Notes for 1/16/2026

 1/16/2026
If God exists, do you think he has a sense of humor?

 
For Plato, REASON consists mainly in the grasping of Forms.

Around the 1700s and 1800s, the model of reason shifts more toward logic and inference. The core of logic concerns the question of how some claims can provide reasons for others (or how some claims can be inferred from others).

The claim that reasons are provided in support of is the conclusion.
The claims that provide the reasons are premises.

Premises + conclusion = an argument.

Arguments in philosophy are NOT disagreements, but rather (ideally) objective reasons in support of a claim.

Every argument is good or bad in either of two ways:
-    In respect of structure (logic)
-    In respect of content (are the premises true or at least reasonable to believe?)

So, when we ask “Why should anyone believe that rather than something else?” we are looking for arguments for competing claims and asking which argument is the best in respect of both structure and content.

One of the most prominent topics in the history of philosophy is the existence of God.



To ask whether there are good reasons to believe that God exists is to ask whether there are any good arguments for or against the existence of God.

There can certainly be bad arguments.
The following argument is bad in respect of structure (invalid):
1.    Something exists.
2.    Therefore, God exists.

Arguments where the conclusion does not follow from the premises are called “non-sequiturs”. Here’s another:

1.    I believe God exists.
2.    Belief in God has been common throughout history.
3.    Therefore, God exists.


 
When an argument has good structure, it is said to be VALID (for deductive arguments). [For inductive arguments, a structurally good argument is said to be “strong.”]



Arguments that have good structure, but one or more false premises (bad in respect of content) are called “unsound.”

For example:
1.    All blue things exist.
2.    God is a blue thing.
3.    Therefore, God exists.

(The form of this argument is:
All As are Bs. x is A. Therefore, x is B. ANY substitutions for x, A and B will be logically valid.)


The following is good in respect of structure, but is still not considered a good argument:
1.    God exists.
2.    Therefore, God exists.

Arguments where the conclusion is also found in the premises are called “question-begging” (or “circular”).

So, in order to be a good argument, we need three things:
-    It must have good logical structure.
-    It must have true premises.
-    It must make a connection that was not previously obvious.

The last of these is important exactly because people often THINK a connection is obvious, but examining the argument reveals previously unnoticed flaws or possible objections.


 
 
First Cause Argument
1.    The universe exists (and began to exist).
2.    Everything that began to exist must have had a cause for its existence. (Principle of Universal Causation)
3.    The universe must have had a cause.
4.    Nothing can be its own cause. (No self-causation)
5.    Something other than the universe caused the universe.
6.    That must be God.
7.    Therefore, God exists.