These are the standard objections to argument #11 on the list provided here...
The argument is formulated thus:
1 Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being.
2 Truth properly resides in a mind.
3 But the human mind is not eternal.
4 Therefore there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside.
The argument seems to rely on an ambiguity between the concepts of truth and reality. It is also a circular argument - it assumes the existence of eternal truths that require an eternal mind in order to demonstrate the existence of an eternal mind.
The first premise assumes that we can discover eternal truths. There is no evidence to support this assumption and it can be argued that anything which human beings regard as "truth" may be contingent. If we cannot be sure that there are "eternal truths about being" then the whole argument collapses.
The second premise says truth resides in a mind which does make sense in that "truth about being" is subjective - in other words truth and reality are different things. Unless the universe is a product of one's imagination, it exists independently of our minds.
What is an "eternal truth"? The term is not defined.
The first premise says that limited minds can discover eternal truths. The third premise says the human mind is not eternal. Therefore, knowing eternal truths (whatever they are) does not require an "eternal mind" (whatever that is). The argument appears to refute itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment