ABSTRACT
This chapter examines the fairly common allegation among Reformed critics of natural theology that theistic arguments do not constitute logical demonstrations or proofs of the existence and nature of God. Reformed criticisms of the logic of theistic arguments often take the form of specific criticisms of the structure or content of individual theistic arguments. Reformed theologians have often recognized that theistic arguments do not all carry the same force. Nineteenth-century Reformed theologians often distinguished between the probabilistic force of a posteriori theistic arguments and the demonstrative force of a priori arguments. A logically demonstrated proposition will be a valid deductive inference from premises that have strong epistemic credentials. A logical demonstration involves a valid and non-circular inference. Probabilistic reasoning has been viewed as in conflict not only with the certainty of faith but also with the clarity of general revelation.
