Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Credo ut intelligam
(I believe that I might understand)
The relationship between faith and reason (Faith must precede understanding?)
Necessary beings
(i.e., things with necessary existence) cannot not-exist. Impossible beings
(i.e., things whose existence is contradictory, e.g., round squares)
cannot exist.
Contingent beings
(i.e., beings whose existence and nonexistence are neither necessary nor impossible)
may exist (rocks) or not (unicorns). Their existence is (logically) possible, and their nonexistence is also (logically) possible.
Is it logically possible for the existence of something than which nothing greater can be thought of to be contingent?
More precisely, is the nonexistence of something than which nothing greater can be thought of logically possible?
In other words,
1 2 A God that actually exists is greater than a God that exists only as an idea in the mind. If God exists only as an idea in the mind, then God is notGod (because something that exists only as an idea in the mind is not something than which nothing greater can be thought of). Thus, the claim that God does not actually exist implies a contradiction and is therefore necessarily false. If the claim that God does not actually exist is necessarily false, then the claim that God actually exists is necessarily true (because the negation of a contradiction is a tautology).
3 4
In other words,
It is possible to think of a necessary being, i.e., a being whose nonexistence is impossible. Necessary existence is greater than contingent existence, and a necessary being is greater than a contingent being. If the nonexistence of God is possible, then God must be a contingent being. But then God would be not-God because a contingent being cannot be something than which nothing greater can be thought of. Thus, the claim that Gods nonexistence is possible implies a contradiction and is therefore necessarily false. If the claim that Gods nonexistence is possible is necessarily false, then the claim that Gods nonexistence is impossible is necessarily true (because the negation of a contradiction is a tautology).
So Gods nonexistence is impossible, and therefore God must exist. Thus, agnosticism must be false too, right?
Furthermore,
God is the ONLY BEING whose nonexistence is logically impossible. (That is, no other being deserves the title of something than which nothing greater can be thought of.)
The existences of all other beings (actual or conceivable) are either contingent or impossible.
Thomas Aquinas
(1224-1274 AD)
The 2d premise: Doesnt it imply determinism? Doesnt it rule out human freedom? The inference: Even if the argument proves the existence of an uncaused first cause, does it prove that there is only one such originating cause? Might there not be more than one? And even if the argument proves that there is just one first cause, is Aquinas entitled to say that it is God? What are the various attributes of God? Must a first cause have all of those attributes?
(Simplified Version)
1. There is evidence of intelligent design in nature. 2. Where there is (evidence of) intelligent design,
there must be an intelligent designer. 3. There is an intelligent designer of nature (& it is God).
Critical Questions: 1. Is there? Isnt there also a lot of disorder in nature? 2. Must there be? Appearance vs. Reality. Why cant the order and design of nature be accidental, a product of chance? 3. An intelligent designer? Why not more than one? Why must it be God?
Theories that hold that nothing is really better than anything else:
Axiological subjectivism (vs. objectivism) Axiological relativism (vs. absolutism) Axiological nihilism (vs. essentialism?) Axiological non-cognitivism (skepticism) (vs. cognitivism)
What are these theories? You might find it interesting to research them on your own. Which (if any) of them do you subscribe to? Why? (This NOT for extra credit. There are no extra credit opportunities in this course.)