I was reading Fr. Aidan Kimel’s blog post published today about whether God’s existence can be proven and I wanted to give a brief response to a statement made in it.
Back in 1975 I became a theist on the basis of a philosophical argument: specifically, the reliability of our sensory and cognitive faculties can only be guaranteed if they are the products of divine design (see Richard Taylor, Metaphysics). I have no idea now whether the argument I found so persuasive almost forty years ago is sound or not.
I hope he doesn’t mind if I quote him here. My comments are that I think there are quite a bit of rational, philosophical proofs of God’s existence. So long as the argument doesn’t rely on materialistic tendencies. Can God’s existence be proven? Honestly, it depends on your definition of “God”. I think that while proofs such as the moral argument, the epistemological argument, and the ontological argument provide the best defenses they all flounder on assumptions being made. Hence, the moral argument assumes that God’s moral precepts should match a particular moral reality, the epistemological argument assumes that supernatural and God are the exact same thing, and the ontological argument assumes greatness exists.
Thus, there is no single “knock-out” proof of God’s existence but there are sufficient attacks against a structureless world-view. How I look at it is from the Nietzschean and Sartrean pre-cept. If there is no god, then the only god in existence is yourself. Hence, we desire to be god. Our own god.