Here is one reason why philosophy cannot prove God’s existence: since every argument must begin with a set of premises which we believe to be true, one can refute any argument by simply disbelieving the premises. Skeptics do this all the time.
Most of us trust our physical senses so that when we see a chair, we believe that it is a real chair, so much so that we sit on it, trusting that we will not fall completely to the floor. But some skeptics say that our senses are actually deceiving us, so that they are not an accurate way to determine what is true or real. In other words, the chair might not be real after all, even though our senses tell us that it is.
Most of us know that our hand will get burned every time we put it on a hot stove. We believe in cause and effect: placing our hand on the hot stove (the cause) burns our hand (the effect). But David Hume said that cause and effect does not exist. All we can say is that event B (the burned hand) followed event A (placing our hand on the hot stove). It is only the habitual thinking of our minds that makes us believe that A caused B.
Thus, the problem with logic is that it allows any skeptic to play the game. And no one can prove anything to a skeptic, especially the existence of God since the skeptic’s approach only compounds one of philosophy’s major limitations: it cannot prove the existence of any person, let alone God.
Let me illustrate….