Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
The conclusion is not that God does not exist but rather that it is irrational to believe that God
does exist.
Theists have responded to this argument in several ways. A few (Kierkegaard) accept the
argument that belief in God is irrational, see that as a virtue and accept some sort of fideism.
Traditionally, many theists have denied the second premise of the argument, and have applied
natural theology to show that there is sufficient evidence for the existence of God using premises
that all rational people should to acceptThomas Aquinas. (Another example of this aspiration is
Descartes' proof for the existence of God in his Meditations on First Philosophy.)
Reformed epistemologists, however, deny the first premise namely, that belief in God is
irrational unless supported by sufficient evidence, where evidence is construed as providing
propositions from which to infer God's existence. They contend that the requirement is unduly
strict, for there are many reasonable beliefs that one may accept without argument (for example,
belief in other minds, belief in an external world, and belief in the past). Moreover, many
perceptual beliefs are not formed by way of a rational argument: e.g. "I am being appeared too
'treely'. The way one appears, is the way things are; therefore: I am seeing a tree." Rather, upon
seeing a tree, one simply believes one sees a tree. We might say that the experience epistemically
"grounds" the belief without contributing to an argument on the basis of which one accepts it.
Such beliefs are properly basic and need no argument to substantiate them. Reformed
epistemology therefore rejects as arbitrary the rationalist requirement of an argument which
states that one must prove the existence of God, but not the existence of other persons, the truth
of propositions about past or the reality of the external world.