Comparative Religious Studies/Philosophical arguments for God's existence
I have been inspired by many different theist philosophers and theologians on their attempts to show that God exists and as an aspiring philosopher myself I have come up with just a few from my mind that I would you to judge and tell me whether these arguments are any good, whether they can be improved and whether they are even worth pursuing and please note I will just save space by stating the premises and giving a brief explanation rather than stating the whole argument if that's okay and please tell me if you don't really quite get the arguments from the premises alone.
Argument Number 1 - Purpose
1. Our existence can either have a subjective or an objective purpose
2. If our existence has subjective purpose we have no actual purpose
3. If our existence has objective purpose that must be due to the intentionality of a Mind behind our existence
4. Our existence does have objective purpose
5. Therefore, our existence is due to the intentionality of a Mind behind existence
6. That Mind is best explained as being the Mind of God
Basically here I am saying that on the grand scheme of things we can either have an actual objective purpose or a subjective one which isn't really a purpose you're just making one for yourself. If we have one the best explanation is a mind behind our existence. We do have one because of phenomena such as fine-tuning, the fact we have a universe, the mathematical application to the universe, morality, consciousness, etc. all suggest we are here for some reason. Rationally reflect on what this mind would be it would be transcendent, immaterial, time less, space less, uncaused etc. basically God.
Argument number 2 - Rationality of arguments
1. There are many different arguments as to why we exist
2. The arguments are either rational or irrational
3. The theistic argument is rational in explaining the origin of the universe and life on earth
4. The atheistic argument is irrational in explaining the origin of the universe and life on earth
5. Arguments that are rational have a tendency to be true
6. Arguments that are irrational have a tendency to be false
7. Therefore, theism is more plausibly true than false
Here I am trying to argue that ultimately all arguments that can be put forward are either rational ones or irrational ones. Theism is a rational explanation to all the great phenomena, but atheism isn't for how could the universe have come from nothing or chance etc. Rational arguments are going to be true, irrational ones clearly aren't. Therefore, theism is rational more plausibly true than false.
Argument number 3 - Human nature
1. The belief in God is innate and human nature
2. The atheistic view of life is unnatural and goes against human nature
3. This phenomena is adequately explained by theism
4. This phenomena is inadequately explained by atheism
5. Therefore, theism is the best explanation of the innate acknowledgement of God’s existence
Because belief in God has been proven by many psychologists to be be natural atheism is unnatural. Under theism this makes sense, under atheism it doesn't for why would we have a natural reason to believe in God. Therefore, theism is the best explanation here.
Argument number 4 - The very notion of God
1. The very notion of God explaining existence is expected if theism is true
2. The very notion of God explaining existence is unexpected if atheism is true
3. Therefore, the fact that the idea of God even exists points towards God’s actual existence
The very fact the idea of God exists is obviously going to be the case if God actually exists, but if He doesn't it is unlikely the idea of God would ever arise, that people would claim experiences of God, revelation etc.
I apologize for getting back to you so late in the game, for some reason I did not get the notice of your question.
Of course your inquires are almost “scholastic” in their breadth and depth, and it is the position of this site that the Experts not answer questions that could be someone’s assignment.
However I am going to assume that this is not the case and will make an attempt to answer your inquiries and suppositions.
First and foremost it is important to state that the “Existence or Non-Existence Of God” is a very old chestnut, and that the any commentary made on this subject is dependent upon an a priori “assumptions” about the nature of awareness and what is ( or is not ) a logical Proof, and assuming one does not make a fundamentally “Leap Of Faith”, and then only viewed from a logical and completely conventional empiricist position, ALL arguments fall into two categories;
1. There is No Proof that God exists.
2. There is No Proof that God does “Not” exist.
Or stated in a different manner;
1. There are no good reasons to think that Atheism is True.
2. There are good reasons to think that Theism is true.
Let me make some attempts to answer your queries;
“Purpose” – Purpose means the reason why something exists or was created, and the only way to know this is to be the entity that created the object. While the thing created may ( or may not ) have concepts as to why it was created, in the end only the creator knows. This question has at its base the assumptions that there “is” a creator, and that Man has a “purpose”, neither which is provable.
“Rational Arguments” – This appears to be merely a categorization of the formal argumentation you ( and others ) are proposing upon this subject, and to my mind your categories appear concise and laconic.
“Human Nature” – If I understand your argument here your statement is that there is ( or is not and that is not clear ) an innate nature within Human Beings to conceive a Divine Being. The best example I have heard regarding this is one where the “why” Human Beings define God in a "..peculiari modo..", but does not explain the reason for the necessity of Human Beings to create ( or accept ) the concept of a Divine Being predominately? Theism does not rationalize the existence of a Divine Being any more or less than Atheism vindicates the non-existence of a Divine Being. I believe this portion of your argument is weak.
“God Notion” – This is an old argument and has been dwelt with by others much more important than I, however I will respond. Because there is a God Concept, this proves there must be a God for the Concept to emerge. This is a logical-fallacy and an easy one to get caught in. For more reading on this subject I would recommend the work of “Twenty Arguments For the Existence Of God” by Peter Kreeft.
I would like to sum up for a moment;
God ( as a reality or non-reality ) will always be either an intellectual construct, and thereby debatable to any individual, or a point of dogma within a belief-methodology, and thereby always subject to doubt, as long as there is no self-verifiable experiential aspect to refer to. Just as it is not necessary for you to Believe In, Doubt, or Argue about your own existence ( and this is because you maintain a moment-to-moment self-verifiable empiricism that confirms to “you” your own existence ) so to will God or The Divine remain a subject in Doubt, or Argument, or Belief until one is in a moment-to-moment self-verifiable relationship with God, …..but not until then ( smile ).
I hope this was helpful.