For the proofs of God's existence by Saint Thomas Aquinas see Quinquae viae.26.

^ 2 Timothy 3:14-15 (http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/~jnot4610/bibref.php?book=2%20Timothy&verse=3:14-15&src=NIV)

NIV "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom

27.

Philosophy Portal

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." (Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright ©

1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.)

^ Plantinga, Alvin (1974). The Nature of Necessity. New York: Oxford University Press, page 63. “An object has all its

world-indexed properties in every world in which it exists. So if we take an object x and a property P and worlds W and W*

such that x has the properties of having-P-in-W and having-non-P-in-W*, we will find that x also has the properties of

having-P-in-W-in-W* and having-non-P-in-W*-in-W”

28.

^ Richard Dawkins is the most famous contemporary example, in a line stretching back through Russell and Marx to the 18th

Century

29.

^ The God Delusion p5030.

^ see the SOED entry on Agnostic31.

^ see Kenny op cit32.

14. ^ See eg The Probability of God by Stephen D. Unwin, its criticism in The God Delusion, the critical comment in that

article, and elsewhere (http://zenofzero.net/docs/IhHypothesesandProbabilities.pdf) .

References and Further Reading

Broad, C.D. "Arguments for the Existence of God,"

(http://www.ditext.com/broad/aeg.html) Journal of Theological Studies 40 (1939):

16-30; 156-67.

Jordan, Jeff. "Pragmatic Arguments for Belief in God"

(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatic-belief-god/) , The Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy (Fall 2004 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

Cohen, Morris R. "The Dark Side of Religion," (http://www.ditext.com/cohen/dsr.html) Religion Today, a

Challenging Enigma, ed. Arthur L. Swift, Jr. (1933). Revised version in Morris Cohen, The Faith of a Liberal

(1946).

Haisch, Bernard. The God Theory: Universes, Zero-Point Fields and What's Behind It All

(http://www.thegodtheory.com) . Red Wheel/Weiser Books, 2006.

Hume, David. 1779, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Richard Popkin (ed), Indianapolis: Hackett, 1998.

Mackie, J.L. The Miracle of Theism. Oxford, Eng.: Oxford Univ. Press, 1982.

Nielson, Kai. Ethics Without God. London: Pemberton Books, 1973.

Oppy, Graham. "Ontological Arguments" (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/) , The Stanford

Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2005 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

Paley, William, 1802, Natural Theology. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1963.

Plantinga, Alvin. Warranted Christian Belief. Oxford Univ. Press, 1993.

Pojman, Louis P. Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology, Fourth Ed., Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2003. ISBN

0-534-54364-2.

Ratzsch, Del. "Teleological Arguments for God's Existence" (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/)

, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2005 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

Rouvière, Jean-Marc, Brèves méditations sur la création du monde L'Harmattan, Paris (2006), ISBN 2-7475-9922-1.

Swinburne, Richard. The Existence of God. New York: Clarendon, 1991.

Everitt, Nicholas (2004). The Non-Existence of God: An Introduction. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-30107-6.

Mackie, J. L. (1982). The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and against the existence of God

(http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/jm3303.htm) . Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-824682-X.

Retrieved on 2006-10-27.

Matson, Wallace I. (1965). The Existence of God, xv–xvii.

McTaggart, John & McTaggart, Ellis (1927). The Nature of Existence. Volume 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Sobel, Jordan H. (2004). Logic and theism: Arguments for and against beliefs in God. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press. ISBN 0-87975-307-2.

Theism topics [show]

Atheism topics [show]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God"

Categories: All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements since February 2007 | Atheism |

Arguments against the existence of God | Arguments for the existence of God | Agnosticism | Controversies | Philosophical

arguments | Philosophy of religion | Theology | God | Singular God

This page was last modified 08:11, 15 August 2007.

All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)

Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a US-registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible

nonprofit charity.