Dang! That’s good!

“Both the Christian and the Atheist stand before death and make an act of faith — the atheist that he knows the unknowable, and the Christian that he expects the unexpected.” – BadCatholic

"This is the new bizarre Trump defense - they're just words, don't overreact, no harm ..."

Today’s Trumpian Assault on Common Human ..."
"Even the demons are sustained in existence by God, and in that sense Aquinas acknowledged ..."

Your Thomistic Coolness for Today
"Very enlightening on the Marian/Muslim connection. I have recently finished reading Derya’s book. As with ..."

I Interviewed Derya Little, Author of ..."
"The use of the unborn as human shields for defending Trump and his Party ongoing ..."

Today’s Trumpian Assault on Common Human ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • A Philosopher

    Not so very good, actually. Note that if the argument worked, it would also show that we cannot conceive of our having not existed in the past, or of our possibly not having had existed, had things gone differently. Thus it would show that we are in some sense mandated to think of ourselves as eternal and necessary beings. But that we are not is common ground for most atheists and Christians.

    As it turns out, the argument doesn’t work. It relies on conflating conceiving that p and conceiving experiencing that p. Of course one cannot conceive of experiencing one’s non-existence, since that very non-existence entails the absence of experiential states. But it does not follow that one cannot conceive that one does not exist.

    (Philonous’ argument in Berkeley’s Three Dialogues is relevant here, since it has a similar fallacy. And Carnap’s response to Heidegger on nothingness is also relevant.)

    • Jonathan

      Note that if the argument worked, it would also show that we cannot conceive of our having not existed in the past, or of our possibly not having had existed, had things gone differently.

      Well…we can’t.

      • A Philosopher

        Well…we can’t.

        I can.

        Or, put differently: if that counts as inconceivability, then it’s an uninteresting inconceivability. Because it’s an inconceivability that’s compatible with my knowledge that I once did not exist, and could have failed to exist.

  • Roberto

    On behalf of the other two readers who may share my confusion: What argument are you referring to?
    It seems to me that the quoted sentence is simply highlighting the fact that when we look at death and what comes after that, we are all acting on faith, of one type or another. I don’t see how this is an argument for anything.
    But I will greatly appreciate being educated on the subject