KJERKEGOROVA KRITIKA DOKAZA O POSTOJANJU BOGA

Abstract

In this paper, we will examine Kierkegaard’s critique of traditional arguments for the existence of God. Contrary to common understanding, our goal is to show that Kierkegaard in Philosophical Crumbs conducted a complex analysis of the most famous arguments that establish the existence of God, and presented an original strategy and reasons for their rejection. On the one hand, the impossibility of a priori (ontological) and a posteriori (cosmological) proof is derived from the assumption that God is a name. On the other hand, it is shown that even accepting the assumption that God is a concept leads to the failure of these proofs. On this line of argumentation, Kierkegaard presents an original criticism of Spinoza’s version of the ontological proof, which relies on Kant’s objection that existence is not a predicate, but also on Kierkegaard’s analysis of the relationship between the categories of quantity and quality, the principle of mediation, and the problem of confusion between the spheres of ideal and real being. At the very end, we will argue that Kierkegaard did not think that the evidence for the existence of God should be completely removed. Regardless of their failure, proofs of God’s existence (like the teleological proof) can still have a function - but only when faith is their starting point. Contrary to traditional understanding, the search for purpose in nature reveals a lack of rational order, meaninglessness and objective uncertainty, and thus returns to the path of risk, subjective opinion and, ultimately, faith.