Replies

We say, "there is a God, and we know Him personally." If we know Him, we can logically say He exists.

"Hi Greek. This is kind of tangential to your post, but I hope you (and anyone else who's interested) won't mind indulging me in the following (it's been a few years since I've looked at philosophy, so I'm not going to do the syllogism thing):

To positively affirm that the God of the Bible exists because you know Him, does this not imply one of the following :

(a) The God that you know is finite, as opposed to the omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient God of the Bible. In fact, His limits coincide exactly with yours or are circumscribed by your limits.

ANSWER: NOT AT ALL. WHY WOULD THE SUBJECT OF A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP BE LIMITED TO MY SHORTCOMINGS? LET'S SAY I KNEW JOHNNY UNITAS. I CAN PASS A BALL ABOUT 5 YARDS. DOES THIS MEAN HE CAN ONLY PASS 5 YARDS?

(b) You are omniscient, if not also omnipotent and omnipresent along with God?

ANSWER: MY POINT WAS THAT A UNIVERSAL POSITIVE ABOUT GOD'S EXISTENCE IS AT LEAST NOT ILLOGICAL ON ITS FACE, LIKE A UNIVERSAL NEGATIVE CLEARLY IS. I AM NOT SAYING I AM OMNISCIENT, I'M SAYING THAT THEW STATMENT, "THERE IS A GOD" IS NO ILLOGICAL.

If you do not possess omniscience yourself, then how can you affirm that the God that you know is the same God, limitless in His knowledge, power and presence, to Whom you devote your Worship? If you are going to "logically say" that you know Him, must you not also admit the caveat that the entity which you know could possibly be a lesser entity than the almighty God of the Bible? To truly know that something is without limits, the knower must be without limits himself, or he must admit that the "knowee" could possibly have limits at some point beyond his (the knowers) own limits.

ANSWER: THERE ARE SERVERAL WAYS TO AFFIRM SOMETHING BY WAYS EXTERNAL TO OUR OWN PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE. DO YOU DISPUTE THAT KENNEDY WAS SHOT IN THE HEAD AND KILLED? HOW DO YOU KNOW? IN THAT SAME WAY, WE CAN AFFIRM GOD IS THE GOD OF THE BIBLE BY SEVERAL EXTERNAL FACTS. TAKE THE PROPHECIES OF HIS SOM FOR EXAMPLE, FULFILLED TO THE LETTER. THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS AND HIS FULFILLMENT OF PROPHECY IS NOT SERIOUSLY DEBATED. THERE IS LEGION OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE OF HIS VIRGIN BIRTH, CRUCIFICTION, AND RESURRECTION. READ "EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT" OR "HE WALKED AMONG US" OR "MORE THAN A CARPENTER".

ANSWER: NOT AT ALL. WHY WOULD THE SUBJECT OF A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP BE LIMITED TO MY SHORTCOMINGS? LET'S SAY I KNEW JOHNNY UNITAS. I CAN PASS A BALL ABOUT 5 YARDS. DOES THIS MEAN HE CAN ONLY PASS 5 YARDS?

No. You could stand next to Johnny and watch him throw 50 yard passes all day long. But do you contend that all of God's powers and knowledge are observable or knowable to a human being?

If God is infinite in knowledge and power and humans are finite in those respects, then how does a human "logically affirm" the identity of God? He cannot experience the totality of God without essentially becoming one with God. Therefore, how can you "logically affirm" that the God that you know is indeed, THE GOD, and not some deceptive entity playing tricks on you? Is this not where the leap of Faith comes into play? You can certainly affirm the existence of God, but can you truly do it "logically", in a formal sense of the word "logic"?

You said in the original post: "We say, 'there is a God, and we know Him personally.' If we know Him, we can logically say He exists." You may very well indeed know the almighty God of the Bible personally, I can certainly respect your experience and and accept your position as a completely valid cosmology. Perhaps I am reading more into your phrase "we can logically say He exists" that I should, but that was the point I was questioning you about. I see that phrase as implying that your position is logically superior to the atheist's because it is logically provable. I don't see that being the case. Both positions require an assertion of faith at some point.

ANSWER: MY POINT WAS THAT A UNIVERSAL POSITIVE ABOUT GOD'S EXISTENCE IS AT LEAST NOT ILLOGICAL ON ITS FACE, LIKE A UNIVERSAL NEGATIVE CLEARLY IS. I AM NOT SAYING I AM OMNISCIENT, I'M SAYING THAT THEW STATMENT, "THERE IS A GOD" IS NO ILLOGICAL.

You qualify the position as "not illogical on its face", which implies that at some point it demands a departure from the realm of logic, then you say it is "not illogical". Either the statement that "There is a God' is wholly provable by logic, or it is formally "illogical", no? That doesn't mean that it isn't true, it just means that it is no more provable via logic than the atheist's position.

IN THAT SAME WAY, WE CAN AFFIRM GOD IS THE GOD OF THE BIBLE BY SEVERAL EXTERNAL FACTS. TAKE THE PROPHECIES OF HIS SOM FOR EXAMPLE, FULFILLED TO THE LETTER. THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS AND HIS FULFILLMENT OF PROPHECY IS NOT SERIOUSLY DEBATED. THERE IS LEGION OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE OF HIS VIRGIN BIRTH, CRUCIFICTION, AND RESURRECTION. READ "EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT" OR "HE WALKED AMONG US" OR "MORE THAN A CARPENTER".

These things still require you to make an assertion of faith that these things were indeed caused by an infinite and almighty God and not some other being that has the ability to control the realm which humans observe. Let me just say that I would also make that same assertion of faith if I believed that the stories of the Bible were wholly true. But I do not. But then again I have not read the books you suggested, so maybe I will change my mind. Thank you for recommending them.