The Ontological Argument: updated

[mgeoffriau]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
I agree that no one else created. But was anyone there to witness creation and therefore use it as a *proof* of his existence or validity? How do we know that he created?

I am not speaking about the initial creation of all things. I am talking about things like turning water into wine, walking upon water, healing the blind, etc. These are well attested events that many witnesses saw and could plainly understand.

Originally posted by Jeff_BartelAh, but this does not get you out of the problem. The apostle's raised people from the dead, and even the witch of Endor summoned Samuel's spirit.

As I had already noted, nobody outside of those whom Christ Himself had given authority and power to do so could these things. If you really want me to explain how "summoning a spirit" is in a different catagory from commanding a dead cold body to stand up and walk, then I will.

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
But once again, nobody was there to see if Christ rose himself from the dead. How do you know that he rose himself from the grave?

The only way we know that Christ rose himself from the dead, and created all things is by Scripture.

I know that He rose because there were witnesses who saw Him die, saw Him buried, and saw Him alive again. The accounts from these witnesses were written down to keep an accurate account.

It's unavoidable: you must use your reason to separate Scripture as an inerrant, inspired work from pagan religous literature that is not.

And aside from a funny remark, you still have not answered my question: is your belief irrational or not?

Good discussion...let's keep it going.

 

[mgeoffriau]

Originally posted by Larry Hughes
The primary purpose of Christ's miracles were not His power as God. We see this in the penultimate miracle of the raising of Lazarus from the dead. The primary purpose of the miracles were as signs pointing to redemption.

Then explain to me the purpose of the miracle at the wedding, the turning of water into wine. I see no obvious redemptive analogical meaning from the text. Instead, in John 2:11 (NASB), you find:

"This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him."

It's purpose was to validate the person and work of Jesus Christ, to give clear evidence of His nature, and therefore to separate Himself from those false messiahs making similar claims, but unable to perform supernatural miracles.

 

[BrianLanier]

Mark,

While I do disagree with Jeff on certain things, he is right in that the Scriptures must be presupposed as your ultimate epistemological starting point; not man's autonomous reason. Remember the noetic effects of the fall (men suppress the truth in unrighteousness).

If you use the authority of your own reason to separate Scripture from other literature, then YOU become your ultimate authority and not Scripture. Of course we all want to affirm that Scripture IS our ultimate authority and that we should not put God to the test.

 

[Pergamum]

mgeoffriau


Just a question...is your avator pic Bruce Campbell.

"Shop smart...shop S Mart.."???

 

[mgeoffriau]

Jesus Himself explains it wonderfully in Matthew 9:1-6 (NASB):

1 Getting into a boat, Jesus crossed over the sea and came to His own city.

2 And they brought to Him a paralytic lying on a bed Seeing their faith, Jesus said to the paralytic, "Take courage, son; your sins are forgiven."

3 And some of the scribes said to themselves, "This fellow blasphemes."

4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, "Why are you thinking evil in your hearts?

5 "Which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, and walk'?

6 "But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"--then He said to the paralytic, "Get up, pick up your bed and go home."


My commentary - What could be clearer? The scribes do not believe Jesus' claims to deity (which is assumed in the power to forgive sins). Jesus answers their doubt by performing a supernatural miracle to attest to His divine nature, and therefore validate His claim to forgive sins. Please, if you find my understanding to be at fault, explain, because I really don't see how one can avoid Christ's own words on the matter.

 

[BrianLanier]

Originally posted by mgeoffriau

Originally posted by Larry Hughes
The primary purpose of Christ's miracles were not His power as God. We see this in the penultimate miracle of the raising of Lazarus from the dead. The primary purpose of the miracles were as signs pointing to redemption.

Then explain to me the purpose of the miracle at the wedding, the turning of water into wine. I see no obvious redemptive analogical meaning from the text. Instead, in John 2:11 (NASB), you find:

"This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him."

It's purpose was to validate the person and work of Jesus Christ, to give clear evidence of His nature, and therefore to separate Himself from those false messiahs making similar claims, but unable to perform supernatural miracles.

I mostly agree with you here. It is just what conclusions that you are drawing that I might disagree with. Evidences or 'facts' are always interpreted within one's broader framework or worldview. Remember the story of the rich man and Lazarus.

Luke 16:29-31:

"29 But Abraham said, "˜They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.´ 30 And he said, "˜No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.´ 31 He said to him, "˜If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead."

 

[mgeoffriau]

Originally posted by BrianLanier
While I do disagree with Jeff on certain things, he is right in that the Scriptures must be presupposed as your ultimate epistemological starting point; not man's autonomous reason. Remember the noetic effects of the fall (men suppress the truth in unrighteousness).

If you use the authority of your own reason to separate Scripture from other literature, then YOU become your ultimate authority and not Scripture. Of course we all want to affirm that Scripture IS our ultimate authority and that we should not put God to the test.

Sorry, I'm a classical apologist (*gasps and moans from the audience*).

I do agree that Scripture is the ultimate authority. I disagree that I can somehow approach Scripture without using my own intellect. Being a man, I am forced to use my senses, my memory, and my reason to understand the words printed on the pages of my Bible. If you can explain to me how it is that you can understand Scripture without using your reason, I would be interested to hear it (unfortunately, I will be forced to use my reason to understand your answer).

 

[BrianLanier]

Originally posted by mgeoffriau
Jesus Himself explains it wonderfully in Matthew 9:1-6 (NASB):

1 Getting into a boat, Jesus crossed over the sea and came to His own city.

2 And they brought to Him a paralytic lying on a bed Seeing their faith, Jesus said to the paralytic, "Take courage, son; your sins are forgiven."

3 And some of the scribes said to themselves, "This fellow blasphemes."

4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, "Why are you thinking evil in your hearts?

5 "Which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, and walk'?

6 "But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"--then He said to the paralytic, "Get up, pick up your bed and go home."


My commentary - What could be clearer? The scribes do not believe Jesus' claims to deity (which is assumed in the power to forgive sins). Jesus answers their doubt by performing a supernatural miracle to attest to His divine nature, and therefore validate His claim to forgive sins. Please, if you find my understanding to be at fault, explain, because I really don't see how one can avoid Christ's own words on the matter.

Once again, I agree with you. Jesus gave no shortage of evidence. The question is why they were not convinced?

 

[mgeoffriau]

And the answer to that is clear...because of the sinfulness of their hearts -- not because of a deficiency in their minds.

 

[mgeoffriau]

And I'll mention that if you continue in the passage, it reads:

8 But when the crowds saw this, they were awestruck, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men.

Were they brought to a salvific knowledge of Christ? No, only the work of the Holy Spirit can do that. Were they (apparently, from the text) convinced that God had given Christ the authority to heal paralytics and forgive sins? Yes.

 

[BrianLanier]

Originally posted by mgeoffriau

Originally posted by BrianLanier
While I do disagree with Jeff on certain things, he is right in that the Scriptures must be presupposed as your ultimate epistemological starting point; not man's autonomous reason. Remember the noetic effects of the fall (men suppress the truth in unrighteousness).

If you use the authority of your own reason to separate Scripture from other literature, then YOU become your ultimate authority and not Scripture. Of course we all want to affirm that Scripture IS our ultimate authority and that we should not put God to the test.

Sorry, I'm a classical apologist (*gasps and moans from the audience*).

I do agree that Scripture is the ultimate authority. I disagree that I can somehow approach Scripture without using my own intellect. Being a man, I am forced to use my senses, my memory, and my reason to understand the words printed on the pages of my Bible. If you can explain to me how it is that you can understand Scripture without using your reason, I would be interested to hear it (unfortunately, I will be forced to use my reason to understand your answer).

If you have to decide using your own reasoning and knowledge whether or not the Bible is God's word, then how are you going to escape the problem of ultimate authority. There is no way around it. If I were to say to you that all knowledge comes from sense experience and that it was my ulitmate authority, I couldn't appeal to anything other than my senses to prove it. If I did, then not ALL knowledge would be by sense experience and whatever I appealed to prove it would then become my ultimate authority. Remember, "the BEGINNING of knowledge is fear of Jehovah".

 

[mgeoffriau]

So can you explain to me how you understand Scripture without looking at it with your eyes, and understanding it given your framework of language?

 

[BrianLanier]

Originally posted by mgeoffriau
So can you explain to me how you understand Scripture without looking at it with your eyes, and understanding it given your framework of language?

Of course I understand Scripture by using my mind and my eyes, etc. I believe that God has created us in his image and we are capable of reasoning and understanding things and the Scriptures are clearly an example of God revealing himself to us in such a way that we can understand. I am affraid that you are misunderstanding my position (the presuppositionalist position). This is, I am sure, no fault of yours. From what I gather, you haven't read that much from presuppositionalists. I mean absolutely NO disrespect, and if I am wrong then I apologize.

On the other hand you are right in that they don't believe because of moral reasons, not because they can't understand what we are saying (intellectually, that is). You see, the problem is, any time an unbeliever thinks in a correct manner it is only justified given the truth of the Christian worldview.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by mgeoffriau
So can you explain to me how you understand Scripture without looking at it with your eyes, and understanding it given your framework of language?

Reason does not exist in a vacuum. We use reason to understand Scripture, but Scripture more importantly informs our reason. It is the final authority of our reason, and sets the boundaries for where we finite men are allowed to go. Man is designed to reason, he was created in the image of God in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness. But that knowledge is now corrupt. Our mind needs to be transformed and renewed. We need to be reducated so that we think correctly about God and His world. This will only happen if you you submit to Scripture as the final and ultimate authority. Reason never stands alone. It is always governed by presuppositions.

 

[mgeoffriau]

I've changed my mind -

I don't think presups go far enough, actually. You say, "It's not enough to say that man's will was corrupted by the fall - his mind was corrupted too."

I say, "It's not enough to say that his will and his mind were corrupted - his body was corrupted as well. Man does evil all day long, and profanes the very image of God in his flesh, by the evil acts he commits with his hands. Until man's body is renewed, everything done by his body is corrupt."

Right? Man does evil things with his hands, so his very hands must be evil and corrupt? Is this not a parallel situation?

 

[BrianLanier]

Originally posted by mgeoffriau
I've changed my mind -

I don't think presups go far enough, actually. You say, "It's not enough to say that man's will was corrupted by the fall - his mind was corrupted too."

I say, "It's not enough to say that his will and his mind were corrupted - his body was corrupted as well. Man does evil all day long, and profanes the very image of God in his flesh, by the evil acts he commits with his hands. Until man's body is renewed, everything done by his body is corrupt."

Right? Man does evil things with his hands, so his very hands must be evil and corrupt? Is this not a parallel situation?

1. What do you mean, "I've changed my mind-"?

2. Were the explanations given to your last question sufficent or do we need to discus it further. I say this because I think systematic dialog is the most helpful (rather than jumping around all over the place).

3. I am not quite sure where you're going with this post. Could you clarify.

 

[BrianLanier]

BTW, did you notice that we both attend a "redeemer" presbyterian church.

 

[mgeoffriau]

The reason that I answered as I did was because both of your answers basically resorted to the noetic effects of the fall as a reason for man's inability to rely on his senses, memory, and reason.

I think that the "noetic effects of the fall" is a solution looking for a problem. It's unnecessary to talk about the effects of the fall upon the mind. It's akin (which I attempted, rather poorly, to show in my post) to talking about the corrupting effects of the fall on the body.

Here is what I believe about the noetic effects of the fall, plain and simple:

Man's ability to use reason was undoubtedly limited in the fall -- that is, he is no longer as efficient at it. Difficulties and confusions make it a much more problematic thing than it was before.

However, the faculty of reason itself, along with the senses and memory, remain generally reliable. Man's corrupt will make him think evil things, just as his corrupt will makes him do evil things. When man uses reason to run from God, it is not because his faculty of reason has failed him or led him astray, but because his fallen will has used his faculty of reason to run from God.

Therefore, I think it is a category mistake to talk about a "fallen reason." Reason is just a tool; it is not good or evil in and of itself, apart from being a good "thing" as a creation of God. But it is capable of being used for evil or for good, just as any other tool is (like our bodies).

Now tell me this: what does your system (the mind, or reason, corrupted) explain that my simpler system (a corrupt will directing man's reason) can't explain? I think that my system explains the situation better.

For example, an atheist writes an argument for the non-existence of God. Now, you say it's a product of his fallen and corrupt reason, which leads him away from God. I say it's a product of his fallen and corrupt will, which uses every opportunity, including language and reason, to lead him away from God.

EDITED TO ADD: Sorry for any confusion with my last post...it made sense to me, because I knew where I was leading, but I can understand that it seemed a non sequitur.

I did notice your church name...and this is what makes debates like these enjoyable, is that I can debate heatedly and good-naturedly with a brother in Christ our Redeemer.

[Edited on 11-30-2005 by mgeoffriau]

 

[JohnV]

The electricity was off for six hours last night, so I couldn't join in on this conversation. Sorry.

I've read a few posts, and I think we're getting the responses that I was expecting, and hoping for. I would really like to answer some of the posts. I think, though, that I am going to try to avoid Chris's first post, as I don't want to get into debating over his version of Presuppositionalism right now. I'm sure we'll get into it sooner or later, but for now I want to just get around that and just defend the propositions.

I need to go back and read all the posts carefully first, and make some notes. I'm putting this post here as a kind of doorstop for myself, so that I know when I'm fully updated.

Thanks for all the responses.

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by BrianLanier
Some quick thoughts:

P1. Prove it (why must God be perfect?). Also, what do you mean by perfect?
P2. How can you predicate a predicate? In other words,, you're saying that the predicate of P1 (not the subject) is now the subject in P2 (not the predicate). Is this what you're saying?

[Edited on 11-30-2005 by BrianLanier]

I'd like to respond to some of the ideas that have been put into the mix. I'd like to start with this one.

What I'm not doing is trying to take God by the hand and lead Him to you to show Him to you. I can't do that; and that would deny God more than prove Him. If I by-pass His sovereignty in order to show you His omnipotence, for example, then I've shown you less than His omnipotence, and so I have not shown you His omnipotence at all.

If you were able to put all the top representatives of each religion standing in one room, one for each religion, and began to list the necessary attributes of God, explaining with each item on the list why it is necessary, then, beginning with the atheist and the pantheist they would all sit down one by one as the list is being read and explained. They would all know that better is better than worse, and that God would have to be the best in order to fit the concept. Of course, I'm assuming honesty here, not excuses and arguments.

So when you beging with "It is better to be one thing than to be the other thing, therefore God must be the one thing", you can ascend on that same principle to it being necessary that God is the best example of that one thng. For example: knowledge: it is better to know than not to know, therefore God must know. But it is better to know all than not to know all, therefore God must know all. This leads to it being necessary that God is the perfection of knowledge, not just all knowing. In other words, it isn't just that He must know all things, but that He knows all things in their place, purpose, origin, relationships, etc., etc. It is that way with all considerations of God, beginning with the ones that every person has of the idea of God.

So all ideas of God involve a comparison of one attribute to another, and agreeing that the better one would be more suitable to God than the worse one. And if one follows that up the ladder, then it has to be that the perfection of that attribute is more suitable to God than anything that lacks that perfection. Therefore perfection has to be necessarily attributable to God alone.

As to the second part of this, in terms of predication, that is exactly what I was trying to avoid. This is a linguistic criticism. That is why I tried to make sure that the verb was used exactly the same way each time, and not as predication. It is stative, and it is descriptive in terms of the object.

It follows this line: The Vatican is in Rome; Rome is in Italy; therefore the Vatican is in Italy.

In the same way: existence is in perfection; perfection is in God; therefore, existence is in God.

I'm putting these propositions out there as necessary axioms. I'm deliberately using "is" the same way each time, so as not to confound the thing by different uses of the verb. That way the verb "is" is not a debatable consideration, but rather the subject and object of each proposition is debatable, with the verb connecting them in the same way in each proposition. So we are considering perfection, existence, and God in relationship, and that it is impossible to have one without the others. That was the idea.

So this is not the Ontological Argument itself; you might say this is a preamble to it.

 

[Saiph]

As I said, no one has yet been able to describe or limn the non-existence of a perfect being.

Why any would attempt to undermine the self evident knowledge of God's existence is a mystery. We would not even conceive of the idea of perfection if God did not exist. We would not conceive of anything higher than ourselves, because we would intrinsically be the highest order of being.

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by Saiph
As I said, no one has yet been able to describe or limn the non-existence of a perfect being.

Why any would attempt to undermine the self evident knowledge of God's existence is a mystery. We would not even conceive of the idea of perfection if God did not exist. We would not conceive of anything higher than ourselves, because we would intrinsically be the highest order of being.

Yes and No, Mark.

Yes, it is true that we 'would not even be able to conceive of the idea of perfection if God did not exist.' But the statement that follows is a contradiction when you think about it. It is not possible that we would conceive of ourselves as the highest order of being. The idea of "highest" is a consideration of comparisons which suggests that it is better to be one than the other ( i.e., judgment ) and so suggest perfection again, ( i.e., high, higher, highest, in terms of good, better, best ) and so intrinsically suggests God.

I am not familiar with the term "limn". Can you help me out with that?

 

[Saiph]

Any being, self-aware, must reference the ontological nature of some other being in order to ascertain its position in the hierarchy. Except for the being that exist "in Himself". We are aware of plant life, animal life, and each other, but we are also aware of diety. Animals do not buid altars or bury their dead. Why not ?

To limn is to draw.

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by Saiph
Any being, self-aware, must reference the ontological nature of some other being in order to ascertain its position in the hierarchy. Except for the being that exist "in Himself". We are aware of plant life, animal life, and each other, but we are also aware of diety. Animals do not buid altars or bury their dead. Why not ?

That is what I am saying. To ascertain position is to beg the question. So as soon as man references himself as having some kind of supremecy, he must include in that the concept of "most supreme", which he cannot himself be if he must wonder at it at all. So the idea of "more supreme" or "higher" forces an ontological consideration of God.

To limn is to draw.

I knew that.



[Edited on 11-30-2005 by JohnV]

 

[Saiph]

Methinks we are saying the same thing.

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by Larry Hughes
Though it has nice symmetry, the ontological argument will never work with an atheist, I know I was one. Why? Because of the scandal of the cross. What you must realize with a true atheist is that fundamentally they do not believe (ascend to the idea) there is a God at all. And this they've done to justify themselves.

Good point, Larry. I agree with this. I think that there is a point in here that is part of the OA. It is not that the atheist is convinced by facts about what he believes, for what he holds is basically an unbelief. In other words, he believes his excuses, not real reason: his own "reasons", but not what reason brings to him. His belief is not really reasonable if considered honestly. He refuses the truth; it is not that he is an atheist because of truth.

Once the atheist has these set up when shown the cross he will immediately stumble and see it as foolishness for it contradicts these other ideas of God's "frontal glory". "How and why would a holy God crucify Himself for evil men?" And if it contradicts these then "there must not be a God, at least not the Christian God". The atheist will then have to arrive back where he was OR some other deistic position but never at Christianity.

Many atheist just stay pure atheist. Myself I arrived at there might be a God but Christ as Christ never made sense to me, reason cannot go there or arrive at the cross of God the Son suffering. But unless the atheist becomes a Christian he will not be able to sustain his other god or deistic position very long for he will have to continue to justify himself. Thus, seeing only a purely just and holy God he will again have to deny God altogether - he can survive no other way.

L

I'm going to pay attention to Jeff's post, but part of that comes in here now. There is a difference between knowledge of God through ontological considerations and that which is specifically revealed in Scripture. I can understand your former atheist position, I think. Once such a position has taken up certain paradigms it refuses to acknowledge things which militate against it.

But my response is that, in the end, atheism must leave its foundation if it responds at all truthfully to that which is revealed, whether it is natural revelation or special revelation. So, though I agree that atheist dig in their heels at a thought repugnant to their position, that repugnancy is really only in their heads, not in reality or reason.

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by Saiph
Methinks we are saying the same thing.

Well of course. What's the fun in this if we can't agree on something?

I wasn't trying to disagree with you, Mark. I was trying to be precise in the simple terms and ideas. What you said only showed the necessity of God's existence, when it was taken to its logical conclusion. That was what I was trying to get across. I'm just trying to take each thought carefully and accurately, not allowing myself to make mistakes in thought. And I hope to try to invoke this in others as we think these things through.

 

[BrianLanier]

Originally posted by JohnV

Originally posted by BrianLanier
Some quick thoughts:

P1. Prove it (why must God be perfect?). Also, what do you mean by perfect?
P2. How can you predicate a predicate? In other words,, you're saying that the predicate of P1 (not the subject) is now the subject in P2 (not the predicate). Is this what you're saying?

[Edited on 11-30-2005 by BrianLanier]

I'd like to respond to some of the ideas that have been put into the mix. I'd like to start with this one.

What I'm not doing is trying to take God by the hand and lead Him to you to show Him to you. I can't do that; and that would deny God more than prove Him. If I by-pass His sovereignty in order to show you His omnipotence, for example, then I've shown you less than His omnipotence, and so I have not shown you His omnipotence at all.

If you were able to put all the top representatives of each religion standing in one room, one for each religion, and began to list the necessary attributes of God, explaining with each item on the list why it is necessary, then, beginning with the atheist and the pantheist they would all sit down one by one as the list is being read and explained. They would all know that better is better than worse, and that God would have to be the best in order to fit the concept. Of course, I'm assuming honesty here, not excuses and arguments.

So when you beging with "It is better to be one thing than to be the other thing, therefore God must be the one thing", you can ascend on that same principle to it being necessary that God is the best example of that one thng. For example: knowledge: it is better to know than not to know, therefore God must know. But it is better to know all than not to know all, therefore God must know all. This leads to it being necessary that God is the perfection of knowledge, not just all knowing. In other words, it isn't just that He must know all things, but that He knows all things in their place, purpose, origin, relationships, etc., etc. It is that way with all considerations of God, beginning with the ones that every person has of the idea of God.

So all ideas of God involve a comparison of one attribute to another, and agreeing that the better one would be more suitable to God than the worse one. And if one follows that up the ladder, then it has to be that the perfection of that attribute is more suitable to God than anything that lacks that perfection. Therefore perfection has to be necessarily attributable to God alone.

As to the second part of this, in terms of predication, that is exactly what I was trying to avoid. This is a linguistic criticism. That is why I tried to make sure that the verb was used exactly the same way each time, and not as predication. It is stative, and it is descriptive in terms of the object.

It follows this line: The Vatican is in Rome; Rome is in Italy; therefore the Vatican is in Italy.

In the same way: existence is in perfection; perfection is in God; therefore, existence is in God.

I'm putting these propositions out there as necessary axioms. I'm deliberately using "is" the same way each time, so as not to confound the thing by different uses of the verb. That way the verb "is" is not a debatable consideration, but rather the subject and object of each proposition is debatable, with the verb connecting them in the same way in each proposition. So we are considering perfection, existence, and God in relationship, and that it is impossible to have one without the others. That was the idea.

So this is not the Ontological Argument itself; you might say this is a preamble to it.

John,

I still don't see why God must be perfect. Why is this necessary? The different conceptions of God all use the term perfect to mean different things. Some even have said that God doesn't have to be perfect, i.e. not all powerful since there is evil in the world. Why is it better to know than not to know, etc., etc. By what standard would one know this?

Also, why must 'perfection' exist? Remember you said perfection must (necessary) exist. But why?

It seems that the premises of your syllogysim are very controversial and must be proven.

[Edited on 11-30-2005 by BrianLanier]

 

[JohnV]

from Jeff
I would also like to add that even IF the ontological argument was sound (which it is not) it would not prove a moral god (hence not the God of the Bible) and it would not prove that there is ONE God (hence not the trinity as in the Bible). So what kind of god have you proved even if you get this to work? You have proved an idol.

If it were possible to prove that there is a God, then it would only be possible to prove the God that is there, and no other. If morality was excluded, then it would not be God; if He were not one, it would not be God; if it were an idol, it would not be God. Therefore it would not be proof of God's existence.

Don't get the wrong idea of what is being proved here. It is not that this proves God's existence as much as it proves that the concept of God necessarily involves His existence, even for those who hold to a conclusion that He does not exist. It is impossible that God could exist only in the mind; and He does exist in the mind.

Secondly, this syllogism makes the fallacy of equivication with the term "exist." To exist in the mind or in theory is not the same to exist in reality.

That was what I was trying hard to avoid. Notice that this is not the ordinary formulation; it deliberately evades mixed uses of the verb "is".

Thirdly, it is sinful to try to prove the existence of God by rational or empirical means. God himelf tells us not to swear by heaven or earth or any created thing, but we ARE swearing by reason, or empirical evidence when appealing to such forms of "proof."

Heb 6:13 For when God made a promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself,

Believe it or not, I agree with this in part. I agree with the notion of not "putting God under the microscope", as if He fits under it. I don't think that this is doing that, though. This is just trying to be honest with reality, and the fact that, no matter where you turn, God's existence is suggested upon the thing under consideration.

Fourthly, why prove the existence of God? The scriptures are clear that every man knows that God exists.

That's the point this is making.

Should we believe the athiest when he says otherwise? That's exactly what we do when we try to prove God to them, we say "you're right, you DON'T believe that God exists, let me PROVE it to you." We must not reject scripture to grant this premise.

That's just the idea: he can't say otherwise and be honest to reality, nor even be consistent in his ideas and concepts. He puts limitations where he wants them, not where the they really are.

Lastly, everything exists, the question is "What is it?" Is God a figmant of your imagination? Or is he the God of the Bible? This is why the Westminster Shorter Catechism does not begin with "Does God exist?" But it begins with :

Q4: What is God?
A4: God is a Spirit,[1] infinite,[2] eternal,[3] and unchangeable,[4] in his being,[5] wisdom,[6] power,[7] holiness,[8] justice, goodness, andtruth.[9]

1. John 4:24
2. Job 11:7
3. Psa. 90:2
4. James 1:17
5. Exod. 3:14
6. Psa. 147:5
7. Rev. 4:8
8. Rev. 15:4
9. Exod. 34:6

The same goes for scripture itself. It assumes God from the very beginning. "In the beginning GOD!"

Exactly. It is so much a part of the basis of things that it does not require the question, "Does God exist?" It is assumed. This shows that this is true for all. It must be so, that following things honestly and truly cannot lead to doubt about God's existence. Atheists are being dishonest.

But so are other religions. Getting back to representatives of religions standing in a room, and reading off a list of "necessary attributes", this would show how, one by one, beginning with the atheist and the pantheist, they would all sit down except one; this is a reducing of the competing religions by calling into question their honesty in representing the God that must follow. As we progress from facts from nature to facts from Scripture ( because they will eventually be the only ones standing ), we can also take these revelational notions to their logical perfection, and end up with, in conception, the one true religion. In a way, that is what the Reformation did in concluding in such documents as the Westminster Standards, The Three Forms of Unity, or the London Confession. The Canons of Dordt, the renunciation of errors, is a good example.

 

[JohnV]

Brian:

You said,

I still don't see why God must be perfect. Why is this necessary? The different conceptions of God all use the term perfect to mean different things. Some even have said that God doesn't have to be perfect, i.e. not all powerful since there is evil in the world. Why is it better to know than not to know, etc., etc. By what standard would one know this?

Just take it simply. If God knows, then how can it be that He does not know perfectly? He is not subject to anything, so it would follow that all knowledge is perfected in Him, That is, if it can be made perfect then He alone can do it.

I am using the term simply.

Also, why must 'perfection' exist? Remember you said perfection must (necessary) exist. But why?

What I said was that the idea of perfection is necessary. And therefore existence was necessarily a part of that. One thing is better than another, and something else is better yet. It is impossible to exclude the idea of perfection. So the better question would be to ask where this comes from? There must be an absolute that becomes the reference for comparison.

This syllogism only speaks of things that are necessarily suggested, and of avoiding contradiction within them.

It seems that the premises of your syllogysim are very controversial and must be proven.

That's the idea. I'm just trying to call the question, and asking us all to consider it carefully and honestly.

[Edited on 11-30-2005 by JohnV]