So in response to those that make the assertion that "It's impossible to prove that God exists," we assert that they do not understand what they are asserting. One fundamental confusion typically concerns what precisely they mean by a proof; that is, what exactly they have in mind by the word "proven" when they say that God's existence cannot be proven.
But even if they do have a clear and definite notion of what constitutes a proof there are actually at least six different propositions which they might have in mind when they say, "It's impossible to prove that God exists."
Once people are confronted with the expectation that their notion of proof must be examined, and an explanation of these six propositions is offered (along with how an acceptance of any one of these six propositions could be warranted), people's confidence in the unprovability of God's existence is often considerably and substantially undermined. In fact, generally speaking people are more willing to consider seriously whether an argument proves God's existence if they withhold assent on the question of whether God's existence can be proven than if they positively believe God's existence cannot be proven. So, instead of responding to the assertion that "It's impossible to prove that God exists" with an argument in response to their claim, or a demand for sufficient evidence to justify their claim, it seems more efficacious to reveal the imprecision and inelegance contained in the assertion itself.
To repeat, the strategy is to move people to examine their notion of proof, and to reveal the various meanings they might have in mind, when they say "It's impossible to prove that God exists." One can do this by offering the counter-claim that the one making the assertion actually does not understand what his position is, and is not exactly clear about what he is asserting.
But even if they do have a clear and definite notion of what constitutes a proof there are actually at least six different propositions which they might have in mind when they say, "It's impossible to prove that God exists."
Once people are confronted with the expectation that their notion of proof must be examined, and an explanation of these six propositions is offered (along with how an acceptance of any one of these six propositions could be warranted), people's confidence in the unprovability of God's existence is often considerably and substantially undermined. In fact, generally speaking people are more willing to consider seriously whether an argument proves God's existence if they withhold assent on the question of whether God's existence can be proven than if they positively believe God's existence cannot be proven. So, instead of responding to the assertion that "It's impossible to prove that God exists" with an argument in response to their claim, or a demand for sufficient evidence to justify their claim, it seems more efficacious to reveal the imprecision and inelegance contained in the assertion itself.
To repeat, the strategy is to move people to examine their notion of proof, and to reveal the various meanings they might have in mind, when they say "It's impossible to prove that God exists." One can do this by offering the counter-claim that the one making the assertion actually does not understand what his position is, and is not exactly clear about what he is asserting.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment