Friend

I picked up a book about Philosophical Theology. The book covers 5 different arguments; Ontological, Cosmological, Teleological, Moral, Religious. So far I have read about three and they don't seem to have any sense in them. How are they used by theists? and is there any support for them outside of the theistic mind?

~ Friend ~

stretch

One way of looking at these various 'proofs' (none of which I personally find to be compelling) is that they are attempts to shed light on how much, if anything, can be known about God without revelation of some sort. Can anything be deduced about the nature or characteristics of a deity by 'the light of natural reason'?

jpbrooks

Since the traditional Theistic proofs all argue for specific aspects of the God whose existence they are attempting to establish, they all either beg the question of God's existence (by, from a logical standpoint, "leaping" from part to whole) or are inconsistent (attempting to argue from part to whole, but arriving at a non sequitur conclusion). Their only value to Theists seems (to me) to be (perhaps) as a "foundation" for beginning to work out how concepts within Theism are related to one another.
Outside of Theism however, I don't see much value in such "internal consistency" "proofs" (considered individually, at least) as arguments for the truth of Theism because many views that are opposed to Theism can be "internally consistent".

Frotiw

I don't think you will find many philosophers support these "proves". They are all from a different time when religion and the church(powerwise) was more dominating. At that time philosophers and scientists(which was called philosophers aswell) was concerned with proving god. Those that was critical against the church might loose their head(litteraly).