|
|
|
-
Preaching the Living WORD through the Written WORD - 2 Tim 4:2 - |
|
|
|
STUDY OF GOD (THEOLOGY PROPER) (EXISTENCE OF GOD) Pastor
I. INTRODUCTION TO THE
EXISTENCE OF GOD A. As Christians, we know
that our sole authority for belief in the existence of God is based upon the
presuppositions of the inspired and inerrant word of God. B. But can we and should we use philosophical
and natural arguments to postulate the existence of God? C. The answer is that the Scriptures
themselves open the door for such argumentation. 1. First of
all, we are told in Rom 1:20 that it is inexcusable to miss the existence of
God from the natural realm. 2. Secondly, the Scriptures teach that man
is rationally responsible to perceive the existence of God (Ps 14:1; 53:1;
Acts 17:23-29). 3. Thirdly, we are taught in Scripture that
man is accountable to his moral conscience, which bears witness to the
existence of God and his moral standards (Rom 2:14-15). 4. Therefore, such arguments can and should
be used to persuade men to come to a saving knowledge of God through his Son
as recorded in the Scriptures (1Pe 3:15). a) [Philosophical
and natural arguments] …may be used to establish a presumption in favor of
the existence of the God of the Bible, and they produce sufficient evidence
to place the unregenerated man under a responsibility to accept further
knowledge from God or to reject intelligently this knowledge and thus to
relieve God of further obligation on his behalf. (Ryrie, Survey of Bible Doctrine) D. Final note: The majority
of the following arguments center on the Law of Causality. The Law of
Causality can be defined as, every effect has an antecedent cause. It
is also called the Law of Cause and Effect. 1. This is
not to be confused with Bertrand Russell’s fallacious quote, If everything
must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything
without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God. … 2. The Law of Causality does not say, everything
has an antecedent cause, rather it says, every effect has an
antecedent cause. 3. Obviously, our eternal God does not have
a cause. Neither does Logic insist that everything has a cause. a) Logic has
no quarrel with the idea of self-existent reality. It is logically possible
for something to exist without an antecedent cause. (Sproul, Not a Chance) II. THE PHILOSOPHICAL AND
NATURAL ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD A. The Cosmological Argument
(Creation) 1. The
Cosmological Argument is an a posteriori argument, which looks at the
conception of the effect and infers its cause through induction. 2. The term cosmological comes from the
Greek word, cósmos, which means world. 3. The argument then can be defined as, because
the world exists, it must have a maker (God), because something does not come
from nothing. (Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology) 4. The argument from Philosophy and Logic
is… a) It is
logically impossible for something to generate itself spontaneously out of
nothing (Evolution). b) But it is logically possible for an
eternal and omnipotent God to create out of nothing (ex nihilo - Gen
1:1 - Creation). c) Aristotle realized that logically there
had to be a “First Cause” or Unmoved Mover.” (1) … there is that which as
first of all things moves all things… eternal unmovable substance…, the first mover must be in
itself unmovable. (Metaphysics, Book XII, Part 4, 6 and 8). (2) Though Aristotle’s “Unmoved Mover” did not
describe in detail the God of the Bible, it described the necessary role of
Creator for the God of the Bible. 5. One may
argue that it could be that something or someone other than God created the
world. Ryrie logically responds to such an idea. a) While we
have to admit that this cause-and-effect argument does not in itself “prove”
that the God of the Bible exists, it is fair to insist that the theistic
answer is less complex to believe than any other. It takes more faith to
believe that evolution or blind intelligence (whatever such a contradictory
phrase might mean) could have accounted for the intricate and complex world
in which we live than it does to believe that God could. (Ryrie, Survey of Bible Doctrine) B. The Teleological Argument
(Design) 1. The Teleological
Argument is also an a posteriori argument, which looks at the design
of the effect and infers its cause through induction. 2. The term teleological comes from the
Greek word, télos, which means end or purpose. 3. The argument then can be defined as, the
argument that because there is order and harmony in the universe, an
intelligent designer must have created such a universe. (Enns, The Moody
Handbook of Theology) 4. Thiessen, in his Lectures in Systematic
Theology, 28 writes,) order and useful arrangement in a system imply
intelligence and purpose in the organizing cause. The universe is
characterized by order and useful arrangement; therefore, the universe has an
intelligent and free cause. 5. It is akin to “Intelligent Design” which
argues that biological complexity and detectable design rules out chance. 6. Mathematically, chance has less of a
chance of creating a complex universe than a million monkeys who randomly
pound on a keyboard and reproduce a line from Shakespeare. 7. It would take more faith to believe in
chance than it would to accept that an omnipotent God designed an ordered
universe. a) The
question remains, however: Can random “by chance” actions result in the
highly integrated organization which is evident in the world about us? To say
it can is possible, but it requires a great deal of faith to believe. The
Christian answer may also involve faith, but it is not less believable. (Ryrie, Survey of Bible Doctrine) C. Anthropological Argument
(Man) 1. The
Anthropological Argument is also an a posteriori argument, which looks
at the effect of man’s mental and moral nature and infers his cause through
induction. 2. The term anthropological comes from the
Greek word, ánthropos, which means man or humankind. 3. While the Cosmological and Teleological
Arguments deal with the universe as a whole, the Anthropological Argument
(sometimes called “Moral Argument”) is derived from the complex nature of
man. 4. Though many today would see man simply as
a biological being, his nature is also made up of intelligence, moral
conscience, emotions, and volition. 5. Augustus Strong in his Systematic
Theology (Vol 1, pg. 161), gives the argument in three parts: 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, in other words,
personality. 6. Lewis
Sperry Chafer writes … There are philosophical and moral features in man’s
constitution which may be traced back to find their origin in God. ...A blind
force...could never produce a man with intellect, sensibility, will,
conscience, and inherent belief in a Creator. (Chafer, Systematic
Theology, Vol 1, pg. 155, 157) 7. Christians know this cause as the
Living God who is revealed in the Scriptures. He is the One in whom mankind
lives, moves, and exists (Ps 94:9; Acts 17:28-29). 8. As for The Moral Argument, The Moody
Handbook of Theology writes, the moral argument acknowledges that man has
an awareness of right and wrong, a sense of morality. Where did this sense of
moral justice come from? If man is only a biological creature why does he
have a sense of moral obligation? Recognition of moral standards and concepts
cannot be attributed to any evolutionary process. 9. Geisler summarizes C.S. Lewis’ Moral
Argument in Mere Chrisitianity, a) Moral
laws imply a Moral Law Giver. b) There is an objective moral law. c) Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver. 10. Logically
and philosophically then, the mental and moral nature in man could only have
come from a personal intelligent and moral Being. D. Ontological Argument
(Being) 1. The
Ontological Argument is an a priori argument, which looks at an
assumed cause to a necessarily related effect through deduction. 2. The term ontological comes from the Greek
participle, óntos (from the “to be” verb eimí),
which means to exist or have being. 3. In its simplest form it argues from the idea
of God to the existence of God
(Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics) 4. Anselm (1033-1109), the originator of the
argument stated that, the mere idea of a being than which none greater
can be conceived proves the existence of such a being (adapted from
Anselm, Proslogium, by Sproul, Gerstner, and Lindsley in “Classical
Apologetics”). 5. Or stated another way … since the idea
of God exists universally in the minds of men, then the basis for their ideas
must also exist. (Gibson, 6. Keathly maintains this argument is also
called, The Religious or General Argument which is …since the belief in
God and supernatural beings is universal even among the most backward tribes,
it must therefore come from within man, it is something innate. The question
is, could it have come from civilization or even from education when people
all over the world possess it whether they are civilized and educated or not?
The logical answer is no. (Theology Proper) 7. Some (theists and non-theists) contend
that this argument has philosophical difficulties (such as the dollar in my
mind but not in my pocket or the concept of Martians etc.) and therefore has
little or no value. 8. The argument certainly has value when you
include the presupposition from the Scriptures that God has placed within man
an awareness of God. Therefore, the fact that man can conceive of God and can
conceive of none greater than God proves the existence of God. 9. Geisler distinguishes this argument from
the Religious Need Argument which says, a) Human
beings really need God. b) What humans really need, probably really
exists. c) Therefore, God really exists. 10. A similar
argument is the Argument of Joy developed by C.S. Lewis, It basically states,
Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires
exists. A baby feels hunger; food can satisfy. A duckling wants to swim;
water fills its need. Men and women feel sexual desire; sexual intercourse
fulfills that desire. If I find myself with a desire that no experience in
this world can satisfy, I probably was made for another world. If no earthly
pleasures satisfy the need, it does not mean the universe is a fraud.
Probably earthly pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse
it. (Lewis, Surprised by Joy, 120) 11. One final argument is the Argument from
Congruity which states, … whenever someone finds the best possible
solution to a problem, that solution must be accepted as a true solution
until it is disproved. The belief in the existence of God best explains the
related facts of our mental, moral, and religious natures. Therefore God
exists. (Gibson, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
