5 ms·
Aquinas' cosmological argument, or the ontological argument have been attempts to do so. Some such as Edward Feser still uphold that the cosmological argument i
by ue_ 10y ago
Aquinas' cosmological argument, or the ontological argument have been attempts to do so. Some such as Edward Feser still uphold that the cosmological argument is valid (I'm not well versed enough to say either way myself).
I'm unclear as to whether you are dismissing the very idea of whether God's existence can be proven, or whether you are rejecting arguments made hitherto on a case-by-case basis.
- pavel_lishin 10y agoI'm not familiar with his argument - some quick googling boils it down to this; > 1. The cosmos or universe exists. > 2. The existence of the cosmos has a cause. > 3. That cause is God. And that seems more like playing a "pin a word on a concept" than proving the existence of a deity. Anyway, I'm positing that if God exists, it is by very nature outside space and time, and not really within the realm of provability.
- Insanity 10y agoSure enough there have been arguments made for God (and against God) by philosophers, but that does not make any of these testable nor sufficient proof as we would understand it in science.
- ue_ 10y agoI didn't mean to say that the proof could be used in science, but neither can the proofs of pure mathematical theorems, either, such as the ones involving infinity. You don't have to test something for it to exist logically.