1) Political Authority is justiﬁed.
2) If we derive the justiﬁcation of political authority from a mundane source, it is probably either contractarian or consequentialist.
3) But neither contractarian theories nor consequentialist theories provide adequate justiﬁcation for political authority.
4) So, the justiﬁcation of political authority is probably not derived from a mundane source.
5) If we do not derive the justiﬁcation of political authority from a mundane source, it’s probably derived from God.
6) So, probably, God exists.
● Jeremy Neill and Tyler McNabb, “By Whose Authority? A Political Argument for God’s Existence,” European Journal for Philosophy of
Religion 11/2 (2019), pp. 163-189.
1) We have free will.
2) If naturalism is true, we cannot have free will.
3) So, naturalism is false.
4) If theism is true, it is likely that we would have free will.
5) So, that we have free will is firm evidence for theism over naturalism.
● C. Stephen Layman, Letters to a Doubting Thomas: A Case for the Existence of God (Oxford, 2007), ch. 6.
Pascal’s Anthropological Argument
1) Humans are morally bipolar.
2) The best explanation for why humans are morally bipolar is the Christian doctrines of the Fall and Original Sin.
3) So, it’s reasonable to believe in the Christian doctrines of the Fall and Original Sin.
4) Christian doctrines of the Fall and Original Sin entail Christianity is true.
5) So, it’s reasonable to believe Christianity is true.
“Man’s greatness and wretchedness are so clear that the true religion must necessarily teach us that there is in man some great principle of greatness and some great principle of wretchedness.” –Pascal
● Pascal, Pensées.
● Douglas Groothuis, “Disposed Royalty: Pascal’s Anthropological Argument,” Journal of the Evangelical Philosophical Society 41/2
(1998), pp. 297-313.
● Robert Velarde, “Greatness and Wretchedness: The Usefulness of Pascal’s Anthropological Argument in Apologetics,” Christian
Research Journal 27/2 (2004).
● Jonathan Threlfall, “The Imago Dei and Blaise Pascal’s Abductive Anthropological Argument,” Philosophia Christi 20/2 (2018), pp.
Consensus Gentium (Agreement of the People)
As evidence for God:
1) If there is widespread belief in God, that is prima facie evidence God exists.
2) There is a widespread belief in God.
3) So, widespread belief in God is prima facie evidence God exists. As a defeater for atheism:
4) Atheism is the denial that God exists.
5) So, widespread belief in God is a defeater for atheism.
● Loren Meierding, “The Consensus Gentium Argument,” Faith and Philosophy 15/3 (1998), pp. 271-297.
● Linda Zagzebski, “Epistemic Self-Trust and the Consensus Gentium Argument,” in Clark & VanArragon (eds.), Evidence and Religious
Belief (Oxford, 2011), pp. 22-36.
● Thomas Kelly, “Consensus Gentium: Reﬂections on the ‘Common Consent’ Argument for the Existence of God,” in Clark &
VanArragon (eds.), Evidence and Religious Belief (Oxford, 2011), pp. 135-156.
Rehult’s Consensus Gentium Argument
1) Belief that God exists is the majority view throughout human history.
2) A false belief is essentially the product of a cognitive malfunction of some sort.
3) It is more probable that a cognitive malfunction occurs a few times in a few people than many times in many diﬀerent people.
4) So, belief that God exists is prima facie more likely to be true than belief that God does not exist.
● Sebastein Réhault, “Can Atheism Be Epistemically Responsible When So Many People Believe in God?” European Journal for
Philosophy of Religion 7/1 (2015), pp. 181-198.
A More Modest Consensus Gentium
1) If many of those whom I regard as epistemic authorities on God’s existence believe in God, that is prima facie reason for me to believe God exists.
2) Many of those whom I regard as epistemic authorities on God’s existence believe in God.
3) So, I have prima facie reason to believe God’s existence.
● Mark Dobrzeniecki, “Is the Fact that Other People Believe in God a Reason to Believe? Remarks on the Consensus Gentium Argument,”
European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 10/3 (2013), pp. 133-153.
See also: Anthropological Arguments and Logical Proof