From guest blogger, Casey.
Many of the arguments we have gone over for the existence of god, whether a priori or a posteriori do not seem verifiable. For instance, Anselm’s argument that god is the greatest being thought of, to exist is greater than to not exist, and therefore god must exist, doesn’t seem falsifiable. It could be the case it would for some reason be greater not to exist, or it just might be a false string of logic. The cosmological arguments also seem improvable. We have not yet observed an unmoved mover, a completely necessary being, or anything that can be considered perfect, in the universe (we have observed remnants of a first cause [i.e., the Big Bang] but what caused that?). The teleological argument stems from observing nature, but it is still inductive and cannot be observed directly. No one has ever seen god constructing things out in nature (one might argue Adam and Eve had, but I am not going to go into biblical arguments). So what is the big deal? Plenty of folks are strict rationalists?
I am not really sure if this necessarily will lead to a serious problem, but the fact is that we will never be able to test these theories, or at least not without some sort of miracle in science. I am questioning if some sort of justification that will never lead to knowledge can be used to fully justify a belief. Since there is always a slim chance things might be different, one cannot be 100% sure of his/her belief. This does not mean one is not justified in believing a certain proposition based on unverifiable justification. I just question if one can be fully certain. Maybe this is why so many religions put so much emphasis on faith.