If you are a religious believer then it is unlikely that you require an argument to support your beliefs. If you are a non-believer, then it is even more unlikely that you will be converted or convinced based on any philosophical argument that claims to prove the existence of God. Ultimately the existence of God cannot be proven one way or another. However, I would like to investigate in this essay whether it is possible to produce an argument that at least can show that belief per se can be a credible or rational stance to adopt. Furthermore, I will accept Soren Kierkegaard's sceptical stance as an absolute: that rationality has nothing to do with belief in God.
I propose to examine a number of diverse philosophical standpoints in relation to the "God Question": none of which happen to agree upon anything or come to any generally accepted solution or conclusion.
The only conclusion I can put forward is that philosophy cannot and does not offer any solution to life's problems, and in this regard, God is really only another question for philosophy rather that any coherent answer.
"Whoever attempts to demonstrate the existence of God is an excellent subject for a comedy of higher lunacy", Philosophical Fragments
Anselm and Aquinas: proof through faith alone?
Saint Thomas Aquinas begins his proof of the divine with the fact that there must be a first efficient cause to the conclusion that God is that cause. Why must Aquinas make the extraordinary jump from there being a cause, to if this cause must be God? Would it not be just as plausible to make matter the first cause? Matter is the substance that any physical object is composed of. Matter is closed and finite, with no beginning or end. The best...