Posts tonen met het label argument. Alle posts tonen
Posts tonen met het label argument. Alle posts tonen
zaterdag 12 juli 2025
Paper accepted for publication
My paper, “An Argument for God’s Existence from Non-Bruteness,” has been accepted for publication in the academic journal Philosophia Reformata. It will appear in Volume 91, Issue 1, scheduled for publication in May 2026. The paper is here available on PhilPapers.
My paper, “An Argument for God’s Existence from Non-Bruteness,” has been accepted for publication in the academic journal Philosophia Reformata. It will appear in Volume 91, Issue 1, scheduled for publication in May 2026. The paper is zondag 2 februari 2025
Oordeelswaarheid en een hoogste maatgevend zijnde
Volgens het klassieke metafysisch waarheidsbegrip vereist het waar zijn van een oordeel een beroep op een maatgevend hoogste zijnde, zoals de Idee of God, die zorgdraagt voor de overeenstemming tussen oordeel en zaak. Wanneer we geloven dat er ware oordelen zijn, uitgaan van metafysisch realisme en dus afzien van de mens als maatgevend hoogste zijnde, en met de nominalisten veronderstellen dat er geen essenties of wezensvormen bestaan, volgt hieruit onvermijdelijk dat God bestaat. Wie genoemde premissen plausibel vindt, krijgt zo de beschikking over een nieuw Godsargument.
maandag 10 juni 2024
A new argument for God's existence from non-bruteness
Abstract
I propose a new argument for God's existence. It departs from the premise that there must be an ultimate reason for why this world exists, even though we as human beings may never know it. The argument then explores what characteristics such an ultimate reason must have. First, it needs to be self-evident in an absolute sense (i.e., its self-evidence needs to transcend all possible worlds - even the empty one) in order for it to be truly an ultimate reason. Second, by virtue of the nature of self-evidence, it must be at least conceivable. More specifically, something that’s self-evident in an absolute sense must be conceivable as being self-evident in an absolute sense. As I argue, only a being that is itself positioned at the absolute and thus has an absolute point of view can conceive of something as being self-evident in an absolute sense. Thus, an absolute mind exists. Such a mind is properly referred to as God. Surely, the content of this ultimate reason (which may, as said, for us humans be unknowable), would then also have to entail that God exists.
The argument
In what follows I propose a new argument for the existence of God. I call it the argument from non-bruteness. The fact that there is being and that it has the fundamental structure it has cannot be merely a brute fact. There must be some ultimate explanation for why there is being and why it has the fundamental characteristics it has. Such an explanation must be a regress-of-explanation-ender. Otherwise, it is not an ultimate explanation. It must thus be self-evident in-and-of-itself. That is to say, it must be self-evident regardless of which non-empty or empty possible world is actual. Hence, it must be self-evident in an absolute sense. But it can only be self-evident in an absolute sense if it is conceived to be self-evident in an absolute sense. Indeed, for something to be self-evident in an absolute sense, it must be exemplified as being self-evident in an absolute sense. But that requires it to be conceived as self-evident in an absolute sense. Without such conceiving the ultimate explanation is not actualized as self-evident in an absolute sense. Since only a conscious mind that is itself positioned at the absolute and thus has an absolute perspective can conceive of the ultimate explanation as being self-evident in an absolute sense, it follows that there exists a conscious mind that is positioned at the absolute and that has an absolute perspective. Now, a mind positioned at the absolute and having an absolute perspective is properly referred to as God. Hence, God exists.
Absolute and conditional perspectives
Here, an absolute perspective is what’s often also referred to as an Archimedean point of view: a perspective that transcends all contingent points of view. Sometimes it’s called a God’s eye view since indeed only an absolute being properly referred to as 'God' could have such a wholly unconstraint perspective. Let me unpack a bit the relevant step of the argument. Suppose the content of the ultimate absolute self-evident explanation of the world is C. Now, surely, say, a human being might very well be able to grasp content C if confronted with C. That’s not the issue. And, surely, a human being might very well be able to grasp content C as being self-evident for him or her as a human being. That’s not the issue either. But to grasp C as being self-evident not merely from our human point of view, but from the absolute point of view, requires something human beings lack, namely an absolute viewpoint. To hold that an explanation is self-evident in an absolute sense, means that it is self-evident regardless of any particular partial perspective or context. It is thus not contingent on specific conditions. You and I and other human beings are inherently limited in our perspective. Our human cognitive capacities are bound by our specific contingent cognitive faculties. Only if you stand in the shoes of an absolute being, can you experience whether or not something is self-evident from the absolute point of view. After all, for all we know something that’s self-evident from the human point of view might not be self-evident from the absolute point of view and vice versa. We can never step outside of our human condition and into the shoes of an absolute being. So we will never know whether what’s humanly self-evident is also absolutely self-evident or the other way around. Even though we can recognize certain propositions as being self-evident from our viewpoint, we cannot claim that our recognition is absolute. Our perspective is always conditional and partial. Indeed, only an absolute mind having an absolute point of view could conceive of something as being self-evident in an absolute sense, which is precisely what I claim as part of my argument.
An objection
Let me consider an objection to the argument. One may respond that the ultimate explanation of being does not have to be actualized in the understanding of a conscious mind because it would be sufficient for such an explanation to remain merely potential. Yet, even if the ultimate explanation of the world is not actualized, it must, by virtue of being an explanation, still be actualizable. That is to say, even if it is not conceived by a conscious mind, it must still be conceivable by some actually existing conscious mind. For just as a hand that cannot be connected to a body is not truly a hand, an explanation that cannot be conceived is not truly an explanation. Epistemic explanations, like semantic meanings, are fundamentally relational. Therefore, there exists a conscious mind that is able to conceive and thereby actualize the ultimate explanation of the world. As argued above, the ultimate explanation is self-evident in an absolute sense. Otherwise, it is not an ultimate explanation. But how can said mind be able to grasp or comprehend something as self-evident in an absolute sense? It is only able to understand something as self-evident in an absolute sense if it is an absolute mind having an absolute perspective. Again, it follows that God exists.
An improvement
It's important to point out that I can further improve my argument by limiting myself to the mere metaphysical possibility of there being a conscious being that conceives of the ultimate explanation as being self-evident. Let me explain. If an explanation is truly self-evident, then it’s reasonable to hold that it must at least be metaphysically possibly conceivable as being indeed self-evident. If it’s metaphysically impossible for that explanation to be conceived as being self-evident, it’s not genuinely self-evident. Being at least possibly conceived as being self-evident seems to be part of the very nature of self-evidence. Being self-evident refers to a reflextive stance towards its content. This line of reasoning is indeed already sufficient for my argument. For only a possible absolute being having an absolute perspective would be able to conceive of the absolute self-evident explanation of the world as being absolutely self-evident. So it follows that there exists possibly an absolute mind having an absolute perspective. There is in other words a possible world in which such an absolute being exists. Since this absolute mind is not dependent on anything else for its existence and thus uncaused, it exists in all possible worlds - including the actual world. So this absolute being actually exists. Hence it follows again that God exists.
Dialectical implications
The first premise of my argument is the non-bruteness premise. One may reject this premise, of course. That is to say, one may not accept that there must be some ultimate explanation of the world. That is why I have called my argument the argument from non-bruteness. The argument shows that to the extent that it is plausible that there is an ultimate explanation for why this world exists, it is plausible that God exists. And many do believe that there is plausibly some ultimate explanation of the world. What my argument shows is that if there is some ultimate explanation of reality, it follows that theism is true. Thus, the argument effectively rules out non-theistic ultimate explanations. Therefore, if my argument is successful, then the atheist has to maintain that there is no ultimate explanation of the world - which for many atheists may not be a desirable position to be in.
The argument and world-for-us epistemology
Those who are familiar with my world-for-us epistemology may wonder how my new argument relates to it. On my theory of knowledge we are doing metaphysics within the-world-for-us. So, all our claims are always already claims within the-world-for-us. The-world-in-itself is for us inescapably unknowable. This is the first sense of saying that the absolute is unknowable. We will never be able to transcend the-world-for-us. We will never be able to grasp the-world-in-itself. We inevitably do all our projects, including metaphysics, within the-world-for-us. Hence, a successful metaphysical argument for God’s existence leads us towards a God within the-world-for-us. That is to say, it leads us towards a God-for-us. For, again, such an argument doesn’t give us any insight in the-world-in-itself.
Normally I don’t refer to this meta-epistemic level and just engage in doing metaphysics. Now, I maintain that the claim that there must be some absolute self-evident ultimate explanation of the world is justified (and thus only justified) as a claim about or within the-world-for-us. It’s a claim internal to the-world-for-us. For it’s not justified as a claim about the-world-in-itself.
Moreover, the claim that we are not able to access this absolute self-evident ultimate explanation is also only justified as a claim about or within the-world-for-us. This is the second sense of saying that we cannot know the absolute. The second sense refers to a characteristic within the-world-for-us, whereas the first sense refers to the interplay between the-world-for-us and the-world-in-itself.
There are good arguments for God’s existence within the-world-for-us. So within the-world-for-us we can know that God exists. And God is within the-world-for-us of course not to be equated with the absolute self-evident ultimate explanation. God is not some absolute self-evident truth. Indeed, God is a conscious being in the-world-for-us that is the first cause of everything in the-world-for-us. Thus God is, of course, not equal to the ultimate absolute self-evident explanation in the-world-for-us. Conscious beings may know explanations, but are not themselves explanations. Hence, there’s no contradiction between my new argument and my world-for-us epistemology. The three claims below can all be coherently affirmed simultaneously.
1. We cannot know anything about the-world-in-itself (i.e., the first sense of saying that the absolute is unknowable).
2. The proposition “There is an ultimate absolute self-evident explanation of the world and we are not able to know this explanation” is justified as a claim about or within the-world-for-us (i.e., the second sense of saying that the absolute is unknowable).
3. The proposition “God exists” is justified as a claim about or within the-world-for-us.
It’s an interesting question within the-world-for-us how the ultimate absolute self-evident explanation of the world within the-world-for-us relates to God within the-world-for-us. With respect to how things are within the-world-for-us, my new argument suggests not only that God knows the ultimate absolute self-evident explanation of the world, but it also suggests that the mere fact that this explanation exists necessitates God’s existence, even without considering the specific content of the explanation. Of course, in this case, the specific content of the absolute ultimate explanation of the world also has to entail Gods existence.
I propose a new argument for God's existence. It departs from the premise that there must be an ultimate reason for why this world exists, even though we as human beings may never know it. The argument then explores what characteristics such an ultimate reason must have. First, it needs to be self-evident in an absolute sense (i.e., its self-evidence needs to transcend all possible worlds - even the empty one) in order for it to be truly an ultimate reason. Second, by virtue of the nature of self-evidence, it must be at least conceivable. More specifically, something that’s self-evident in an absolute sense must be conceivable as being self-evident in an absolute sense. As I argue, only a being that is itself positioned at the absolute and thus has an absolute point of view can conceive of something as being self-evident in an absolute sense. Thus, an absolute mind exists. Such a mind is properly referred to as God. Surely, the content of this ultimate reason (which may, as said, for us humans be unknowable), would then also have to entail that God exists.
The argument
In what follows I propose a new argument for the existence of God. I call it the argument from non-bruteness. The fact that there is being and that it has the fundamental structure it has cannot be merely a brute fact. There must be some ultimate explanation for why there is being and why it has the fundamental characteristics it has. Such an explanation must be a regress-of-explanation-ender. Otherwise, it is not an ultimate explanation. It must thus be self-evident in-and-of-itself. That is to say, it must be self-evident regardless of which non-empty or empty possible world is actual. Hence, it must be self-evident in an absolute sense. But it can only be self-evident in an absolute sense if it is conceived to be self-evident in an absolute sense. Indeed, for something to be self-evident in an absolute sense, it must be exemplified as being self-evident in an absolute sense. But that requires it to be conceived as self-evident in an absolute sense. Without such conceiving the ultimate explanation is not actualized as self-evident in an absolute sense. Since only a conscious mind that is itself positioned at the absolute and thus has an absolute perspective can conceive of the ultimate explanation as being self-evident in an absolute sense, it follows that there exists a conscious mind that is positioned at the absolute and that has an absolute perspective. Now, a mind positioned at the absolute and having an absolute perspective is properly referred to as God. Hence, God exists.
Absolute and conditional perspectives
Here, an absolute perspective is what’s often also referred to as an Archimedean point of view: a perspective that transcends all contingent points of view. Sometimes it’s called a God’s eye view since indeed only an absolute being properly referred to as 'God' could have such a wholly unconstraint perspective. Let me unpack a bit the relevant step of the argument. Suppose the content of the ultimate absolute self-evident explanation of the world is C. Now, surely, say, a human being might very well be able to grasp content C if confronted with C. That’s not the issue. And, surely, a human being might very well be able to grasp content C as being self-evident for him or her as a human being. That’s not the issue either. But to grasp C as being self-evident not merely from our human point of view, but from the absolute point of view, requires something human beings lack, namely an absolute viewpoint. To hold that an explanation is self-evident in an absolute sense, means that it is self-evident regardless of any particular partial perspective or context. It is thus not contingent on specific conditions. You and I and other human beings are inherently limited in our perspective. Our human cognitive capacities are bound by our specific contingent cognitive faculties. Only if you stand in the shoes of an absolute being, can you experience whether or not something is self-evident from the absolute point of view. After all, for all we know something that’s self-evident from the human point of view might not be self-evident from the absolute point of view and vice versa. We can never step outside of our human condition and into the shoes of an absolute being. So we will never know whether what’s humanly self-evident is also absolutely self-evident or the other way around. Even though we can recognize certain propositions as being self-evident from our viewpoint, we cannot claim that our recognition is absolute. Our perspective is always conditional and partial. Indeed, only an absolute mind having an absolute point of view could conceive of something as being self-evident in an absolute sense, which is precisely what I claim as part of my argument.
An objection
Let me consider an objection to the argument. One may respond that the ultimate explanation of being does not have to be actualized in the understanding of a conscious mind because it would be sufficient for such an explanation to remain merely potential. Yet, even if the ultimate explanation of the world is not actualized, it must, by virtue of being an explanation, still be actualizable. That is to say, even if it is not conceived by a conscious mind, it must still be conceivable by some actually existing conscious mind. For just as a hand that cannot be connected to a body is not truly a hand, an explanation that cannot be conceived is not truly an explanation. Epistemic explanations, like semantic meanings, are fundamentally relational. Therefore, there exists a conscious mind that is able to conceive and thereby actualize the ultimate explanation of the world. As argued above, the ultimate explanation is self-evident in an absolute sense. Otherwise, it is not an ultimate explanation. But how can said mind be able to grasp or comprehend something as self-evident in an absolute sense? It is only able to understand something as self-evident in an absolute sense if it is an absolute mind having an absolute perspective. Again, it follows that God exists.
An improvement
It's important to point out that I can further improve my argument by limiting myself to the mere metaphysical possibility of there being a conscious being that conceives of the ultimate explanation as being self-evident. Let me explain. If an explanation is truly self-evident, then it’s reasonable to hold that it must at least be metaphysically possibly conceivable as being indeed self-evident. If it’s metaphysically impossible for that explanation to be conceived as being self-evident, it’s not genuinely self-evident. Being at least possibly conceived as being self-evident seems to be part of the very nature of self-evidence. Being self-evident refers to a reflextive stance towards its content. This line of reasoning is indeed already sufficient for my argument. For only a possible absolute being having an absolute perspective would be able to conceive of the absolute self-evident explanation of the world as being absolutely self-evident. So it follows that there exists possibly an absolute mind having an absolute perspective. There is in other words a possible world in which such an absolute being exists. Since this absolute mind is not dependent on anything else for its existence and thus uncaused, it exists in all possible worlds - including the actual world. So this absolute being actually exists. Hence it follows again that God exists.
Dialectical implications
The first premise of my argument is the non-bruteness premise. One may reject this premise, of course. That is to say, one may not accept that there must be some ultimate explanation of the world. That is why I have called my argument the argument from non-bruteness. The argument shows that to the extent that it is plausible that there is an ultimate explanation for why this world exists, it is plausible that God exists. And many do believe that there is plausibly some ultimate explanation of the world. What my argument shows is that if there is some ultimate explanation of reality, it follows that theism is true. Thus, the argument effectively rules out non-theistic ultimate explanations. Therefore, if my argument is successful, then the atheist has to maintain that there is no ultimate explanation of the world - which for many atheists may not be a desirable position to be in.
The argument and world-for-us epistemology
Those who are familiar with my world-for-us epistemology may wonder how my new argument relates to it. On my theory of knowledge we are doing metaphysics within the-world-for-us. So, all our claims are always already claims within the-world-for-us. The-world-in-itself is for us inescapably unknowable. This is the first sense of saying that the absolute is unknowable. We will never be able to transcend the-world-for-us. We will never be able to grasp the-world-in-itself. We inevitably do all our projects, including metaphysics, within the-world-for-us. Hence, a successful metaphysical argument for God’s existence leads us towards a God within the-world-for-us. That is to say, it leads us towards a God-for-us. For, again, such an argument doesn’t give us any insight in the-world-in-itself.
Normally I don’t refer to this meta-epistemic level and just engage in doing metaphysics. Now, I maintain that the claim that there must be some absolute self-evident ultimate explanation of the world is justified (and thus only justified) as a claim about or within the-world-for-us. It’s a claim internal to the-world-for-us. For it’s not justified as a claim about the-world-in-itself.
Moreover, the claim that we are not able to access this absolute self-evident ultimate explanation is also only justified as a claim about or within the-world-for-us. This is the second sense of saying that we cannot know the absolute. The second sense refers to a characteristic within the-world-for-us, whereas the first sense refers to the interplay between the-world-for-us and the-world-in-itself.
There are good arguments for God’s existence within the-world-for-us. So within the-world-for-us we can know that God exists. And God is within the-world-for-us of course not to be equated with the absolute self-evident ultimate explanation. God is not some absolute self-evident truth. Indeed, God is a conscious being in the-world-for-us that is the first cause of everything in the-world-for-us. Thus God is, of course, not equal to the ultimate absolute self-evident explanation in the-world-for-us. Conscious beings may know explanations, but are not themselves explanations. Hence, there’s no contradiction between my new argument and my world-for-us epistemology. The three claims below can all be coherently affirmed simultaneously.
1. We cannot know anything about the-world-in-itself (i.e., the first sense of saying that the absolute is unknowable).
2. The proposition “There is an ultimate absolute self-evident explanation of the world and we are not able to know this explanation” is justified as a claim about or within the-world-for-us (i.e., the second sense of saying that the absolute is unknowable).
3. The proposition “God exists” is justified as a claim about or within the-world-for-us.
It’s an interesting question within the-world-for-us how the ultimate absolute self-evident explanation of the world within the-world-for-us relates to God within the-world-for-us. With respect to how things are within the-world-for-us, my new argument suggests not only that God knows the ultimate absolute self-evident explanation of the world, but it also suggests that the mere fact that this explanation exists necessitates God’s existence, even without considering the specific content of the explanation. Of course, in this case, the specific content of the absolute ultimate explanation of the world also has to entail Gods existence.
zaterdag 8 april 2023
Thomistisch argument tegen polytheïsme
Een onveroorzaakt zijnde ontvangt geen 'zijn' en dus moet zijn natuur of wezen 'zijn' omvatten. Want anders zou het helemaal niet kunnen bestaan. Maar 'zijn' bevat onbepaald reeds alle verschillen. Dit betekent dat de natuur of het wezen van een onveroorzaakt zijnde geen samenstelling is van 'zijn' en een daaraan uitwendig toegevoegd verschil. Het wezen van een onveroorzaakt zijnde is dus 'zijn'. Als polytheïsme waar zou zijn, dan zouden er minimaal twee verschillende onveroorzaakte zijnden moeten zijn. Er zouden dan dus minimaal twee verschillende zijnden moeten zijn die 'zijn' als wezen hebben. Maar twee verschillende zijnden kunnen niet allebei 'zijn' als wezen hebben. Ze kunnen immers niet van elkaar onderscheiden worden omdat elk mogelijk verschil eveneens tot het wezen van beide zou behoren. Zijn omvat immers onbepaald zoals gezegd al alle verschillen. Er is dus maximaal één onveroorzaakt zijnde, zodat volgt dat polytheïsme onwaar is.
vrijdag 12 februari 2021
Yet another argument for theism
In what follows I propose yet another argument for theism. Here God is understood as an intelligent being, that is, a subject, that is the root of reality. The first premise of the argument has it that the whole of reality is knowable.[1] Now, if the whole of reality is knowable, and if knowing something is essentially a matter of being subjectively acquainted with it, then everything that exists is understandable or comprehensible.
In other words, everything that exists is an intelligible being. An intelligible being is a being with which at least one intelligent being can be subjectively acquainted. Intelligent beings include but are not necessarily limited to human beings. A limitation to human beings would in fact be quite ad hoc and gratuitous. There is no reason at all to believe that everything that exists is knowable by humans. Such a belief would be highly pretentious and entirely unwarranted.
So reality is exhaustively akin to intelligibility. The whole of reality is inherently intelligible. But then the metaphysical ultimate is intelligible as well. Reality is grounded in intelligibility. The origin of being, the root of reality is intelligible. An intelligible being thus grounds reality.
If the root of reality is an intelligible being, then it is a being with which at least one being can be subjectively acquainted. Since a being that is not the root of reality cannot be subjectively acquainted with the root of reality, a being that can be subjectively acquainted with the root of reality must be the root of reality itself. So the root of reality is in fact a being which can be subjectively acquainted with a being. Hence the root of reality is not only an intelligible being, a being that can be known, but it is in fact an intelligent being, a being that can know. Hence the root of reality is a subject. Thus God exists.
In short, since the root of reality is intelligible, it must be possible for there to be a being that is subjectively acquainted with the root of reality. And since only the root of reality could possibly be subjectively acquainted with the root of reality, it follows that said being can only be the root of reality itself. So the root of reality cannot merely be an intelligible being. It must be an intelligent being and theism follows.
One might object that it only follows that there is a possible world within which the root of reality is a subject. It presumably doesn't follow that the actual world's root of reality is a subject. I reply that it does in fact follow that the actual world's root of reality is a subject. For the actual world's root of reality is also the root of reality in that possible world.[2] Since the root of reality in that possible world is a subject, it follows that the actual world's root of reality is a subject.
The argument shows how epistemic optimism entails theism. It's first premise has it that the whole of reality is knowable. It is the same as the first premise of the modal-epistemic argument for God's existence I developed years ago. Both arguments are thus connected. They are allies that explore the same idea: the purported unknowable is in fact not unknowable at all. It's knowable. As part of the defense of my modal-epistemic argument I provide a range of reasons for accepting the first premise. Let me add one additional reason. Plausibly, the relation between the knowable and the real is perfectly natural. There is no peculiar mysterious or arbitrary brute split between the knowable and the unknowable. But then either the whole of reality is knowable or reality isn't knowable at all. The latter seems false. For at least some things seem to be knowable. In fact, some things are in fact known, namely by human beings. It thus follows that we may reasonably hold that the whole of reality is knowable. There is a perfect parallelism between the order of knowledge and the order of being. The knowable and the real coincide. All that 'is' can be known.
The relation between such fundamental notions as the knowable and the real is indeed plausibly no less natural than the perfectly natural relation between, say, such foundational concepts as matter and space, or abstract objects and causally efficacious objects. All that is material is in space or nothing material is in space. There isn't a middle ground. All abstract objects are causally efficacious or none of them are. There is no intermediate position either. Similarly, all that exists is knowable or nothing is knowable. Since some things surely are known, everything that exists is knowable. The first premise is cogent.
But what about my claim that only an intelligent being that is the root of reality can be subjectively acquainted with the root of reality? One might object that perhaps the root of reality is an intelligent being, and if so, it could maybe (for example by revelation) establish that another intelligent being becomes subjectively acquainted with it. This might be so, but if so I adjust my argument as follows. Suppose for reductio that the root of reality is not an intelligent being. In that case said option is off-the-table. My claim now becomes more modest. If the root of reality is not an intelligent being, no intelligent being can be subjectively acquainted with the root of reality. This contradicts the first premise of my argument, namely the premise that all of reality is knowable. Hence it follows that the root of reality is an intelligent being. That is to say, God exists. Should the objector persist, "Why is it impossible to be subjectively acquainted with the root of reality in case the root of reality is not an intelligent being?" I answer that the second premise of my modal-epistemic argument (that I defend thoroughly as part of my development of the modal-epistemic argument) has it that it is impossible to know that God doesn't exist, while being subjectively acquainted with (and thus knowing the nature of) a root of reality which isn't an intelligent being entails knowing that God doesn't exist.
[1] Neo-Aristotelians have to accept that everything that exists is knowable. For on their hylomorphic ontology everything that exists is either pure form or form realized in matter. Forms are intelligible and constitute the essence of beings. But then all beings are knowable. Aquinas and other medieval philosopers took it that 'true' is a transcendental. Thus 'true' was considered to be co-extensive with 'being'. Hence they held that all beings are true, which only makes sense if understood as the claim that all beings are intelligible.
[2] Here it is taken that for the actual world's root of reality to exist in that possible world, it must be the root of reality of that world. For a being in a non-actual possible world that is not the root of reality in that world cannot be identical to the actual world's root of reality.
In other words, everything that exists is an intelligible being. An intelligible being is a being with which at least one intelligent being can be subjectively acquainted. Intelligent beings include but are not necessarily limited to human beings. A limitation to human beings would in fact be quite ad hoc and gratuitous. There is no reason at all to believe that everything that exists is knowable by humans. Such a belief would be highly pretentious and entirely unwarranted.
So reality is exhaustively akin to intelligibility. The whole of reality is inherently intelligible. But then the metaphysical ultimate is intelligible as well. Reality is grounded in intelligibility. The origin of being, the root of reality is intelligible. An intelligible being thus grounds reality.
If the root of reality is an intelligible being, then it is a being with which at least one being can be subjectively acquainted. Since a being that is not the root of reality cannot be subjectively acquainted with the root of reality, a being that can be subjectively acquainted with the root of reality must be the root of reality itself. So the root of reality is in fact a being which can be subjectively acquainted with a being. Hence the root of reality is not only an intelligible being, a being that can be known, but it is in fact an intelligent being, a being that can know. Hence the root of reality is a subject. Thus God exists.
In short, since the root of reality is intelligible, it must be possible for there to be a being that is subjectively acquainted with the root of reality. And since only the root of reality could possibly be subjectively acquainted with the root of reality, it follows that said being can only be the root of reality itself. So the root of reality cannot merely be an intelligible being. It must be an intelligent being and theism follows.
One might object that it only follows that there is a possible world within which the root of reality is a subject. It presumably doesn't follow that the actual world's root of reality is a subject. I reply that it does in fact follow that the actual world's root of reality is a subject. For the actual world's root of reality is also the root of reality in that possible world.[2] Since the root of reality in that possible world is a subject, it follows that the actual world's root of reality is a subject.
The argument shows how epistemic optimism entails theism. It's first premise has it that the whole of reality is knowable. It is the same as the first premise of the modal-epistemic argument for God's existence I developed years ago. Both arguments are thus connected. They are allies that explore the same idea: the purported unknowable is in fact not unknowable at all. It's knowable. As part of the defense of my modal-epistemic argument I provide a range of reasons for accepting the first premise. Let me add one additional reason. Plausibly, the relation between the knowable and the real is perfectly natural. There is no peculiar mysterious or arbitrary brute split between the knowable and the unknowable. But then either the whole of reality is knowable or reality isn't knowable at all. The latter seems false. For at least some things seem to be knowable. In fact, some things are in fact known, namely by human beings. It thus follows that we may reasonably hold that the whole of reality is knowable. There is a perfect parallelism between the order of knowledge and the order of being. The knowable and the real coincide. All that 'is' can be known.
The relation between such fundamental notions as the knowable and the real is indeed plausibly no less natural than the perfectly natural relation between, say, such foundational concepts as matter and space, or abstract objects and causally efficacious objects. All that is material is in space or nothing material is in space. There isn't a middle ground. All abstract objects are causally efficacious or none of them are. There is no intermediate position either. Similarly, all that exists is knowable or nothing is knowable. Since some things surely are known, everything that exists is knowable. The first premise is cogent.
But what about my claim that only an intelligent being that is the root of reality can be subjectively acquainted with the root of reality? One might object that perhaps the root of reality is an intelligent being, and if so, it could maybe (for example by revelation) establish that another intelligent being becomes subjectively acquainted with it. This might be so, but if so I adjust my argument as follows. Suppose for reductio that the root of reality is not an intelligent being. In that case said option is off-the-table. My claim now becomes more modest. If the root of reality is not an intelligent being, no intelligent being can be subjectively acquainted with the root of reality. This contradicts the first premise of my argument, namely the premise that all of reality is knowable. Hence it follows that the root of reality is an intelligent being. That is to say, God exists. Should the objector persist, "Why is it impossible to be subjectively acquainted with the root of reality in case the root of reality is not an intelligent being?" I answer that the second premise of my modal-epistemic argument (that I defend thoroughly as part of my development of the modal-epistemic argument) has it that it is impossible to know that God doesn't exist, while being subjectively acquainted with (and thus knowing the nature of) a root of reality which isn't an intelligent being entails knowing that God doesn't exist.
[1] Neo-Aristotelians have to accept that everything that exists is knowable. For on their hylomorphic ontology everything that exists is either pure form or form realized in matter. Forms are intelligible and constitute the essence of beings. But then all beings are knowable. Aquinas and other medieval philosopers took it that 'true' is a transcendental. Thus 'true' was considered to be co-extensive with 'being'. Hence they held that all beings are true, which only makes sense if understood as the claim that all beings are intelligible.
[2] Here it is taken that for the actual world's root of reality to exist in that possible world, it must be the root of reality of that world. For a being in a non-actual possible world that is not the root of reality in that world cannot be identical to the actual world's root of reality.
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)
