In a prior post an argument for intuition was discussed. In this argument, we will discuss an argument for God’s existence from intuition. First, we should reproduce the argument for intuition.
1. If we can hold justified true beliefs independently of any process or perception, then we have intuitive knowledge.
2. We can hold justified true beliefs independently of any process or perception.
3. Therefore, we have intuitive knowledge.
4. The laws of logic are justified upon their examination (application of empiricism).
5. Inference is an application of the laws of logic.
6. Inference must be used upon application of empiricism.
7. If (4-6), the laws of logic must be justifiably known.
8. If (4-7), the justification is known logically prior to empiricism.
9. If (4-8), then (2) is true.
10. If (2) is true, then (3) is true, and hence we have intuitive knowledge.
We must remember that intuition is a belief held independently of any process. This former argument also establishes that we do indeed have intuitive knowledge. But how did we obtain this intuitive knowledge? I do not mean this question to defy the definition of intuition. Rather, I am merely asking for the explanation of the presence of that knowledge. This argument is a modest attempt to account for it.
1*. If intuitive knowledge exists, then God exists.
2*. Intuitive knowledge exists.
3*. Therefore, God exists.
Now the aforementioned argument for intuition accounts for (2*) being true. But what about (1*)? This premise should only be rejected if one thinks it is true that intuitive knowledge exists and God does not exist. Of course, one may remain agnostic about the premise. In this case it is up to the affirmative to show a relation or else the objector may at least refrain from accepting the conclusion.
I believe we do have at least some justification for thinking (1*) is true. For consider the alternatives. Suppose we say naturalistic evolution has produced in us intuitive knowledge. Yet this seems problematic. First, if we mean evolution in the sense of blind processes, then intuitive knowledge just is acquired by means of a process, and hence is not really intuitive after all. Second, if evolution “deliberately” placed it into homo sapiens, then this deliberate action really resembles that of an intelligence after all, and hence we have the conclusion!
One may complain at this point that we have not established the Christian God, but a generic one. However, let us explicate one relation of intuitive knowledge to truth as a category. This God must be the grounds of knowledge. For who else but the objective grounding of truth could supply a means of knowing in the first place, much less an independent means of knowing such as intuition? I do not expect this to persuade atheists or agnostics, however it seems (1*) is very plausibly true. It further seems absurd to reject intuitive knowledge. But if that is the case, then something very much like God—the source of all truth—exists. If he exists, then I submit it is the Christian God, since the Christian worldview is most consistent with the philosophical and theological truths of the world. What do you think?------------------------
All posts, and the blog Possible Worlds, are the sole intellectual property of Randy Everist. One may reprint part or all of this post so long as: a) full attribution is given (Randy Everist, Possible Worlds), b) all use is non-commercial, and c) one is in compliance with the Creative Commons license at the bottom on the main page of this blog.