FOLLOWCHRIST.info
Last modified: 30 November 2007
|
Arguments for the existence of God 4. THE VALIDITY AND AIM OF THE ARGUMENTS FOR GOD Why should we deal at all with arguments if God's existence is anyway a matter of faith? Concerning the arguments for the existence of God there are always some great questions: their validity (the power of the proofs), their method (the way of proving) and their aim (how they help). 4.1. How valid are these proofs? They were often contested in different ways by many philosophers, but our assessment should be in accordance with the deep conviction of Paul concerning the sure knowability of God:
This basic idea of recognising the invisible God from his visible created world is to be found in every culture, from the ancient thinkers to our modern scientists. We do not claim that God's existence can be proved mathematically or demonstrated, but that "it can, from created things, be known with certainty by the natural light of the human reason" (as Catholics formulated at the Vatican Council). Perhaps we can say that the proofs supply a high degree of evidence that will exclude reasonable doubt even if their demonstrative deductions are not logically inevitable or inexorable. The proofs for God's existence never compel anybody to accept them necessarily because they give space to the free will. Mathematical or scientific demonstrations start from some axioms or postulates, and work with some logical rules accepted with general consent by all in that area of science. In case of metaphysical reasoning there are certain conditions for grasping the content and the relations between the proofs. One has to be familiar with the terms and with some abstract way of thinking to see larger connections. Therefore the power of the arguments depends on one's personal turn of mind, mentality, disposition or education. And the most important condition is that one has to show personal readiness and openness to examine one's own way of thinking and life. 4.2. The ways of proving From the many different ways of argumentation we dealt only with the inductive (a posteriori) reasoning, which starts from different aspects of the existence (the contingent world, both in its existence and its features), or of our human experience and which leads to the first cause that is God. We did not deal with the deductive (a priori) reasoning that starts from the notion of God and infers His actual existence (like Anselm, Descartes, Leibniz). This way of reasoning is contested by many although the question is not always so simple, it depends on how much we accept a certain pre-knowledge about God. To some extent in all our reasoning both ways are connected, we anticipate some notions of God's nature when we use the inductive method in order to prove His existence. We can not search what is completely unknown for us. On the other hand, we have to pay attention not to presuppose what we want to prove. 4.3. What is the aim of the arguments? Why do we need at all arguments and what should we use them for? What is the gain of these mentally so costly and exhausting methods? Indeed they do not supply us either the whole or the top of our knowledge about God. It is clear that someone does not have to be able to lead a certain way of argumentation in order to become a believer. But we use some rational explanations to understand that our belief in God is not in contradiction with the scientific or philosophical approach of the same reality. We need not become philosophers or scientists to be able to understand God's existence. But we have to assume a point of view if we are confronted today with so many different world-views that are widespread. We need not base our belief on scientific or metaphysic knowledge, but we should not give up using our mind and intellectual power in search for answers concerning the existence and nature of our Creator, to look for his footprints in nature and his image in man in order to get to know Him and to strengthen our relationship with Him.
5. FINAL REMARKS As we said in the beginning the arguments contained in this treatise do not give uncontested proofs for the existence of God. Our intention was to show through them that the question about God's existence can not be put aside by the usual objections. We wanted to give help to those people who honestly search the truth to recognise that the idea of God's existence is not far from our human nature. In most cases the greatest obstacle in accepting God is not the lack of arguments but the confrontation with its consequences and the lack of wish to experience the relationship with God. To accept God means to accept also the relationship with Him that he offers. It presupposes readiness to get to know Him, to give my time for Him, to have ears to listen to Him, to change my life according to His plan. It also means that I should entrust to Him my life, my way, everything that concerns me, completely, without reservation. And it means to reject everything that is contrary to Him and to renounce everything that hinders me to reach Him. Many people see just renouncement in the relationship with God but they do not consider that man should renounce only those things that hinder him to find the fulfilment of life and only the loving God is able to satisfy man's needs completely.
|
| [Home] | [Top] | [Topics] |
"Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE(r), Copyright © 1960,1962,1963,1968,1971,1972,1973,1975,1977,1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission." (lockman.gospelcom.net) Herewith we give our agreement to put a link of our homepage on any other website. Documents on this website may be distributed in an unchanged and complete form for private use. Publishing or using these documents in any other form or for any other purpose is only permitted subject to our agreement. This Web site may contain links to Internet sites maintained by third parties. By providing these links, we are not endorsing, adopting or agreeing with any of the content of the linked sites. [IE6 or higher][1024x768][True Color][Full Screen(F11)] |