{"id":6374,"date":"2016-06-12T05:35:57","date_gmt":"2016-06-12T05:35:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2016\/06\/12\/god-and-proof\/"},"modified":"2016-06-12T05:35:57","modified_gmt":"2016-06-12T05:35:57","slug":"god-and-proof","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2016\/06\/12\/god-and-proof\/","title":{"rendered":"God and Proof"},"content":{"rendered":"

This is an addendum to clarify what I said<\/a> two days ago.<\/span><\/p>\n

My claim is that we have no demonstrative knowledge of the truth of theism or of the falsity of naturalism.  Demonstrative knowledge is knowledge produced by a demonstration.  A demonstration in this context is an argument that satisfies all of the following conditions:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

1. It is deductive<\/span>
2. It is valid in point of logical form<\/span>
3. It is free of such informal fallacies as petitio principii<\/em><\/span>
4. It is such that all its premises are true<\/span>
5. It is such that all its premises are known<\/em> to be true<\/span>
6. It is such that its conclusion is relevant to its premises.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

To illustrate (6).  The following argument satisfies all of the conditions except the last and is therefore probatively worthless:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Snow is white<\/span>
ergo<\/span>
Either Obama is president or he is not.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

On my use of terms, a demonstrative argument = a probative argument = a proof = a rationally compelling argument.  Now clearly there are good<\/em> arguments (of different sorts) that are not demonstrative, probative, rationally compelling.  One type is the strong inductive argument. By definition, no such argument satisfies (1) or (2).  A second type is the argument that satisfies all the conditions except (5). <\/span><\/p>\n

Can one prove the existence of God?  That is, can one produce a proof (as above defined) of the existence of God?   I don't think so.  For how will you satisfy condition (5)?  Suppose you give argument A for the existence of God.  How do you know that the premises of A are true?  By argument?  Suppose A has premises P1, P2, P3.  Will you give arguments for these premises?  Then you need three more arguments, one for each of P1, P2, P3, each of which has its own premises.  A vicious infinite regress is in the offing.  Needless to say, moving in an argumentative circle is no better.<\/span><\/p>\n

At some point you will have to invoke self-evidence.   You will have to say that, e.g., it is just self-evident that every event has a cause.  And you will have to mean objectively<\/em> self-evident, not just subjectively self-evident.  But how can you prove, to yourself or anyone else, that what is subjectively self-evident is objectively<\/em> self-evident?  You can't, at least not with respect to states of affairs transcending your consciousness. <\/span><\/p>\n

Paging Baron von Muenchhausen.<\/span><\/p>\n

I conclude that no one can prove the existence of God.  But one can reasonably believe that God exists.  The same holds for the nonexistence of God.  No one can prove the nonexistence of God.  But one can reasonably believe that there is no God.<\/span><\/p>\n

Of course, when I say that no one can prove the existence of God I mean no one of us<\/em>.  Presumably God can prove the existence of God, if he exists, not that he needs to.  And when I said above that a probative argument  is such that all its premises are known to be true, I meant, as any charitable reader would have assumed, "known by us."<\/span><\/p>\n

The same goes for naturalism.  I cannot prove that there is more to reality than the space-time system and its contents.  But I can reasonably believe it.  For I have a battery of powerful arguments each of which satisfies conditions (1), (2), (3) and (6) and may even, as far as far as I know, satisfy  (4).<\/span><\/p>\n

"So how is the atheist not irrational on your view, assuming he is apprised of your arguments?"<\/span><\/p>\n

He is not irrational because none of my arguments are rationally compelling in the sense I supplied, namely, they are not such as to force every competent philosophical practitioner to accept their conclusions on pain of being irrational if he does not.   Surely it would be foolish to say that atheists, the lot of them, are irrational people.<\/span><\/p>\n

Either God exists or he does not.  But both theism and atheism are rationally acceptable.  <\/span><\/p>\n

To end with a psychological speculation:  those who hanker after proofs of God and the soul or the opposite are insufficiently mature to live with doxastic insecurity.<\/span><\/p>\n

Our life here below is insecure physically, psychologically, socially, economically, and in every way, including doxastically.  We need, and sometimes crave, security.  Our pursuit of it can be ordinate.  For example, the wise make provision for the future by saving and investing, taking care of their health, buying insurance, planning how they will react to certain emergencies, etc.  Fools, by contrast, live as if there is no tomorrow.  When tomorrow comes, they either perish of their folly or suffer unnecessarily.<\/span><\/p>\n

But there is also an inordinate pursuit of security.  It is impossible in this life totally to secure oneself in any of the ways mentioned, including with respect to belief.  One  must accept that life is a venture and an adventure across the board.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This is an addendum to clarify what I said two days ago. My claim is that we have no demonstrative knowledge of the truth of theism or of the falsity of naturalism.  Demonstrative knowledge is knowledge produced by a demonstration.  A demonstration in this context is an argument that satisfies all of the following conditions: … Continue reading “God and Proof”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[191,372,143,128],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6374","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-atheism-and-theism","category-belief","category-god","category-reason-and-rationality"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6374","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6374"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6374\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6374"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6374"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6374"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}