a slightly novel argument for God's existence.
Consider principle
(A) Any non-arbitrary definition is indicative of a real thing.
Argument for (A): How else could a definition be non-arbitrary if it weren’t for the real thing that it’s tracking? Therefore, (A).
Now consider
(1) The definition of ‘God’ is not arbitrary.
Argument for (1): Consider your definition of ‘God’. While you’re grouping various predicates together (perhaps omnipotence, omnibenevolence?) ask yourself the following question: are the predicates I’m picking to include in my definition of God such that I’m picking them willy-nilly or not? If not, then you don’t think that the definition of God is arbitrary. Hence, (1).
Well, so what? This: If the definition of God is not arbitrary, and any non-arbitrary definition is indicative of a real thing, then God is a real thing. And every time we have a real thing (and not just a real nature), that thing exists. Hence,
(2) God exists.
posted by Derek at 2:24 PM
2 Comments:
It, apparently, is quiet willy-nilly not to think logic and words (like the ones you use here) are a sufficient way to prove God's existence.
Nice.
I anticipate agnostics trying this out on unicorns. Can an individual define "unicorn" arbitrarily? No, because there is a conventional use of the term. Does that mean that unicorns exist? No.
Is the conventional definition of "unicorn" arbitrary? If not, then by (A) unicorns exist. Is so, then abitrary conventions may prevent individuals from being able to define terms willy-nilly. If that's the case, conventional use of the term "God" may prevent an individual from assigning any ole meaning to the term, and yet it's conventional definition might be arbitrary in the relevant sense.
It seems like some dicy de re/de dicto issues and the OA are relevant here as well.
Post a Comment
<< Home