The Argument from Propositions to God - Also known as Divine Conceptualism, goes as follows:
P1) Propositions Exist.
P2) If Propositions Exist, they are Physical, Mental, or Abstract Objects.
P3) Propositions can not be physical.
C) Therefore, Propositions are either - (1/?)
P1) Propositions Exist.
P2) If Propositions Exist, they are Physical, Mental, or Abstract Objects.
P3) Propositions can not be physical.
C) Therefore, Propositions are either - (1/?)
Abstract Objects or Mental Objects.
P4) Propositions are Intrinsically Intentional. (I.e. they're essentially "about" things).
P5) If Propositions are Abstract Objects, we cannot explain their intentionality.
C2) Therefore, Propositions cannot be Abstract.
P4) Propositions are Intrinsically Intentional. (I.e. they're essentially "about" things).
P5) If Propositions are Abstract Objects, we cannot explain their intentionality.
C2) Therefore, Propositions cannot be Abstract.
C3) Therefore, Propositions are Non-Physical Mental Objects.
P6) If Propositions exist Necessarily, then a Necessarily Existent Mind grounds them.
P7) Propositions exist Necessarily. (Think of the Laws of Logic, or 2 + 2 = 4, or simply any necessary truth).
C4) Therefore -
P6) If Propositions exist Necessarily, then a Necessarily Existent Mind grounds them.
P7) Propositions exist Necessarily. (Think of the Laws of Logic, or 2 + 2 = 4, or simply any necessary truth).
C4) Therefore -
there is a Necessarily Existing Mind which grounds Logical and Mathematical Truths, which is best identified with God.
The strength of this argument is that it takes advantange of the Atheist's/Naturalists lack of resources when it comes to explaining the nature of these propositions. What it shows that the Theist, can reason deductively to the existence of a necessary mind from the failure -
of these other opposing accounts. The Theistic account simply gives a far more elegant explanation as to what grounds the existence of these Propositions, how they "represent" as opposed to it being some magical relation we can't explain, etcetera.
For more reading on this argument, feel free to check Greg Welty's chapter in "Beyond The Control of God, Six Views on Abstract Objects" - A paper titled "The Lord of Non-Contradiction" (by Welty)
And the "Divine Conceptualism" chapter in "God Over All", by William Lane Craig.
And the "Divine Conceptualism" chapter in "God Over All", by William Lane Craig.
Loading suggestions...