ABSTRACT
Concerning the Kantian distinction regarding phenomena and noumena, no good argument has been offered to show that the Kantian claim that we cannot know beyond the phenomena is true. On the other hand, as long as the deduction of an argument is valid and the premises are true (i.e., a sound argument), the conclusion is true. Starting from the phenomena of the universe, one can formulate deductively valid Cosmological and Teleological Arguments using premises which the undeniable immediate experiences of people from various cultures can know are true. Given that the arguments are sound, the conclusion that God exists is known to be true, despite our situatedness and the involvement of the constructive activity of our minds in formulating the argument. The lack of consensus does not imply that the arguments are unsound, for it could be due to other factors such as misconceptions, fear of discrimination, emotional factors, the cosmic authority problem, and pride. Multiple examples are offered to show that numerous leading scientists and philosophers have indeed been affected by these factors. The crucial issue therefore is whether the arguments themselves are sound, and not whether there is continuing debate concerning the existence of God. Finally, this chapter addresses the god-of-the-gaps objection, and the objection that the arguments are open to revisions.
