A Comparative Study of the Argument from Common Consensus and That From Human Innate Nature For the Existence of God

This research intends to compare the common consensus argument with the innate nature argument for the existence of God. First, different versions of common consensus argument have been proposed: 1. Biological interpretations which through the generality of the belief in God go not only to prove that such a belief as an inborn idea, but also the existence of God. 2. The dilemma against skepticism which in addition to the popular belief (in God) have made use of reason in order to prove the existence of God. John Locke’s criticisms and others’ have also been discussed critically and the possible answers given to them by the defenders of the argument are set forth. Then different versions of innate nature argument established by some Muslim thinkers and the suggested account of it by the author are introduced in brief. Later, Alvin Plantinga's theory which considers the belief in God as a basic belief and is very similar to innate nature argument is proposed. Finally, having made a comparison between the common consensus argument and innate nature one, it has gone proven that the latter argument is stronger than the former, because John Locke’s criticisms raised against the former fail to undermine the latter.