Ayer

Is God even probable?

The existence of a being with the attributes of God cannot be demonstratively proved, or even shown to be probable
If God were probable, the idea that he exists would be an empirical hypothesis - we could test it
If we could test it, we could make verifiable statements about God - but we cannot

1 of 7

Ayer says that to say 'God exists' is simply to say that certain actions have occured in a particular sequence (Teleological argument)
Believers say that God can be known through empirical manifestations, but is not defined by these manifestations
Ayer says this means that God is metaphysical and cannot be proved to be true or false; therefore, we cannot talk meaningfully about him

2 of 7

An agnostic holds that God is a possibility. but there is no evidence to believe or disbelieve; for an atheist, it is most probable that God does not exist
Ayer said that both views are based on unverifiable positions, so both are ruled out
If God is a metaphysical term, then the atheist's claim about God's non-existence is as nonsensical as the theist's claim about God's existence
Agnosticism makes no observations to verify their views, so agnosticism is "also ruled out"

3 of 7

The example of thunder and Jehovah - deities related to natural objects: does this have meaning?
God is said to control the empirical world and is therefore superior to the empirical world yet he exists outside it - he has super-empirical attributes
If he has super-empirical attributes, then God is an unintelligible notion
If God is unverifiable, then 'God' is simply a word. It tells us nothing of him

4 of 7

Ayer claims that "there can be no transcendent truths of religion"
If we say that God transcends human understanding, this is unintelligible
If we say that God is an object of faith not reason, this is also unintelligible
Therefore, "it is impossible for a sentence to be both significant and to be about God"

5 of 7

Mystics claim that God does reveal truths, but these truths cannot be explained to everyone in rational terms
Ayer says this is nothing more than intuition and so isn't sufficient evidence for the existence of God - if the mystic had any real facts they would reveal them
The same applies to religious experiences - anyone who claims to know something intuitively doesn't have true knowledge, but are "merely providing material for the psychoanalyst"
Religious experiences don't imply that there is such a thing as religious knowledge

6 of 7

Religious experience is not valid proof of God's existence, nor does it provide religious knowledge
This is because no intuition can reveal facts "unless it issues in verifiable propositions"
The same problem arises in a consideration of moral knowledge
Science is the only discipline which offers verifiable empirical propositions

7 of 7