has been debated in philosophy to great lengths. E.K. Daniel has listed all common philosophical arguments for the existence of God in his essay “A Defense of Theism”, consisting of The Ontological Argument, The First-Cause Argument, The Argument of Contingency, The Design Argument, The Moral Argument, The Argument from Religious Experience, and The Natural Law Argument (p. 260). These arguments are familiar to any basic student of philosophy, along with the critiques that have been raised by philosophers such as Ernest Nagel in his essay “The Case for Atheism” (p. 274-283). These arguments have almost reached a virtual impasse, since there seems to be as much rational proof against the existence of God as there is fervor to believe in God. K.D. Ellis states this by saying “They may offer some support for the plausibility of the belief in a god, but they are not sufficiently strong enough to compel our assent to the conclusion that a god exists” (p. 297). This difference of perspective results in theism, atheism and agnosticism.One of the rational reasons that I offer as proof of God’s existence is exactly because of the impasse of this debate. Given this, the deductive argument/thesis that I pose for the existence of God is:If God exists, he wants people to believe in Him through faith (If A, then B).For faith to exist there must not be incontrovertible proof of God’s existence (If B, then C).Therefore, God exists because there is no incontrovertible proof of God’s existence (If A, then C).It is prudent to define the terms of this argument. My definition of “God” is exactly as Ellis defined: “a being who is (deemed to be) omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, perfect, infinite, eternal, supernatural, and thus transcendent to the natural universe...the god of traditional theism” (p. 296). My view of God is that he is a being with a genuine personalit...
