"Ex nihilo nihil fit"
It seems that just as every house must have a builder and every supernova explosion likely must have an antecedently sufficient cause, so all things must issue forth from an omnipotent and intelligent cause (Hebrews 3:4). At any rate, it's difficult to believe that the cosmos is a result of chance or some accident.
To give some food for thought, I share this quote from physicist Paul Davies' text The Mind of God (page 16):
"I belong to a group of scientists who do not subscribe to a conventional religion but nevertheless deny that the universe is a purposeless accident. Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact. There must,
it seems to me, be a deeper level of explanation. Whether one wishes to call that deeper level 'God' is a matter of taste and definition. Furthermore, I have come to the point of view that mind--i.e., conscious awareness of the world--is not a meaningless and incidental quirk of nature, but an absolutely fundamental facet of reality. That is not to say that we are the purpose for which the universe exists. Far from it. I do, however, believe that we human beings are built into the scheme of things in a very basic way" (Italicized word appears in the original).
I would love to see a piece of scholarship on Gods existence
ReplyDeletePaul sort of proves it, but no writer in the bible goes out of their way to prove it - since it was assumed that was the belief..
If you have ever looked into the NZ national anthem Edgar you may find something interesting
Anonymous, I looked at the NZ anthem/anthems. That is interesting. For now, let me ask what would constitute evidence for God's existence in your eyes? Most arguments I've read have been a mix of philosophical and theological reasoning and Paul Davies has made a case for his god. But are you looking for a biblical case for God's existence?
ReplyDeleteAn article I read the other day claims that Duns Scotus produced the best theistic argument. Thomas might demur.
One I use on a lot of people is the description of the water cycle in Job or the spherical description given in Isaiah - those things were unseen in those days and were not “discovered” till much later.. so the question is raised how did they know these things? And how could they be so sure? They both are remarkably confident if they were guesses or theories. The only way they could know is if God exists
ReplyDeleteAnother thing is everything is so organised - the house example in the bible for instance, an elder one gave me this analogy: you can’t just throw a bunch of bricks in the air and expect a house to be built, same with the universe
(Paraphrase)
I’m looking for a biblical reason for gods existence, as you have probably noticed in my recent comments I tend to ignore philosophy and don’t take to kindly to theologically motivated rubbish.
I do wish Moses had set out to prove Gods existence.
I don't think you'll find a fleshed out argument in the Bible, but you'll see reasons to believe in God as Paul expressed in Romans 1:20 or see Psalm 19. Another thing that convinces me of God's existence is the moral order and the existence of a conscience (Romans 2:14-15). Without God, how could we know what's absolutely good in terms of behavior or absolutely bad? Humans have developed numerous systems to account for good and bad (utilitarian thought, deontology, existentialism, virtue theory), but how do we know which one works or if none of them do? See Jeremiah 10:23.
ReplyDeleteAt Psalms 111:2 God says his works are there to be studied.
ReplyDeleteHis works prove his existence. The fact that they are to be studied means he put science in place as well. His word and his creation are strong proofs of his existence. Just my thoughts.
You have a point Edgar - I may be wrong in this thought pattern but if God didn’t exist how would we know what is right and wrong
ReplyDeleteHumans these days act like animals in a certain sense, animals kill each other how do we know murdering ( or killing other humans same thing really, tho some argue otherwise) is wrong? It sort of must have come from a higher power and not a random explosion ( or the many other variants)
Philip also makes a good point.. however That can be brushed off by some as “evolution”
Acts 17:28 is, for me, the only argument for God that I would defend philosophically, I.e. in consciousness, existence, and free will we already know God as the ground of that.
ReplyDeleteAs for the best arguments for God I recommend:
David Bentley Hart "The Experience of God"
Stephen RL Clark "God, Religion, and Reality"
Matthew Levering "Proofs of God"
Edward Feser "5 proofs for the existence of God"
William Lane Craig "Cosmological arguments for God."
John Whippel "The Ultimate Question, why is there something rather than nothing"
Classical Arguments would be of course the 5 ways of Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus "God as first principle." Augustine's arguement from Truth in "On the freedom of the will"
I also highly recommend Michel Henry's "I am the Truth" it's not a formal argument for God but it contains an interesting approach. Also Hegel's logic, although not a formal argument for God, demonstrates the necessity of a transcendent absolute reason/spirit.
Btw, the existence of God is a philosophical question and cannot be answered without philosophical reasoning, if there are biblical arguments, their validity will be grounded in their philosophical rigor and persuasiveness, if God's existence itself is in question one cannot appeal to inspiration.
ReplyDeleteThe water cycle example isn't really an argument for God since it can be accounted for without appeal to God's existence.
I have also found many arguments from design less than convincing for reasons I mentioned in an earlier post (they often assume an implicit probability calculus which depends on certain givens of nature which cannot be taken as givens when speaking about the origin and ground of nature itself).
The argument from morality is strong in my opinion, not because it necessitates God but because the atheist would have to deny objective morality.
Perhaps one could take Ecclesiastes 3:11 as an argument for God from the infinite horizon of human will, (Maurice blondel makes a very long version of this argument in "Action.")
Roman, you always bring up points that deserve consideration. Forgive my brevity for now as I'm typing on my phone, which I hate doing.
ReplyDeleteBut is there anything in the cosmos that one cannot account for theoretically without appealing to God's existence? A naturalist will say that everything in the cosmos has a natural explanation. This is why I favor arguing abductively (to the best explanation) and approaching issues probabilistically.
I tend to agree with van Inwagen, who thinks the probability of anything existing without God is zero. I think most naturalists expect theists to accept a lot of coincidences or brute facts or, like Hume, they reject natural laws.
On the issue of morality, I would not say God is necessitated, but I do think he is the best explanation for absolute morality.
Please see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2023/01/some-of-best-theistic-defenses-around.html?m=1
ReplyDeleteOne other thing: the overwhelming majority of people who come to believe in God don't become believers due to logical arguments or scientific evidence.
ReplyDeleteI think that point is the main one: I don't actually think ANYTHING that can be accounted for without God, and that the naturalist who believes everything has a natural explanation is just confused about what the issue is, it's like someone arguing that one doesn't need to appeal to human beings to explain houses because houses can be explained entirely by appealing to bricks, wood, tiles, etc etc, and the relations between those parts. It's not a perfect analogy, because even then the human being works with a pre-existing nature.
ReplyDeleteIf God is argued for as some being interfering with nature to explain a phenomenon that has no explanation in nature that's not really an argument for God, it's an argument for some super being posterior to nature. God is that which accounts for nature itself, so saying we can explain nature by nature is just silly.
I agree that abductive arguments are better.
The naturalist in my view, MUST reject the principle of sufficient reason, and MUST reject metaphysical realism, to be honest I don't really find naturalism to be a coherent position at all.
I do believe God is necessitated for the metaphysical grounding of morality, or at least something like God (The Platonic Good might be enough though).
I agree also with how people believe in God (or reject God) it's almost never due to logical arguments.
I use the example of politics (the example works better in countries with more traditional class political formations, as opposed to the US), two very intelligent people, one a union carpenter, another a hedge fund manager, who both are widely read politically and can understand and formulate arguments, it's almost certain the former will be some kind of socialist and the latter will be some kind of liberal, and if you ask both of them why you will get all kinds of well thought out arguments, yet if you just step back you'll see really quickly that there are other factors that are probably playing more of a role.
It's almost always the same with God, no matter who good the arguments, there's usually other crucial factors.
Roman, I think you know where I stand with respect to theism: I don't think anything can be accounted for without God, as you mention, but there are many people who do/have thought we could explain the cosmos without God or they thought all theistic arguments fail to demonstrate even the plausibility of God. Of course, I think they're wrong but how do you move someone who believes no theistic argument works or can work?
ReplyDeleteAll I think we can show is that it's more likely that God exists than not, and for those with the proper disposition, we can reason with them from science, the Bible or use reason, but we can only take a horse to water--not make him/her drink.
In my humble opinion, there are many ways to reason with people about God, not just one way. Personally, I believe that Robert J. Spitzer makes a powerful case for God's existence in New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy. Will he convince most naturalists? I don't think so, but even he admits that the case he makes is probable, not conclusive. To me, it's that way with all theistic arguments.
Even David Hume might say he could not be sure that humans built a house in the desert that's stocked with food, has running water, electricity, and A/C. He might reason that it could have popped into existence ready-made without any human activity whatsoever. Hume's scenario would be logically possible but highly improbable IMO. Yet, how could I convince him otherwise if he wants to hold that position?
Dr. W.L. Craig confronts naturalism: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/plantingas-evolutionary-argument-against-naturalism-707
ReplyDeleteI think the only way one can demonstrate God to someone who doesn't believe the arguments demonstrate the plausibility is to show that their denial of God entails something they don't believe, or that they don't want to believe, that there is a contradiction in their thought.
ReplyDeleteI think the reason we believe a house is made by humans is that one cannot account for it by natural processes, and but one can account for it by positing the manipulation of natural processes for human ends (this is also why we think nests are made by birds, not don't think beautiful patterns on an cliff are made by some creature), if one extrapolates to God I would say the logic no longer works. Simply because we do not have natural processes and creaturely ends to take as givens by which we can make probability claims.
Roman, I typed a response on my phone and thought I hit publish. For some reason, it did not come through. So I will say that establishing formal contradictions is difficult, just like trying to convince a Trinitarian that the doctrine is incoherent or contradictory. I believe it's equally difficult to show that atheism is contradictory.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to arguments about the cosmos, evolutionists do assume that natural processes could have brought about the cosmos. In this context, I think one is justified in appealing to God as an alternative and probable explanation. Best regards.
Can’t find a better place to put this:
ReplyDeleteDeut 32:6 lxx just wondering if this verse uses the forms of poieo and ktizo as synonyms?
I know in other places they seem too use them to mean the same thing.
I have not confirmed this point, but I think that usage reflects the Hebrew Bible's juxtaposition between bara and asah.
ReplyDeleteWhich would be? Those words are used practically in the same way aswell, with maybe one distinction as far as I can tell
ReplyDeleteAs you know, translators commonly render bara with the English "create" but asah with "make." But could they sometimes be interchangeable?
ReplyDeletePlease see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2018/04/leave-my-bara-alone.html
Interesting - asah seems to have a similar meaning to poieo while not exactly the same, they are similar ktizo or bara never seem to be used in the sense of making Someone something I.e making Jesus lord ( a form of poieo is used)
ReplyDeleteWould you happen to have any idea why poieo is used of divine creation in the lxx? Where as proverbs 8:22 as an example used a form of ktizo?
I read somewhere they found a better word after gen 14
Please see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2015/06/qanah-proverbs-822-and-bara.html
ReplyDeleteNotice especially what TDOT says about how the LXX treats ktizo. I think a lot of this issue is about Koine usage of the time and synonymy.