Can we prove the existence of God? What exactly does it mean to prove
something? What would count as a proof of God's existence? To explore
these questions, let's consider one popular argument for God's existence
and test it against some different criteria for proofs. Here's the
argument:
1. If God does not exist, there are no objective, culture-transcending moral duties.
2. There are objective, culture-transcending moral duties.
3. Therefore, God exists.
Is this a proof of God's existence? One suggestion is that any sound argument
constitutes a proof. An argument is sound if and only if (a) all its
premises are true and (b) it is deductively valid, in the sense that its
conclusion follows necessarily from its premises (i.e., it's logically impossible for the premises to be true but the conclusion to be false).
Is our argument sound? It's certainly deductively valid: it has the valid argument form of modus tollens
(if P then Q; not Q; therefore, not P). Moreover, both of its premises
are true. There are indeed objective, culture-transcending moral duties,
such as the duty to care for one's children, and it's very hard to see
what would ground such moral obligations if there were no God. At any
rate, I believe that both premises are true, and so do many other people. But does everyone believe both premises? Well, no---and therein lies the rub.
Limitations of Sound Arguments
There's another obvious problem with the idea that any sound argument
amounts to a proof. Consider the following argument for the existence
of God:
- Either the moon is made of green cheese or God exists.
- The moon is not made of green cheese.
- Therefore, God exists. Continue at James Anderson
No comments:
Post a Comment