How Philosophers Argue for God | A Summary of 9 Approaches
What follows is a list, in no particular order, of different philosophical approaches to God with commentary on what I consider the advantages and disadvantages of each. Where possible, I’ll link to in-depth conversations I’ve had on each of the arguments.
For guidance, here’s a video-podcast talking through each approach.
The Leibnizian Approach
The Leibnizian approach generally starts by defending some version of the principle of sufficient reason – for example, that there is a causal explanation for every contingent or natural fact – and then applying PSR to the entire plurality of contingent or natural facts to produce the result of at least one necessary or supernatural fact.
The advantage of the Leibnizian approach is the intuitive appeal of the PSR which defenders have argued is a necessary condition for knowledge (or at least empirical knowledge.) Aside from defending PSR, two challenges for the Leibnizian approach concern contrastive explanation and plural quantification.
Further reading: Alex Pruss’s contribution in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology.
The Anselmian Approach
The Anselmian or perfect being approach tries to deduce the existence of God from the very idea of God as that which nothing greater can be thought. The advantage of the Anselmian approach is the suggestion that God’s existence can be affirmed a priori (which would be pretty slick); the disadvantage is countering the criticism of illegitimately moving from the realm of thought to the realm of reality.
Further reading: Vecchio’s blog for an interesting interpretation. Or here for other interpretations.
The Thomistic Approach
The Thomistic approach begins by arguing certain things are metaphysically composed of an essence (“what-ness”) element and an existence (“is-ness”) element and that these elements are really distinct such that the essence of something does not guarantee its existence. From there, a causal principle is deployed (something like, “whatever is not explained in virtue of a things nature must be explained by some extrinsic principle”) to trace back to that whose essence just is its existence as the primary cause of everything else. The advantage of the Thomistic approach is how it deals with concerns of an infinite regress or composition fallacy; the primary challenge is the background metaphysical picture required to run the argument.
Further reading: Kerr’s Collected Articles on the Existence of God.
The Aristotelian Approach
The Aristotle approach looks at the phenomena of change, argues that change is possibly only insofar as things move from a state of potentiality to actuality, and that such change requires a cause. Ultimately, says the Aristotelian, to explain how any change occurs at all, we must trace back to something which is entirely unchanging (i.e., that does not move from potential to actual but is purely actual). The advantage of the Aristotelian approach is it starts from a common feature of experience; the challenge is arriving at an absolute first cause rather than just a relative first cause (maybe the prime mover is fully actual in some but not all respects?).
Further reading: Koon’s contribution in New Essays on the Metaphysics of God (if you’re quick this is currently FREE on Kindle).
The Neo-Platonic Approach
The Neo-Platonic approach argues for God as the absolutely simple first principle of all based on the notion that all composite entities (including metaphysical composites) are caused to exist; that is, require an extrinsic unifier of their constituents.
The primary challenge to the Neo-Platonic approach concerns general issues within mereology. Are parts always ontologically prior to some whole? Might a whole be the cause of its parts, like an animal causing its cells?
Further reading: Lloyd Gerson’s Plotinus.
The Millerian Approach
Miller’s approach argues that contingent entities like Thumper the Rabbit are contradictory structures when considered just in se. The contradiction Miller pulls out is that Thumper the rabbit must be composed of certain metaphysical parts yet cannot be composed of certain metaphysical parts if Thumper is all there is to the story. The only way to resolve this paradox is to admit “Thumper exists” must be a suppressed proposition for “Thumper exists qua depends upon a”. The advantage of Miller’s approach is it requires no upfront causal or explanatory principle. The disadvantage is Miller maintains that language mirrors ontology and that a logical analysis of language reveals ontological categories.
Further Reading: Barry Miller’s From Existence to God (you’ll need to find this one in a library, almost impossible to order online).
The Kalam Approach
The Kalam argument claims nothing begins to exist without a cause and that the universe began to exist. This produces the result of a transcendent cause of the universe (which proponents argue to be God). The advantage of this argument is undoubtedly its simplicity — at least concerning initial presentation. The challenge is contending with infinite regress issues and adjudicating the scientific evidence.
Further Reading: William Craig’s contribution in Blackwell Companion.
The Swinburnian Approach
Essentially this: Set up God as a worldview hypothesis and argue that God better explains the relevant data (say fine-tuning, consciousness, etc.) and is a simpler hypothesis than primary alternatives. The advantage of this approach is it is similar to scientific reasoning and somewhat more modest. The disadvantage is arguing that God is a simpler hypothesis in the most relevant respects.
Further reading: Richard Swinburne’s Existence of God.
The Plantingian Approach
God is a properly basic belief, something that is just occasioned in us. Thus, we are warranted believing in God apart from any arguments from natural theology. The obvious advantage of Plantinga’s approach is it means belief in God can be well justified apart from any arguments whatsoever. The disadvantage, of course, is that it depends upon Plantinga’s externalist theory of knowledge.
Further Reading: Alvin Plantinga’s Warranted Christian Belief
BONUS
Here’s a video of Rasmussen and Kerr comparing their different philosophical approaches to God. After is a video of Thomas Ward and Kerr contrasting Thomistic and Scotistic approaches.