Argument From Reason - Limits and Explanations of The Argument

Limits and Explanations of The Argument

The argument as stated is not strictly a proof of God's existence because it requires the assumption that humans can assess the truth or falsehood of claims or that humans can be convinced by argument. The assumption that humans can assess the truth or falsehood of claims is undeniable because its very denial requires one to assess the truth or falsehood of a claim, namely the assumption itself. The only possible alternatives are either to accept the claim or be content to accept or reject no claims whatsoever. This argument fails to address the validity of human assessment. Assuming that all assessments of truth and falsehood made by humans are valid, and therefore rational. Moreover, the argument assumes panpsychism away as axiomatically false. Thus it is better not be thought of as a proof of God's existence, but as an attempt to disprove naturalistic materialism. Naturalistic materialism is the worldview held by most atheists (though atheism does not necessitate this view), and, therefore, the argument often is referenced as a proof of God's existence.

With regard to element one, for example, the sound made by wind in the trees cannot be true or false because it comes from a non-rational source. The wind in the trees, therefore, is not about anything for which it could be true or false. The statement that a premise is true or false implies an answer to the question "about what?" that non-rational premises cannot possess.

To explain conclusion one in Miracles, Lewis quotes J. B. S. Haldane who appeals to a similar line of reasoning when he says on page 209 of Possible Worlds "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of ."

This argument further assumes that rationality cannot arise out of non-rationality, element eight. Why not? Why could not material elements at some point have arranged themselves in such a way that rationality would arise? The answer given is that rationality is something different in kind than physical material. By using one's reasoning power we by direct power force particles in our brain to move in ways they would not have moved apart from this power. Rationality is the governor not the governed. Particles that before moved only as the result of physical causes now move in response to logical grounds, i.e. rational causes. If they did not, then choice is an illusion because choice implies a decision made for reasons beyond physical compulsion. And thus, if we could not control physical particles rationally, we therefore could not choose whether an assertion is true or false (see element five).

Defenders of the argument believe that one cannot form a combination of one thing to create another which is different in kind from it. As example, say we definitively found that there exists two and only two kinds of irreducible physical particles A and B. One could not combine A with itself to produce B. B is different in kind than A. Similarly, Hume teaches that you cannot reach a conclusion in the imperative mood from premises in the indicative mood (i.e. you can't get an ought from an is). Assertions in the one mood are different in kind from assertions in the other. Therefore, likewise the rational ability to control matter cannot arise from mere matter itself (i.e. element eight).

The argument claims, even if the universe has always existed and is uncreated, this argument holds that it would not be possible for non-rational materials to arrange themselves in such a way that rationality would arise. Therefore, a rational being that did not begin to exist is required for the assumption that humans can be convinced by argument to be upheld.

Some believe there is a problem with denying element nine. If rationality could spontaneously enter our experience, where would it come from? That is, the denial of element nine implies existence springing forth from non existence, which is impossible (See Aristotle, Metaphysics III, 4, 999b, 8; Arguing that the impossibility that generation should take place from nothing is self-evident).

Some note that the rationality of a computer is not a counter to this argument. A computer derives its rationality from its rational creator, a human mind. The argument holds (element eleven) that human rationality ultimately has a rational source that did not begin to exist, namely God (element twelve). Only rational entities that do not ultimately trace back to a rational being that did not begin to exist run counter to the argument.

Further defenses include, the assertion that, per quantum mechanics, some particles might enter the universe wholly randomly does not thwart the argument. This does not satisfy the need, see element five, for a rational process in order to assess the truth or falsehood of a claim.

The argument does not portend to provide a proof of anything but a non-physical, rational being that did not begin to exist. This is all that is meant by conclusion two.