Soren Kierkegaard on the existance of god

Of the existentialists I studied in college Kierkegaard was undoubtedly in my top three. It has been suggested that I attempt to refute his stance on the existence of god in my blog, but it doesn't really seem to necessary to refute him. For, Kierkegaard believed that proving god's existence was impossible, and instead one must make a leap of faith in order to be a true believer. His quintessential example was Abraham from the bible whom at the request of God had to sacrifice his baby Isaac at the top of some mountain. He took baby Isaac when his mother was sleeping up to the top of the mountain and raised his knife to plunge it into the poor lil kid when just at that pivotal moment God sent an angel with a sign on his chest that read "JK -God". Kierkegaard declares Abraham a true knight of faith because his actions were "Absurd". If he were put on trial the next day the judge would have declared him insane..."hearing god's voice?...sacrificing babies???" That would have been a truly absurd/tragic case. Kierkegaard, admires Abraham for his steely resolve and declares that this leap of faith is the true religion, the absurd, the selflessness, and so on and so forth.

To this I say sure, why not, I'll grant you this argument, but if you start sacrificing babies and whatnot...obviously this won't hold up in the realm of reason, so you can count on being treated well in the next life cause we're throwing you in jail for life. Enjoy your remaining days, you knew this was coming.

As for Kierkegaard claim that God cannot be logically proved, This i totally agree with. Here's his argument in syllogism form.


An [unknown thing] is an existent thing.
God is an [unknown thing].
Therefore, God is an existent thing.
The syllogism appears to be of the form:
All B's are C's.
All A's are B's.
Therefore, all A's are C's.
Notice how we have assumed in the very premisses of this syllogism the very point we wish to prove. As Kierkegaard says, all we have done is to develop the content of a conception.

The other way people attempt to prove the existance of god is by his works. This, Kierkegaard rightly dismisses as ridiculous as well, because the "works" of God are infinite and span both the future and past, so a complete list would be impossible, thus the proof for God would be impossible. Sure, why not, if you want to believe that everything that happens to you is an act of God then so be it, there's really no reason to argue with you because all we'd be arguing is a distinction without a difference. I believe that instead of God acting upon us, its instead just the way of the universe, etc. etc. So Lizzy bean, you asked me to talk about Kierkegaard's conception of God, but the truth is the only difference is his willingness to make that leap and perform absurd actions. This does seem right up your alley :P