Not only that, but we also
who have the firstfruits of the Spirit,
even we ourselves groan
within ourselves, eagerly awaiting
for the adoption,
the redemption of our body.
For we were saved in this hope,
but hope that is seen is not hope;
for why does one still hope for
what he sees?
But if we hope for what
we do not see,
we eagerly wait for it
with perseverance.
Romans 8:23-25
There is a large number of theologians and philosophies that deny the existence of any effort to prove the existence of an invisible God. Not all are in agreement in their discordance on the the basis of different grounds. But, they all agree to disagree with the fact that God being invisible can be proved and they believe that He cannot be proved to actually exist, or is One in which hope may be placed with confidence. This argument by such men rests upon the knowledge that God is intuitive. Therefore, God being intuitive it is not proper to suggest that this knowledge of this invisible, intuitive God be subject of proof. again, those theologians that take the position that all religion is to be addressed to feelings, and those theologians who make a wide distinction between the reason and the understanding, one being intuitional, the other the discursive faculty. The problem lies in the fact that eternal truths belong to the province of reason, and subordinate truths to the sphere of the understanding. It is this immediate vision, and here is not what is taught in many Churches about visions, it is what the mind apprehends by reason what relates to God, as the eternal, infinite, necessary Being, This vision belongs to the province of reason and not to the understanding. Some theologians and philosophers state easily that the good need no proof of a God, that He is, but on the other hand the wicked are not susceptible to that form of reason or conviction. They purport that beauty and that it is good cannot be proved. This is a fallicious statement so obvious in in wrongness to be used as an argument in favor that God cannot be known. Why? Because beauty and goodness are qualities which must be discerned by the mind, just as the objects of sight are discerned by the eye. What about the blind, they cannot be proven that an object is red and you cannot prove to a peasant the "Paradise Lost" is sublime. But, the existence of God is an objective. How? Because it may be shown that it is a fact that cannot be rationally denied. Yes, it is true that men have feelings and convictions which necessitate the assumption there is a God. But to rely only on one element of knowledge and proof is wrong for it is perfectly legitimate to show that there are other proofs which will lead a person to the same truth.
It must be remembered that theistic truths and arguments are designed to several things: 1. That there is a sublime Being, we call God; 2. That this Being is personal, self-conscious, intelligent, moral. All this is part and parcel of our intuitive knowledge but as with most all things, this knowledge needs to be illuminated and established. Furthermore, there are those who cavil with objections to all theistical arguments, their objections are pointed at the arguments themselves. They preempt those arguments by declaring them to be invalid and derived from false premises, or that those arguments lead to conclusions other than what was intended to be established. This is old objection for it can be found in men such as Socrates until this very present day. There are those whose arguments are on the principle of causation and make that principle to be invalid for they cannot find for themselves convincing proof of anything such as an efficient cause. Further, they object to the argument of design, again they find no possibility of a final cause therefore that argument has no force.
Misapprehension led a person to object on the basis that every argument must be the full and in some sense the final proof. This they apply to theism, but this is not the case in any scientific observation or any examination in regards to theism, or of anything else. There are different elements of each object that can led a person to the truth of that object. The cosmological argument may prove that there is an existent one, God, or an eternal Being, further the teleological argument proving that this God is intelligent, or that the moral argument demonstrates and proves that He is a moral Being with moral attributes. But these arguments are not designed so much as to prove the existence of God, rather to prove that this Being has revealed Himself to man both by means of the external world, and by the very fact that man is so constituted in his nature that God is all that this knowledge declares Him to be. The transcendental philosophers, i.e., Kant, Hume, Coleridge, and more, have expressed and denied the validity of the ordinary arguments of the existence of God.
Having considered the arguments in a small manner, and that man is so constituted in nature as to know that there is a God we are led to a very basic question: "Can God be known?" If this be so, then how? How do we know that God really is what we believe Him to be? This is our next effort in this blog.
For all those things My hand
has made,
and all those things exist,'
Says the LORD.
But on this one will I look:
On him who is poor and of a
contrite spirit,
and who trembles at My
word.
Isaiah 66:2
May God Be Your Standard
Richard L. Crumb
No comments:
Post a Comment