Before turning to the last proposition someone might have in mind when asserting that it is impossible to prove that God exists, we can consider what would be sufficient evidence for the first five propositions. Taking into account the fact that one one or more of these propositions cover what is logically possible, or what human being can do or actually do for all time or for the entire past, it seems that there is only one thing which would be sufficient evidence for these five propositions: a proof that God does not exist. If one could prove that God does not exist, then one have proven the truth of these five propositions.
Someone could instead try to prove that human reason is limited or defective and for this reason is incapable of proving God's existence. There are two problems with this position, however. First, such an argument would not disprove the first proposition, since a proof for God's existence might still be possible even if no human being is able to discover it. Second, it is hard to understand how a limitation or defect in human reason makes it incapable of proving God's existence, but not incapable of proving that human reason is limited. If human reason is limited or defective how is it able to prove that human reason is unable to prove God's existence? Why would a limitation in human reason extend to man's capacity to prove that god exists, but would not extend to man's capacity to prove that human reason is limited? It seems quite arbitrary to claim that human reason is limited when it comes to proving that God exists, but not limited when it comes to proving that human reason is limited and is unable to prove God's existence. Indeed, there is no guarantee that a proof regarding the capacities and limitations of human reason would not be as complex or difficult as any proof for the existence of God.
If it is true then that only a proof that God does not exist would be sufficient evidence for the first five propositions someone could have in mind when asserting that it is impossible to prove that God exists, at least two interesting consequences follow. First, people who hold any of these five propositions assume a burden of proof to demonstrate that God does not exist. This is a burden many of them will probably be surprised to learn they have; for while the first five propositions do not logically entail that God does not exist, the evidence which would warrant a belief in any of the five propositions commits one to the view that God does not exist. Thus, people might be less willing to accept any of these propositions if they realize that this forces them to argue that God does not exist.
A second consequence is that this shows that there is less difference between agnosticism and atheism than people might think. If agnosticism denies that man's reason is capable of proving God's existence, but an acceptance of agnosticism is only warranted by a proof that God does not exist, then an agnostic must either move to the position of atheism, continue his belief in agnosticism while admitting that it is unwarranted, or withhold assent on the question of whether God's existence can be proven.
Someone could instead try to prove that human reason is limited or defective and for this reason is incapable of proving God's existence. There are two problems with this position, however. First, such an argument would not disprove the first proposition, since a proof for God's existence might still be possible even if no human being is able to discover it. Second, it is hard to understand how a limitation or defect in human reason makes it incapable of proving God's existence, but not incapable of proving that human reason is limited. If human reason is limited or defective how is it able to prove that human reason is unable to prove God's existence? Why would a limitation in human reason extend to man's capacity to prove that god exists, but would not extend to man's capacity to prove that human reason is limited? It seems quite arbitrary to claim that human reason is limited when it comes to proving that God exists, but not limited when it comes to proving that human reason is limited and is unable to prove God's existence. Indeed, there is no guarantee that a proof regarding the capacities and limitations of human reason would not be as complex or difficult as any proof for the existence of God.
If it is true then that only a proof that God does not exist would be sufficient evidence for the first five propositions someone could have in mind when asserting that it is impossible to prove that God exists, at least two interesting consequences follow. First, people who hold any of these five propositions assume a burden of proof to demonstrate that God does not exist. This is a burden many of them will probably be surprised to learn they have; for while the first five propositions do not logically entail that God does not exist, the evidence which would warrant a belief in any of the five propositions commits one to the view that God does not exist. Thus, people might be less willing to accept any of these propositions if they realize that this forces them to argue that God does not exist.
A second consequence is that this shows that there is less difference between agnosticism and atheism than people might think. If agnosticism denies that man's reason is capable of proving God's existence, but an acceptance of agnosticism is only warranted by a proof that God does not exist, then an agnostic must either move to the position of atheism, continue his belief in agnosticism while admitting that it is unwarranted, or withhold assent on the question of whether God's existence can be proven.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment