View source for Possibility of Proving God's Existence with Rational and Logical Arguments

{{text start}}
{{question}}
Is the existence of God possible? Is the claim that God cannot be proven through rational and logical arguments correct?
{{question end}}
{{Answer}}
'''The possibility of proving God's existence through rational and logical arguments''' has been a topic of discussion among theologians. Some argue that the self-evident nature of God's existence in [[human nature (fitrah)]] and the impossibility of providing a logical definition of God are two reasons why God cannot be proven through rational and logical arguments. In response, counterarguments such as the existence of proofs for God in the [[Quran]] and hadiths, the compatibility of provability with the self-evident nature of God's existence, and the possibility of defining God have been presented. On the other hand, proving God through revelatory and non-rational arguments is not possible, which further emphasizes the necessity of proving God through rational arguments.

== Arguments of Those Who Deny the Possibility of Proving God Through Rational Arguments ==
Some believe that God cannot be proven through rational and logical arguments and present two reasons for their claim:
* In the [[Quran]], the existence of God is considered self-evident, and every person intuitively recognizes God within themselves. Based on this principle, no argument for [[proving God]] is mentioned in the Quran.
* To prove anything, it must first be defined, and defining something implies limiting it. However, God is unlimited, so God cannot be defined. Therefore, God cannot be proven through logic and philosophy.<ref>See: Chamran, Mostafa, "Man and God," Tehran, Chamran Foundation, 1367 AH, pp. 53–78.</ref>

== Critique of the First Argument: The Self-Evident Nature of God's Existence ==
=== No Conflict Between Provability and Self-Evidence ===
The self-evident nature of God's existence does not conflict with its provability or the presentation of arguments for it. In logic, self-evident truths are of two types: primary self-evident truths and secondary self-evident truths. Primary self-evident truths not only do not require logical proof or reasoning but are also impossible to prove, as proving them would require using the truths themselves, leading to circular reasoning. However, secondary self-evident truths, while not requiring proof, are not impossible to prove. Many logicians have provided logical arguments to prove these truths (e.g., "the whole is greater than its part") and to demonstrate their self-evidence. If God's existence is considered self-evident in the logical sense, it falls under secondary self-evident truths, which are provable.<ref>See: Javadi Amoli, Abdullah, "Epistemology in the Quran," Tehran, Raja Cultural Publishing Center, 1372 AH, pp. 207–217.</ref>

If the self-evident nature means that every person intuitively recognizes God within themselves and does not need reasoning, it can be argued that while intuitive knowledge is entirely outside the realm of logical proof, to explain and convey this intuitive knowledge to others, it must be transformed into conceptual knowledge. Once transformed into conceptual knowledge, it becomes subject to logical reasoning.

=== Proofs of God in the Quran ===
Even if the Quran does not use logical arguments to prove God's existence, this does not preclude the use of reasoning, as the Quran does not prohibit reasoning and merely refrains from using it. Moreover, the Quran itself contains arguments and encourages believers to use reason and rational sciences. For example, in verses 35–36 of [[Surah Taha]], a form of conditional reasoning is used to prove God's existence through the creation of humans.<ref>See: Javadi Amoli, Abdullah, "Explanation of the Proofs for God's Existence," Qom, Isra Publishing, 1378 AH, pp. 124–128.</ref>

=== Proofs of God in the Hadiths of the Ahl al-Bayt (AS) ===
The hadiths of the [[Ahl al-Bayt (AS)]] contain numerous arguments for proving God's existence. The debates of the Imams with ideological opponents and [[heretics]] in this regard have been recorded and are present in hadith collections.<ref>In this regard, see: Al-Tabarsi, Ahmad ibn Ali, "Al-Ihtijaj," researched by Sayyid Muhammad Baqir al-Kharsan, Beirut, Dar al-Nu'man, pp. 20–24; and also Kulayni, Muhammad ibn Yaqub, "Usul al-Kafi," researched by Ali Akbar Ghaffari, Tehran, Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah, 1388 AH, pp. 72–82.</ref>

== Critique of the Second Argument: God Cannot Be Defined ==
=== Defining Does Not Imply Limitation ===
Defining something does not mean limiting it but rather clarifying and specifying the boundaries of concepts. Sometimes, it simply refers to a concept that exists in the mind of the audience, such as lexical and nominal definitions, which only explain the meaning of the concept in question. Therefore, if something has no limits, it is referred to as unlimited, not as a limited concept.

=== General Understanding of God ===
The concept of God exists in the minds of all humans, indicating that everyone has a general understanding of God. Thus, it seems that those who deny the possibility of knowing God have confused [[knowing God's essence]] with the conception of God's existence, failing to distinguish between the two, even though there is a significant difference. The [[essence|divine essence]] and the reality of God can never be fully comprehended, but the conception of God can be discussed and analyzed. This is why [[Imam Ali (AS)]] said: "God has not prevented minds from knowing Him to the extent necessary, even though He has not allowed minds to fully comprehend His essence or limit His attributes."<ref>Nahj al-Balagha, Subhi Salih, Sermon 49.</ref>

=== God's Existence as a Secondary Philosophical Concept ===
Concepts that do not have observable external existence, such as secondary philosophical concepts like infinity, the unlimited, existence, possibility, and necessity, or even negative concepts that do not exist, such as a partner to God, are subject to discussion and reasoning in philosophy. The concept of the Necessary Existence, which refers to God, is one such concept.

== The Impossibility of Using Revelatory Concepts to Prove God ==
Proving God's existence using revelatory concepts and teachings is incorrect and leads to circular reasoning. This is because the validity of revelation is based on first accepting the existence of God, then proving the prophethood of a messenger, then considering that messenger [[infallible]], and finally accepting the messenger's statements. It is clear that one cannot rely on the words of a messenger sent by God to prove God's existence.


== References ==
{{footnotes|2}}
{{text end}}