Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The Sanctified Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and responding to posts. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The Lord of Non-Contradiction (a new argument); An Argument for God from Logic
Topic Started: Feb 19 2012, 02:48 AM (693 Views)
Ray Nearhood
Member Avatar
THE Bald Assertion
James N. Anderson and Greg Welty purport to have developed a new argument for the existence of God. They lay out the argument in the paper titled:

The Lord of Non-Contradiction: An Argument for God From Logic (pdf)

I haven't read it yet, but I will very soon. Until then, check it out. I suppose we can critique it together. Or, someone can read it and tell me about it, then I can act like an expert! Or, whatever.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
ReyReynoso
Member Avatar
AKA Navin Johnson
Upon a first reading it is sound. It might get some flak on (1) the dialetheias bit and I'm also thinking around the (2) logical realism bit but I have to think about it some more and (3) laws of logic as thoughts. I mean, what if they're just brute facts (addressing 3)? And do I really want necessary beings that exist which aren't God (addressing 2)? And if they're not actually existing beings but thoughts in a mind, doesn't that immediately make them contingent (addressing 1 where they are necessarily true contingent beings--huh?)


Basically it's not so much using the moral argument as much as Plantinga's Warranted Belief (Reformed Epistemology) argument. It's not transcendental since it's not dovetailing back to support itself, but it's using the idea that logic's truth claims (whatever the logic, LNC or not) it still warranted in being employed. Plantinga uses the argument to justify the belief that there are other minds and lastly that there is a Another Mind (God). These guys are doing the same but they're substantiating logic in almost a cosmological argument sort of way.


It's probably unhelpful to look at it and say "it's a bit of this and a bit of that" though. I have to think some more on the structure of the argument itself.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ReyReynoso
Member Avatar
AKA Navin Johnson
Partially:

(W) Whatever the World, it operates on things being true or false
(L) Things being True or False are "Laws of Logic" (whatever those laws are)
(O) If L applies in all possible worlds then L is a necessary being

Therefore if W1,2.etc is possible (though it doesn't necessarily obtain) --> O

(Had to edit the obtain bit. It wouldn't necessitate obtaining, just possibility)
Edited by ReyReynoso, Mar 1 2012, 12:00 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ray Nearhood
Member Avatar
THE Bald Assertion
ReyReynoso
Mar 1 2012, 11:54 AM
Upon a first reading it is sound. It might get some flak on (1) the dialetheias bit and I'm also thinking around the (2) logical realism bit but I have to think about it some more and (3) laws of logic as thoughts. I mean, what if they're just brute facts (addressing 3)? And do I really want necessary beings that exist which aren't God (addressing 2)? And if they're not actually existing beings but thoughts in a mind, doesn't that immediately make them contingent (addressing 1 where they are necessarily true contingent beings--huh?)
Yeah, especially your last question here. I've gotten away from this a bit, doing other things (like getting reprimanded for thinking about changing the coloUr [whatever that is] scheme of the site]), but I would like to get my mind back around this argument and try remembering exactly what I had thought would answer your last question (which I had, too).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ReyReynoso
Member Avatar
AKA Navin Johnson
Well, my problem in that last one probably unveils my fundamental issue with Other Necessary Beings: I don't like it. My nominalism is exposed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ray Nearhood
Member Avatar
THE Bald Assertion
Now I remember how I thought it could be reconciled, that necessary thoughts (like the LoL) are the thoughts of a necessary being (God).

Two possible answers would be:

1) They (the thoughts) are necessary in their "plane of being" - for lack of a better phrase. That is to say that they are necessary in their relation to the created order (no world could be imagined where the laws of logic do not operate), however they are contingent in their relation to that which is uncreated (the existence of these thoughts necessitates a necessary, personal being).

2) The presuppositional argument would be the other possible answer. God is Reasonable, therefore his thoughts are reasonable - a reflection of his character - and necessarily so.

Those were just initial thoughts.

BTW, I want to read that Poythress book when it comes out to see how he develops what is supposed to be a similar argument. Perhaps a smarter guy than me and better smelling than Rey answers the questions we raise.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Apologetics · Next Topic »
Add Reply