The One Who Proves God Becomes God

How do you prove the un-provable? How can you describe the indescribable? There is a large question in modern philosophy regarding the existence of God. Theists and Atheists argue the point using carefully constructed arguments. Theists use Ontological and Cosmological arguments. The Ontological argument starts with the assumption that there is a supreme existence even if that is measured only by determining that whatever man can think of, something else must be better. Cosmological arguments start with the assumption that something had to cause the existence of everything. Even if it was an explosion of atoms at the start of time, something caused that to occur and that thing must be God.  Atheists use Logical and Evidential arguments. A Logical argument would be similar to “God is perfect, perfect things are usually made up by people seeking validation for their imperfections, therefore God is made up”. An Evidential argument would be similar to saying that “God is perfect and good, and a perfect and good being would not allow evil to exist, therefore God does not exist”. These approaches whether internally consistent, fallacious, or truly logical are not the problem. The problem is in the argument itself.

Both of these approaches start with assumptions that require external validation to reach their given conclusions. Whether the arguments for or against God are logical, evidential, ontological, or cosmological, they all start with the assumption that we have the ability to define the parameters of the indefinable. If I discover something scientifically, I will weigh it, measure it, examine it, describe it, and provide my evidence for my conclusions using pre existing tools. Assuming my evidence holds true, my evidence becomes fact. I become the master of that evidence. That fact is disputable only by someone who can disprove my evidence or use of the pre existing tools in which case they become the master of that evidence. All of this would be subject to the scientific community for validation. That cannot work with God. By definition of the job, God is the supreme source and not verifiable by outside sources. Human logic can never encapsulate something that is outside the realm of humanity.

We approach the concept of God with a mindset that says we can understand him, we can figure him out. This is not just an atheist view. Christians approach God the same way. We assume the ability to understand God. So even in the most heinous circumstances, we force information into boxes to let ourselves sleep at night. We make claims on God by claiming we understand. Here is a perfect example. The story of Abraham being asked to sacrifice Isaac is utterly disturbing. It has historically been seen as a way of testing Abraham’s faith. We put an asterisk on the story by stating that God never intended to go through with it. I want that to be true as much as the next person but that is a conclusion inside a box initiated by the author of the book of Hebrews in the New Testament. The story does not give God’s motivation. It only provides circumstance. If anything, we should look at the story and say “Wow, I don’t get that. I will need to relay on my faith and know that God is just, but wow, I still don’t get that”. Instead, we package it, seal it, and pass it off as theology rather than accept the tension. That is the same thing Atheists do.

A relationship with God is based on faith. This faith says that no matter what we may see, feel, understand, perceive, or think, God is still God and worthy of our trust and eternal service. If we place conditions on the fealty, we switch roles and try to usurp the throne. If we try to do that philosophically through argument, the only thing we prove is that we become our own god, whether we conclude he exists or not.

, , , , , , ,

  1. #1 by makagutu on October 30, 2013 - 2:04 pm

    Whether the arguments for or against God are logical, evidential, ontological, or cosmological, they all start with the assumption that we have the ability to define the parameters of the indefinable.

    How, if you can’t even describe it do you get to the point of telling us such and such an entity exists? Isn’t better then not to talk about what you don’t know.

    A relationship with God is based on faith

    Here you right on the money! To believe in god, you have to suspend reason or else you would not need faith if such entities that are indescribable were evident.

    • #2 by yirahyahweh on October 30, 2013 - 7:19 pm

      I do not believe the problem is discussion. I think discussion is of great value. Describing his attributes is incredibly beneficial. I think the challenge is with the arguments. They are trying to use a system of “proof” that can not apply to the subject. By the mere attempt to form an argument assumptions are made that declare an ability to understand the subject. If one is capable of encapsulating an understanding of God they become superior to him and he ceases to be God. I also think “proof” offers no value. If you accept my “proof” and it is faulty, we will both be wrong. If it is correct, accepting it because I provided “proof” does not benefit either of us. The only answer to the question of God is faith, whether that is for or against him. I choose to have faith in him.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: