Card 1.8 · Root I — Metaphysics · △ contested Contested
Natural Theology
Can argument alone settle whether God exists?
Natural theology uses ordinary human cognitive faculties — reason, perception and introspection — to investigate theological questions without appealing to special revelation as an authoritative source.
On this card
Where it sits
Under I. Metaphysics. Borders 1.2 Cosmology, 2.2.5 Revelation, 6.1 Philosophy of religion.
New to metaphysics? Read the guide
The arguments and their standard objections
The last two run in the opposite direction from the first five. The card presents all seven on one spread precisely so the reader sees that natural theology is a two-way inquiry, not a set of proofs with critics attached.
| Argument | Core claim | Principal objection |
|---|---|---|
| Cosmological | Cosmological arguments begin from features such as contingency, causation or change and infer a necessary or first ground (the worked example develops the contingency form) | Why must the chain terminate, and why in a personal God? |
| Kalam variant | The universe began, so it has a cause | Whether beginning-in-time is established, and whether causal intuitions apply to origins |
| Teleological | Order and fine-tuning indicate design | Alternative explanations; whether the analogy between the world and designed artefacts is strong enough (Hume) |
| Ontological | The concept of a greatest being entails its existence | Whether existence can follow from a definition |
| Moral | Objective moral facts require a ground | Whether such facts exist, and whether they need that ground |
| Argument from evil | Suffering counts against an omnipotent, wholly good God | Free will and soul-making replies; whether they cover natural suffering |
| Argument from divine hiddenness | A loving God would not remain unevident to sincere seekers | Whether hiddenness serves a purpose we cannot assess |
△ contested A contested question: philosophers disagree about the answer, or about how the question should be framed. The book sets out each side and takes none.
Where do you stand?
Can argument alone settle whether God exists?
One tap, no sign-up. You can change your answer at any time. Answers are counted anonymously.
Key figures
| Figure | Dates | Tradition | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aristotle | 384–322 BCE | Greek | The unmoved mover, reached by argument from motion |
| Al-Farabi | c. 870–950 | Islamic | God as the First Cause of existence within an emanationist metaphysics |
| Ibn Sina | 980–1037 | Islamic | A systematic metaphysical proof from contingency to the Necessary Existent |
| Anselm | 1033–1109 | Scholastic | The ontological argument |
| Al-Ghazali | 1058–1111 | Islamic | A classic statement of the kalam cosmological argument |
| Maimonides | 1138–1204 | Jewish | Negative theology; what cannot be said of God |
| Thomas Aquinas | 1225–1274 | Scholastic | The five ways |
| David Hume | 1711–1776 | European modern | Sustained critique of design and miracle reasoning |
| Immanuel Kant | 1724–1804 | European modern | Argued all such proofs fail; existence is not a predicate |
| Udayana | 11th c. CE | Indian | The Nyāyakusumāñjali argues for God among a series of proofs: from effects, from the combining of atoms, from the world's being sustained, and from scripture and authority |
Also on this question: Fakhr al-Din al-Razi
Talk about it here
Conversations about this question in God & the arguments:
- The Jains were right: a beginningless universe has no need of a creator 6 replies
- Udayana, Ibn Sina and Leibniz: three arguments for a first cause that do not need a beginning 6 replies
- Reading group: Anselm’s Proslogion 2–4, with Gaunilo’s reply and Anselm’s answer 6 replies
- Emanation cannot be squared with a God who freely creates, and al-Ghazālī saw exactly why 6 replies
- Hume’s Dialogues had answered the watchmaker before Paley set it ticking 6 replies
Join free to ask about it Everything in God & the arguments
Connections
→ 1.2, 1.6 · ↔ 2.2.5, 6.1, 3.2.6, 1.2.2 · ◇ theism, deism, agnosticism, atheism, fideism · ○ Islamic golden age; Scholastic; Early modern; Table 1
→ depends on · ↔ borders: genuine overlap, neither prior · ◇ answered by: points from question to answers · ○ appears in: points to the timeline and the comparisons
The full card is in the book
In The Coordinates of Thought this card goes on to a worked example that sets the answers against one case, and to where the question touches daily life — page 75.