There still remains one last proposition which people might have in mind when they assert, "It's impossible to prove that God exists." This is the sixth proposition, which is that they themselves are not aware of any argument which proves that God exists.
This, of course, may indeed be true although justifying this position can be more complex than it at first appears. It seems that this position can be warranted by people simply internally examining what they know and what they do not know. If one is asked what the first five Chinese dynasties were, it is rather simple for one to confess ignorance. One is hardly mistaken about whether or not one knows this. The same seems to be the case regarding one's knowledge of a proof for God's existence.
Two different circumstances need to be distinguished, however. These two circumstances differ on the matter of whether someone is aware of any arguments for the existence of God. If people who are unaware of any argument for the existence of God assert that they themselves are not aware of any argument which proves that God exists, then their belief in this is certainly correct and warranted; for they know what they are not aware of. One could say that they are unaware of any arguments which prove that God exists because they are not aware of any arguments (which purport to prove that God exists). See: ignorance.
The situation is different for people who are aware of one or more arguments for the existence of God. If they assert that they are not aware of any argument which proves that God exists, much more is required for their belief to be warranted. Unlike the first situation, they are aware of at least one argument for the existence of God. Therefore, in order for them to be justified in believing that they are unaware of any arguments which prove that God exists, they must provide evidence for why the arguments are not proofs; but this is a more complex burden of proof for their belief than simply reporting their ignorance of any arguments for God's existence.
This, of course, may indeed be true although justifying this position can be more complex than it at first appears. It seems that this position can be warranted by people simply internally examining what they know and what they do not know. If one is asked what the first five Chinese dynasties were, it is rather simple for one to confess ignorance. One is hardly mistaken about whether or not one knows this. The same seems to be the case regarding one's knowledge of a proof for God's existence.
Two different circumstances need to be distinguished, however. These two circumstances differ on the matter of whether someone is aware of any arguments for the existence of God. If people who are unaware of any argument for the existence of God assert that they themselves are not aware of any argument which proves that God exists, then their belief in this is certainly correct and warranted; for they know what they are not aware of. One could say that they are unaware of any arguments which prove that God exists because they are not aware of any arguments (which purport to prove that God exists). See: ignorance.
The situation is different for people who are aware of one or more arguments for the existence of God. If they assert that they are not aware of any argument which proves that God exists, much more is required for their belief to be warranted. Unlike the first situation, they are aware of at least one argument for the existence of God. Therefore, in order for them to be justified in believing that they are unaware of any arguments which prove that God exists, they must provide evidence for why the arguments are not proofs; but this is a more complex burden of proof for their belief than simply reporting their ignorance of any arguments for God's existence.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment