Abstract

If ontological, cosmological, religious experience and moral argument on the existence of God are valid proofs, or at least to the point of convincing us, then, the premise ” God exists” is correct. If there is no valid argument, that is, if they do not prove the existence of God, or if we believe that they are not convincing arguments for us, we are still within the boundaries of the reason when we said ” God exists” and we believed in it. Consequently, in both cases, the premise ” God exists” is within the limits of the reason. While in the first case the proposition is rational and affirmed, in the second case it is denied and not irrational.