3

I have just started studying some arguments on the existence of God. They all inherit a common feature: all use some explanations of the universe. For instance, take Kalam proof for God. It states everything has a cause, the world has a begining and so there the world has a cause which we take as God. For another example, in Aquinas’s Five ways, he in general argues based on the fact that infinite series of dependent essence cannot exist. Personally, I expected to reach an argument that is not based on any explanation of the mechanism of the world. Whatever we think is right, in an ideal situation one should be able to prove their statement to an alien or to a person without any sense. For this reason, first I ask my question and second, I propose my guess which leads to another question. Here is my question:

Is there any argument for or against the existence of God that is NOT based on any explanation of how the universe work?

The answer probably is no. So I propose my main question:

Is there any proof that states there is NO such argument which means there is no argument for or against God that is not based on any explanation of the universe?

P. S. Please note that I mean “no explanation” and not “no observation”. What the question is seeking is a totally logical argument based on common sense of a human. Another concern is that the second and main question asks for a no-go theorem but the first question ask, at the first hand, for an argument for the proof or disproof of God. Probably this is not the case, so my second question is basically a question in logic.

  • So-called St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument is not based on "nature". – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Feb 12 '18 at 9:16
  • Although Kant denied the possibility of an ontological proof, the Critique of Pure Reason serves as an excellent rational proof of God (i.e. as the ground for reason), given that both practical and pure reason depend on a capacity to judge which, in turn, presupposes an original source of knowledge, i.e. God: "For the greatest systematic and purposive unity, which your reason demands as a regulative principle to ground all investigation of nature, was precisely what justified you in making the idea of a highest intelligence." (CPR A699/B727) – user3017 Feb 12 '18 at 13:01
  • Leszek Kolakowski's book "Religion" is interesting. Robert Bezimieny's review of the book at Amazon is a good review. – Gordon Feb 12 '18 at 14:04
2

It is often criticized, but Descartes' argument for God in the Meditations is at least intended as what you seek, a purely rational argument for the existence of God, independent of all empirical observations. As such, it probably traces back to the abstract neo-Platonic conceptions of God as the unity of all perfections, which are likewise not founded primarily on sensory data.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.