On The Existence of God: An Ontological Argument From Necessary Truth

On The Existence of God: An Ontological Argument From Necessary Truth


E is evidence for H if and only if it raises the probability for it to be true.

God is a conscious thinking mind. God is an eternal agent and a being that performs actions, is the creator of all, and is the foundation for all knowledge and truth.

There must be a necessary being and this has been proven extensively in my other blog articles through different cosmological and ontological arguments. This article will prove that the necessary being must be God through a different type of ontological argument presented by Jake Brancatella in his debate against Aron Ra.

 

Argument from Necessary Truth:

 

P1: Necessarily either the Law of Noncontradiction (states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time) is true or it is not.

P2: P1 is necessarily true and could not fail to be true.

P3: True propositions exist.

C1: Therefore, at least one true proposition exists necessarily.

P5: Propositions are mental entities i.e. thoughts.

C2: Therefore, necessary propositions are necessarily existent thoughts.

P7: Thoughts cannot exist apart from an intellect.

C3: Therefore, a necessary intellect exists.

 

Premises 3 and 5 are the ones that one can object to.

Premise 3: Firstly, let us define what a proposition is:

“Propositions, we shall say, are the sharable objects of the attitudes and the primary bearers of truth and falsity.” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

There is a distinction between a truth maker and a truth bearer.

Truth maker: That which makes a proposition true.

Truth bearer: Thing that exists that we ascribe a truth value to.

Why do we believe that propositions exist?

1. Ordinary language supports this notion.

a. Ex: We both agree that you are reading this article and that same thing is the shared content between our beliefs that is the proposition which in this case happens to be true.

2. We can ascribe properties to them.

a. Ex: We ascribe the properties of truth and falsity to them, for any object we ascribe properties to in some possible world including this world must exist in that world.

3. Statements/sentences are not bearers of truth

         Ex: Multiple sentences in different languages that assert the same truth.

         Ex: Distinct sentences in the same language that assert the same truth.

Therefore, there is something more fundamental that is shared amongst distinct sentences, i.e. the content of the sentence i.e. the proposition.

 

Premise 5: Propositions are best understood as mental entities i.e. thoughts. This is because propositions have a unique characteristic known as intentionality.

Intentionality: Aboutness or being directed towards something.

Ex: The sentence, “I am in Tampa” is about something, namely about Tampa and myself. The same is true about our beliefs and consciousness as whole. Directedness towards other things is a distinct feature of intentionality. To deny intentionality is to deny human thoughts altogether.

Another aspect of intentionality is “aspectual shape”.

Aspectual shape: Refers to the way an entity is understood.
                    Ex: The sentences, “Superman fights criminals” and “Clark Kent fights criminals”, both sentences point towards the same man but in distinct ways. This is why someone who does not know Superman is Clark Kent may believe in one sentence but not the other even though Superman is Clark Kent.

Propositions are intentional, mental entities such as thoughts and beliefs exhibit intentionality as our thoughts and beliefs are about things in distinct ways. Therefore, propositions are mental entities i.e. thoughts. If propositions are understood as mental entities that can be either true or false then at least one necessary truth exists i.e. the law of noncontradiction then a necessary intellect must exist which is because thoughts cannot be had apart from a mind. Therefore, a necessary intellect exists since all human minds are contingent and therefore all human thoughts are not going to qualify as necessary propositions and therefore something necessarily needs to exist to account for necessary truths i.e. a necessary mind i.e. God. If one was to deny this then they must posit that there are no such things as thoughts/propositions or that propositions exist independently similar to a Platonic form.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Overview of Athari Metaphysics

Image
Overview of Athari Metaphysics Metaphysics, the study of the fundamental nature of reality and existence, presents significant challenges and complexities. Within the realm of metaphysics, the Athari, a school of thought in Sunni Islam, perspective offers a unique approach to understanding the attributes and actions ascribed to Allah, or God. This overview explores the fundamental principles of their (and also my) metaphysics, including the distinction between the different types of predications when describing God’s attributes. It also considers the role of rational arguments alongside textual proofs for the existence of God and questions the concept of Divine Simplicity. Additionally, the overview delves into the uncreated nature of the Quran and the understanding of God's actions within His essence. By examining Athari metaphysics, we gain insights into the nuanced interpretation of divine attributes and deepen our understanding of God’s unknowable essence. The Athari view d...
Read more

The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Faith of the Early Church

Image
The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Faith of the Church      The doctrine of the Trinity is at the heart of the Christian conception of God. However, there can be misunderstanding of what this doctrine entails regarding the nature of the being of God and the three persons of the Trinity. According to the doctrine, God is one divine being who exists eternally in three distinct but co-eternal and co-equal persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. Each person is fully God, and yet there is only one God. The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit, the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. They are three distinct persons who share the same divine nature. While some have struggled to reconcile the concept of one God in three persons with the idea of monotheism, the doctrine of the Trinity is an essential aspect of orthodoxy by the majority of Christian denominations.       The nat...
Read more

The Euthyphro Dilemma — With an Abrahamic Metaphysic of God

Image
The Euthyphro Dilemma       If God commanded murder tomorrow, would the believer do it? If goodness is synthetic rather than analytical, the question is in virtue of what is the causal explanation for why God is good? If one appeals to God’s nature, goodness is either a standard that is external to God or it is arbitrary. If it is the former and God adheres to the standard of goodness but the theist provides and internal explanation for the standard coming from within God, is this enough to escape the dilemma? Is it possible for there to be a state of affairs in virtue of the good being external to God? Rather, it is within God’s nature to always be in accordance with that standard. There is an inherent primitive goodness in God as in His nature and that is the causal explanation for God’s moral commandment as good. Therefore, God’s nature is what sets the standard of goodness and God’s nature is the causal explanation. Why does goodness have to be an external proper...
Read more