The Possibility or Impossibility of Proving the Existence of God through Philosophical Arguments from the Perspective of Faith-Defenders and Rationalists

Abstract

The discussion on the possibility or impossibility of proving the existence of God through philosophical arguments has always been one of the most challenging topics in the philosophy of religion. This study, using a comparative philosophical analysis method and referencing primary sources from both Western and Islamic philosophy traditions, examines the "Fideism" and "Rationalism" approaches in proving the existence of God. Fideists, emphasizing the inherent limitations of human reason and the danger of reducing God to an abstract concept, argue that philosophical proofs are not only incomplete but may also lead to religious skepticism. In contrast, rationalists, by presenting arguments such as the arguments of the righteous (Ibn Sina and Mulla Sadra), the ontological argument (Anselm), and the cosmological argument (Aquinas, al-Kindi, and Averroes), demonstrate that philosophical logic is capable of proving the existence of God as the "Necessary Being." However, these arguments must be reinterpreted in a constructive interaction with religious and revelatory experiences to avoid reducing God to an abstract concept. This study suggests that contemporary philosophy of religion should move beyond the dichotomy of "reason and faith" toward a more integrated model that benefits both the capacities of rational argumentation and the depth of religious experiences. This investigation is necessary because the answer to this question not only impacts theological discussions but also directly influences our understanding of the relationship between reason and faith, the structure of ethics, and even intercultural discourses. Data were collected using a library-based method and evaluated through critical content analysis to assess the strengths and weaknesses of each approach.