Many Buckets
| I’m back...for those of you who were wondering where I was, I was here on planet earth, at my desk, pounding my head on it, typing frantically for a paper due tomorrow, and studying for three major exams I have tomorrow, Wednesday, and Thursday. I thought I would take a short break and write a follow-up to my last post. I believe the fact that rational thought exists is strong enough to “prove” the existence of God. That is, there can be no consistency in an atheist’s thoughts if he does not reach back to the fountain of logic, God. However, there are many other “proofs” to God’s existence on which we’ll now embark. But before we go forward, the best analogy I heard was in my Philosophy class this summer. Each one of the “proofs” I am about to present have a hole in them. Some may want to discount the “proof” right off hand simply because it has a hole. On the other hand, when we have holes in buckets and begin to stack them, one inside the other, they strengths from the other buckets make up for the holes in the other. So, putting the arguments together begin to form a strong wall against fallacious arguments against the existence of God. This point must be understood before we move on. There is no slam dunk proof for God’s existence. Each will find a sticky point somewhere. However, one after the other put together begin to make a solid standing place for those in doubt. |
posted by Matthew Wireman at 3:32 PM
Comments on "Many Buckets"
-
vandorsten said ... (Tue Nov 29, 12:47:00 AM) :
-
Will and Olivia said ... (Tue Nov 29, 02:08:00 PM) :
-
Matthew Wireman said ... (Tue Nov 29, 02:49:00 PM) :
-
vandorsten said ... (Tue Nov 29, 07:10:00 PM) :
-
Matthew Wireman said ... (Tue Nov 29, 08:49:00 PM) :
-
vandorsten said ... (Tue Nov 29, 11:07:00 PM) :
-
Matthew Wireman said ... (Wed Nov 30, 01:59:00 PM) :
-
vandorsten said ... (Wed Nov 30, 02:21:00 PM) :
-
Will and Olivia said ... (Wed Nov 30, 04:58:00 PM) :
-
vandorsten said ... (Wed Nov 30, 11:08:00 PM) :
-
Matthew Wireman said ... (Thu Dec 01, 02:15:00 PM) :
-
Matthew Wireman said ... (Fri Dec 02, 10:32:00 AM) :
-
Matthew Wireman said ... (Fri Dec 02, 10:33:00 AM) :
post a commentMatt, this is a great point to build from - how you define "proof". If one has the idea that there is a black-and-white, all-encompassing, non-refutable "proof," one could not only get frustrated in searching, but ultimately draw an erroneous conclusion. However, as I'm sure you will continue to point out, there is more than enough evidence that proves the existance of God beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt.
I too am looking forward to this discussion Matt.
Thanks, guys. I will say this regarding "proof". It is in the pudding. God has revealed himself to everyone, but man has hardened his heart to such a point that many other "proofs" have been offered.
"Beyond a shadow of a doubt", however, will only be possible for the person who truly desires to know. That is, no matter how many things we show, man will find an excuse for not believing.
So I think the most powerful "proof" is the first one I posted on the topic, regarding rational thought. Without God in a person's world-view, there is nothing coherent. They have to borrow bits and pieces in order for it to make sense. But when you put the bits and pieces together it makes no sense. An atheist has no rational basis for morality or logic or talking...
I would love for this to be a springboard for more discussions and questions...so keep those comments and chastisements coming.
Matt, you asked for articles or sources... one of the most interesting things I've recently read - especially regarding logic and rational thought - is from a book called "I'm Glad You Asked" by Ken Boa & Larry Moody. Well worth checking out I think.
Could you give a brief synopsis of it? What was especially helpful about it?
The book itself deals with several apologetic topics, the existance of God being one of several (others being the accuracy of Scripture, diety of Christ, hypocrisy in the church, etc.)
What I liked about it was its approach based on logical progression on reason. For example, when asking the question "does God exist?", you have 3 options; No, Maybe, and Yes. The writers the, in logical succession, examine each possibility. For example (and this is my own poor summary):
If one says "No, God cannot exist," reasonable rational thought must still include the possibility that He does given the amount of all knowledge there is to know in the entire universe as compared to the percentage of that amount the naysayer holds - and even the most arrogant would admit to knowing only a small percentage of all there is to know. So, in light of this, one could reasonably move to "Maybe God exists..."
"Maybe" then deals with the definition of "proof" and kinds of acceptable proofs and evidences(legal, historical, scientific, direct, indirect, etc.) which flows into "something cannot come from nothing" and what they call the "If Statement".
The "if statement", if i can remember it properly, goes something like this - "if something exists, than something must be eternal or else something not eternal came from nothing." That leads into 4 options: The universe is an illusion (nothing exists); The universe emerged from nothing; The universe itself is eternal; The universe was created by an eternal being.
They then present rational arguments that lead to the final of the 4 assertions above (a God/Creator must exist") which flows to attributes such a God must have (personal vs. impersonal, moral vs. immoral etc.), etc.
(it probably makes a lot more sense when you actually read it from the book, but hopefully you get the idea)
Thanks, J ~
It looks like I don't have to post any more on this topic. You covered that pretty well...It sounds like a good read. I'm going to post tomorrow (after my last final) on Anselm's argument from his work Proslogion. Hope you enjoy!
nice. looking forward to it.
Matt, that's interesting that you brought up Anselm. I haven't read the Proslogion but i did read Why God Became Man this semester. In this work he attempts (and succeeds according to himself) to "prove by logical steps" that the only way that man could have been saved was if God the Son became a man to die in his place. In the course of his argument he "proves" many other things (one among them being that man was created to make up for the number of fallen angels). I found that i had a problem with the presumptious tone of his writing and it got me to thinking about whether we as fallible, fallen humans can really "prove" anything about God.
Anyway, apparently there will be more thoughts forthcoming on proving things and i'm interested to hear what Anselm had to say in the Proslogion.
William... are you gonna blog? On your blog site? Blog, man... blog!
Matt, when you start that next post, please give at least a brief explanation of Anselm and Proslogion - I don't know what that is.
Great points, fellas ~
I really appreciate your thoughts. Hararite, you really struck a chord with me. I oftentimes find myself arguing for the same reasons, just to win an argument. Thank you for the exhortation to get our hearts in check before we try to speak of things too wonderful for us.
As regards the "bucket theory" you are right in being cautious. The point that I wanted to make is that there is going to be issues with analogies and explanations as pertains to the Infinite, All-Glorious Being. We have about 5 lbs. of brain. Trying to explain God is like a drop in the ocean.
And see, even this analogy has faults because a drop in the ocean is finite and is compared to something, though magnitudes larger is still finite.
The main point is that the heart must be changed first. Augustine said that he believed in order to know. I believe this is foundational to truth wisdom. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, not logical argumentation. Though this is helpful and not in opposition to faith, reason is not the end all for the faith. They are definitely necessary...and propositional truth provides foundations on which to build. However, I cannot believe until my heart is willing to receive. Not only this, but willing to have my life totally flipped upside-down. Make sense?
Again, these comments have been great! Thank you and may we heed Hararite's exhortation...that we do so with humility and love to God in our hearts. By the way, what is a "hararite"? I did a search on Wikipedia and nothing came up. But I did look it up in old Webster's and the closest thing was a city in Ethiopia, named Harar, or the capital of Zimbabwe, Harare.
Duly rebuked. I did check my concordance after you mentioned it. Thank you.
A quick point of interest regarding this passage is the fact that the author mentions that he defended a plot of lentils. Lentils were worth the least in the economy of the day. What is the point of this passage? The righteous act of the Shammah was in the fact that he was defending the promised land God had given Israel.
Even the least valuable produce of the land was worthy of laying down one's life. This was due to being convinced that the Land had been entrusted to Israel. This is quite the opposite of what we see in the Israelites when they were afraid of Goliath. They did not righteously defend the Land. This is why David's boldness is so commended in Scripture. He lay down his life for the inheritance that God had given. How could an uncircumcised Philistine dare attempt to take the land away!
What's more, I think the Shammah passage has a relationship to social justice. Perhaps we will talk about this in the future.