The Neo-Volitional Argument for God is a philosophical argument that posits the existence of God based on the human capacity for volition or the ability to choose.
The argument:
Premise 1a: Nothing immaterial e.g., stories, art, ideas, thoughts, mathematics, can come into existence without a cause.
Premise 1b: Nothing material can come into existence without a cause.
Premise 2a: For something immaterial to come into existence ex nihilo, an idea needs to be formed, a decision to bring the idea into reality taken, and then realize it, possessing the ability to do so – therefore a mind.
Premise 2b: For something material to come into existence ex nihilo, that did not exist, an idea needs to be formed, a decision to bring the idea into reality taken, and then realize it, possessing the ability to do so – therefore at least a mind.
Conclusion:
1. For nothing to become something, whether immaterial or material, necessitates a cause; specifically, a mind with intelligent thoughts capable of forming an idea, making a decision, and having the will to bring that idea into reality, along with the requisite ability to actualize it.
2. Humans and God, being entities possessing a mind with intelligence, thoughts, creativity, will, and the ability to create something from nothing, fit the criteria outlined above. i. Humans, created in the image of God, and God, are capable of creating immaterial entities ex nihilo, such as music and art. ii. God is capable of creating material entities ex nihilo. (Kalam Cosmological Argument).
Man, and God fulfill the conditions, possessing a mind, necessary for causing something to come into existence from nothing. For material entities to exist, including humans, you need a mind with intelligence, thoughts, creativity, will, and the ability to create something from nothing, and this entity need to be outside of the material world to will the material matter into existence i.e. God.
The material world exists; therefore God exists.
Below follows
1. An alternate version of The Neo-Volitional Argument for God and
2. The original version of the Volitional Argument for God
- The Alternate Version of The Neo-Volitional Argument for the existence of God is credited to Edward Feser, a contemporary philosopher. Edward Charles Feser is an American Catholic philosopher. He is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College in Pasadena, California. The Neo-Volitional Argument is similarly a philosophical approach that emphasizes volition (will or intention) as a fundamental aspect of reality. It seeks to demonstrate the existence of God based on the nature of volitional agency.
Key Points:
Volitional Agency:
The argument begins by recognizing that volitional agents (beings with will, intention, and purpose) exist in the world.
Humans, for instance, exhibit volitional agency through their choices, desires, and intentions.
Causal Explanation:
Volitional agency requires a causal explanation.
When we observe an action performed by a volitional agent, we naturally inquire about the reasons behind that action.
The existence of volitional agents prompts us to seek a deeper explanation for their intentional behavior.
Ultimate Volitional Agent:
The Neo-Volitional Argument posits that there must be an ultimate volitional agent—a being whose will is the ultimate source of all purposeful actions.
This ultimate volitional agent is identified as God.
Reasoning:
If every volitional agent has a cause or reason for its actions, we can extend this reasoning to the entire chain of volitional agents.
Ultimately, we arrive at the need for a first cause—an uncaused, self-existent volitional agent.
This first cause, according to the argument, is none other than God.
Summary:
The Neo-Volitional Argument asserts that the existence of volitional agents necessitates an ultimate volitional agent (God) who initiates and sustains purposeful actions in the universe.
2. The Original Volitional Argument for God, also known as the Will to Believe Argument, is similarly a philosophical argument that posits the existence of God based on the human capacity for volition or the ability to choose, but the emphasis on to believe in God. This argument is closely related to the pragmatic arguments for belief in God, particularly those put forth by American philosopher William James.
The basic idea behind the Volitional Argument is that belief in God is not solely a matter of evidence or rational argumentation but also a matter of personal will or choice. Proponents of this argument suggest that humans have a natural inclination or desire to believe in a higher power, and this inclination is sufficient grounds for accepting the existence of God.
The argument often appeals to the notion that belief in God is beneficial or fulfilling for individuals, regardless of whether there is empirical evidence or logical proof for God’s existence. According to this perspective, belief in God can provide meaning, purpose, and moral guidance in life, and therefore, it is rational and justifiable to choose to believe in God even in the absence of conclusive evidence.
Critics of the Volitional Argument may argue that the mere desire or inclination to believe in God does not necessarily prove the existence of God. They may also contend that the argument is susceptible to subjectivity and bias, as people’s beliefs can be influenced by various factors such as cultural upbringing, psychological predispositions, and emotional needs.
Overall, the Volitional Argument for God is a philosophical position that emphasizes the role of personal choice and volition in belief formation, particularly in matters pertaining to religion and metaphysics. It is one of many arguments put forth in the ongoing debate about the existence of God.
The Volitional Argument for God, or the Will to Believe Argument, was first proposed by the American philosopher and psychologist William James. James articulated this argument in his essay “The Will to Believe,” which was published in 1896. In this essay, James explores the idea that in certain situations, it may be justifiable and rational to believe in something even in the absence of conclusive evidence, particularly when the belief is meaningful or beneficial to the believer. He applied this principle specifically to religious belief, arguing that individuals have the right to choose to believe in God based on their subjective experience and personal needs, rather than solely relying on objective evidence or logical proof. James’ Volitional Argument has been influential in the philosophy of religion and continues to be a subject of discussion and debate among scholars.
Follow us >>
