Do we see God when we observe Logic, Mathematics, Inference, and Moality?

Discussion in 'Apologetical Methods' started by RobR, Sep 1, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. RobR

    RobR Puritan Board Freshman

    This last couple of weeks I have been listening to Sye Tenbruggencate discuss and practice Prepositional Apologetics. Proof That God Exists: multimedia

    I am finding this issue very powerful and fascinating. As I have been mussing about this I have began to wonder: Do we see God we we observe Logic, Mathematics, Inference, and Morality? We tend to call these Laws because of their changeability. I am not making a claim here but rather asking a question.

    I am of course aware that only when observing Logic, Mathematics, Inference (the basis for Science) and Morality, can it properly be done through the truth reveled (the lens) of Gods Word. . We have corrupt eyesight because of our wicked hearts and must wear proper glasses to correct for this distortion we bring to observation. Most men will refuse to observe or have their world view conformed by Gods Holy Word, thus so many different world views.

    I am wondering, what has not been corrupted in our world because of the fall? (the whole earth groans, (matter)) I can only think of these four things.

    So, seeing/observing that these are absolute, infinite, and immaterial, and they superceed men (we can only discover them, we have nothing to do with creating them), what else can they be but the very character of God?
     
  2. yourjewishbrother

    yourjewishbrother Puritan Board Freshman

    Those are things we give name to , because it is human nature (sin nature) to be prideful enough to think that we can fully understand what cannot be understood. To me the biggest proof of God in the sciences is that every time man gives something a fancy scientific name and claims to have some sort of understanding of "how things work" the next year you will read a new study on how they had it completely wrong. I recently have had the misfortune of some of my brothers debating things like the 7 day creation and the age of the earth based on the idea that we as Christians must bend to science and reason because scientists claim
    the earth is billions of years old and things like that....We must always remember that God condescends to us, we understand nothing except what he allows to see....its not about your world view it's about putting God in his proper place; above all!
    The problem with using mathematics,Logic and things like that to prove God is that those are things we have given name to
    that represent things in God's creation that we can never fully understand, and unfortunately bending to man's ways usually ends up in liberal theology, because you are then forced to bend God to fit into your little box of what u can understand.
     
  3. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Senior

    We "know" God in these things because we are made in his image and using his image to interpret things like those that you mentioned presuposses that he is there. Demonstrating that is a different matter but the unbeleiver "knows" that God is there.
     
  4. ericfromcowtown

    ericfromcowtown Puritan Board Sophomore

    I would say that logic and mathematical proofs can only exist because there is a God who created an ordered universe. In that sense, I suppose we "see God" because we can see the handiwork of an intelligence behind all the data that would otherwise be chaotic. Descartes considered these indubitable truths that were only guaranteed by the existence of a truthful God. I think that Descartes wasn't as heedful of our fallen nature as he should have been though. When is what we hold as indubitable truth more evident of our pride and arrogance than of reality?

    That was a jumbled answer, which probably didn't answer much, but it is an interesting question.
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2011
  5. Zenas

    Zenas Snow Miser

    The existence of morality is, in my opinion, the most troubling fact for the atheist's worldview. In my interactions, the argument has only one ending: those who deny God must deny that morality exists and appeal to some sort of subjective, shifting maxim that, through use of hypotheticals, they're not at all comfortable with applying.

    If morality exists, then someone made it. There is no other possible answer to the question that does not involve redefining morality in such a way that it is no longer morality.
     
  6. Apologist4Him

    Apologist4Him Puritan Board Freshman

    Yes, those transcendental laws, are part of the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God (TAG). The primary sources for this argument are Dr. Cornelius Van Til and Dr. Greg Bahnsen. If you listen to the old Bahnsen - Stein debate, you can get a feel for how powerful TAG is, how inescapable it is.

    Yes, one of the cornerstones of Van Tillian presuppositonalism, is the concept of self-deception, which Dr. Bahnsen stressed and explained rather well, it is rooted in the Doctrine of Total Depravity.

    Excellent observation, I would only add that, as the finite creatures we are, we do not necessarily know the laws exhaustively nor perfectly, but they are undeniable, necessary, and a reflection of the mind of God, in other terms analogical knowledge coming from being made in the image of God.

    Said and done, in our apologetic efforts, we should confess that we serve the one true God of Christianity, that our arguments are in support of this God, and not any other, Dr. Bahnsen summed this notion up in "the impossibility of the contrary".
     
  7. RC1689

    RC1689 Puritan Board Freshman

    Excellent question and excellent responses. I particularly enjoyed Apologist4Him's response. You alluded to the important Van Tillian "Creator-Creature distinction", which was one of the points of contention between Van Til and Gordon Clark.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page