Theological Non-Cognitivism
Preface
This is an epistemological argument against God’s existence. In other words, I shall neither use ontology or metaphysics to affirm the position I take here – it shall be that the term “God” doesn’t refer to a coherent concept, thus attributing existence to it is incoherent. First, I must clarify what “theological non-cognitivism” is. Theological non-cognitivism posits that “words such as ‘God’ ... are not cognitively meaningful.” [1] So I’ll be defending the meaninglessness of the term “God”, and, in the process, affirm that the existence of such an incoherent concept is impossible. The argument is formalised:
P1. If God lacks a positively defined attribute, then secondary & relational attributes cannot be justified
P2. God lacks a
…show more content…
If A simpler than B, A is more likely, and if B is simpler than A, then B is more likely
P2. B is simpler than A, and negation that A is simpler is false
C. Weak atheism is a priori more likely than theism
P1 is true via. ontological parsimony, leaving P2 to be justified. Theism posits three assumptions – God, the universe, and natural laws; atheism posits two – the universe and natural laws. As such, atheism is ontologically simpler than theism. The conclusion entails.
== Rebuttals ==
R1. Ontological Argument
Modal Ontological Argument
Pro first presents W.L. Craig’s formulation of Alvin Plantinga’s “victorious” ontological argument, that uses modal logic.[3] Basically, the argument is that if it’s possible that God exists, then God exists.
Reductio –
A. <>P --> []P (assumption)
P1. It is possible that God does not exist
P2. If it is possible that God does not exist, then God does not exist
C1. God does not exist
P3. It is possible that God exists
P4. If it is possible for God to exist, then God exists
C2. God exists
P5. C1 and C2 contradict, and rest on A
P6. Premises are sound from A
C3. A is
The question of God’s existence has been debated through the history of man, with every philosopher from Socrates to Immanuel Kant weighing in on the debate. So great has this topic become that numerous proofs have been invented and utilized to prove or disprove God’s existence. Yet no answer still has been reached, leaving me to wonder if any answer at all is possible. So I will try in this paper to see if it is possible to philosophically prove God’s existence.
In this paper I will be exploring two arguments on the topic of the existence of God. In particular, I will focus on Saint Thomas Aquinas’s efficient causation argument for God’s existence and an objection to it from Bertrand Russell. After an analysis of Aquinas’s argument and a presentation of Russell’s objection, I will show how Russell’s objection fails.
The Ontological Argument sets out to prove the existence of God, as defined by Anselm as ‘something than which nothing greater can be conceived’. Without this carefully phrased definition, there would be no argument, as the argument’s leap from imagination to reality occurs here, i.e. from God in the imagination to God in reality. This ‘leap’, or crossover, as presented in Anselm’s reductio ad absurdum argument, is where this essay will focus on most in raising possible objections and identifying any fallacies in the argument.
One of the most argued topics throughout human history is whether or not God exists. It is argued frequently because there are several different reasonings and sub arguments in this main argument. People who believe God exists argue how God acts and whether there is one or several. People who do not believe God exists argue how the universe became into existence or if it has just always existed. In this paper, I will describe Craig's argument for the existence of God and defend Craig's argument.
H J McCloskey intelligently put his thoughts together and shared his beliefs in his article called “On Being an Athiest” addressing some key arguments discussed in atheism and theism from an atheistic point of view. He makes no apologies for bringing up a difficult topic and for trying to argue persuasively for his views. He makes a great point when he states, “…I make no apology for doing so, as it is useful for us to remind ourselves of the reasons for and virtues of our beliefs (50).” Whether a theist or an atheist we should know what we believe and why we believe what we believe. This paper will use the material recently studied in Philosophy to respond to “proofs” and ideas put forth by McCloskey in his article.
H.J McCloskey’s article, “On Being an Atheist,” is an attempt to show atheism as a more practical alternative to the Christian belief. McCloskey reasons against the theistic beliefs of the cosmological argument, the teleological argument and design. He references the presence of evil in a world created by God and the absurdity of living by faith. This article is an attempt to reason that God does not exist because He is perfect and the world is not perfect; evil exists therefore God cannot exist. McCloskey’s article labels these arguments as “proofs” and concludes none of these arguments would be evidence of God’s existence. I find McCloskey’s article to lack logic and coherence which only serves to invalidate his arguments. I find this little more than an attempt to justify his own atheistic worldview.
The controversial topic involving the existence of God has been the pinnacle of endless discourse surrounding the concept of religion in the field of philosophy. However, two arguments proclaim themselves to be the “better” way of justifying the existence of God: The Cosmological Argument and the Mystical Argument. While both arguments attempt to enforce strict modus operandi of solidified reasoning, neither prove to be a better way of explaining the existence of God. The downfall of both these arguments rests on commitment of fallacies and lack of sufficient evidence, as a result sabotaging their validity in the field of philosophy and faith.
The Ontological Argument was based on the idea that we can prove the existence of God using our reason alone, therefore using a priori knowledge. According to the Ontological Argument, the definition of God is “that then which nothing greater can be conceived”. This is a logical tautology, meaning it is true by definition.
Descartes's fifth Meditation argument for God's existence relies on an untenable notion that existence is a perfection and that it can be predicated of God. I shall first explain what Descartes's argument for God's existence is, and then present his argument in propositional form. I will then attempt to support the argument that existence is neither a perfection nor a predicate of God.
Anselm’s ontological argument was presented in chapter two of Anselm’s Proslogion. The actual argument is as follow: (1) If God exists only in understanding, then we can think of a being greater than God. (2) We can’t think of a being greater than God. (3) Therefore not the case that God only exists in the understanding. (4) Either God exists in reality or God exists in the understanding. (5) Therefore God exist in reality (conclusion). To put this argument in conclusion argument form it would look like this:
The very fact that philosophers such as Descartes, Kant, Malcolm have been intrigued by the ontological argument strongly shows that it is a very important and complex argument which is in favour of the existence of God. Although a final and ultimate answer to the question of God’s existence has yet to be attained, it is still considered to be a remarkable argument.
This paper will try to discuss the three Philosophical Positions on the Existence of God namely, the Theism, Agnosticism, and Atheism. Why do they believe? Why don’t they believe? How do they believe? What made them believe? Who helped them believe? These are just some of the questions that this paper will try to give answers and supply both believers and non-believers the enough indication that whatever their position may be, the responsibility in their hands of whatever reason they have must be valid and intellectual.
Descartes would agree with Anselm’s conclusion that God exists but he would likely attack Anselm’s method of reaching this conclusion with the Fool. The arguments share a major commonality in their reliance upon the human mind in proving God’s existence. In both arguments, God’s existence becomes evident when reflecting on an idea of God. In both cases, possessing an idea of God is enough to prove God’s existence. These similarities, however, are not be enough to protect Anselm from Descartes’ hypothetical criticism of the method by which Anselm gets the Fool to admit that God exists. Descartes’ would take issue with the role that the mind plays in Anselm’s argument. In Descartes’ argument, the mind plays a necessarily passive role in understanding
2)True knowledge only comes from the knowledge of the Forms that are perfect, eternal, unchangeable, and do not have physical existence in our sensible
In the following I intend to prove that the ontological argument is in and of itself, insufficient in proving that God exists. There are a few problems with the argument that I will be discussing in detail in an attempt to illustrate exactly why ‘The Ontological Argument’ is unsatisfactory.