Lachlan Milligan's Argument For The Existence Of God
PHILIOSPHY OF RELIGION
Lachlan Milligan
Contents Page
Page 1: Contents page
“It is entirely rational to hold some beliefs without evidence, such as belief in the existence of God”
Analyse this claim from the perspectives of the philosophy of knowledge and Reformed epistemology.
Whilst an array of scholars known as reformed epistemologists believe that it is rational for one to accept belief in God without the support of an argument or evidence, other philosophers known as evidentalists support classical foundationalism and dispute this belief. Reformed Epistemologists have argued that belief in God does not require the support of evidence or argument in order for it to be rational. In so doing, they reject …show more content…
This includes beliefs with no current tangible evidence such as offering proofs for the existence of other persons or the reality of the past that satisfy evidentialist requirements for proof. It is currently impossible to prove these viewpoints as evidence cannot me met with current equipment available. Thus, according to classical foundationalism, belief in the past and inductive beliefs about the future are irrational.
There is also a limit to the things that human beings can prove. If humans were required to prove everything, there would be an infinite regress of proving’s. There must be some truths that can be accepted and be used to draw reason from. Moreover, it seems that humans will reach the ‘limit of proof’ quickly if, as classical foundationalism insists, the basis for inference includes only beliefs that are self-evident and evident to the …show more content…
Anselm then replied that this argument only works for necessary beings, of which there is only one, god. This creates a fallacy, a flaw in reasoning; destroying the argument. By adding this idea of a necessary being to his definition of god Anselm makes gods existence apart of the definition of god. A necessary being is one which must exist, thus Anselms response assumed the very point of contention to be true; that god exists. In summary; Anselm assumed the very thing he was trying to prove in his
Lachlan Milligan
Contents Page
Page 1: Contents page
“It is entirely rational to hold some beliefs without evidence, such as belief in the existence of God”
Analyse this claim from the perspectives of the philosophy of knowledge and Reformed epistemology.
Whilst an array of scholars known as reformed epistemologists believe that it is rational for one to accept belief in God without the support of an argument or evidence, other philosophers known as evidentalists support classical foundationalism and dispute this belief. Reformed Epistemologists have argued that belief in God does not require the support of evidence or argument in order for it to be rational. In so doing, they reject …show more content…
This includes beliefs with no current tangible evidence such as offering proofs for the existence of other persons or the reality of the past that satisfy evidentialist requirements for proof. It is currently impossible to prove these viewpoints as evidence cannot me met with current equipment available. Thus, according to classical foundationalism, belief in the past and inductive beliefs about the future are irrational.
There is also a limit to the things that human beings can prove. If humans were required to prove everything, there would be an infinite regress of proving’s. There must be some truths that can be accepted and be used to draw reason from. Moreover, it seems that humans will reach the ‘limit of proof’ quickly if, as classical foundationalism insists, the basis for inference includes only beliefs that are self-evident and evident to the …show more content…
Anselm then replied that this argument only works for necessary beings, of which there is only one, god. This creates a fallacy, a flaw in reasoning; destroying the argument. By adding this idea of a necessary being to his definition of god Anselm makes gods existence apart of the definition of god. A necessary being is one which must exist, thus Anselms response assumed the very point of contention to be true; that god exists. In summary; Anselm assumed the very thing he was trying to prove in his