The Philosophy of God Draws One Closer to Philosophy, Not God

​The Philosophy of God—classical theism— is proudly grounded in logic.

Logic is respected if it is valid. Most of the arguments for God posited by classical theism are logically valid.

But here’s the thing – a logically valid argument need not be true . An argument is considered valid even when its premises or conclusion is false. 

Hence, many arguments comprising the Philosophy of God are logically valid; however, such logical validity is not a confirmation of soundness or truth. 

Logical arguments must be valid and sound to be true .

That is, sound arguments must contain true premises and a true conclusion. 

And that is indicative of a big problem with the Philosophy of God, especially when it comes to metaphysical assumptions.

What masquerades as truth in the philosophy of God is often little more than logical validity. 

If anything, logical validity demonstrates the limits of touting logic and “evidence” as the best and only valid sources of truth. 

Yet those who adhere to and insist upon the “validity” of the Philosophy of God as the ultimate mode through which God can be understood and “proved” are quick to reject and dismiss the soundness of intuitive direct-knowing as sound; that is, valid and true.
​
My lived experience tells me otherwise.

The Philosophy of God draws one closer to philosophy and the logically valid "god of philosophy."

Intuition draws one closer to God.