View source for Overview of Views on the Existence of God

The '''existence of God''' is a subject of debate in the [[philosophy of religion]] and [[popular culture]].<ref>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]]''.</ref>

A wide variety of arguments for and against the existence of [[God]] can be categorized as [[Metaphysics|metaphysical]], [[logic]]al, [[Empirical research|empirical]], [[Subjectivity|subjective]] or [[Science|scientific]]. In [[Philosophy|philosophical]] terms, the question of the existence of God involves the disciplines of [[epistemology]] (the nature and scope of [[knowledge]]) and [[ontology]] (study of the nature of [[being]], [[existence]], or [[reality]]) and the [[Value theory|theory of value]] (since some definitions of God include "perfection").

The [[Western philosophy|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 argument|cosmological]]. Other arguments for the existence of God have been proposed by [[Anselm of Canterbury|St. Anselm]], who formulated the first [[ontological argument]]; [[Averroes|Ibn Rushd (Averroes)]] and [[Thomas Aquinas]], who presented their own versions of the cosmological argument (the [[Kalam argument|''kalam'' argument]] and the [[Quinque viae|first way]], respectively); [[René Descartes]], who said that the existence of a benevolent God is [[logically necessary]] for the evidence of the senses to be meaningful. [[John Calvin]] argued for a ''[[sensus divinitatis]]'', which gives each human a knowledge of God's existence. [[Atheism|Atheists]] view arguments for the existence of God as insufficient, mistaken or outweighed by arguments against it, whereas some religions, such as [[Jainism]], reject the possibility of a [[creator deity]]. Philosophers who have provided arguments against the existence of God include [[Friedrich Nietzsche]] and [[Bertrand Russell]].

==History==
A [[common misconception]] is that theism is ancient while atheism is modern, but mankind has been making arguments for and against the existence of [[Deity|deities]]—including, with the rise of monotheism, God—since the dawn of [[human history]]. [[Bronze Age]] texts such as the [[Vedas]] present various arguments against the deities, such as the [[problem of evil]] and the [[Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit]], as well as arguments for the deities, such as [[argument from morality]] and [[Pascal's wager]]. From the [[ancient Greeks]] to the [[medieval]] [[Japanese people]] to the [[Indigenous peoples of the Americas|Native Americans]], the arguments for and against deities are as old as the idea of a deity itself. Some [[Atheism|atheists]] and [[Theism|theists]] see the antiquity of their beliefs as a worthy tradition to carry on, while others believe arguing about the existence of a God is a never-ending cycle that produces little fulfillment.<ref>[Battling the Gods: Atheism in the Ancient World by Tim Whitmarsh]</ref>

==Positions==
[[File:EU belief in God.svg|thumb|Europeans polled who "believe in a god", according to [[Eurobarometer]] in 2005]]
[[File:North_America_Religious_Belief.svg#/media/File:North_America_Religious_Belief.svg|thumb|North Americans polled about religious identity 2010-2012]]
Positions on the existence of God can be divided along numerous axes, producing a variety of 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 |first=Richard |last=Dawkins |author-link=Richard Dawkins |title=The God Delusion |isbn=978-0-618-68000-9 |publisher=Bantam Books |year=2006 |page=[https://archive.org/details/isbn_0593058259/page/n54 50]|title-link=The God Delusion }}</ref>

# Strong theist. 100% [[probability]] that God exists. In the words of [[Carl Jung|C.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===
The Catholic Church, following the teachings of [[Paul the Apostle]], [[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|year=2011|publisher=The Doubleday Religious Publishing Group|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|url=https://www.iep.utm.edu/ibnrushd/#H4|title=Ibn Rushd (Averroes)|access-date=2018-05-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180509151451/https://www.iep.utm.edu/ibnrushd/#H4|archive-date=2018-05-09|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://quran.com/25/61|title=Quranic Parable|website=Quran.com|access-date=2018-05-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180509151127/https://quran.com/25/61|archive-date=2018-05-09|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://quran.com/78/6-16?translations=20|title=Quranic Parable|website=Quran.com|access-date=2018-05-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180509151006/https://quran.com/78/6-16?translations=20|archive-date=2018-05-09|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://quran.com/80/24-33|title=Quranic Parable|website=Quran.com|access-date=2018-05-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180509220344/https://quran.com/80/24-33|archive-date=2018-05-09|url-status=live}}</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|url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/maimonides/#GodViaNeg|title=Maimonides|last=Seeskin|first=Kenneth|website=plato.stanford|access-date=2018-05-14|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180526073550/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/maimonides/#GodViaNeg|archive-date=2018-05-26|url-status=live}}</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.

====Debate about how theism should be argued====
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. [[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, but 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]], [[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 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 utilizes what have come to be known as [[Transcendental argument for the existence of God|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]].<ref>{{Cite book | first=Alvin | last=Plantinga | author-link=Alvin Plantinga | title=The Nature of Necessity | location=New York | publisher=Oxford University Press | year=1974 | page=63 }}</ref> 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|date=June 2012}} 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===
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 say something about the human experience rather than the nature of reality itself; therefore, one has no reason to believe that a god exists.

====Positive atheism====
[[Positive atheism]] (also called "strong atheism" and "hard atheism") is a form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist.<ref name=Flew1976>
{{cite book |chapter-url=http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/flew01.htm |last=Flew |first=Antony |author-link=Antony Flew |title=The Presumption of Atheism, and other Philosophical Essays on God, Freedom, and Immortality |chapter=The Presumption of Atheism |location=New York |publisher=Barnes and Noble |year=1976 |pages=14ff |accessdate=2011-12-10 |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. |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051012172554/http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/flew01.htm |archive-date=2005-10-12 }}
</ref><ref name=mmartin>{{cite book |last=Martin |first=Michael |url=https://books.google.com/books?vid=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
|url=http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm
|title=Definitions of the term "Atheism"
|publisher=Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
|year=2007
|accessdate=2010-06-01
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101206205828/http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm
|archive-date=2010-12-06
|url-status=live
}}</ref> The strong atheist explicitly asserts the non-existence of gods.

====Negative atheism====
[[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.<ref name="Flew1976"/><ref name="mmartin"/><ref name="synonyms"/>

===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|url=http://skepdic.com/agnosticism.html|title=agnosticism|last=Carroll|first=Robert|date=2009-02-22|website=The Skeptic's Dictionary|publisher=skepdic.com|accessdate=2009-10-17|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090925141206/http://www.skepdic.com/agnosticism.html|archive-date=2009-09-25|url-status=live}}</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|url=http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/p/overview.htm|title=What is Agnosticism?|last=Cline|first=Austin|publisher=[[About.com]]|accessdate=2009-01-08|archive-url=https://www.webcitation.org/66O7DQgUA?url=http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/p/overview.htm|archive-date=2012-03-23|url-status=live}}</ref>

====Strong agnosticism====
[[Strong agnosticism]] is the belief that it is impossible for humans to know whether or not any deities exist.

====Weak agnosticism====
[[Weak agnosticism]] is the belief that the existence or nonexistence of deities is unknown but not necessarily unknowable.

====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 |url=http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/theism.htm |title=Introduction to Agnosticism: What is Agnostic Theism? Believing in God, but not Knowing God |publisher=Atheism.about.com |date=2012-04-13 |accessdate=2013-05-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110605134502/http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/theism.htm |archive-date=2011-06-05 |url-status=live }}</ref>

====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]] explains:
{{quote|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|title=Agnosticism|publisher=C. Scribner sons|year=1903|page=[https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_DWMtAAAAYAAJ/page/n66 50]|chapter=Erroneous Views of Agnosticism|url=https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_DWMtAAAAYAAJ|quote=agnostic atheism.|accessdate=2009-11-15}}</ref>}}

===Apatheism===
[[Apatheism]] 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">{{harvnb|Zdybicka|2005|p=20}}.</ref>

===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 |url=http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/argument_from_noncognitivism/ |title=The Argument From Non-Cognitivism |accessdate=2008-02-11 |archive-url=https://www.webcitation.org/6N59bmP1Y?url=http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/argument_from_noncognitivism/ |archive-date=2014-02-02 |url-status=live }}</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 |url=https://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2010/07/definitions_1 |title=isms of the week: Agnosticism and Ignosticism |accessdate=December 19, 2011 |work=The Economist |date=2010-07-28 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111216014452/http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2010/07/definitions_1 |archive-date=December 16, 2011 |url-status=live }}</ref>

==Philosophical issues==

===The problem of the supernatural===
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 [[Aristotelianism|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 order that is derived from God's place as originator of nature (see also [[Monadology]]).

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.

Scientists follow the [[scientific method]], within which theories must be verifiable by [[physical experiment]]. The majority of prominent conceptions of God explicitly or effectively posit a being whose existence is not testable either by proof or disproof.<ref>{{Cite book|title=New proofs for the existence of God : contributions of contemporary physics and philosophy|last=Spitzer, Robert J., 1952-|date=2010|publisher=William B. Eerdmans Pub|isbn=978-0-8028-6383-6|location=Grand Rapids, Mich.|pages=73|oclc=466359148}}</ref> Therefore, the question of God's existence may lie outside the purview of modern science [[Relationship between religion and science|by definition]].<ref>{{Cite book|title=God : the failed hypothesis : how science shows that God does not exist|last=Stenger, Victor J., 1935-2014.|date=2007|publisher=Prometheus Books|isbn=978-1-59102-481-1|location=Amherst, N.Y.|pages=43|oclc=72988016}}</ref>  The [[Catholic Church]] maintains that knowledge of the existence of God is the "natural light of human reason".<ref>Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraph 47; cf. Canons of the First Vatican Council, 2:2.</ref> [[Fideism|Fideists]] maintain that belief in God's existence may not be amenable to demonstration or refutation, but rests on [[faith]] alone.

[[Logical positivism|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 can not have a [[truth value]], and are deemed to be without meaning, because such statements do not have any clear verification criteria. 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."<ref>Scott C. Todd, "A View from Kansas on that Evolution Debate," Nature Vol. 401, Sep. 30, 1999, p. 423</ref> This argument limits the domain of science to the empirically observable and limits the domain of God to the unprovable.

===Nature of relevant proofs and arguments===
[[John Polkinghorne]] suggests that the nearest analogy to the existence of God in physics is the ideas of [[quantum mechanics]] which are seemingly paradoxical but make sense of a great deal of disparate data.<ref>{{Cite book | first=John | last=Polkinghorne | author-link=John Polkinghorne | title=Belief in God in an Age of Science | year=1998 | publisher=Yale University Press | isbn=978-0-300-07294-5}}</ref>

Alvin Plantinga compares the question of the existence of God to the question of the existence of [[Problem of other minds|other minds]], claiming both are notoriously impossible to "prove" against a determined skeptic.<ref>see his ''God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God'' Cornell (1990) {{ISBN|0-8014-9735-3}} and ''Warranted Christian Belief'' OUP (2000) {{ISBN|0-19-513193-2}}</ref>

One approach, suggested by writers such as Stephen D. Unwin, is to treat (particular versions of) theism and [[Naturalism (philosophy)|naturalism]] as though they were two hypotheses in the [[Bayesian probability|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.<ref>See e.g. the [http://www.starcourse.org/discussion/ Beale/Howson debate] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061214103328/http://www.starcourse.org/discussion/ |date=2006-12-14 }} published [[Prospect (magazine)|Prospect]] May, 1998</ref> 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.<ref>See e.g. ''[[The Probability of God]]'' by ''Stephen D. Unwin'' its criticism in [[The God Delusion]], and the critical comment in that article.</ref>

Philosophers, such as [[Wittgenstein]], take a view that is considered [[Anti-realism|anti-realist]] and oppose philosophical arguments related to God's existence. For instance, [[Charles Taylor (philosopher)|Charles Taylor]] contends 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.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.iep.utm.edu/wittgens/ |title=iep.utm.edu |publisher=iep.utm.edu |date=2004-08-30 |accessdate=2013-05-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130512033044/http://www.iep.utm.edu/wittgens/ |archive-date=2013-05-12 |url-status=live }}</ref>

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 is a thought; therefore only minds can be proven to exist, since all else is merely an idea conveyed by a perception. 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 humankind, and that there must, therefore, exist an omniscient superobserver, which perceives such things. Berkeley considered this proof of the existence of the Christian god.

[[C.S. Lewis]], in ''[[Mere Christianity]]'' and elsewhere, raised the [[argument from desire]]. He posed that all natural desires have a natural object. One thirsts, and there exists water to quench this thirst; One hungers, and there exists food to satisfy this hunger. He then argued that the human desire for perfect justice, perfect peace, perfect happiness, and other intangibles strongly implies the existence of such things, though they seem unobtainable on earth. He further posed that the unquenchable desires of this life strongly imply that we are intended for a different life, necessarily governed by a God who can provide the desired intangibles.<ref>{{cite book|title=Mere Christianity, Bk. III|chapter=10|first=C.S.|last=Lewis}}</ref>

===Outside of Western thought===
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]].<ref name="isbn0-7914-7081-4">{{cite book |author=Klostermaier, Klaus K. |title=A survey of Hinduism |url=https://archive.org/details/surveyhinduismth00klos |url-access=limited |publisher=State University of New York Press |location=Albany |year=2007 |page=[https://archive.org/details/surveyhinduismth00klos/page/n375 357]|isbn=978-0-7914-7081-7}}</ref> 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.<ref>Sudesh Narang (1984)''The Vaisnava Philosophy According to Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa'', p. 30</ref>
In [[Vaisnavism]] [[Vishnu]], or his intimate ontological form of [[Krishna]], is equated to the 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" or ''{{IAST|sat}}'', related to the ''[[brahman]]'' aspect; "knowledge" or chit, to the ''[[paramatman]]''; and "bliss" or ''ananda'' in [[Sanskrit]], to ''[[bhagavan]]''.<ref name="isbn0-231-12256-X">{{cite book |author1=Maria Ekstrand |author2=Bryant, Edwin H. |title=The Hare Krishna movement: the postcharismatic fate of a religious transplant |publisher=[[Columbia University Press]] |location=[[New York City|New York]] |year=2004 |page=[https://archive.org/details/harekrishnamovem00brya/page/n29 7]|isbn=978-0-231-12256-6|title-link=Hare Krishna movement }}</ref>

==Arguments for the existence of God==

===Empirical arguments===

====Argument from beauty====
One form of the [[argument from beauty]] is that the elegance of the laws of physics, which have been empirically discovered, or the [[Mathematical beauty|elegant laws of mathematics]], which are abstract but which have empirically proven to be useful, is evidence of a [[creator deity]] who has arranged these things to be beautiful and not ugly.{{citation needed|date=August 2018}}

====Argument from consciousness====
The [[argument from consciousness]] claims that human consciousness cannot be explained by the physical mechanisms of the human body and brain, therefore, asserting that there must be non-physical aspects to human consciousness.  This is held as indirect evidence of God, given that notions about [[soul]]s and the [[afterlife]] in Christianity and Islam would be consistent with such a claim. 

The notion of the soul was created before modern understanding of [[neural network]]s and the physiology of the brain.  Decades of experimentation lead [[cognitive science]] to consider thought and emotion as physical processes although the experience of consciousness still remains poorly understood.{{citation needed|date=August 2018}}  The [[hard problem of consciousness]] remains as to whether different people subjectively experience the world in the same way — for example, that the color blue looks the same inside the minds of different people, though this is a philosophical problem with both physical and non-physical explanations.{{citation needed|date=August 2018}}

====Argument from design====
The [[teleological argument]], or the argument from design, asserts that certain features of the universe and of [[Life|living things]] must be the product of an [[Intelligence|intelligent]] [[Causality|cause]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php |title=Intelligent Design |publisher=Intelligent Design |accessdate=2013-05-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130515051745/http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php |archive-date=2013-05-15 |url-status=live }}</ref> Its proponents are mainly Christians.<ref>{{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|vol=04
|reporter=cv
|opinion=2688
|date=December 20, 2005
|quote=the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity
}}, [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context#Page 26 of 139|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 [http://home.kc.rr.com/bnpndxtr/download/HorsesMouth-BP007.pdf ''Horse's Mouth'']{{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080627021627/http://home.kc.rr.com/bnpndxtr/download/HorsesMouth-BP007.pdf |date=June 27, 2008 }} (PDF) by Brian Poindexter, dated 2003.</ref>

====Rational warrant====
Philosopher [[Stephen Toulmin]] is notable for his work in the history of ideas<ref>{{cite web|title=Stephen Edelston Toulmin|url=http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/600670/Stephen-Edelston-Toulmin|website=Encyclopædia Britannica|accessdate=16 June 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140714133155/http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/600670/Stephen-Edelston-Toulmin|archive-date=14 July 2014|url-status=live}}</ref> 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''.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Hinman|first1=Joseph|title=The Trace of God: A Rational Warrant for Belief|publisher=GrandViaduct|isbn=978-0-9824087-1-1|edition=1|date=2014-05-28}}</ref> Instead of attempting to prove the existence of God, Hinman argues you can "demonstrate the rationally-warranted nature of belief".<ref>{{cite web|last1=Hinman|first1=Joseph|title=On Rational Warrant|url=http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2010/07/on-rational-warrant.html|website=Metacrock|accessdate=2014-06-13|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140714233756/http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2010/07/on-rational-warrant.html|archive-date=2014-07-14|url-status=live}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Hinman|first1=Joseph|title=The Trace of God: A Rational Warrant for Belief|publisher=GrandViaduct|isbn=978-0-9824087-1-1|edition=1|pages=85–92|date=2014-05-28}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Hinman|first1=Joseph|title=The Trace of God: A Rational Warrant for Belief|publisher=GrandViaduct|isbn=978-0-9824087-1-1|edition=1|pages=90–92|date=2014-05-28}}</ref> Second, the experiences work. In other words, they provide a framework for navigating life that is useful and effective.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Hinman|first1=Joseph|title=The Trace of God: A Rational Warrant for Belief|publisher=GrandViaduct|isbn=978-0-9824087-1-1|edition=1|pages=100–103|date=2014-05-28}}</ref> All of the evidence of the positive effects of the experience upon people's lives he, adapting a term from [[Derrida]], 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:<ref>{{cite book|last1=Hinman|first1=Joseph|title=The Trace of God: A Rational Warrant for Belief|publisher=GrandViaduct|isbn=978-0-9824087-1-1|edition=1|pages=104–105|date=2014-05-28}}</ref> 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.{{Clarify|date=January 2017}}

====Inductive arguments====
Some have put forward arguments for the existence of God based on [[inductive reasoning]]. For example, one 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 [[Scotland|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?''<ref>(Stuttgart, 1908)</ref>

===Logical arguments===

====Aquinas' Five Ways====
{{Main|Five Ways (Aquinas)}}
In article 3, question 2, 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 regress|infinite regression argument]].<ref name="Aquinas 1274">{{cite book|last=Aquinas|first=Thomas|title=Summa Theologica|year=1274|location=Part 1, Question 2, Article 3|url=http://www.newadvent.org/summa/|access-date=2012-06-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120615112233/http://www.newadvent.org/summa/|archive-date=2012-06-15|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Aquinas|first1=Thomas|last2=Kreeft|first2=Peter|title=Summa of the Summa|year=1990|publisher=Ignatius Press|pages=65–69|isbn=9780898703009}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite book | title=The Thought of Thomas Aquinas | publisher=Oxford University Press | author=Davies, Brian | year=1992 | page=26 | isbn=9780191520440}}</ref> Aquinas' Five Ways argued from the [[unmoved mover]], [[first cause]], [[necessary being]], [[argument from degree]], and the [[Five Ways (Aquinas)#Quinta Via: Argument from Final Cause or Ends|argument from final cause]].

*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.<ref name="Aquinas 1274"/>
*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.<ref name="Aquinas 1274"/>
*The argument from [[Argument from contingency|necessary being]] asserts that all beings are [[contingency (philosophy)|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.<ref name="Aquinas 1274"/>
*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.<ref name="Aquinas 1274"/>
*The argument from final cause asserts the view that non-intelligent objects are ordered towards a purpose. Aquinas argued that these 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.<ref name="Aquinas 1274"/>

====Cosmological argument====
{{Main|Cosmological argument}}

One type of cosmological, or "first cause" argument, typically called the Kalam cosmological argument, asserts that since everything that begins to exist has a cause, and the universe began to exist, the universe must have had a cause which was itself not caused. This ultimate first cause is identified with God. Christian apologist [[William Lane Craig]] gives a version of this argument in the following form:<ref>{{cite web |last=Craig |first=William L. |title=The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe |work=Truth Journal |publisher=Leaderu.com |accessdate=22 June 2008 |url=http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html |archive-url=https://www.webcitation.org/6CK3nTv5m?url=http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html |archive-date=20 November 2012 |url-status=live }}</ref>
# Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
# The Universe began to exist.
# Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

====Ontological argument====
{{Main|Ontological argument}}
The ontological argument has been formulated by philosophers including [[St. Anselm]] and [[René Descartes]]. The argument proposes that God's existence is self-evident. The logic, depending on the formulation, reads roughly as follows:<ref name="Nolan">{{cite web|last=Nolan|first=Lawrence|title=Descartes' Ontological Argument|url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ontological/|publisher=Stanford|access-date=2012-06-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120513205040/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ontological/|archive-date=2012-05-13|url-status=live}}</ref>
{{quote|
Whatever is contained in a clear and distinct idea of a thing must be predicated of that thing; but a clear and distinct idea of an absolutely perfect Being contains the idea of actual existence; therefore since we have the idea of an absolutely perfect Being such a Being must really exist.<ref name="Nolan" />}}

Thomas Aquinas criticized the argument for proposing a definition of God which, if God is transcendent, should be impossible for humans.<ref>{{cite book|last=Aquinas|first=Thomas|title=Summa Theologica|year=1274|location=Part 1, Question 2|url=http://www.newadvent.org/summa/|access-date=2012-06-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120615112233/http://www.newadvent.org/summa/|archive-date=2012-06-15|url-status=live}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite book|last=Kreeft|first=Peter|title=Socrates Meets Kant|year=2009|publisher=Ignatius Press|isbn=9781586173487}}</ref> 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 [[logical truth|necessarily true]] that the greatest possible being exists.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia | url=http://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg | title=Ontological Argument | encyclopedia=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy | date=27 April 2005 | accessdate=October 12, 2011 | author=Himma, Kenneth Einar | archive-url=https://www.webcitation.org/6Bp6tKeEJ?url=http://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg | archive-date=31 October 2012 | url-status=live }}</ref> 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 is an unreal Being.{{citation needed|date=August 2013}} Another response to Kant is attributed to Alvin Plantinga, who says that even if one were to grant that existence is not a real predicate, ''necessary existence'', which is the correct formulation of an understanding of God, ''is'' a real predicate.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/02-03/01w/readings/plantinga.html |title=Plantinga 'The Ontological Argument' Text |publisher=Mind.ucsd.edu |accessdate=2013-05-14 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130314123846/http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/02-03/01w/readings/plantinga.html |archive-date=2013-03-14 }}</ref>

===Subjective arguments===
====Arguments from historical events or personages====
* The sincere seeker's argument, espoused by Muslim Sufis of the Tasawwuf tradition, posits that every individual who follows a formulaic path towards guidance, arrives at the same destination of conviction in the existence of God and specifically in the monotheistic tenets and laws of Islam. This could only be true if the formula and supplication were being answered by the same Divine entity being addressed, as claimed in Islamic revelations.  This was formally organized by Imam Abu Hamid [[Al-Ghazali]] in such notable works as "Deliverance from Error" and "The Alchemy of Happiness," in Arabic "[[Kimiya-yi sa'adat]]".  The path includes following the golden rule of no harm to others and treating others with compassion, silence or minimal speech, seclusion, daily fasting or minimalist diet of water and basic nourishment, honest wages, and daily supplication towards "the Creator of the Universe" for guidance.<ref name="Ghazali 1100">{{cite book|last=Ghazali|first=Abu Hamid|title=Deliverance from Error|year=1100|url=http://ghazali.org/books/md/gz101.htm|access-date=2016-08-28|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160825093541/http://ghazali.org/books/md/gz101.htm|archive-date=2016-08-25|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Ghazali 1105">{{cite book|last=Ghazali|first=Abu Hamid|title=The Alchemy of Happiness|year=1105|url=http://www.ghazali.org/books/alchemy/|access-date=2016-08-28|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160911101949/http://www.ghazali.org/books/alchemy/|archive-date=2016-09-11|url-status=live}}</ref>
* [[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.<ref name="Greco2013">{{cite book|author=John Greco|title=God and the Gods: A Compelling Investigation and Personal Quest for the Truth About God of the Bible and the Gods of Ancient History|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=CfVDG8aAcLIC&pg=PA134|date=26 June 2013|publisher=iUniverse|isbn=978-1-4759-9597-8|pages=134–}}{{unreliable source?|date=July 2020}}</ref>
* [[Christological argument]]s assert that certain events of the Christian [[New Testament]] are historically accurate, and prove God's existence, namely:
** The [[Resurrection of Jesus]]<ref>{{Cite book | first=John | last=Polkinghorne | author-link=John Polkinghorne | title=Science and Christian Belief | pages=108–122}}</ref> (an [[argument from miracles]])
** The claims of Jesus, as a morally upstanding person, to be the son of God (an [[argument from authority]])
** The belief of Jesus, as a wise person, that God exists (an [[argument from authority]])
* Islam asserts that the revelation of its holy book, the [[Qur'an]], and its unique literary attributes, vindicate its divine authorship, and thus the existence of God.<ref>{{Cite web | title=Islamic Awareness: The Challenge of the Qur'an | url=http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Miracle/ | access-date=2016-08-28 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160912050734/http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Miracle/ | archive-date=2016-09-12 | url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web | title=The Inimitability of the Qur'an | url=http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/essays-articles/exploring-the-quran/ | access-date=2016-08-28 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160922115521/http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/essays-articles/exploring-the-quran/ | archive-date=2016-09-22 | url-status=dead }}</ref>
* [[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.{{citation needed|date=June 2016}}
** 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.{{citation needed|date=June 2016}}
** 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|The Word of the Lord Brought to Mankind by an Angel]] establishes the existence of God.{{citation needed|date=June 2016}}

====Arguments from testimony====
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.<ref>{{Cite book | first=Richard | last=Swinburne | author-link=Richard Swinburne | title=Is there a God? | publisher=Oxford University Press | year=1997 | isbn=978-0-19-823545-3}}</ref>
* The [[witness argument]] gives credibility to personal [[witness]]es, 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 [[argument from common consent|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=====
{{See also|Anecdotal evidence}}
* The sincere seeker's argument, espoused by Muslim Sufis of the Tasawwuf tradition, posits that every individual who follows a formulaic path towards guidance, arrives at the same destination of conviction in the existence of God and specifically in the monotheistic tenets and laws of Islam. This apparent natural law for guidance and belief could only be consistent if the formula and supplication were being answered by the same Divine entity being addressed, as claimed in Islamic revelations.  This was formally organized by Imam Abu Hamid [[Al-Ghazali]] in such notable works as "Deliverance from Error" and "The Alchemy of Happiness," in Arabic "[[Kimiya-yi sa'ādat]]".  The path includes following the golden rule of no harm to others and treating others with compassion, silence or minimal speech, seclusion, daily fasting or minimalist diet of water and basic nourishment, honest wages, and daily supplication towards "the Creator of the Universe" for guidance.<ref name="Ghazali 1100"/><ref name="Ghazali 1105"/>
* 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".{{citation needed|date=June 2016}} 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.<ref>([[A. Stöckl]], ''Geschichte der neueren Philosophie'', II, 82 sqq.)</ref> 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.
* 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.<ref>(Stöckl, loc. cit., 199 sqq.)</ref>
* [[Brahma Kumaris]] religion was established in 1936, when God was said to enter the body of diamond merchant [[Lekhraj Kripalani]] (1876–1969) in Hyderabad, Sindh and started to speak through him.<ref>"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." {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110725102100/http://brahmakumaris.org/about-us/history/60.html |date=July 25, 2011 }}</ref><ref>Babb, Lawrence A. (1987). Redemptive Encounters: Three Modern Styles in the Hindu Tradition (Comparative Studies in Religion and Society). Oxford University Press. {{ISBN|0-7069-2563-7}}.</ref>

===Hindu arguments===
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), [[Adi Sankara]] 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 [[adrsta]] by themselves mediate the appropriate, justly deserved pleasure and pain. The fruits, according to him must be administered through the action of a conscious agent, namely, a supreme being ([[Ishvara]]).<ref>{{cite journal | last =Reichenbach | first =Bruce R. | title =Karma, causation, and divine intervention | journal =Philosophy East and West | volume =39 | issue =2 | pages =135–149 [145] | date =April 1989 | url =http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/reiche2.htm | accessdate =2009-12-29 | doi =10.2307/1399374 | jstor =1399374 | archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20091027070413/http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/reiche2.htm | archive-date =2009-10-27 | url-status =dead }}</ref> The [[Nyaya]] school make similar arguments.

===Other arguments===
* The [[evolutionary argument against naturalism]], which argues that naturalistic evolution is incapable of providing humans with the cognitive apparatus necessary for their knowledge to have positive epistemic status.<ref>Alvin Plantinga, ''Warrant and Proper Function''</ref>
* An argument from belief in God being properly basic as presented by Alvin Plantinga.<ref>Alvin Plantinga, ''Warranted Christian Belief''</ref>
* Argument from Personal Identity.<ref>Richard Swinburne, ''The Coherence of Theism''</ref>
* Argument from the "divine attributes of scientific law".<ref>This argument is articulated by Vern Poythress in chapter 1 of Redeeming Science (pages 13-31). Available:  http://www.frame-poythress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/PoythressVernRedeemingScience.pdf#page=14 {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121114181018/http://www.frame-poythress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/PoythressVernRedeemingScience.pdf#page=14 |date=2012-11-14 }}</ref>

== Arguments against the existence of God ==
<!--This section is linked from [[Atheism]]-->
The arguments below aim to show that a god or set of gods does not exist—by showing a creator is unnecessary or [[proof by contradiction|contradictory]], at odds with known [[science|scientific]] or [[history|historical]] facts, or that there is insufficient proof that a god does exist.

===Empirical arguments===
The following empirical arguments rely on observations or experimentation to yield their conclusions.

====Arguments from inadequate revelations====
The [[argument from inconsistent revelations]] contests the existence of the deity called God as described in [[scriptures]]—such as the Hindu [[Vedas]], the Jewish [[Tanakh]], the Christian [[Bible]], the Muslim [[Qur'an]], the [[Book of Mormon]] or the Baha'i [[Kitáb-i-Aqdas|Aqdas]]—by identifying apparent contradictions between different scriptures, within a single scripture, or between scripture and known facts.

Relatedly, the argument from parsimony (using [[Occam's razor]]) contends that since natural (non-supernatural) theories adequately explain the [[development of religion]] and belief in gods,<ref>''Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought'', Pascal Boyer, Basic Books (2001)</ref> the actual existence of such supernatural agents is superfluous and may be dismissed unless otherwise proven to be required to explain the phenomenon.

The argument from "historical induction" concludes that since most theistic religions throughout history (e.g. [[ancient Egyptian religion]], [[Religion in ancient Greece|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. [[H. L. Mencken]] wrote a short piece about the topic entitled "Memorial Service" in 1922.<ref>H.L. Mencken, [http://jonathongreen.co.uk/h-l-mencken-where-is-the-graveyard-of-dead-gods/ "Where is the Graveyard of Dead Gods?"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180917143203/http://jonathongreen.co.uk/h-l-mencken-where-is-the-graveyard-of-dead-gods/ |date=2018-09-17 }}</ref> It is implied as part of Stephen F. Roberts' popular quotation: <blockquote>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.</blockquote>

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

====Arguments from the poor design of the universe====
The [[problem of evil]] contests the existence of a god who is both omnipotent and [[omnibenevolence|omnibenevolent]] by arguing that such a god should not permit the existence of [[evil]] or [[suffering]]. The theist responses are called [[theodicy|theodicies]]. Similarly, the [[argument from poor design]] contends that an all-powerful, benevolent creator god would not have created lifeforms, including humans, which seem to exhibit poor design.

[[Richard Carrier]] has argued that the universe itself seems to be very ill-designed for life, because the vast majority of the space in the universe is utterly hostile to it. This is arguably unexpected on the hypothesis that the universe was designed by a god, especially a [[personal god]]. Carrier contends that such a god could have easily created a [[Geocentric model|geocentric universe]] ''[[ex nihilo]]'' in [[Young Earth creationism|the recent past]], in which most of the volume of the universe is inhabitable by humans and other lifeforms— precisely the kind of universe that most humans believed in until the [[History of science|rise of modern science]]. While a personal god ''might'' have created the kind of universe we observe, Carrier contends that this is not the kind of universe we would most ''likely'' expect to see if such a god existed. He finally argues that, unlike theism, our observations about the nature of the universe are strongly expected on the hypothesis of atheism, since the universe would have to be vast, very old, and almost completely devoid of life if life were to have [[Abiogenesis|arisen by sheer chance]].<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |last=Carrier |first=Richard |author-link=Richard Carrier |title=Neither Life Nor The Universe Appear Intelligently Designed |year=2011 |editor1-last=Loftus |editor1-first=John W. |encyclopedia=The End of Christianity |publisher=Prometheus Books |location=Amherst, NY |isbn=978-1-61614-414-2 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kXbaUE8cT64C }}</ref>

===Logical arguments===
<!-- This section is linked from [[Atheism]] -->
The following arguments deduce, mostly through self-contradiction, the non-existence of a God as "the Creator". 
*Stephen Hawking and co-author Leonard Mlodinow state in their book ''[[The Grand Design (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. Both authors claim that it is possible to answer these questions purely within the realm of science, and without invoking any divine beings.<ref>p. 172, ''[[The Grand Design (book)|The Grand Design]]'', Stephen Hawking, Leonard Mlodinow</ref> Christian scholars, like [[Leonhard Euler#Commemorations|Leonhard Euler]] and [[Bernard d'Espagnat]],<ref name="newscientist.com">Gefter, Amanda [https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16769-concept-of-hypercosmic-god-wins-templeton-prize/ "Concept of 'hypercosmic God' wins Templeton Prize,"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170211155544/https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16769-concept-of-hypercosmic-god-wins-templeton-prize/ |date=2017-02-11 }} ''The New Scientist'', Mar. 2009.</ref> disagree with that kind of skeptical argument.
*No scientific evidence of God's existence has been found. Therefore, the scientific consensus is that whether God exists is unknown.<ref>{{Cite document|title=Atheism|last=Baggini|first=Julian|date=2003-08-28|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-280424-2|doi=10.1093/actrade/9780192804242.001.0001}}</ref>
* A counter-argument against God as the Creator takes the assumption of the Cosmological argument ("the chicken or the egg"), that things cannot exist without creators, and applies it to God, setting up an infinite regress.
* Dawkins' [[Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit]] analogizes the above. Some theists argue that [[evolution]] and abiogenesis are akin to a hurricane assembling a Boeing 747 —  that the universe (or life) is too complex, cannot be made by non-living matter alone and would have to be designed by someone, who theists call God. Dawkin's counter-argument is that such a God would himself be complex — the "Ultimate" Boeing 747 — and therefore require a designer.
* [[Theological noncognitivism]] is the argument that religious language – specifically, words such as "God" – are not cognitively meaningful and that irreducible definitions of God are circular.
* The analogy of [[Russell's teapot]] argues that the [[Philosophic burden of proof|burden of proof]] for the existence of God lies with the theist rather than the atheist; it can be considered an extension of Occam's Razor.

====Arguments from incompatible divine properties====
Some arguments focus on the existence of specific conceptions of God as being omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect.
* The [[omnipotence paradox]] suggests that the concept of an [[omnipotent]] entity is logically contradictory by considering questions such as "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?"
* Similarly, the omniscience paradox argues that God cannot be omniscient because he would not know how to create something unknown to himself.
* Another argument points to the contradiction of omniscience and omnipotence arguing that God is bound to follow whatever God foreknows himself doing.
* [[Argument from free will]] contends that omniscience and the free will of humanity are incompatible and that any conception of God that incorporates both properties is therefore inherently contradictory: if God is omniscient, then God already knows humanity's future, contradicting the claim of free will.
* The anthropic argument states that if God is omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect, he would have created other morally perfect beings instead of imperfect ones, such as humans.
* The [[problem of hell]] is the idea that eternal damnation contradicts God's omnibenevolence and [[omnipresence]].
* The Transcendental Argument for the Non-existence of God contests the existence of an intelligent Creator God by demonstrating 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.
* 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 faster—showing it imperfect.
* The [[Atheistic existentialism|atheist-existential]] argument for the [[non-existence]] of a perfect sentient being states that if [[existence precedes essence]], it [[Logical consequence|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."

===Subjective arguments===
{{see also|Anecdotal evidence}}
Similar to the [[Wiktionary:subjective#Pronunciation|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===
[[Atheism in Hinduism|Atheistic Hindu doctrines]] cite various arguments for rejecting a creator God or ''Ishvara''. The ''[[Samkhyapravachana Sutra|{{IAST |Sāṁkhyapravacana Sūtra}}]]'' of the [[Samkhya]] school states that there is no philosophical place for a creator 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.<ref>[https://archive.org/stream/thesamkhyaphilos00sinhuoft/thesamkhyaphilos00sinhuoft_djvu.txt Sāṁkhyapravacana Sūtra] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160201114905/http://www.archive.org/stream/thesamkhyaphilos00sinhuoft/thesamkhyaphilos00sinhuoft_djvu.txt |date=2016-02-01 }} I.92.</ref> Classical Samkhya argues against the existence of God on metaphysical grounds. For instance, it argues that an unchanging God cannot be the source of an ever-changing world. It says God is a necessary metaphysical assumption demanded by circumstances.<ref>{{cite book|last=Rajadhyaksha|title=The six systems of Indian philosophy|year=1959|page=95|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ihkRAQAAIAAJ|access-date=2016-01-27|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160101025131/https://books.google.com/books?id=ihkRAQAAIAAJ|archive-date=2016-01-01|url-status=live}}</ref> The Sutras of Samkhya endeavor to prove that the idea of God is inconceivable and self-contradictory, and some{{Which|date=June 2012}} 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.<ref>{{cite book|title=Hinduism and Buddhism, Vol II. (of 3)|first=Charles|last=Eliot|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=K4ZpPleiyokC|page=243|isbn=9781406862966|date=2007-09-01|access-date=2016-01-27|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140103130540/http://books.google.com/books?id=K4ZpPleiyokC|archive-date=2014-01-03|url-status=live}}</ref>

[[Charvaka]], originally known as Lokāyata, a heterodox Hindu philosophy states that there is "no God, no [[samsara]] (rebirth), no karma, no duty, no fruits of merit, no sin."<ref>Haribhadrasūri (Translator: M Jain, 1989), Saddarsanasamuccaya, Asiatic Society, {{oclc|255495691}}</ref> Proponents of the school of [[Mimamsa]], which is based on [[ritual]]s and [[orthopraxy]], decided that the evidence allegedly proving the existence of God is insufficient. They argue that there is no need to postulate a maker for the world, just as there is no need for an author to compose the Vedas or a god to validate the rituals.<ref>{{cite book|title=Religious truth|first=Robert|last=Neville|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ThLR13JpCWsC|page=51|isbn=9780791447789|year=2001|access-date=2016-01-27|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160101025131/https://books.google.com/books?id=ThLR13JpCWsC|archive-date=2016-01-01|url-status=live}}</ref> Mimamsa argues that the gods named in the Vedas have no existence apart from the ''[[mantra]]s'' that speak their names. In that regard, the power of the mantras is what is seen as the power of gods.<ref>{{cite book |title=The perfectibility of human nature in eastern and western thought |first=Harold |last=Coward |author-link=Harold Coward |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LkE_8uch5P0C |page=114 |isbn=9780791473368 |date=2008-02-07 |access-date=2016-01-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160101025131/https://books.google.com/books?id=LkE_8uch5P0C |archive-date=2016-01-01 |url-status=live }}</ref>

==Psychological aspects==
{{See also|Evolutionary psychology of religion}}
Several authors have offered psychological or sociological explanations for belief in the existence of God.

Psychologists observe that the majority of humans often ask existential questions such as "why we are here" and whether life has purpose. Some psychologists{{Weasel inline|date=June 2012}} have posited that religious beliefs may recruit cognitive mechanisms in order to satisfy these questions. [[William James]] emphasized the inner religious struggle between [[Depression (mood)|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==
{{div col|colwidth=20em}}
* [[Apologetics]]
* [[Copleston–Russell debate]]
* [[Christian existential apologetics]]
* [[Efficacy of prayer]]
* [[Existence of Jesus]]
* [[Gödel's ontological proof]]
* [[Metaphysics]]
* [[Pascal's Wager]]
* [[Problem of evil]]
* [[Problem of the creator of God]]
* [[Rationalism]]
* [[Relationship between religion and science]]
* [[Spectrum of theistic probability]]
* ''[[The Atheist Experience]]''
* [[Transcendental theology]]
{{div col end}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

==Further reading==
* [[Richard Dawkins]], ''[[The God Delusion]]'', Black Swan, 2007 ({{ISBN|978-0-552-77429-1}}).
* [[Christopher Hitchens]], ''[[God is Not Great|God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything]]''. Twelve Books, 2007 ({{ISBN|978-0-446-57980-3}}).
* Hick, John, ed. (1964). ''The Existence of God: Readings'', in ''The Problems of Philosophy Series''. New York: Macmillan Co.
* {{cite journal|last=Plantinga|first=Alvin|author-link=Alvin Plantinga|title=Two Dozen (or so) Theistic Arguments|publisher=[[Calvin College]]|url=http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/articles/plantinga_alvin/two_dozen_or_so_theistic_arguments.pdf|access-date=2007-11-25|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080724042130/http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/articles/plantinga_alvin/two_dozen_or_so_theistic_arguments.pdf|archive-date=2008-07-24|url-status=dead}}
* {{cite book|last=Schneider|first=Nathan|year=2013|title=God in Proof: The Story of a Search from the Ancients to the Internet|publisher=University of California Press|isbn=9780520269071|author-link=Nathan Schneider}}
*{{Cite book|title=The Existence of God|last=Swinburne|first=Richard|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2004|isbn=978-0199271672|edition=2nd|location=Oxford|author-link=Richard Swinburne}}
*{{Cite book|title=Two Dozen (or so) Arguments for God|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2018|isbn=978-0190842222|editor-last=Walls|editor-first=Jerry L.|location=Oxford|editor-last2=Dougherty|editor-first2=Trent}}

== External links ==
{{Wikibooks|God and Religious Toleration/The proof of God}}
{{wikiversity|Existence of God}}
* [http://www.apollos.ws/philosophy-of-religion-article/ A Collection of Arguments for the Existence of God]
* [http://www.alislam.org/books/essence1/chap2.htm Proofs of God's Existence: Islam—Ahmadiyyat] (PDF)
* [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm The Existence of God—Catholic Encyclopedia]
* [http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/pg1.htm The Classical Islamic Arguments for the Existence of God by Majid Fakhry]

{{Navboxes
|list=
{{God arguments}}
{{Theology|god}}
{{Theism}}
{{Philosophy of religion}}
{{Philosophy topics}}
}}
{{Portal bar|Religion|Philosophy}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Existence Of God}}
[[Category:Arguments against the existence of God| ]]
[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God| ]]
[[Category:Religious controversies]]
[[Category:Philosophical arguments]]
[[Category:Philosophy of religion]]
[[Category:Singular God]]