A Maverick on the proof of God's Existence.

On occasion, I visit Maverick Philosopher a blog by a philosopher named Bill Vallicella. Though I've never met him or interacted with him personally, we have a mutual friend and as a result I've known about his blog for a number of years. While I don't agree with everything he says, in particular, as it concerns politics, he always gets me thinking and his philosophical posts are legit.

Anyway, he has a few recent articles about why he thinks God's existence can't be proven (just as God's existence can't be disproven). Here is the latest. We seem to share some of the same convictions in that neither of us find this problematic for the Theist in terms of the rationality of being a Theist (and the same goes for a nontheist in their nontheism). Now when Vallicella speaks of 'demonstrative knowledge' to say that we can't have that kind of knowledge as it pertains to God's existence, he seems to mean what Gangadean means by 'knowledge' and 'clear to reason'. His posts might be a bit less accessible to those that aren't used to reading academic philosophy. But if you're up for the challenge, I think it might be worth a look.

Interestingly, it seems he's engaged with a Gangadeanian on the matter of the proof of God's existence here and in the comments section of this one. As one would expect, it didn't take long for the Gangadeanian to pull the standard, "can we prove that something must be eternal?" card. To which Vallicella responded, "What you are saying is too vague to evaluate."

Finally, I like what he adds towards the end of this one.

"those who hanker after proofs of God...or the opposite are insufficiently mature to live with doxastic insecurity."

('doxastic' = pertaining to beliefs).