Arguments Against Augustine's Claim Of Immutable Truth
Argument Against Augustine's Claim of Immutable Truth In On the Free Choice of Will, Augustine develops some incredible claims about the nature of truth, and then further develops this nature of truth into an integral piece of his argument for the existence of God. In Book II of On the Free Choice of Will, Augustine argues that “One immutable truth, common to all who know, exists, and is more excellent than the mind knows” (Augustine 64). Augustine then goes on to defend this argument by reminding Evodius that a discussion had already occurred earlier that somehow proved the validity of immutable truth. Augustine explains this to Evodius by stating: “You will not deny, therefore, that immutable truth, comprising everything that is immutably
…show more content…
Logic may be able to expose the validity of the claim. First, to formulate the actual claim into premises and a conclusion: P1: Immutable truth presents itself as a kind of secret, yet public, light for all who see what is immutably true. P2: Immutable truth shows itself as a kind of secret, yet public, light for all who see what is immutably true. C: Immutable truth compromising everything that is immutably true exists, and you cannot say that immutable truth is yours, mine, or anyone else's (Augustine 64).
In order for this statement to be sound and valid, both of the premises and the conclusion needs to be true. In the case of the first premise (P1), both of the examples of the duck-rabbit image, and the music analogy, appear to show evidence that immutable truth does not present itself in way that everyone can see. Therefore, premise one is false. The most significant reason this premise is false is based on the term “presents”. This is an important distinction in difference between the first and second premises. It can be argued that immutable truth “shows” itself, but it seems reasonable, in light of the two counter examples of the duck-rabbit image, and the music analogy, that immutable truth does not necessarily “present” itself. At this point, there is no need for further exploration of the second premise nor the conclusion, as premise one has “presented” itself as being
Logic may be able to expose the validity of the claim. First, to formulate the actual claim into premises and a conclusion: P1: Immutable truth presents itself as a kind of secret, yet public, light for all who see what is immutably true. P2: Immutable truth shows itself as a kind of secret, yet public, light for all who see what is immutably true. C: Immutable truth compromising everything that is immutably true exists, and you cannot say that immutable truth is yours, mine, or anyone else's (Augustine 64).
In order for this statement to be sound and valid, both of the premises and the conclusion needs to be true. In the case of the first premise (P1), both of the examples of the duck-rabbit image, and the music analogy, appear to show evidence that immutable truth does not present itself in way that everyone can see. Therefore, premise one is false. The most significant reason this premise is false is based on the term “presents”. This is an important distinction in difference between the first and second premises. It can be argued that immutable truth “shows” itself, but it seems reasonable, in light of the two counter examples of the duck-rabbit image, and the music analogy, that immutable truth does not necessarily “present” itself. At this point, there is no need for further exploration of the second premise nor the conclusion, as premise one has “presented” itself as being