Biblical Proof
Now as to proofs that God does or does not exist—I believe they are not possible. Here I quote Hans Kung, the Catholic theologican:
• It is possible to deny God. Atheism cannot be eliminated rationally. It is irrefutable.
• Affirmation of God is also possible, Atheism cannot be rationally established. It is undemonstrable.
•If God is, he is the answer to the radical uncertainty of reality.
•The fact that God is, can be assumed not strictly in virtue of a proof or indication of pure reason (natural theology), not unconditionally in virtue of a moral postulate of practical reason (Kant), not exclusively in virtue of the biblical testimony (dialectical theology), but only in a confidence rooted in reality itself.
From his book, Does God Exist?
You cite scripture as your "proof" that God exists, the basis of your knowledge of what you believe is fact. I have a problem with that assertion, namely that it depends on an assumption: the Bible is the word of God. You are free to make any assumption you wish, but the proposition the Bible is the word of God itself presupposes the existence of God—in other words, it makes no sense unless God is assumed to exist.Consequently to use it to deduce the existence of God is circular reasoning. To be quite explicit your reasoning has to run: "I believe that God exists and that the Bible is the word of God. Therefore I may conclude that God does in fact actually exist."
Yes, there is a problem with circularity. Thus, the Bible is true because it confirms that is is true, a premise Christians would reject in considering whether on not other holy books were true. But even the assumption that you make "the Bible is the word of God" goes beyond what the Bible really says. The Biblical canon is no where defined. Secondly, the Bible is far from uniform is asserting that its words are God's words. It's our assumption (or rather the judgement of councils over the centuries) as books of the Bible were included in the canon while others were excluded. Thirdly, no where does the Bible make any effort to prove God's existence. Rather, God's existence is assumed by the writers of the Bible.
The Christian theologian Francis Schaeffer asserts that his world view derives from the axiom that "the God of the Bible is." However, the problem with this is that the God of the Bible is anything you want it to be based on how you read particular verses in the Bible-- immanent, transcendent, montheistic, polytheistic, triniterian, and so on.
The proof most people resort to is experiential and existential-- it is true because I feel it to be true. I'm not sure it's easy to argue against such claims. On the other hand, such statements are outside what we commonly understand is fact or proof.
• It is possible to deny God. Atheism cannot be eliminated rationally. It is irrefutable.
• Affirmation of God is also possible, Atheism cannot be rationally established. It is undemonstrable.
•If God is, he is the answer to the radical uncertainty of reality.
•The fact that God is, can be assumed not strictly in virtue of a proof or indication of pure reason (natural theology), not unconditionally in virtue of a moral postulate of practical reason (Kant), not exclusively in virtue of the biblical testimony (dialectical theology), but only in a confidence rooted in reality itself.
From his book, Does God Exist?
You cite scripture as your "proof" that God exists, the basis of your knowledge of what you believe is fact. I have a problem with that assertion, namely that it depends on an assumption: the Bible is the word of God. You are free to make any assumption you wish, but the proposition the Bible is the word of God itself presupposes the existence of God—in other words, it makes no sense unless God is assumed to exist.Consequently to use it to deduce the existence of God is circular reasoning. To be quite explicit your reasoning has to run: "I believe that God exists and that the Bible is the word of God. Therefore I may conclude that God does in fact actually exist."
Yes, there is a problem with circularity. Thus, the Bible is true because it confirms that is is true, a premise Christians would reject in considering whether on not other holy books were true. But even the assumption that you make "the Bible is the word of God" goes beyond what the Bible really says. The Biblical canon is no where defined. Secondly, the Bible is far from uniform is asserting that its words are God's words. It's our assumption (or rather the judgement of councils over the centuries) as books of the Bible were included in the canon while others were excluded. Thirdly, no where does the Bible make any effort to prove God's existence. Rather, God's existence is assumed by the writers of the Bible.
The Christian theologian Francis Schaeffer asserts that his world view derives from the axiom that "the God of the Bible is." However, the problem with this is that the God of the Bible is anything you want it to be based on how you read particular verses in the Bible-- immanent, transcendent, montheistic, polytheistic, triniterian, and so on.
The proof most people resort to is experiential and existential-- it is true because I feel it to be true. I'm not sure it's easy to argue against such claims. On the other hand, such statements are outside what we commonly understand is fact or proof.
Labels: theology


0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home