To introduce this topic let me give a bit of my background.
I was raised in a Christian home. So naturally I became a Christian because I believed everything I was told, right? NO! I believed what my parents taught me was true, but that did not make me a Christian; in fact I resisted it.
In my teen years, as many others do, I was searching for identity. But did I look to Christ first? No. I looked elsewhere. I was particularly interested in mythology. But any thinking person could not accept mythology as true. It cannot be true. There is no basis for morality in mythology (specifically the Greek/Roman types). So I continued searching.
I started looking into other more modern myths such as vampirism, but was quickly dissuaded. I came to the realization that Christianity seems to be the most reason-able religion, but really just based upon my limited experience and introspective reflections. So then I accepted what my parents believed then, right? Have you learned by now that I do not do that. I did not.
I wanted to know if maybe other "Christian" branches had the truth; I looked into Catholicism then the Eastern Orthodox. But I did not find truth there either. This took place when I was about fifteen. I had not found the truth for myself. I believed my parents' faith to be true, so by default I accepted what they believed as true.
In the winter I was seventeen going on eighteen, I had what Christians call a conversion experience. The faith of my father became my own faith. I had finally found the truth. Something awakened inside of me and I yearned so much for the truth of God's Law-Word that I read it every day, every chance that I got.
This is how I came to believe in God. But that is not to say that I have no rational basis for belief in His existence. I do. But as a caveat let me note that no one will become a Christian just because they read what I say and believe in the existence of God. God has to reveal Himself to the individual for them to truly put their faith in Him.
Transcendental Argument for God's Existence*:
There is proof that God exists. But if you expect me to upload a picture of that proof you are severely mistaken as to the nature of the question: "Does God exist?" The proof is not materialistic and it is not empirical. It is philosophical. Now, I am not a trained philosopher, but I will do my best to open up for you the enigma that is the philosophical proof of God's existence.
Normally we argue and debate about things we believe or do not believe, but this proof goes beyond that. In order to deal with the claim of God's existence we call for proof. But in order to provide proof we must first deal with what qualifies as proof. Do you see how you have to keep going backwards until you find the starting point?
So what qualifies for proof? Some might say a miracle or an appearance of God. But is that the only thing that can qualify as proof? To an empiricist or a skeptic, yes. I believe that would be the only thing they would accept as proof. Wait a second, what is up with the "empiricist" or "skeptic" talk? What I am saying is that there are differing philosophical schools of thought; and differing schools have differing criteria on how they arrive at their conclusions. If a "monist" and a "dualist" get into a debate they will most likely "speak past" each other. Why? The reason why communication breaks down is because everything known by a person is interpreted by their understanding. That is to say, your world view affects everything you believe; and people who hold differing world views cannot rationally resolve their disagreements without first dealing with the problems between their world views. What is next?
You have to talk about presuppositions and the pre-conditions of intelligible experience. This is the only way to rationally resolve the differences between world views. The proof of the Christian God is that without Him no other world view makes any sense. Without Him no other world view can rationally sustain an argument as to the origins of laws of logic, scientific laws and laws of morality. No other world view besides the Christian theistic world view can account for these laws in a consistent and internally coherent manner.
As to the laws of logic, the atheist cannot "logically" prove why we must use the laws of logic. As to the laws of science, the atheist cannot prove the basis for scientific laws. As to the question of morality, without God who is the arbiter of right and wrong? They cannot give a reasoned response. Morals are either conventions, stipulated or arbitrary. How then can they be laws?
The Christian theist has answers to these questions. What is the basis of these laws? The laws of logic are a reflection of the thinking of God. Morality is a reflection of the character of God and scientific laws reflect the way in which Gods sustains the creation. How do we know this? God has revealed this to us by His Law-Word.
The Bible reveals to us who God is and what He is all about. Consequently the world reflects this (general revelation). We see this in our everyday experiences. We view the world through our understanding and it logically makes sense because we know God. The atheist views the same world. Surprisingly it makes sense to him too. But the problem is he has borrowed the Christian theistic world view in order to make use of the tools of logic.
The laws of logic do not arise organically from an atheistic perspective and as such they cannot hold to a non-contradictory view of the world. Thus at the root atheism is irrational.
The proof of the existence of God is that without Him you cannot prove anything.
*Credit goes to Dr Greg Bahnsen for the Transcendental Argument for God's Existence (from which I heavily borrowed) and to Cornelius Van Til whose reasoning Bahnsen furthered.
2 comments:
Saw your post on Y!A. It's great you believe in a god. Applause. Everyone must believe in something. For me, I do not adhere to your worldview. And, as such, I do not believe you have any proof whatsoever that your god exists. Your argument becomes flawed as soon as you say:
The proof of the Christian God is that without Him no other world view makes any sense. Without Him no other world view can rationally sustain an argument as to the origins of laws of logic, scientific laws and laws of morality. No other world view besides the Christian theistic world view can account for these laws in a consistent and internally coherent manner.
First, you have already said it yourself that you have not really studied philosophy, other religions (other than the other factions of Christianity) or other worldviews. So, I will make the assumption that you have no idea what other religious doctrine says. Granted, I do not have extensive knowledge on other religions or philosophies myself, but I will not go to the point in saying that there is only one way and it is right (Christian god, Christian principles). I will say, however, that there is no conclusive physical proof for the existence of the Abrahamic god (Christ's father, YHWH, whatever).
Anyway, how can you say that without the Christian god, no other world view makes sense? What about the Hindu gods? Greek? Roman? Zoroastrianism? Mithraism? All of these predacessors are what make Christianity possible, even Paganism (which Christianity swallowed up to bring Paganists into the fold). So your argument falls apart when you say that without the Christian god, all worldviews fail to make sense. If that's the case, explain to me how those people without the Christian god live and survive? Those that have never heard of your Christ or the Abrahamic god? Where do they get their morals and beliefs? Are their morals worse than yours because they aren't privy to the knowledge of Christ? No.
So, you say we atheists borrow our worldviews from Christianity. Wrong again. Where do we get our morals? From our elders, who got it from theirs and so on. When we become of thinking age, we can accept for reject what it is that we were taught. Most times, we continue to accept. And though many of those tenets are "religious-based", they are not exclusive to Christianity. Many of those tenets are simply common sense or based on the Golden Rule, or a fundemental moral value. Nothing exceptional about that. But not all of it comes from Christianity. Again, see my comment about those who never grew up with Christianity.
Philosophy is man's tool to understand man's thought. It is not a tool to prove the existence of deities; only man's belief in them. No matter how you want to word your philosophical bias, it all comes down to faith and, however you want to wrap that faith, with a little bow or a piece of philosophical jargon, it's still faith.
Your proof is not proof. It's simply your opinion and YOUR worldview. And although my rant here probably hasn't swayed your faith, nor would I want it to, I think your belief is pompous as you say it's proof when it is nowhere near it. It is proof for you, not proof in general. But, nice try.
Have a nice day.
Short response, possibly with a longer response if I make the time.
1. Propaganda is not logical debate.
To claim that Christianity has pagan origins is not the same thing as presenting evidence for it. If you have some documentation, show me. (Remember, logical arguments requiring backing of unbiased sources.)
2. Strawman fallacy is not logical debate.
I did not refer to sociological origins of morality but philosophical origins of morality. That is, you have morality, now explain to me on what basis you hold to it.
3. A rant is not logical debate.
You present your arguments as many I have dealt with inside and outside of the Church; without thought. To parrot what you have been told is not logical debate. Far too many Christians just simply repeat what they have heard, this is very natural for the 80% of the masses. But I am left dissatisfied with that, so I attempt to lend scholarship to my thoughts as I hope you will if you choose to respond to this response.
Post a Comment