Proof

-

Question to R. C. Sproul:
Some modern theologians believe that we can’t prove God’s existence. They say that devising proofs for God’s existence is a useless exercise; it’s just a matter of faith; we don’t need reasons. Is that approach consistent with the Bible?


Part of R. C.’s Answer:
No, I don’t think it’s consistent with the Bible at all. I believe, first of all, that we can prove the existence of God. I think we can do more than just give evidence. I think we can argue compellingly for the existence of God, at least in terms of a self-existent, eternal being.
Further, I think Aquinas was absolutely right
when he developed the concept of a “necessary being”. What do we mean by a “necessary being”? We mean that this particular being is one who is both ontologically necessary, that is, that he is a being who cannot not be, as
well as being a being who is logically necessary. When I say that God is logically necessary what I mean is this: it is illogical and inconceivable that you can have something coming out of nothing. It’s impossible. Nothing cannot produce something. Something must have the power of being, within itself, or other things couldn’t come into existence. This is what I mean when I say that
God is logically necessary. That’s as potent an argument today as it was in the days of Aquinas. People still try to get around it with fancy arguments, but I think that their efforts fail.



Christian Apologetics is the effort to give reasons or arguments that further the case for the Christian faith. I have been privileged to have the time to study many of those who engage in Christian Apologetics:

C. S. Lewis

Josh McDowell

Norman Geisler

Ravi Zacharias

John H. Gerstner

R. C. Sproul

John M. Frame

J. Budziszewski

Cornelius Van Til

Greg Bahnsen

Craig Blomberg

Ben Witherington III

and several others.

I am beginning to look at books by:

Mark D. Roberts

Ronald H. Nash

and John W. Montgomery.

After that, I plan to move on to:

Gordon Clark.

I find myself amazed that these teachers can put forth so many different arguments for God’s existence from so many aspects of the world we live in or the way we think. I do agree with Sproul in the quote above, despite the intra-mural debates that rag between different lines of thinking from people on this list (Can’t we all just get along?). I find no logical reasons to discount the traditional arguments for God’s existence when properly stated.

God’s existence is proven by argument. Someone who disagrees will have much to overcome.

Comments

J. K. Jones said…
I edited this post after receiving a comment.

The statement originally said:

“I find a logical reasons to discount the traditional arguments for God’s existence when properly stated.”

It should have read:

“I find no logical reasons to discount the traditional arguments for God’s existence when properly stated.”

Sorry for my insufficient proof-reading.
August 02, 2007
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Face of Terror

-
Osama Bin laden is dead. Since the rest of the internet is buzzing with opinions on that death, I thought I would weigh in. First, this is not the end of global terrorism. Like the Hydra of old, when one head is chopped off, two more take its place. We still need diligence in our fight against global terror. U. S. and allied Armed Forces still need our prayers. We still need a strong military and intelligence community. We have not yet cut off the Hydra’s immortal head. Second, the way to get to the ‘heart of the matter’ is with Christian missionary efforts. We must reach the people who make up those societies and population segments that produce terrorists . To tell a story I have told here before : Early in the twentieth century, Baptist evangelists preached through rural Mississippi and Alabama with such effectiveness that moonshiners could no longer sell their whiskey: All their customers were getting converted! In desperation, the whiskey sellers hired two men to murder on
Read more

The Canons of Dort

-
I believe that the Canons of Dort are true. This is a statement that came out the Synod of Dort, held from 1618-1619. The Canons of Dort outline the system of theology known today as the “five points of Calvinism.” The problem I have with most “five-point Calvinists” is that the Canons of Dort contain much more than five points. Many explanations of the TULIP (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and the perseverance of the saints) are gross simplifications of the Canons of Dort. [This is especially true of explanations given by those who oppose Calvinism. It is easier to knock down a straw man than it is to knock down a real man, and so it is easier to criticize an oversimplified Calvinism that the more robust form.] Some of those who teach the “five points” leave out some of the quotes below: This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than
Read more

Intelligent Design

-
The Intelligent Design (ID) movement makes much of the argument from irreducible complexity. Dr. Michael Behe has become famous for a simple example, the mousetrap. He points out that the mousetrap will not perform its function without all of its parts. The wooden base, the metal hammer, a spring, a catch and a metal bar to hold back the hammer are all necessary parts. One component by itself will not catch a mouse. Mainstream evolutionary science has a counter-argument. To paraphrase Dr. Kenneth Miller, if you disassemble the mousetrap, each component can serve as something useful on its own. If we take away the catch and metal bar, we have something left that can serve as a paper clip. The spring could make a simple two-section key chain. The wooden base makes a paperweight. Evolutionary processes like random mutation and natural selection can combine and retain the useful parts as the complicated evolves to perform the complex function. The useful parts are combined into the mousetr
Read more