sotzo
Puritan Board Sophomore
I want to gather some insight on an argument for God's existence I've been thinking about. This may not be a novel argument so please tell me if this work has already been done and I'll check that out. Otherwise, what follows is what I've been considering. Logicians, I'll take all the help I can get from you - unfortunately, my logic training ceased at "Therfore, Socrates is mortal" type stuff and I think I'll want to put this into formal statements/conclusions. Also, what follows may simply be working through Bahnsen's TAG and/or presuppositionalism in general.
After reading much of atheistic polemics and listening to debates, I realized that they spend alot of time arguing for the non-existence of God based on characteristics God would have if he, in fact, did exist. Their statements go something like:
(1) If God existed, he would not allow evil in the world
(2) There is evil in the world
(3) Therefore, God does not exist
Many other types of arguments in this form are offered...the only difference is that the "then" in the if/then statement in premise 1 changes...for example, "then he would write in big letters in the sky" or "then he would not have given us a Bible thousands of years old that was subject to misinterpretation".
Now, before we go further, it could simply be said on the basis of Rom 1, that we would expect such talk as our atheist friend speaks as if there is some transcendent law, yet will not acknowledge the Lawgiver. But if we wanted to offer him a formal argument for the existence of God on the basis of his syllogisms (per above), could we give one that shows that by even giving such a syllogism he is actually defining God by giving attributes He would have if He existed..and that this is the same thing as saying that God exists since? If there is such an argument and if it is true that every possible "then" in premise 1 puts the atheist in this situation, then it seems to me this (new?) formal argument could be normative.
Thoughts? Let me know where I need to provide clarification.
After reading much of atheistic polemics and listening to debates, I realized that they spend alot of time arguing for the non-existence of God based on characteristics God would have if he, in fact, did exist. Their statements go something like:
(1) If God existed, he would not allow evil in the world
(2) There is evil in the world
(3) Therefore, God does not exist
Many other types of arguments in this form are offered...the only difference is that the "then" in the if/then statement in premise 1 changes...for example, "then he would write in big letters in the sky" or "then he would not have given us a Bible thousands of years old that was subject to misinterpretation".
Now, before we go further, it could simply be said on the basis of Rom 1, that we would expect such talk as our atheist friend speaks as if there is some transcendent law, yet will not acknowledge the Lawgiver. But if we wanted to offer him a formal argument for the existence of God on the basis of his syllogisms (per above), could we give one that shows that by even giving such a syllogism he is actually defining God by giving attributes He would have if He existed..and that this is the same thing as saying that God exists since? If there is such an argument and if it is true that every possible "then" in premise 1 puts the atheist in this situation, then it seems to me this (new?) formal argument could be normative.
Thoughts? Let me know where I need to provide clarification.
Last edited: