| Proof Of GOD |
||
| Assumptions All Men must and Do Hold | ||
| Presuppositions are ideas we hold prior to investigating any
evidence. In fact depending on the presuppositions that we hold, we may come to
radically different conclusions about the evidence we see. As an example, an atheist might presuppose God does not exist. Even if God himself, dropped out of the sky waving a flag that said "I'm God", the atheist would still conclude that, that person was not God. So you see, not only do our presuppositions change how we view the evidence they also influence the conclusions we make about the evidence we see. So in order to effectively argue for the existence of God, we must first decide which presuppositions all men hold. By working only with these base assumptions we should be able to build a rational case for the existence and/or nonexistence of God. Following is a list of the three base presuppositions that I believe all men must hold in order to live consistently in this world. • The Law of Causality |
||
| Come, Let Us Reason |
||
| The Law Of Causality | ||
| The Law of
causality simply states that every effect, must have an antecedent cause. Now of this Law, doesn't establish whether or not there are actually effects. All of this Law means to say is that if there are indeed effects that those effects could not exist unless they were caused. The Law of causality does not tell us what the cause actually is. It just tells us that if there are effects, those effects have been caused. Every person living on this planet affirms the Law of causality everyday. At some point during the day, you feel a disturbance in your stomach. Now you may not know where that disturbance is coming from. However, by eating lunch you can make the disturbance go away. Now if all humans didn't hold the presuppositions of causality we wouldn't eat. The desire to eat is brought about by some sort of internal disturbance, when we eat the disturbance goes away. Hence the desired effect of curing the disturbance is brought about by the cause of our eating. Every person who owns an alarm clock, uses that alarm clock as a cause to bring about the effect of waking them up for work on time. Every day we affirm causality whether we like it, or not. |
||
| The Law Of Non-Contradiction | ||
| Non-Contradiction sounds like a silly thing even discuss however,
because every atheistic argument violates non contradiction we must show it is
an assumption all men hold. "A" cannot be "a" and "non a" at the same time, if you mean it the same way. An example of a violation of non contradiction is; This pencil, is not pencil. If you are to say this pencil, is not pencil you must first establish which pencil, is not pencil. Because if this pencil, is not pencil then why you keep calling it a pencil. The reason why that explanation sounds so stupid is because when we violate non contradiction we are being absurd. The statement; This pencil, is not pencil sounds confusing because absurdities usually are. Every human holds this presupposition and proves it when we follow the directions on everyday cleaning agents. As an example the warning label attached to Clorox bleach states that ingesting this product may cause serious injury and death. The reason why we don't drink Clorox bleach is because we know that as humans we cannot be dead, and not be dead at the same time and in the same way. Something cannot exist and not exist at the same time if you mean it the same way. So if something exists now, then something has always existed. If there is something that has always existed, whatever that something is it cannot be an effect because effects are caused by something else. So if we see the world around us changing those changes are effects, these effects show us that the world is not the thing that has always existed because the world qualifies as an effect requiring a cause. Because of this we know that something exists that is eternal and cannot change because if there wasn't something that was eternal there would be nothing now. |
||
| Basic Reliability Of Sense Perception | ||
| Many
attacks against historical theism have been rooted in attacks on sense
perception. The atheist would have you believe that because your senses can and
will deceive you, you cannot rely on your senses for gathering information.
I would grant to our atheist friends that our sense perception is not perfect. However, to state that our sense perception is not perfect is far from saying that our sense perception is useless. Furthermore we all, already know our senses are not perfect yet we live in this world anyway. If our senses needed to be perfect, we wouldn't be able to live. So when the atheist claims that our sense perception is not infallible I say "so what". However, even the atheist, if he is to remain consistent must grant that if anything our senses are at least basically reliable. If our senses aren't basically reliable why does the atheist answer the phone when it rings. If our senses aren't at least basically reliable why does the atheist stop when the light turns red, and go when the light turns green or speed up when the light turns yellow? |
||
| Cosmological Argument | ||
| The
universe is a phenomenon or an effect which connotes an adequate cause. The
cosmological argument adduces evidence that God exists and is the First Cause
of all things. Matter is a created thing, being caused to exist from nothing by the engendering power of God, which is the Biblical revelation. This is not to say that at one time nothing existed only to say that at one time only GOD existed, and he Caused the universe. On the meaning of the word cause, a quotation from Dr. Charles Hodge is germane: "The common doctrine on this subject includes the following points. (1) A cause is something. It has real existence. It is not merely a name for a certain relation. It is a real entity, a substance. This is plain because a nonentity cannot act. If that which does not exist can be a cause, then nothing can produce something, which is a contradiction. (2) A cause must not only be something real, but it must have power or efficiency. There must be something in its nature to account for the effects which it produces. (3) This efficiency must be adequate; that is, sufficient and appropriate to the effect. That this is a true view of the nature of a cause is plain." Dr. Hodge goes on to illustrate these points by human experience. He writes: (1) . . . We are causes. We can produce effects. And all three of the particulars above mentioned are included in our consciousness of ourselves as cause. We are real existences; we have power; we have power adequate to the effects which we produce. (2) We can appeal to the universal consciousness of men. All men attach this meaning to the word cause in their ordinary language. All men assume that every effect has an antecedent to whose efficiency it is due. They never regard mere antecedent, however uniform in the past, or however certain in the future, as constituting a causal relation. The succession of the seasons has been uniform in the past, and we are confident that it will continue uniform in the future; yet no man says that winter is the cause of summer. Every one is conscious that cause expresses an entirely different relation from that of mere antecedent. (3) This view of the nature of causation is included in the universal and necessary belief, that every effect must have a cause. That belief is not that one thing must always go before another thing; but that nothing can occur, that no change can be produced, without the exercise of power or efficiency somewhere; otherwise something could come out of nothing.-Systematic Theology, 1, 209 The Cosmological Argument begins with the recognition of the universe as a phenomenon or effect which connotes a cause, and proceeds to indicate that that cause is self-existent, eternal, all-wise, powerful, unlimited, self-active, vital, and the source of all life. If there be not a God, from whence does the phenomenon or effect, which the universe is, arise? To what First Cause may all these so evident attributes be ascribed? |
||
| Outlines of Theology |
||
| Teleological Argument | ||
| The
teleological argument adduces evidence that God exists from the presence of
order and adaptation in the universe. The term teleology signifies the doctrine
of ends or rational purpose. The principle which is germane to the cosmological
argument is not abandoned, but, building upon that principle, the teleological
argument proceeds to establish, by rational evidence, the intelligence and
purpose of God as manifested in the design, function, and consummation of all
things. Dr. John Miley gives this illustration: "The hull of a ship, masts, sails, anchors, rudder, compass, chart, have no necessary connection, and in relation to their physical causalities are heterogeneous phenomena. The future use of a ship is not contained in any one of them, but is possible through their combination. This combination in the fully equipped ship has no interpretation in our rational intelligence except in the previous existence of its use in human thought and purpose. The use of the ship, therefore, is not the mere result of its existence, but the final cause of its construction" (ibid., 1,90). The human organism with its relation to the environment in which it functions is a display of design, and therefore denotes both the existence and acumen of the Designer. |
||
| Anthropological Argument | ||
| The
anthropological argument is restricted to the field of evidence, as to the
existence of God and His qualities, which may be drawn from the constitution of
man. There are philosophical and moral features in man's constitution which may
be traced back to find their origin in God, and on that ground this argument
has been styled either the philosophical argument or the moral argument. But
since the latitude comprehended in the argument is the whole of man's being,
the all-inclusive designation anthropological argument-is more satisfactory.
The argument is a complex one, and may be divided into three parts. 1. Man's intellectual and moral nature must have had for its author an intellectual and moral Being. The elements of the proof are as follows:- (a) Man, as an intellectual and moral being, has had a beginning upon the planet. (b) Material and unconscious forces do not afford a sufficient cause for man's reason, conscience, and free will. (c) Man, as an effect, can be referred only to a cause possessing self-consciousness and a moral nature. |
||
| Ontological Argument | ||
| "Ontology is the science or systematic discussion of real
being; the philosophical theory of reality; the doctrine of the categories or
universal and necessary characteristics of all existence" (New. Standard
Dictionary, 1913). The ontological argument in theism consists in a course of
reasoning from God as the absolute First Cause of all things to the things He
has caused-specifically, the inherent idea that God exists. Anselm (1033-1109) is given credit for its first enunciation and his statement of it has never benefited by later revisions. The following from the Encyclopedia Britannica under Anselm is clarifying: "In the Proslogion, as the author himself tells us, the aim is to prove God's existence by a single argument. This argument is the celebrated ontological proof. God is that Being than whom none greater can be conceived. Now, if that than which nothing greater can be conceived existed only in the intellect, it would not be the absolute greatest, for we could add to it existence in reality. It follows, then, that the Being than whom nothing greater can be conceived, i.e., God, necessarily has real existence" (14th ed.). Gaunilo, the monk, immediately questioned this argument, stating that we readily form the idea of purely imaginary beings, and reality or actual existence cannot be predicated of these ideas. Anselm's reply was that the objection was cogent with respect to imperfect or finite beings, because with them actual existence is not the necessary content of the conception; but that the objection could not apply to the most perfect Being since actual existence is the very essential feature of the impression. Gaunilo declared that the idea of a "lost island" does not imply that there is such in reality. To this Anselm replied that if Gaunilo will show that the idea of the "lost island" implies necessary existence, he will find the island for him and guarantee that it will never be lost again (see Shedd, Theology, 1, 226-27). |
||
| St. Anselm's Proslogion with a Reply on
Behalf of the Fool |
||
| Truth About God | ||