Posted on 01/12/2020 5:44:52 AM PST by Kaslin
Skeptics and atheists insist that belief in God is irrational. All too many believers in God, due to the same theological illiteracy affecting the non-believers and unbelievers, lend credence to this charge by way of their inability and/or unwillingness to defend their belief in God.
Thankfully, there has been no short supply of men of genius over the centuries who have shown that there is nothing at all irrational about theism.
In fact, some, like the 12th century theologian and philosopher Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109), were at pains to establish that it is atheism that’s irrational.
By way of the “ontological argument” for which he is famous, Anselm tried to show that the atheist doesn’t just happen to be wrong, but is necessarily wrong, for atheism is self-contradictory, and a self-contradiction is always false. For example, since the proposition, “Bachelors are not unmarried men” contradicts the very definition of a bachelor, it doesn’t just happen to be false; it must always be false.
The ontological argument is an argument from definition. Anselm’s version of it goes something like this:
God must be, because it is greater to be than to not be and God is, by definition, the greatest conceivable being.
Consider: Everyone, regardless of whether or not they believe in God, knows that, in theory, God is an infinite and perfect being. Insofar as He is infinite, He is a being without either a beginning or an end. And insofar as He is perfect, He is changeless, for any and every change is for either the better or the worse. But God, given His perfection, can neither regress nor progress. Thus, God must be immutable.
What this means is that God, in theory, can’t be dependent upon anything else. Nothing brought Him into existence (for there couldn’t be a time when He didn’t exist), nothing can alter Him in any way (for He is changeless), and nothing could extinguish His existence.
Simply put, God must exist. He doesn’t just happen to exist, like you, me, and everything else in our experience. God, by definition, in theory, necessarily exists.
So, the atheist is guilty of absurdity: “God does not exist” is the same proposition as, “The Being that necessarily exists, the Being that cannot not exist, does not exist!”
There have been many other arguments, or “proofs,” for God’s existence. What is typically known as “the argument from contingency” is another with a long history.
Whatever is contingent is dependent upon other things for its existence. This would include everything and anything that has ever actually existed within the spatial-temporal universe, as well as almost anything and everything that we could imagine. Human beings; animals; plants; insects; buildings; cars; planets; stars; Superman; King Kong; Santa Claus; unicorns—all are alike contingent upon and limited by other beings.
Now, it is logically impossible for there to exist nothing but contingent beings. As the great Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) noted back in the 13th century, whatever depends upon another for its existence at some juncture did not exist. Think about it: At one point, you did not exist, the laptop upon which I’m typing this did not exist, my home did not exist, the planet Earth did not exist, the sun did not exist, etc. However, what this means is that if the only things to have ever existed are contingent, then since a contingent thing is something that at one point does not exist, then at some point, nothing would have existed.
To repeat: Since whatever depends upon another depends upon that being to bring it into existence, prior to that point it did not exist. Thus, if each thing that ever existed is contingent, then at some point there would’ve been nothing.
But if there was nothing then, there would be nothing now, for from nothing, comes nothing.
Or, if you will, something can’t come from nothing.
Because, then, we know that there are things now, the only conclusion that we can draw is that there is at least one being whose existence is most definitely not dependent upon anything or anyone else.
In order to account for this world of mutually dependent beings, we must look beyond it to a being that exists, not contingently, but necessarily.
And the only being that fits this description is what most people call “God.”
Why is there something rather than nothing? This question cannot be answered by referring to things—contingent things—within the universe. What we call “the universe” is the thing, the “something,” that we’re trying to explain, after all, and the universe is simply the sum total of all of its members, i.e. all of its contingent parts. Whether it is one contingent being or an infinity of contingent beings, whatever is contingent points beyond itself to something that is, ultimately, non-contingent.
The universe is not self-explanatory. In the final analysis, only something beyond the universe, something that is not contingent, can account for it.
The third argument for God’s existence that I’d like to consider here is the argument from morality.
Simply put, morality is objective, it is real, only if God exists. Both theists and atheists have conceded this point.
The 20th century French existentialist philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980), who was both an atheist and a communist, is insistent upon this point. His whole philosophy presupposes it.
Historically, Sartre observed, atheists have thought it possible “to eliminate God as painlessly as possible.” They have thought that “nothing will have changed if God does not exist.” Sartre sums up the atheist’s position. It is the most wishful of wishful thinking to suppose, as atheists have, that we “will encounter the same standards of honesty, progress, and humanism” upon turning “God into an obsolete hypothesis that will die quietly on its own.”
Without God, human beings have no objective moral standards “to cling to,” “no values or orders” that can “legitimize our conduct.”
In summary: If God is not real, neither is morality.
For the skeptics, proofs such as Hawking/Penrose's theorems have moved the vast majority of doubting cosmologists into the deism camp, while many have become theists and even Christians. God encourages men to verify His claims: "Do not treat prophecies with contempt but test them all; hold on to what is good..." 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21
Doubleday's and Cartright's contributions to the Big Inning remain controversial.
” God encourages men to verify His claims: “Do not treat prophecies with contempt but test them all; hold on to what is good...” 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21 “
Yep - wish more would do their own ‘research” instead of just believing every word out of the guy at the front of the church...some would rather question God than the person they go to to learn of God.
Better than "comports perfectly"--what is the alternative possible explanation?
Who started the expansion if not God? Where is the Universe located or where was it located when the expansion started? Exactly how does even the scientifically well informed modern man conceptualize the Universe if he excludes God?
How Berean of you!
I don’t think God argues about his existence....’I am that I am”.......
Who suggested he did?
1. Foolishly: "The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”" Psalm 14:1; 10:4, 53:1, 74:22; Romans 1:21-23
2. Wickedly: "...people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness..." Romans 1:18, 25
3. Depravedly: "...they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind..." Romans 1:28
4. Fancifully: (pre-1930) Assumes a Steady-State Universe that somehow has always existed (disproven).
(post-1970) Posits a Multiverse that is definitionally unscientific because untestable (so, they hope desperately, unassailable).
Yep.
The best Pastors I’ve ever had always told us to not just believe what they ere telling us - they encouraged us to verify it for ourselves by studying the Bible - and not to isolate passages but to keep them in the context.
One example of why is the folks that tell us the Bible tells us our body is our temple - so we need to exercise and eat right - totally missing the point that the passage refers to sexual impurities.
I quote - “Cogito ergo Deus est. -I think, therefore God is.
God thinks, therefore I am.
God is, whether you think or not.
I recently heard a Rabbi for a Reformed Jewish Synagogue speak at the University. In her warped mind, God needed man to exist.
“the Bible tells us our body is our temple “
Our body is a function of the purity of the soul that occupies it. A wound in the soul creates a wound in the body. A wound in the body does not necessarily create a wound in our soul.
The soul is perpetual and is what really matters.
You are correct...We I exist whether or not God is.
It is insane to think that these machines were created by chance. It could not have happened and any rational human being would recognize this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.