The point of this reblog is to thank ColorStorm for a kind compliment and for his post on a very difficult topic.
In addition I would like to add a few thoughts that ColorStorm’s post inspired me to write.
Yesterday I listened to this guy, W. Robert Godfrey, teach a history lesson => http://renewingyourmind.org/2018/02/10/scholastic-theology. This lesson is part of a superb series on the history of the Christian church.
In this lesson, Godfrey talked about the disciplined teaching of 17th Century Bible Scholars. Godfrey admired those scholars for their disciplined logic, and he made the point that we are usually much less disciplined in our conversations than we need to be. We leap for the answer before we have spelled out the question. So we talk pass each other. Often no one even knows what the debate is about.
What happens when we talk about proving the existence of God? Some argue that science proves there is no God. Another group says science proves God exist, and yet another group says science has no power either to prove God exists or does not exist. What we neglect to ask first is the most important question. What is proof? Until we have a common understanding of what would constitute proof, we don’t even know what sort of evidence is needed. We just know what evidence we personally find meaningful.
When I read that passage ColorStorm quoted from Romans (part of Romans 1:18-32), I believe I see what Paul saw. The magnificence. The infinite power. The majesty. The order. The quiet beauty. The unlimited concern of a craftsman who loves His work. But what about proof? What sort of proof did Paul see?
What Paul argues is that God’s existence is made self-evident through His creation.
Is there proof that is self-evident? Yes, but here is the conundrum. To believe some proofs are self-evident, we must believe some truths are self-evident, and some say we know that there are no self-evident truths. Those people (atheists in particular) are obviously not mathematicians.
Consider this definition.
axiom [ak-see-uh m] (from =>http://www.dictionary.com/browse/axiom?s=t)
1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof.
2. a universally accepted principle or rule.
3. Logic, Mathematics. a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.
Unless we assume some truths are self-evident, we cannot prove anything. Unless we accept some truths as axiomatic or foundational, we have nothing upon which to build any system of logic. Unless we believe that some truths are self-evident, we have no basis for either mathematics or science.
Hence, because God’s existence is self-evident, science cannot logically prove the existence of God.
(In a post at Palmyra, the solid thinking CTom offered a comment that is worthy of its own consideration. He says: ‘We can only use science to study his Creation.’ If he also means that through science God can be found, I agree, but if he says science cannot prove God, then I believe we have not seen the hidden gems of scripture. Will my case be proven in these few words? Nope, but they will offer one more weight that crushes the scales of godlessness. Take your time reading, and Enjoy.
It is true that science proves nothing regarding God, but then again, true science proves everything as to God. See the difference? I make a distinction because there is one. While the Creator leaves the HOW to His creatures, He has not left us clueless as to the WHY. But He gave us an admonition to be wary…
View original post 1,265 more words