Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Existence of God
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
== Positions == Positions on the existence of God can be divided along numerous axes, producing a variety of [[Orthogonality|orthogonal]] classifications. Theism and atheism are positions of belief or lack of it, while [[gnosticism]] and [[agnosticism]] are positions of knowledge or the lack of it. [[Ignosticism]] concerns belief about God's conceptual coherence. [[Apatheism]] concerns belief about the practical importance of whether God exists. For the purposes of discussion, [[Richard Dawkins]] described seven "milestones" on his [[spectrum of theistic probability]]:<ref>{{Cite book |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |title=The God Delusion |title-link=The God Delusion |publisher=Bantam Books |year=2006 |isbn=978-0-618-68000-9 |page=[https://archive.org/details/isbn_0593058259/page/n54 50] |author-link=Richard Dawkins}}</ref> # Strong theist. 100% [[probability]] that God exists. In the words of [[Carl Jung|Carl G. Jung]]: "I do not believe, I know." # ''De facto'' [[theist]]. Very high probability but short of 100%. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there." # Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50% but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God." # Completely impartial. Exactly 50%. "God's existence and nonexistence are exactly equiprobable." # Leaning towards [[atheism]]. Lower than 50% but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical." # ''De facto'' atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there." # Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one." === Theism === {{Main|Theism}} The Catholic Church, following the teachings of [[Paul the Apostle]] (e.g., {{Bibleverse|Romans|1:20|ESV}}), [[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".<ref>Vatican Council I, ''Dei Filius'' 2; quoted in ''[[Catechism of the Catholic Church]]'', 2nd edition (New York: Doubleday, 1995) n. 36, p. 20.</ref> ==== Traditional religious definition of God ==== In [[classical theism]], God is characterized as the metaphysically ultimate being (the first, timeless, absolutely simple and sovereign being, who is devoid of any [[Anthropomorphism|anthropomorphic]] qualities), in distinction to other conceptions such as [[Theistic Personalism|theistic personalism]], [[open theism]], and [[process theism]]. Classical theists do not believe that God can be completely defined. They believe it would contradict the [[Transcendence (religion)|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.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Barron |first=Robert |title=Catholicism: A Journey to the Heart of the Faith |publisher=The Doubleday Religious Publishing Group |year=2011 |isbn=9780307720511}}</ref> In modern Western societies, the [[Conceptions of God|concepts of God]] typically entail a [[Monotheism|monotheistic]], supreme, ultimate, and [[Personal god|personal being]], as found in the [[Christianity|Christian]], [[Islam]]ic and [[Judaism|Jewish]] traditions. In monotheistic religions outside the [[Abrahamic religion|Abrahamic traditions]], the existence of God is discussed in similar terms. In these traditions, God is also identified as the author (either directly or by inspiration) of certain texts, or that certain texts describe specific historical events caused by the God in question or communications from God (whether in direct speech or via dreams or omens). Some traditions also believe that God is the entity which is currently answering prayers for intervention or information or opinions.[[File:Ibn rushd.jpg|thumb|Ibn Rushd, a 12th-century Islamic scholar]] Many Islamic scholars have used philosophical and rational arguments to prove the existence of God. For example, [[Averroes|Ibn Rushd]], a 12th-century Islamic scholar, philosopher, and physician, states there are only two arguments worthy of adherence, both of which are found in what he calls the "Precious Book" (The Qur'an). Rushd cites "providence" and "invention" in using the Qur'an's parables to claim the existence of God. Rushd argues that the Earth's weather patterns are conditioned to support human life; thus, if the planet is so finely-tuned to maintain life, then it suggests a fine tuner—God. The Sun and the Moon are not just random objects floating in the [[Milky Way]], rather they serve us day and night, and the way nature works and how life is formed, humankind benefits from it. Rushd essentially comes to a conclusion that there has to be a higher being who has made everything perfectly to serve the needs of human beings.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Ibn Rushd (Averroes) |url=https://www.iep.utm.edu/ibnrushd/#H4 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180509151451/https://www.iep.utm.edu/ibnrushd/#H4 |archive-date=2018-05-09 |access-date=2018-05-09}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Quranic Parable |url=https://quran.com/25/61 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180509151127/https://quran.com/25/61 |archive-date=2018-05-09 |access-date=2018-05-09 |website=Quran.com}}</ref> Moses ben Maimon, widely known as [[Maimonides]], was a Jewish scholar who tried to logically prove the existence of God. Maimonides offered proofs for the existence of God, but he did not begin with defining God first, like many others do. Rather, he used the description of the earth and the universe to prove the existence of God. He talked about the Heavenly bodies and how they are committed to eternal motion. Maimonides argued that because every physical object is finite, it can only contain a finite amount of power. If everything in the universe, which includes all the planets and the stars, is finite, then there has to be an infinite power to push forth the motion of everything in the universe. Narrowing down to an infinite being, the only thing that can explain the motion is an infinite being (meaning God) which is neither a body nor a force in the body. Maimonides believed that this argument gives us a ground to believe that God is, not an idea of what God is. He believed that God cannot be understood or be compared.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Seeskin |first=Kenneth |title=Maimonides |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/maimonides/#GodViaNeg |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180526073550/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/maimonides/#GodViaNeg |archive-date=2018-05-26 |access-date=2018-05-14 |website=plato.stanford}}</ref> ==== Non-personal definitions of God ==== In [[pantheism]], God and the universe are considered to be the same thing. In this view, the natural sciences are essentially studying the nature of God. This definition of God creates the philosophical problem that a universe with God and one without God are the same, other than the words used to describe it. [[Deism]] and [[panentheism]] assert that there is a God distinct from, or which extends beyond (either in time or in space or in some other way) the universe. These positions deny that God intervenes in the operation of the universe, including communicating with humans personally. The notion that God never intervenes or communicates with the universe, or may have evolved into the universe (as in [[pandeism]]), makes it difficult, if not by definition impossible, to distinguish between a universe with God and one without. The ''[[Ethics (Spinoza book)|Ethics]]'' of [[Philosophy of Baruch Spinoza#Substance of God|Baruch Spinoza]] gave two demonstrations of the existence of God.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Spinoza |first=Benedictus de |url=https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ethics_(Spinoza)/Part_1 |title=Ethics |at=Part 1, Prop. 11}}</ref> The God of Spinoza is uncaused by any external force and has no [[free will]], it is not personal and not anthropomorphic. ==== Debate about how theism should be argued ==== In Christian faith, theologian and philosopher Thomas Aquinas made a distinction between: (a) preambles of faith and (b) articles of faith.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Sommer |first=Josh |date=2022-03-31 |title=Philosophy & Preambles of Faith |url=https://thebaptistbroadcast.com/philosophy-preambles-of-faith |access-date=2023-10-24 |website=The Baptist Broadcast |language=en-US}}</ref> 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., in Christianity, the [[Trinity|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.{{clarify|date=April 2022}} [[Paul the Apostle]] 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".<ref>{{Bibleverse-lb||Romans|1:20|NIV}}.</ref> In this, Paul alludes to the proofs for a creator, later enunciated by Thomas Aquinas<ref>For the proofs of God's existence by Thomas Aquinas see [[Quinquae viae]].</ref> and others, that had also been explored by the Greek philosophers. Another apologetical school of thought, including Dutch and American [[Reformed Churches|Reformed]] thinkers (such as [[Abraham Kuyper]], [[Benjamin Warfield]], and [[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 felt "transcendental" would be a more accurate title). The main distinction between this approach and the more classical [[Evidentialism|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 the [[Transcendence (philosophy)|transcendental]] 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 uses what have come to be known as [[Transcendental argument for the existence of God|transcendental arguments]]. These arguments 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. Protestant Christians note that the Christian faith teaches "[[salvation]] is by faith",<ref>{{Bibleverse-lb|2|Timothy|3:14–15|NIV}} <cite>NIV</cite> "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.</ref> 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. [[Søren 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|date=February 2012}} It is because God cannot rationally be proven that his existence is important to us. In ''The Justification of Knowledge'', the [[Calvinism|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. === Atheism === {{Main|Atheism}} In the philosophy of religion, [[atheism]] is standardly defined as the [[metaphysical]] claim that God does not exist. In 1972, [[Antony Flew]] proposed defining atheism as the psychological state of lacking any belief in God. However, Flew's definition is usually rejected, due to the need for a name for the direct opposite [[proposition]] to theism, the metaphysical claim that God does exist.<ref name="Draper"/> ==== Positive atheism ==== {{Main|Negative and positive atheism}} [[Positive atheism]] (also called "strong atheism" and "hard atheism") is a proposed form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist.<ref name="Flew1976">{{Cite book |last=Flew |first=Antony |title=The Presumption of Atheism, and other Philosophical Essays on God, Freedom, and Immortality |publisher=Barnes and Noble |year=1976 |location=New York |pages=14ff |chapter=The Presumption of Atheism |quote=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. |author-link=Antony Flew |access-date=2011-12-10 |chapter-url=http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/flew01.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051012172554/http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/flew01.htm |archive-date=2005-10-12 |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref name="mmartin">{{Cite book |last=Martin |first=Michael |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ISBN0521842700 |title=The Cambridge Companion to Atheism |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2006 |isbn=978-0-521-84270-9 |access-date=2016-01-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150502153531/http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0521842700 |archive-date=2015-05-02 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="synonyms">{{Cite web |year=2007 |title=Definitions of the term "Atheism" |url=http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101206205828/http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm |archive-date=2010-12-06 |access-date=2010-06-01 |publisher=Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance}}</ref> The strong atheist explicitly asserts the non-existence of gods. ==== Negative atheism ==== Negative atheism (also called "weak atheism" and "soft atheism") is a proposed form 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.<ref name="Flew1976" /><ref name="mmartin" /><ref name="synonyms" /> === Agnosticism === {{Main|Agnosticism}} Agnosticism is the view that the [[truth value]] of certain claims—especially claims about the existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Carroll |first=Robert |date=2009-02-22 |title=agnosticism |url=http://skepdic.com/agnosticism.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090925141206/http://www.skepdic.com/agnosticism.html |archive-date=2009-09-25 |access-date=2009-10-17 |website=The Skeptic's Dictionary |publisher=skepdic.com}}</ref> Agnosticism does not define one's belief or disbelief in gods; agnostics may still identify themselves as theists or atheists.<ref name="Agnostic Types">{{Cite web |last=Cline |first=Austin |title=What is Agnosticism? |work=About.com Religion & Spirituality |url=http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/p/overview.htm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120426195921/http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/p/overview.htm |archive-date=2012-04-26 |access-date=2009-01-08 |publisher=[[About.com]]}}</ref> ==== Strong agnosticism ==== [[Strong agnosticism]] is the belief that it is impossible for humans to know whether or not any deities exist. ==== Weak agnosticism ==== {{Main|Weak agnosticism}} Weak agnosticism is the belief that the existence or nonexistence of deities is unknown but not necessarily unknowable. ==== Agnostic theism ==== {{Main|Agnostic theism}} Agnostic theism is the [[philosophical]] view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. An agnostic theist believes in the existence of a god or God, but regards the basis of this proposition as ''unknown or inherently unknowable''. Agnostic theists may also insist on ignorance regarding the properties of the gods they believe in.<ref name="about">{{Cite web |date=2012-04-13 |title=Introduction to Agnosticism: What is Agnostic Theism? Believing in God, but not Knowing God |url=http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/theism.htm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110605134502/http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/theism.htm |archive-date=2011-06-05 |access-date=2013-05-14 |publisher=Atheism.about.com}}</ref> ==== Agnostic atheism ==== {{Main|Agnostic atheism}} Agnostic atheism is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a [[belief]] in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a [[deity]] is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. The theologian [[Robert Flint (theologian)|Robert Flint]] explains: {{Blockquote|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-atheist—an atheist because an agnostic."<ref>{{Cite book |last=Flint |first=Robert |url=https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_DWMtAAAAYAAJ |title=Agnosticism |publisher=C. Scribner sons |year=1903 |page=[https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_DWMtAAAAYAAJ/page/n66 50] |chapter=Erroneous Views of Agnosticism |quote=agnostic atheism. |access-date=2009-11-15}}</ref>}} === Apatheism === {{Main|Apatheism}} An apatheist is someone who is not interested in accepting or denying any claims that gods exist or do not exist. An apatheist lives as if there are no gods and explains natural [[phenomena]] without reference to any deities. The existence of gods is not rejected, but may be designated unnecessary or useless; gods neither provide purpose to [[Personal life|life]], nor influence [[everyday life]], according to this view.<ref name="Zdybicka-p20">{{cite book |last=Zdybicka |first=Zofia J. |year=2005 |contribution=Atheism |url=http://ptta.pl/pef/ |page=20 |contribution-url=http://ptta.pl/pef/haslaen/a/atheism.pdf |editor-first=Andrzej |editor-last=Maryniarczyk |title=Universal Encyclopedia of Philosophy |volume=1 |publisher=Polish Thomas Aquinas Association |access-date=2010-05-04}}</ref> === Ignosticism === {{Main|Ignosticism}} The ignostic (or igtheist) usually concludes that the question of God's existence or nonexistence is usually not worth discussing because concepts like "God" are usually not sufficiently or clearly defined. 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 [[Falsifiability|unfalsifiable]], the ignostic takes the [[Theological noncognitivism|theological noncognitivist]] position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless.{{Citation needed|reason=Citation needed for what seems very dubious Original Research (OR). The OR seems especially dubious as seemingly coming from a pseudo-Popperian perspective; Karl Popper objected to Logical Positivists' insistence that what was not verifiable was meaningless, and brought in Falsifiability partly to oppose them, but he also said that they were abusing the word 'meaningless' in a way that would wrongly render many important areas of human thought and experience 'meaningless'; there's no reason to suppose that ignostics are generally pseudo-Popperians, nor to unwittingly or wittingly imply it in this article. But all that's probably a lot less relevant here than the fact that the statement is seemingly OR.|date=August 2018}} 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,<ref name="The Argument From Non-Cognitivism">{{Cite web |title=The Argument From Non-Cognitivism |url=http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/argument_from_noncognitivism/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140429162223/http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/argument_from_noncognitivism/ |archive-date=2014-04-29 |access-date=2008-02-11}}</ref> while others{{Who|date=December 2016}} have considered it to be distinct.{{Citation needed|date=December 2016}} An ignostic maintains that he cannot even say whether he is a [[Theism|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 humanism|secular humanist]] [[Paul Kurtz]] in his 1992 book ''The New Skepticism''.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2010-07-28 |title=isms of the week: Agnosticism and Ignosticism |newspaper=The Economist |url=https://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2010/07/definitions_1 |url-status=live |access-date=December 19, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111216014452/http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2010/07/definitions_1 |archive-date=December 16, 2011}}</ref>
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)