Volume 6, Issue 12 , February 2016, , Pages 119-133
Abstract
Is it possible to prove God’s existence through logical argument? Some philosophers hold that it is possible. In contrast others believe that it is impossible to prove God’s existence through logical argument. Although the third group maintain that proof of God’s existence is not impossible, ...
Read More
Is it possible to prove God’s existence through logical argument? Some philosophers hold that it is possible. In contrast others believe that it is impossible to prove God’s existence through logical argument. Although the third group maintain that proof of God’s existence is not impossible, yet, they reject the concept of classical natural theology on such proofs and suggest modern conditions for validity of proof. They believe that although some of the dissenting discourse towards classical natural theology arguments in proving God’s existence are subject to criticisms and that provability of God’s existence is rationally defendable, but the conceptions of proof of the proponents of classical natural theology from the concept of proof, the conditions posed by it and the certainty of such arguments to everyone as they claim, are not defendable. By accepting new epistemic paradigms and redefinition of the concept of proof as a person-relative argument, it is possible to defend the proofs of God’s existence and present new conception of the rationality of belief in God.
