乔纳森·爱德华兹关于上帝存在的证明

E. Loginov
{"title":"乔纳森·爱德华兹关于上帝存在的证明","authors":"E. Loginov","doi":"10.15382/sturi2022104.71-85","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article analyzes the proofs for the existence of God offered by Jonathan Edwards. The notes known as \"Miscellanies\" as well as several other documents are the subject of the analysis. Edwards admits that it is not easy to prove the existence of God because of the corruption of human nature. If we did not already know a theistic thesis, we could hardly discover it ourselves, with our own reason. But this thesis is already known, and our disposition toward order, our search for causes, and our thirst for justice point to a disposition to seek proofs for the existence of God. A study of the sources shows that Edwards used various strategies to justify the thesis of God's existence. I show that these strategies depend on different types of assumptions and produce different results. The cosmological argument from contingency is supported by the idealist argument, the Eleatic-style reasoning, and the ontological argument. The idealist argument is based on J. Locke's assumption that solidity is an intrinsic characteristic of physical things. Edwards shows then that physical things do not possess an independent existence, for solidity can be reduced to resistance, and resistance is always resistance to something. What might be called the Eleatic argument is to prove the existence of something eternal. It depends on the referential understanding of the term \"nothingness.\" The ontological argument proves the existence of something necessary. It depends on the meaningfulness of the concept \"there is non else besides him\". The cosmological argument from contingency therefore can only justify the existence of something necessary, eternal, and immaterial. However, this is not sufficient to justify theism. The cosmological argument from causality is based on the self-evidentness of the law of causality and shows the existence of a necessary first cause. The various teleological arguments justify the claim that there is an intelligent creator. The analogy between the mind of the creator and the human mind serves Edwards to refute deism and justify the need for religious worship of God.","PeriodicalId":407912,"journal":{"name":"St. Tikhons' University Review","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Jonathan Edwards on the proofs of the existence of God\",\"authors\":\"E. Loginov\",\"doi\":\"10.15382/sturi2022104.71-85\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article analyzes the proofs for the existence of God offered by Jonathan Edwards. The notes known as \\\"Miscellanies\\\" as well as several other documents are the subject of the analysis. Edwards admits that it is not easy to prove the existence of God because of the corruption of human nature. If we did not already know a theistic thesis, we could hardly discover it ourselves, with our own reason. But this thesis is already known, and our disposition toward order, our search for causes, and our thirst for justice point to a disposition to seek proofs for the existence of God. A study of the sources shows that Edwards used various strategies to justify the thesis of God's existence. I show that these strategies depend on different types of assumptions and produce different results. The cosmological argument from contingency is supported by the idealist argument, the Eleatic-style reasoning, and the ontological argument. The idealist argument is based on J. Locke's assumption that solidity is an intrinsic characteristic of physical things. Edwards shows then that physical things do not possess an independent existence, for solidity can be reduced to resistance, and resistance is always resistance to something. What might be called the Eleatic argument is to prove the existence of something eternal. It depends on the referential understanding of the term \\\"nothingness.\\\" The ontological argument proves the existence of something necessary. It depends on the meaningfulness of the concept \\\"there is non else besides him\\\". The cosmological argument from contingency therefore can only justify the existence of something necessary, eternal, and immaterial. However, this is not sufficient to justify theism. The cosmological argument from causality is based on the self-evidentness of the law of causality and shows the existence of a necessary first cause. The various teleological arguments justify the claim that there is an intelligent creator. The analogy between the mind of the creator and the human mind serves Edwards to refute deism and justify the need for religious worship of God.\",\"PeriodicalId\":407912,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"St. Tikhons' University Review\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"St. Tikhons' University Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15382/sturi2022104.71-85\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"St. Tikhons' University Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15382/sturi2022104.71-85","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文分析了乔纳森·爱德华兹对上帝存在的证明。被称为“杂记”的笔记以及其他几个文件是分析的主题。爱德华兹承认,由于人性的败坏,证明上帝的存在并不容易。如果我们不知道有神论的论点,我们很难用自己的理性发现它。但这个命题已经为人所知,我们对秩序的倾向,我们对原因的探索,我们对正义的渴望,都指向一种寻求上帝存在证据的倾向。对资料的研究表明,爱德华兹使用了各种策略来证明上帝存在的论点。我展示了这些策略依赖于不同类型的假设并产生不同的结果。从偶然性出发的宇宙论论证得到唯心主义论证、埃利亚式推理和本体论论证的支持。唯心主义的论点是基于洛克的假设,即固体是物理事物的内在特征。爱德华兹指出,物质的事物并不具有独立的存在,因为固定性可以归结为阻力,而阻力始终是对某物的阻力。所谓的埃利亚论证,就是要证明某种永恒的东西的存在。它取决于对“虚无”一词的参照理解。本体论论证证明了必然事物的存在。这取决于“除了他没有别的”这个概念的意义。因此,从偶然性出发的宇宙学论证只能证明某种必然的、永恒的和非物质的东西的存在。然而,这并不足以证明有神论是正确的。从因果关系出发的宇宙学论证是基于因果律的自明性,并显示了必然的第一原因的存在。各种各样的目的论论证证明有一个有智慧的造物主存在。造物主的思想和人类思想之间的类比有助于爱德华兹反驳自然神论,并证明对上帝进行宗教崇拜的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Jonathan Edwards on the proofs of the existence of God
This article analyzes the proofs for the existence of God offered by Jonathan Edwards. The notes known as "Miscellanies" as well as several other documents are the subject of the analysis. Edwards admits that it is not easy to prove the existence of God because of the corruption of human nature. If we did not already know a theistic thesis, we could hardly discover it ourselves, with our own reason. But this thesis is already known, and our disposition toward order, our search for causes, and our thirst for justice point to a disposition to seek proofs for the existence of God. A study of the sources shows that Edwards used various strategies to justify the thesis of God's existence. I show that these strategies depend on different types of assumptions and produce different results. The cosmological argument from contingency is supported by the idealist argument, the Eleatic-style reasoning, and the ontological argument. The idealist argument is based on J. Locke's assumption that solidity is an intrinsic characteristic of physical things. Edwards shows then that physical things do not possess an independent existence, for solidity can be reduced to resistance, and resistance is always resistance to something. What might be called the Eleatic argument is to prove the existence of something eternal. It depends on the referential understanding of the term "nothingness." The ontological argument proves the existence of something necessary. It depends on the meaningfulness of the concept "there is non else besides him". The cosmological argument from contingency therefore can only justify the existence of something necessary, eternal, and immaterial. However, this is not sufficient to justify theism. The cosmological argument from causality is based on the self-evidentness of the law of causality and shows the existence of a necessary first cause. The various teleological arguments justify the claim that there is an intelligent creator. The analogy between the mind of the creator and the human mind serves Edwards to refute deism and justify the need for religious worship of God.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信