A Critical Examination of the Approaches that Belief in God does not need any argument

Abstract

Knowing God is one of the basic concerns of human being for which he has experienced different ways such as intuitive knowledge, refinement of the soul and intellectual argument. But the latter which has been one of the most fundamental ways of knowing God has always been criticized. Some philosophers maintain that belief in God is justified as far as it is proved by the intellectual arguments while others maintain that belief in God is justified because it is an intuitive knowledge. Therefore theists are justified in their belief in God even without any proof. The mentioned hypothesis can be seen in the following approaches; Fideism, Reformed Epistemology, Intuitionism and innate knowledge of God. By a descriptive- analytic approach, we come to this conclusion that fideism has encountered lots of difficulties and cannot justify the plausibility of belief in God without argument. Authenticity of intuition is personal and the reformed epistemology can justify theists in their belief in God. Therefore, the only way that suffices for a priori knowledge of God without any argument, is the innate approach according to which everyone knows God by creation.