Is the existence of God axiomatic?

[McCulloch]

All too often the secularist or non-theist here challenges the Christian (or member of another religion) to offer evidence and proof for _______. This is an understandable request, but I have argued extensively on several threads here that God is trusted through faith and that particular notions of God are accepted as axioms (presuppositions, a priori truths, assumptions, etc.). If this is true, evidence cannot be offered for many of the words that fill in the above blank. This is the nature of an axiom. Many of the Christian perspectives on life are built on these axioms.

Question for debate: Is the existence of God axiomatic? Why or why not? How should one determine one's axioms?

[theopoesis]

C.S Lewis formed an argument known as the Argument from Religious Belief. Essentially, it states that every human desire has something that can fullfill this desire and that humans would not desire non-existent things. From the conception of human culture and history man has shown a strong desire and need for the divine, so the divine must therefore exist. Using this argument as a model, I would say that the existence of God is axiomatic and obvious.

When looking at theology presented by C.S. Lewis, one has to remember that he was not an American Evangelical Christian. He was firmly rooted in the Anglo-Catholic English tradition. I remember obtaining his Mere Christianity hoping for a reasoned defense of Christian primitivism. It was not. I was disappointed.

Lewis in this respect is also essentially restating the theology of Freidrich Schleiermacher, although in a less sophisticated fashion.

[mgb]

C.S Lewis formed an argument known as the Argument from Religious Belief. Essentially, it states that every human desire has something that can fullfill this desire and that humans would not desire non-existent things. From the conception of human culture and history man has shown a strong desire and need for the divine, so the divine must therefore exist. Using this argument as a model, I would say that the existence of God is axiomatic and obvious.

This is very similar to Simone Weil's idea that the desire for the good is goodness itself. That is, to simply desire goodness is to have it.

[Adamoriens]

All too often the secularist or non-theist here challenges the Christian (or member of another religion) to offer evidence and proof for _______. This is an understandable request, but I have argued extensively on several threads here that God is trusted through faith and that particular notions of God are accepted as axioms (presuppositions, a priori truths, assumptions, etc.). If this is true, evidence cannot be offered for many of the words that fill in the above blank. This is the nature of an axiom. Many of the Christian perspectives on life are built on these axioms.

Question for debate: Is the existence of God axiomatic? Why or why not? How should one determine one's axioms?

It would seem that the very act of having to defend an axiom (such as the existence of God) is self-defeating. I thought axioms are those principles which are self evident?

Theism is axiomatic if and only if one wishes to start with the most reasonable of any available axioms.

See here

And here

With respect to the first link, I'm seeing a bit of a conflict here:

Neither theism nor non-theism can be proven in an objective sense. But we can adopt each position, one at a time and for the sake of argument, and examine the logical consequences of the respective positions.

The implication here is that the existence of God is not self-evident.

Question for debate: is it possible to establish an axiom on the basis of a conflicting prior axiom?

C.S Lewis formed an argument known as the Argument from Religious Belief. Essentially, it states that every human desire has something that can fullfill this desire and that humans would not desire non-existent things. From the conception of human culture and history man has shown a strong desire and need for the divine, so the divine must therefore exist. Using this argument as a model, I would say that the existence of God is axiomatic and obvious.

How do you establish that humans do not desire non-existent things without assuming the existence of God?

[McCulloch]

It would seem that the very act of having to defend an axiom (such as the existence of God) is self-defeating. I thought axioms are those principles which are self evident?

So then this debate is about whether the existence of God is self-evident, as claimed by the poster quoted in the OP.

[Baz]

I don’t know if I’m the only one who is a bit lost with the definition of an axiom.

I would like to know the most recognised definition on this site?


I thought it was something that was taken to be as correct to provide a starting point for a particular debate regardless of any agreement as to its actual known attributes. For example; If I wanted to discuss the affects of long term life under water, I could start with the axiom that there is an underwater town capable of housing thousands of people for generations.
I don’t know if I am just reading stuff with a personal slant and missing the point, but in a lot of cases I don’t see this.



Am I just wrong?

[Adamoriens]

It would seem that the very act of having to defend an axiom (such as the existence of God) is self-defeating. I thought axioms are those principles which are self evident?

So then this debate is about whether the existence of God is self-evident, as claimed by the poster quoted in the OP.

I suppose that if one can rationally reject this axiom in full view of the evidence, then there would be no reason to suppose it is self-evident or even necessary.

[EduChris]

...Question for debate: Is the existence of God axiomatic? Why or why not? How should one determine one's axioms?

God is necessary as an axiom if and only if we wish to conceive of ourselves as engaging in meaningful debates which have at least the potential for changing what otherwise might have been.

Without God, materialism reigns absolute. In such case, we would have no free will, so we wouldn't really be able to "decide" to debate or to "accept" or "reject" the arguments and evidence of the debate; instead, we would all simply go through the motions of carrying out our predetermined thoughts and actions as any good "wind-up doll" would do.

Logic and evidence can't change things for wind-up dolls, and wind-up dolls are exactly what we would be if there were no God.

Non-theism is therefore a self-negating axiom; the theistic axiom, by contrast, remains coherent.

[Adamoriens]

...Question for debate: Is the existence of God axiomatic? Why or why not? How should one determine one's axioms?

God is necessary as an axiom if and only if we wish to conceive of ourselves as engaging in meaningful debates which have at least the potential for changing what otherwise might have been.

Without God, materialism reigns absolute. In such case, we would have no free will, so we wouldn't really be able to "decide" to debate or to "accept" or "reject" the arguments and evidence of the debate; instead, we would all simply go through the motions of carrying out our predetermined thoughts and actions as any good "wind-up doll" would do.

Logic and evidence can't change things for wind-up dolls, and wind-up dolls are exactly what we would be if there were no God.

Non-theism is therefore a self-negating axiom; the theistic axiom, by contrast, remains coherent.

It isn't clear to me that rejecting God as an axiom commits us to a strict materialism. Suppose we establish God's existence via other axioms?

[EduChris]

...It isn't clear to me that rejecting God as an axiom commits us to a strict materialism...

Perhaps not. What sort of immaterial entity or entities would you like to adopt in lieu of God? Is science capable of detecting these immaterial entities? And why are your immaterial entities to be preferred any other such entities?

...Suppose we establish God's existence via other axioms?

That can be done:

1) God is that which resolves the problem of infinite regress

2) God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived

3) God is the ultimate non-contingent reality which provides the absolute framework, the source and the ground of all being

4) God is that which allows us to be rational agents rather than wind-up dolls

Any way you look at it, non-theism remains a self-defeating axiom.

[McCulloch]

It is an over simplification to say that humans are merely wind up dolls, even without a God. Like all living creatures, humans take in information and act in accordance with that information. Our brains are too complex for us to understand, so subjectively, we feel as if we decide whether to accept or reject arguments and evidence. But the truth is that we don't really understand all of the factors involved in making up our minds. However, it would be fallacious to claim that we cannot be affected by arguments and evidence.