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.
The key is people who understand science. Most don't. They just assume the assorted Deepak Chopras, Carl Sagans and Bill Nyes they look up to know science and are honest brokers of knowledge.
“The preciseness of how plants grow, pollinate and fertilize is astounding, perfectly designed.”
Now study the “Calvin Cycle” and how plants produce fuel or energy for growth. Then learn the “Krebs Cycle” and how the mitochondria in the human body produces ATP, the fuel for the human body.
Now put the two side by side and merge the understanding of the similarities of the two processes and you are on the verge of understanding the spiritual practices of the mystics.
“The key is people who understand science. Most don’t. “
The key to gaining greater understanding of science is to be very humble as the more you learn the more you realize that there is soooo much more that you don’t know.
If we own our knowledge as a possession and become full of ourselves we have no room for new knowledge. Every answer to a question generates 20 more questions without answers. It is a very humbling process.
Thank you, tired; and, good luck convincing the scientists of the world of your belief. Perhaps you can turn the non-believers among them away from nihilism. When you can, check out the Brad Pitt movie Ad Astra. I don’t think I’m giving too much away by saying it grapples with the now obvious fact that we are along in the universe.
“Without Light, there can be no Darkness.”
The Light of God that shines from within self casts no shadows. It is the obstacles to Love that we place in our soul that creates the shadows.
Just like a flashlight and the shadow on the wall, the earlier in our lives that a trauma creates and obstacle to Love in our soul, the greater the size of the shadow seen later in life.
“Thank you, tired; and, good luck convincing the scientists of the world of your belief.”
I do not have this as a mission in life. If it is meant to be, it will be. I plant seeds that cause people who are looking for answers to search for more. They must be their answers, not mine. If my comments fall on deaf ears, that is fine. I have no need to convince others.
If I focus on the low levels of consciousness like jealousy, hatred, fear or guilt, I lower my self and lose my connection to God. That connection is more important than this physical life.
Jesus gave us the first commandment, “Love God.” Thus I must always be focused on God. Consciousness is like the headlights on a car as wherever they are aimed the car goes. The same is true for the soul and human consciousness.
But I’m human and I screw up!
Philiosophical arguments can go either way. The best evidence for the existence of God is Jewish scriptures and the person, work(miraculous and otherwise), and the physical resurrection of Jesus(Yeshua) who was thereafter known as the Anointed(Christ) to first his followers (Jewish and Gentiles) and then the world at large.
Nice broad summary of Romans 1.
I agree with you, but tried to stay on thread. My point is that science is not an alternative explanation of the origin of the universe, or the origin of life, or of human life. Science proves that the universe, etc., are so improbable as to be impossible. The question isn’t science or faith. It’s which Creator: a deistic creator or a theistic creator.
In 1970 atheists Steven Hawking and Roger Penrose published their now-famous space-time theorem, which demonstrated that any universe (1) containing mass (just look at your waistline for proof) and in which general relativity reliably functions (now proven to 15+ decimal places) must have had a beginning, implying a transcendant causal agent, which comports perfectly with the God of the Bible.
Thanks!!
“Lovely list! There is yet a newer argument which might be called “from proven transcendant causation.”
In 1970 atheists Steven Hawking and Roger Penrose published their now-famous space-time theorem, which demonstrated that any universe (1) containing mass (just look at your waistline for proof) and in which general relativity reliably functions (now proven to 15+ decimal places) must have had a beginning, implying a transcendant causal agent, which comports perfectly with the God of the Bible.”
Both are brilliant physicists/cosmologists. And, both were/are committed atheists, as you point out. Although, Penrose does not seem to be a militant atheist. I’m really surprised at Penrose, though. He has done some creative work on conciseness. While he does not outright suggest it as a theorem, he believes that consciousness is related to quantum principals which is but one small leap to it being a field that is pervasive throughout the universe (via quantum theory).
Wonder where that field might come from?
Here is another interesting read from an obscure author and MD who makes a compelling case for justifying a creator from science. http://bit.ly/2seVjdM.
IC Clearly
Meanwhile, one for you: Hugh Ross's books.
“Meanwhile, one for you: Hugh Ross’s books.”
No need. I’m already a huge fan. By the way, Ross is very prolific on YouTube. I watch him all the time.
Bauman is nowhere near as well known at Hugh Ross but his theory is very interesting.
Thanks for the thought, though.
In God we trust :-)!
Thanks for this. Every time the ontological proof is mentioned an angel gets his wings.
Your new tag-line?
LOL
>>Your post reminds me that you have to believe in something. During the 19th Century, it was thought there was a materialistic explanation for everything. Hence, Darwin and his theory of the origin of life. Today, the physics of the universe say no, there isn’t a materialistic explanation. Either there is a Creator or we are deeply alone and life is fragile and ultimately meaningless.<<
Well, since “the origin of life” is not what TToE says, the rest if your statement is devoid of meaning and/or fun but meaningless.
Your tautology seems rather bleak “if we do not beleive in a Creator we are meaningless” is not only simplistic but by definition, illogical.
One last note: people who understand science enough to understand TToE frequently believe in God (and Christ) — as do I. These are not mutually exclusive.
Once we move from science to social science, we only talk of tendencies. Counter-examples, such as you claim to be, aren’t proof. There is a strong correlation between happiness and believing in God; also, employment, income, wealth, being married; and, NOT abusing drugs and NOT committing crime. There’s an epidemic of suicide out there.
Yes, there are people who believe in evolution and in God, seeing the Biblical story of creation as poetic. I have no problem with this. I myself see the expression there was evening and morning, the second day, as poetic, as distinguishing one long period of time from another. So, who am I to criticize another person for seeing poetry in the Bible? I also find it interesting that God formed us out of clay, when he could have made us out of nothing (”ex nihilo”), and then breathed life into us. So, there were two parts to us, a temporal part that might reflect an evolutionary process, and a spiritual part, which goes beyond any evolutionary process.
Accepting evolution was one response to the barrage of criticism of the Bible by atheists during the 19th Century. But, scientists have moved on from evolution. Those who study the matter are today in a quandary. Life is a miracle, as is the explosion of life during the Cambrian period, and the recovery of life following several extinction events in the planet’s history. Each of these is impossible from the standpoint of evolution. There is no sign of evolution in tool-making among pre-human hominids. Just sharpened rocks. Then, whamo, about 60,000 years ago, complex tools, fire, domestication of animals, cave art, counting and evidence of religious observance. We can call this a cultural explosion. We, modern humans, are wonderfully made.
And the Bible starts with, “In the beginning...”
Didn’t need a Hawking or other “geniuses” to come up with the concept of “before time”, the beginning of it all, eternity that encompasses time, or a Creator that existed even before time....
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.