Back to the Basics

I would like to return to a series I began several weeks ago entitled, "A Study of Basic Christian Doctirne: Answers to Questions Every Christian Ought to Know". Due to the church schedule and Thanksgiving holiday I have posted other things the past three weeks, but today I want to return to the primary series featured on the blog currently.Let me remind you where we are:

- We are currently answering the question, "How do we know God?"
- I have established three points to answer this question:
The witness of God's Work
The witness of God's World
The witness of God's Word
- We have already dealt with the first point (see archive posts)
- We are beginning the second point today- The witness of God's world


THE WITNESS OF GOD'S WORLD
We want to continue to answer the question, How do we know God? by looking at various philosophical arguments that can be used to support the notion that He does indeed exist. Dr. Oliver at Clearwater Christian, and Dr. Parker at Southern Seminary would probably be surprised that I am dealing with philosophy. To be honest, in the past it has not been my favorite subject. Unfortunately, this has shown itself in various ways. Recently, however, I have really grown to appreciate philosophy more. I have come to see the importance of philosophy in the Christian worldview, particularly (if not primarily) regarding the subject of God's existence.

Let me give you the four main categories that classify the various arguments for God's existence: 1) cosmological arguments, 2) ontological arguments, 3) moral arguments, 4) teleological arguments.

Instead of spending our time defining what the above terms mean, we are going to give some actual arguments from these various categories. To me that is much more practical. I would rather give you the fruit of philosophical analysis than spend time talking about the philosophy of philosophy itself! If you want more on the above terms, then you can see me and I will point you to some good resources (better than myself!).

I have three arguments for God's existence outlined. However, before I go into those arguments, I want to make a strong caveat regarding this whole discussion. Next post will deal with the actual arguments. This post, however, is foundational to understanding how one is to view the arguments that follow.



The Caveat
Let me be clear, I say that these arguments are used to support God's existence (not prove God's existence) because ultimately no philosophical argument proves anything to anyone. In 2 Cor. 4:1-6, Paul is clear about the fact that sin affects our minds/intellect. It is not until the Spirit of the living God moves in a heart that he will be convinced of any truth. It is not arguments for the existence of God that saves; it is the message of the Gospel engineered by the Holy Spirit that saves! The reason for this is due to the power of sin. Sin distorts our ability to perceive truth. Only something more powerful than sin- God- can help our weak flesh overcome this intellectual distortion.

Supposed "proofs" for God's existence, in the final analysis, may prove nothing. A simple illustration will do well here. Let's say that you are in the middle of a large city on a winter day. All of the sudden you see a drunk man climbing up a light pole screaming, "Bear, bear!" As you look up there is a dog running in front of the man. You can tell he is drunk, and you being sober, decide to try and convince him that all he saw was a dog, not a bear. Chances are, due to the alcoholic condition of the man, you will fail in your attempts. Why? Because alcohol has affected his perception of what is true- what is reality.

You could be very intelligent, and argue logically and reasonably. However, the alcohol is an obstacle that prevents you from convincing this man that all he saw was a dog. You could use both logic and evidence to persuade him.

You could argue logically: "Look guy, its ridiculous to think you saw a bear. We are in the middle of the city. Bears do not roam around in the city."

You could argue logically again: "In fact, look around. Nobody else is fearful for their lives like you. Why is that? Because it was just a dog, not a bear."

You could point to evidence: "Look at these tiny footprints. Don't you think that a bear's footprints are bigger than this?"

You could point to more evidence: You could call the dog over and pet it in front of the drunk man.

The point is that sin ruins our ability to affirm truth just as the alchohol ruined the perception of the man on the light pole. He could not perceive reality- which was that (in reality) he had only seen a dog, not a bear.

In addition, arguments which support God's existence are incapable of satisfying the "proof criteria" of every person without exception. Who determines when a proof is viable and legitimate? Not everyone has the same criteria (exactly). Everyone possesses the same basic equipment of "proof criteria". That is, due to being created in God's image in God's world all men have a fundamental knowledge of God's laws of logic. But that is different than saying everyone possesses the same exact criteria for what constitutes an argument as legitimate, or illegitimate, illogical, or erroneous.

The reason all men do not possess the exact package of "proof criteria" is due to the fact that sin has distorted our minds on different levels. Therefore, sin keeps us from thinking in rational patterns of thought. Belief in God is basic as I have pointed out before. Were it not for sin distorting our ability to think rationally, then we would affirm the existence of God in the exact same way that a sane, logical, mature minded person would affirm that they are reading off a computer screen right now. That is how powerful sin is in distorting truth. And that is how innate belief in God is to us.

So let me be clear. Arguments used to support God's existence do just that- they support it. They do not prove it. Only the Spirit of God can do that to a skeptic, and He uses the Gospel every time to do so.

Now God can use you speaking forth these arguments to trigger belief in someones heart. Thus, arguments for God's existence on the philosophical level are by no means useless. When, as believers, we are dealing with a skeptic we give forth any argument that might help that person see God in the person of Jesus Christ. We act as if God could regenerate their hearts at any moment....because He could! We do not know the mind of God. But at the end of the day God gets the credit, right?

So we are not to use arguments for God's existence with the idea that they can prove His existence beyond doubt. Rather, we use them with the view that His existence can be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The same is true with court cases. Evidence given in a murder trial such as: 1) a gun with the DNA of the accused, 2) the location of the accused at the time of the murder, and 3) personal motives on the part of the accused to kill the victim proven to be legitimate all serve as strands of evidence (when taken together) to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant's guilt. Even with a witness claiming he saw the defendant shoot the victim does not prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. You say how so? Because the witness could be lying! We do not ultimately know.

My caveat (although quite lengthy) is simply that nothing, absolutely nothing replaces the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. If someone denies God's existence he will not be convinced by man's persuasive philosophical arguments regarding God's existence. The Spirit of God will be the first to convince the skeptic of any truth, and then God may choose to use your arguments to trigger belief, or affirm belief. It is only the powerful message of the Gospel when applied by the Holy Spirit that convinces someone of the worthiness and value of God to be worshipped and adored!

One more thing....arguments for God's existence lie in their cumulative ability, rather than their independent ability. These arguments are like a rope made up of many small strands. One of those small strands is not that strong. However, when they are tied together the rope becomes very strong.

Next time we will look at the first argument.