Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
The arguments for God's existence aren't just theological curiosities—they're the proving ground where modern philosophy's biggest questions get tested. You're being examined on how philosophers handle existence claims, causation, moral foundations, and the limits of reason itself. Each argument reveals something about what counts as valid reasoning: Can you argue from concepts to reality? Does the universe need an explanation? Can subjective experience serve as evidence? These debates shaped everything from Descartes' epistemology to Kant's critical philosophy.
Don't just memorize which philosopher said what. Know what type of reasoning each argument employs—a priori versus a posteriori, deductive versus inductive—and what objections expose about the argument's assumptions. When an FRQ asks you to evaluate an argument, examiners want to see you identify its logical structure and explain why critics found it compelling or flawed.
These arguments attempt to prove God's existence through pure reason, without appealing to empirical observation. The key philosophical question: can existence ever be derived from definitions or ideas alone?
Compare: Anselm's Ontological Argument vs. Descartes' Trademark Argument—both are a priori and start from the idea of God, but Anselm argues from definition to existence while Descartes argues from the causal origin of the idea. If asked about rationalist approaches to God, these are your primary examples.
These arguments move from observed facts about the world—that things exist, that events have causes—to the necessity of an ultimate explanation. They rely on principles about causation and sufficient reason.
Compare: Aquinas' Cosmological Argument vs. Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason—both demand an ultimate explanation, but Aquinas emphasizes the causal chain while Leibniz emphasizes rational intelligibility. Leibniz's version is more explicitly rationalist and asks the broader question of existence itself.
These a posteriori arguments infer God's existence from observable features of the natural world—its order, complexity, and apparent purposiveness. They use inductive reasoning from effects to causes.
Compare: Paley's Design Argument vs. Berkeley's Idealism—both make God essential to explaining the physical world, but Paley infers a designer from material complexity while Berkeley eliminates matter altogether and makes God the sustainer of all perception. Berkeley's argument is more radical and has broader metaphysical implications.
These arguments claim that objective moral truths or obligations require a divine foundation. The underlying principle: morality needs grounding that naturalism cannot provide.
Compare: The General Moral Argument vs. Kant's Moral Argument—both connect God to morality, but the general form argues God explains moral facts while Kant argues God is a necessary assumption for moral rationality. Kant's version is distinctive because it comes after his critique of theoretical proofs for God.
These arguments don't claim to demonstrate God's existence with certainty but offer reasons to believe based on practical considerations or lived experience.
Compare: Pascal's Wager vs. the Argument from Religious Experience—neither claims to prove God exists, but Pascal appeals to rational self-interest while the experiential argument appeals to testimony and direct encounter. Pascal's Wager doesn't require any experience of God; the experiential argument depends entirely on it.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| A priori reasoning | Ontological Argument, Descartes' Trademark Argument |
| Causal/cosmological reasoning | Aquinas' Cosmological Argument, Leibniz's Sufficient Reason |
| Design/teleological reasoning | Paley's Teleological Argument, Berkeley's Idealism |
| Moral grounding | General Moral Argument, Kant's Moral Argument |
| Pragmatic/practical reasoning | Pascal's Wager, Kant's Postulates |
| Experiential evidence | Argument from Religious Experience |
| Rationalist approaches | Descartes, Leibniz, Anselm |
| Empiricist-influenced approaches | Paley, Berkeley, Experiential Argument |
Which two arguments both start from the idea of God rather than observations about the world, and how do they differ in their reasoning strategy?
Kant rejected the Ontological Argument but offered his own argument for God. What type of reasoning does each employ, and why did Kant think his approach succeeded where Anselm's failed?
Compare Aquinas' Cosmological Argument with Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason. What question does each ultimately try to answer?
If an FRQ asked you to evaluate whether apparent design in nature proves God's existence, which argument would you analyze and what major objection would you need to address?
Both Pascal's Wager and Kant's Moral Argument avoid claiming to prove God exists. How does each justify belief without proof, and what role does practical reasoning play in each?