The God Question

To begin with, let's clear up a little matter that will save trouble later on. There can be no scientific proof for God. None. The possibility is unintelligible. If God is at all like Christians believe Him to be, then there can be no clear, demonstrable, and repeatable protocol that may be subjected to any of the methods of science. There is nothing to observe, nothing to measure, nothing to experiment on.

Richard Dawkins and other atheist fundamentalists aren't saying anything at all when they point out that there is no proof for God. Adherents of Intelligent Design theory are equally mistaken in their attempt to adduce physical evidence for special creation. The question of God's existence is not the domain of science, but of reason. We can have reasoned insight into the God question, but not scientific proof.

That being said, we can know that God, or at least something very like the Christian concept of God, must exist. Reality as we know it is unintelligible without the existence of God, or what I shall call god. As noted in a previous post, God has certain attributes in the common conception, attributes which, unlike god's mere existence, are not knowable by reason. Consequently, the question to be addressed is the existence of god, and what we can know of him/her/it/???.

The next two posts will present the three primary arguments for the existence of god, the argument from desire, the argument from causality, and the argument from being. Each one fits into the other to produce a proof (in the logical sense) that is both cogent and consistent. Together, I believe they show that atheism, or a more precise term, a-deism, is both incoherent and unintelligible.