I wrote: "When you say that it is impossible to prove that God exists, you have virtually assumed that the Christian God does not exist." Doug responded: " Perhaps ... but you seem to have started with the opposite assumption, that this deity does exist. In order to convince anyone, you would have to start from the neutral position." I have not started from an assumption. I have acknowledged the plain truth of the Bible. Note well: I have not assumed that the Bible is true. I have recognized it as a self-attesting, wholly authoritative revelation. If you ask, "How can you tell it is the word of God?" I reply, "You might as well ask how we can tell that light is not darkness." If after being confronted with Scripture you do not recognize it as God's word, it is because you are blind. And this blindness is self-inflicted. Doug has not thought very hard about this claim: "From the nonbeliever's perspective, the universe behaves exactly as it would if that deity did not exist." How, exactly, would the universe behave if God did not exist? Consider what unbelievers think it means to say that "X is possible." On the one hand, they may mean that the laws of nature permit it. But of course, more educated and humble unbelievers will admit that their laws of nature are descriptive, not prescriptive. In that case, they have no right to say anything at all about whether X is possible. On the one hand, the laws of nature are conceived of as existing only in the minds of human beings. On the other hand, the laws of nature are conceived of as virtually legislative for the universe. The unbeliever contradicts himself in every claim he makes about facts in the universe. Doug insinuates that God "has no measurable properties," much like the ether that was not detected by the Michelson-Morley experiment. But this argument has no force against the God of Christianity. It is as though Doug were to demand, "If I am to believe in your God, bring him into this room and show him to me." But the Christian God is not the type of deity that can be brought into a room for inspection by instruments and cameras. Doug will only believe in a God who can be proven on the basis of independently intelligible facts. But even to say that there are some facts that can be known without reference to God, is already the very opposite of the Christian position. Doug obviously does not expect me to bring God to his house, ring the doorbell, and present Him for Doug's inspection. If I were able to do that, He would not be the God of Christianity. And so it is with the sinful demand for proof that may be apprehended by antitheistic science. The antitheist takes for granted that the physical facts would naturally be knowable first, and that if God is to be known he must be known later. But this is exactly the point in dispute. When an antitheist such as Doug says that the evidence for God is not clear, on the ground that if it were clear everybody would believe in Him, he is begging the question. If the God of Christianity exists, then the evidence for him is plain, and the reason why "everybody" does not believe in him must be that "everybody" is blinded by sin. Doug wishes that God were a thing subject to his scientific method, for such a God could comfortably live in the realm of Chance. His existence would be no less contingent than any of ours. And then there would be a chance for Doug to escape from God's authority, which as a sinner he abhors. But the living God does not live in the Realm of Chance. It is only by God's power that Doug even uses any scientific instruments. For that reason, every fact is overwhelming proof of God's existence, and Doug's sinfully autonomous intellect refuses to acknowledge Him. Matt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:42 AM EST EST