Abstract

This essay begins by distinguishing an argument’s validity from its cogency, and emphasizing the importance for understanding particular philosophers of knowing how they saw both matters (I). It then gives an introduction to the views of Moksākaragupta, an Indian Buddhist philosopher, on both these matters (II-III), and an analysis of his rebuttals of arguments for God’s existence, and his arguments against the possibility of God’s existence (IV). It concludes by showing that these arguments, though taken to be valid byMoksākaragupta, were not intended by him to be persuasive; it suggests, also, that this is a typical feature of such arguments.