How would you prove the God of the Bible exists?

Discussion in 'Apologetical Methods' started by Romans922, Apr 28, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Senior

    Yeah but one cannot metaphorically abandon metaphysics like that, he still did metaphysics and tried to deny it when he realized he had egg on his face.

    Well this definantly has the seeds of Van Tillianism in it.

    I think I am starting to get you. Yes you are correct to assume that if you have a moral sense and it tells you something is right or wrong than yes that would technically justify the moral statment but a theory of ethics must be determined to decide if the moral sense is functioning properly. Plus how do you square total depravity with this?

    I get you now, I misunderstood you, I don't know enough about Plantinga's project to rightly criticize it but I would still wonder how he would square up with the reformed conffessions on total depravity, maybe that is one of those corrections you alluded to making if so than I would be curious to hear. K. Scott Oliphant criticizes Plantinga at this point by saying that the fall stopped our sensus from functioning properly.

    Yes that would be my method as well and yes "stuff" is a great metaphysical word.
     
  2. Philip

    Philip Puritan Board Graduate

    But in the final analysis, he actually avoids internal inconsistency. It's a bizarre system, but not incoherent.

    But how would one know that the moral theory being used is the correct one?

    As for total depravity, I would say that it is a case of malfunctioning moral sense, but then I'm operating on a Christian model. The non-Christian is still internally justified.

    First, Plantinga agrees with Oliphant. The sensus has been severely damaged by the fall and so in regeneration, the Spirit reactivates and repairs the sensus (a model that makes much more sense in a Calvinist framework than in Plantinga's Molinist one).

    Second, Plantinga is quite careful on this point, drawing most of his model from Calvin. Its language also draws heavily from Thomas Reid, the Scottish school of common sense, and its theological offspring, Old Princeton.
     
  3. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Senior

    That is why I prefer the later Wittgenstien. I suppose it is internally consistant, except he is talking about things he claims cannot be talked about.

    Without a moral theory how would you be able to tell if your moral sense is working right? Without some outside standered to test your moral sense you are left with the purely autonomous person and no objective morality at all.

    But once you ask for that standered they appeal to than their consistancy will brake down unless they affirm God's morality as their standered.

    Oliphant sees the sensus as more than severly damaged but I will have to re-read his essay on this.

    I've read some essays that claim that he is outside the reformed tradition on this point.
     
  4. Elimelek

    Elimelek Puritan Board Freshman

    Hi,
    I shall not try to prove God's existence at all. For me, the most effective way would be God showing himself to the person. Thus, I shall spend hours and hours on my knees.

    Regards
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page