About this topic
Summary Theism is generally taken to be the view that there is a person who is bodiless, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, perfectly good, perfectly free, and who is the creator and sustainer of the universe. There are of course  different ways to spell out these attributes, for example some spell out ‘eternal‘ as ‘being outside of time‘, others as ‘everlasting‘. However, those who present arguments for or against the ‘existence of God‘ use the term ‘God’ similarly enough to be discussing the same question. Philosophers rather say that there is no God than using ‘God’ in a very different sense, for example in the sense of something other than a person. Most or all arguments for or against theism, today as well as in the past, are not assumed to make belief in God somehow ‘apodictically‘ certain. However, some arguments are deductive, others inductive.
Key works The most thorough defense of the existence of God is Swinburne 2004, who gives probabilistic, inductive instead of deductive arguments and who rejects the ontological as well as the moral argument from the existence of values or duties. Plantinga 1974 defends the ontological argument, Adams 1979 the moral argument. Mackie 1982 is still a much quoted defense of atheism. Rowe 2010 presents an atheistic position.
Introductions Most anthologies with the title ‘philosophy of religion’ contain articles that give the various arguments, for example Craig 2002 or Davies 2000, and also Meister & Copan 2007, Taliaferro & Meister 2009, and Copan & Moser 2003. A simplified defense of theism with various arguments is Swinburne 1996, Le Poidevin 1996 is an introductory defense atheism.
Related categories

1657 found
Order:
1 — 50 / 1657
Material to categorize
  1. The Non-Existence of God.Nicholas Everitt - 2003 - Routledge London.
    Is it possible to prove or disprove God's existence? Arguments for the existence of God have taken many different forms over the centuries: in The Non-Existence of God, Nicholas Everitt considers all of the arguments and examines the role that reason and knowledge play in the debate over God's existence. He draws on recent scientific disputes over neo-Darwinism, the implication of 'big bang' cosmology, and the temporal and spatial size of the universe; and discusses some of the most recent work (...)
  2. The God of Philosophy: An Introduction to Philosophy of Religion.Roy Jackson - 2011 - Routledge.
    For centuries philosophers have argued about the existence and nature of God. Do we need God to explain the origins of the universe? Can there be morality without a divine source of goodness? How can God exist when there is so much evil and suffering in the world? All these questions and many more are brought to life with clarity and style in The God of Philosophy. The arguments for and against God's existence are weighed up, along with discussion of (...)
  3. In Defense of Emergent Individuals: A Reply to Moreland.Joshua Johnson - 2014 - Faith and Philosophy 31 (1):91-104.
    J. P. Moreland has recently raised a number of metaphysical objections to the theory of Emergent Individuals that is defended by Timothy O’ Connor, Jonathan Jacobs, and others. Moreland argues that only theism can provide a sufficient explanation for human consciousness, and he considers the theory of Emergent Individuals to offer a competing naturalistic explanation that must be refuted in order for his argument to be successful. Moreland focuses his objections on the account of emergence advocated by the defenders of (...)
Arguments from Miracles
  1. Hume and Miracles.Matthew C. Bagger - 1997 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 35 (2):237 - 251.
    "Hume and Miracles" relates Hume’s essay "Of Miracles" to the Port-Royal ’Logic’ and John Locke. It argues that Hume did not, as is often supposed, intend to suggest that well-attested miracle reports defeat themselves by undermining the laws of nature they defy. Instead, Hume argues that the specifically ’religious’ nature of the testimony relating to miracle claims rules out their acceptance because of the frequency of fraud in religious matters. Hume’s views are too austere because one might wish to reject (...)
  2. Miracles as Evidence for Theism.David Basinger - 1990 - Sophia 29 (1):56 - 59.
    In an ongoing dialogue, Robert Larmer and I have been discussing whether the undisputed occurrence of certain conceivable events would require all honest, thoughtful individuals to acknowledge that God has intervened in earthly affairs. I argue that there is no reason to believe that a nontheist who acknowledged certain healings to be strong evidence for theism but did not see such evidence as outweighing what she viewed as the stronger counterevidence, and thus remained a nontheist, could justifiably be accused of (...)
  3. The Shroud of Turin, the Resurrection of Jesus and the Realm of Science: One View of the Cathedral.Tristan Casabianca - 2014 - Workshop on Advances in the Turin Shroud Investigation.
    In a topic as controversial as the shroud of Turin, it is always surprising to notice that there still exists a large area of consensus among scholars holding opposite opinions on the topic. According to the consensus view, neither science nor history can ever prove that the Turin Shroud shows signs of the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. However, the reasons given for such an important claim are not convincing, especially in regard of recent developments in historiography and analytic philosophy.
  4. The Shroud of Turin: A Historiographical Approach.Tristan Casabianca - 2013 - Heythrop Journal 54 (3):414-423.
    Criteria of historical assessment are applied to the Turin Shroud to determine which hypothesis relating to the image formation process is the most likely. To implement this, a ‘Minimal Facts’ approach is followed that takes into account only physicochemical and historical data receiving the widest consensus among contemporary scientists. The result indicates that the probability of the Shroud of Turin being the real shroud of Jesus of Nazareth is very high; historians and natural theologians should therefore pay it increased attention.
  5. The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology.William Lane Craig & J. P. Moreland (eds.) - 2009 - Wiley-Blackwell.
  6. Of Miracles and Special Effects.Hent de Vries - 2001 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 50 (1-3):41 - 56.
  7. Review Of: O. Gingerich: God’s Universe. [REVIEW]Yiftach J. H. Fehige - 2008 - Logical Analysis and History of Philosophy 11:232-234.
  8. Hume, Miracles, and the Paranorrnal.William Grey - 1993 - Cogito 7 (2):100-105.
  9. On Hume's Philosophical Case Against Miracles.Daniel Howard-Snyder - 2003 - In Christopher Bernard (ed.), God Matters: Readings in the Philosophy of Religion. Longman Publications.
    According to the Christian religion, Jesus was “crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again”. I take it that this rising again—the Resurrection of Jesus, as it’s sometimes called—is, according to the Christian religion, an historical event, just like his crucifixion, death, and burial. And I would have thought that to investigate whether the Resurrection occurred, we would need to do some historical research: we would need to assess the reliability of (...)
  10. Butler and Hume on Religion: A Comparative Analysis.Anders Jeffner - 1966 - Diakonistyrelsens.
    TOPICS DISCUSSED INCLUDE THE ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN, THE THEOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE OF THE NEW NATURAL SCIENCES, ARGUMENTS FROM MIRACLES, THE MEANING OF STATEMENTS ABOUT GOD, THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE IDEA OF GOD AND VARIOUS APOLOGETIC ARGUMENTS, AND ETHICAL AND META-ETHICAL THEORIES. (BP, EDITED).
  11. Miracles As Evidence for God.Robert Larmer - 1999 - In God and Argument. Univ Ottawa Pr.
  12. David Hume, 'of Miracles'.K. T. Maslin - 1995 - Cogito 9 (1):83-89.
  13. The Argument From Miracles: A Cumulative Case for the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.Timothy McGrew & Lydia McGrew - 2009 - In William Lane Craig & J. P. Moreland (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Blackwell. pp. 593--662.
  14. Hume, Miracles, and Probabilities: Meeting Earman's Challenge.Peter Millican - manuscript
    The centrepiece of Earman’s provocatively titled book Hume’s Abject Failure: The Argument against Miracles is a probabilistic interpretation of Hume’s famous ‘maxim’ concerning the credibility of miracle reports, followed by a trenchant critique of the maxim when thus interpreted. He argues that the first part of this maxim, once its obscurity is removed, is simply trivial, while the second part is nonsensical. His subsequent discussion culminates with a forthright challenge to any would-be defender of Hume to ‘point to some thesis (...)
  15. Review of The Resurrection of God Incarnate. [REVIEW]N. N. - 2005 - Faith and Philosophy 22 (2):235-238.
    Whether or not Jesus rose bodily from the dead remains perhaps the most critical and contentious issue in Christianity. Until now, argument has centered upon the veracity of explicit New Testament accounts of the events following Jesus� crucifixion, often ending in deadlock. In Richard Swinburne�s new approach, though, ascertaining the probable truth of the resurrection requires a much broader approach to the nature of God and to the life and teaching of Jesus.
  16. Miracles and Good Evidence.Douglas Odegard - 1982 - Religious Studies 18 (1):37-46.
    EVEN IF ’MIRACLE’ MEANS A VIOLATION OF A LAW OF NATURE, A CASE CAN BE MADE FOR THINKING THAT MIRACLES ARE POSSIBLE, DETECTABLE, AND COMPATIBLE WITH SCIENCE. THE CASE WORKS BY DEFINING A LAW-VIOLATION AS AN EVENT OF A KIND THAT IS EPISTEMICALLY IMPOSSIBLE UNLESS THERE IS GOOD EVIDENCE OF A GOD’S PRODUCING AN INSTANCE. HUMAN AND NON-HUMAN OBJECTIONS ARE CONSIDERED AND ANSWERED.
  17. Miracles, Evidence, Evil, and God: A Twenty-Year Debate.Christine Overall - 2006 - Dialogue 45 (2):355-366.
    This paper is the latest in a debate with Robert Larmer as to whether the occurrence of a miracle would provide evidence for the existence of God or against the existence of God. Whereas Larmer’s view is categorical (miracles occur and are evidence for the existence of God), mine is hypothetical (if the events typically described as miracles were to occur -- although I do not believe they do -- they would be evidence against the existence of God). The reason (...)
  18. Miracles as Evidence Against the Existence of God.Christine Overall - 1985 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 23 (3):347-353.
    AN ASSUMPTION IN DEBATES ABOUT THE PHILOSOPHICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF MIRACLES IS THAT IF A MIRACLE (A VIOLATION OF NATURAL LAW OR A PERMANENTLY INEXPLICABLE EVENT) WERE TO OCCUR, IT WOULD BE EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE CHRISTIAN GOD. THE PAPER EXPLORES RESERVATIONS BY SEVERAL PHILOSOPHERS ABOUT THIS CONNECTION BETWEEN GOD AND MIRACLES, AND PRESENTS ARGUMENTS TO SHOW THAT IF A MIRACLE WERE TO OCCUR THERE WOULD BE GOOD REASON TO DENY THAT GOD EXISTS.
  19. Review of Robert J. Fogelin, A Defense of Hume on Miracles, Princeton[REVIEW]Terence Penelhum - 2004 - Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2004 (1).
  20. Proofs of Miracles and Miracles as Proofs.Richard L. Purtill - 1976 - Christian Scholar’s Review 6.
    AS AGAINST HUME’S VIEW THAT "A MIRACLE CAN NEVER BE PROVED SO AS TO BE THE FOUNDATION OF A SYSTEM OF RELIGION" I ARGUE THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF MIRACLES CAN BE DEFENDED ON PHILOSOPHICAL GROUNDS, THAT THERE IS HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE OCCURRENCE OF CERTAIN MIRACLES AND THAT SUCH MIRACLES CAN IN FACT GIVE GROUNDS FOR THE PREFERENCE OF ONE SYSTEM OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF OVER ANOTHER.
  21. Miracles and the Case for Theism.Victor Reppert - 1989 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 25 (1):35 - 51.
    THIS PAPER IS A DISCUSSION OF MACKIE’S HUMEAN ARGUMENT THAT MIRACLES CANNOT PLAY A ROLE IN A CASE FOR THEISM. I ARGUE THAT MACKIE IS MISTAKEN IN CONTENDING THAT MIRACLES CANNOT FORM PART OF A CASE FOR THEISM. IF THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT CERTAIN EVENTS DEVIATE FROM THE ORDINARY COURSE OF NATURE, AND IF AFFIRMING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD WOULD RENDER THAT EVIDENCE MORE COMPREHENSIBLE THAN OTHERWISE, THEN IT MUST BE ADMITTED THAT EVIDENCE THAT THESE EVENTS HAVE OCCURRED IS EVIDENCE (...)
  22. Hume on Miracles: Interpretation and Criticism.James E. Taylor - 2007 - Philosophy Compass 2 (4):611–624.
    Philosophers continue to debate about David Hume’s case against the rationality of belief in miracles. This article clarifies semantic, epistemological, and metaphysical questions addressed in the controversy. It also explains the main premises of Hume’s argument and discusses criticisms of them. The article concludes that one’s evaluation of Hume’s argument will depend on one’s views about (a) the definitions of ’miracle’ and ’natural law’; (b) the type of reasoning one ought to employ to determine the probability that a particular miracle (...)
  23. Miracles and God's Existence.J. C. Thornton - 1984 - Philosophy 59 (228):219 - 229.
    THE AUTHOR ARGUES THAT THE HUMEAN "A PRIORI" ATTACK ON MIRACLES IS INTENDED TO SHOW THE INCOHERENCE OF THE NOTION OF A WELL-ATTESTED MIRACULOUS EVENT (NOT THE INCOHERENCE OF THE CONCEPT OF A MIRACLE). THOUGH THIS TYPE OF ATTACK CAN BE PRESENTED IN A POWERFUL FORM, IT SUFFERS FROM AN UNDULY NARROW ASSUMPTION CONCERNING THE NATURE OF EVIDENCE AND EXPLANATION, FOR IT "IS" POSSIBLE TO DESCRIBE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH IT WOULD BE REASONABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT A MIRACLE HAS OCCURRED. HOWEVER, (...)
Cosmological Arguments for Theism
  1. Philip E. Devine. Human Diversity and the Culture Wars: Philosophical Perspectives on Contemporary Cultural Conflict. (Wesport, Connecticut: Praeger.) Pp. 192. £43.95. [REVIEW]B. A. - 1998 - Religious Studies 34 (2):231-234.
  2. Dzieje Filozofii Europejskiej XV Wieku, Vol. IV.N. W. A. - 1982 - Review of Metaphysics 36 (1):204-206.
  3. The Cosmological Argument.Robert Merrihew Adams & William L. Rowe - 1978 - Philosophical Review 87 (3):445.
  4. Speculations on the Cosmological Argument.Roy Ahmed-Jackson - 1998 - The Philosophers' Magazine 3 (3):32-33.
  5. The Recent Revival of Cosmological Arguments.David Alexander - 2008 - Philosophy Compass 3 (3):541–550.
  6. Cosmological and Civilized Harmonies.George Allan - 2008 - In Michel Weber (ed.), Handbook of Whiteheadian Process Thought. De Gruyter. pp. 41-54.
  7. A Thirteenth Century Cosmological Argument.Thomas Aquinas - 2000 - In Brian Davies (ed.), Philosophy of Religion: A Guide and Anthology. Oxford University Press.
  8. Howard College Campus.Deane Baker - unknown
    1. General. Explain briefly why the question, Do you believe in God? is ambiguous. (6) 2. The premodern period: (i) Set out as clearly as possible the cosmological argument for the existence of God. (ii) Explain why this does not entail infinite regress. (5) 3. The early modern period: Has the argument from the orderliness of nature (design) something new to add to the approach of the cosmological argument, by focussing on “natural” religion? Explain briefly. (5) 4. The later modern (...)
  9. The Cosmological Argument: A Current Bibliographical Appraisal.W. Beck - 2000 - Philosophia Christi 2 (2):283-306.
  10. A Note on Religious Experience Arguments: LAWRENCE C. BECKER.Lawrence C. Becker - 1971 - Religious Studies 7 (1):63-68.
    When philosophers speak of the inconclusiveness of arguments for the existence of God, they often do so as if they were talking about a matter of principle—as if it were in principle impossible to prove God's existence, that every proof was in principle inconclusive. Of course, rebutals of the cosmological, ontological, and teleological arguments are usually designed to show that these types of arguments are in principle inconclusive. But one supposes that religious experience arguments are not all in such difficulties. (...)
  11. The Cosmological Argument—Revisited and Revised.Peter A. Bertocci - 1967 - Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 41:149-159.
  12. The Cosmological Argument.Lionel Blain - 1967 - World Futures 5 (4):82-83.
  13. God, Time and the Kalām Cosmological Argument.Christopher Alan Bobier - 2013 - Sophia 52 (4):593-600.
    The Kalām cosmological argument deploys the following causal principle: whatever begins to exist has a cause. Yet, under what conditions does something ‘begin to exist’? What does it mean to say that ‘X begins to exist at t’? William Lane Craig has offered and defended various accounts that seek to establish the necessary and sufficient conditions for when something ‘begins to exist.’ I argue that all of the accounts that William Lane Craig has offered fail on the following grounds: either (...)
  14. Cosmological Arguments and the Actual Infinity.Mašan Bogdanovski - 2001 - Theoria 44 (1-4):95-108.
  15. The Kalam Cosmological Argument. By Wilham Lane Craig.Vernon J. Bourke - 1980 - Modern Schoolman 57 (4):371-371.
  16. Cosmological Arguments.Raymond D. Bradley - unknown
    Although most cogently formulated by philosophers such as St Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), al Ghazali (1058-1111), and Gottfried Leibniz (1646- 1716), cosmological arguments have a powerful appeal also to those nonphilosophers who feel that the "ultimate" explanation for the existence of the natural universe is that it was created by some sort of supernatural entity, viz., God.
  17. Van Inwagen on the Cosmological Argument.Anthony Brueckner - 2001 - Philosophical Papers 30 (1):31-40.
    Abstract In his book Metaphysics, Peter van Inwagen constructs a version of the Cosmological Argument which does not depend on the Principle of Sufficient Reason. He goes on to reject the argument. In this paper, I construct an alternative version of the Cosmological Argument that uses some of van Inwagen's insights and yet is immune to his criticisms. If we suppose that for each contingent truth, there is some at least partial explanation, then it follows that there is some necessary (...)
  18. A Study of Ilm Ul Kalam with Special Reference to Sir Syed Ahmed Khan.Shafqat Bukhari - unknown
  19. God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist. By William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong.Stephen Bullivant - 2009 - Heythrop Journal 50 (3):538-539.
  20. The Cosmological Arguments.Donald R. Burrill - 1967 - Garden City, N.Y., Anchor Books.
  21. The Kaläm Cosmological Argument.E. B. C. - 1981 - Review of Metaphysics 35 (2):376-378.
  22. The Hume-Edwards Principle.James Cain - 1995 - Religious Studies 31 (3):323 - 328.
    The Leibniz-Clarke version of the cosmological argument allows for the possibility that there might be a beginningless succession of objects, each produced by earlier objects in the succession, but it is held that a causal question would then arise as to what brought this whole succession of objects into being. This line of thought is commonly said to be confused and an appeal is made to a principle that if a causal explanation has been provided for each member of a (...)
  23. A Concise Cosmological Argument From the Eleventh Century.Anselm of Canterbury - 2000 - In Brian Davies (ed.), Philosophy of Religion: A Guide and Anthology. Oxford University Press.
  24. Cosmology and Creation: From Hawking to Aquinas.William E. Carroll - 2012 - Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture 15 (1):134-149.
1 — 50 / 1657