“Our universe is self-advancing, self-igniting, self-developing, self-iterating, self-building-out & self-propelling,” from an article in the Huffington Post/Science section on “David Birnbaum Cracks the Cosmic Code.”
Question: Dear Dr. Roane, can you prove there is a God, or is everything as David Birbaum and other scientists say?
Answer: First, I must ask why you ask? If there were no God, it would be just as sensible for you to ask, "Can you prove there is a dumpydoodlefanastic?" Such a question makes absolutely no sense. So, right off the bat, you must have entertained the possibility of God. I certainly could not imagine people on every continent, from all times down through history asking if indeed there is any such things as a dumpydoodlefanastic? So, all men, everywhere, think about God as a possibility, or in some cases deny the possibility altogether. So, Anselm's argument for the existence of God goes. Not that he proves that there is a God, mind you, but that the thought is there. Now, it makes sense that if the thought is universal, then it must be based on something intuitive within the heart of man. We can't say that about a dumpydoodlefanastic, can we?
So, with Anselm's argument we can only argue that something is there, or we could not think about it or visualize it. A monk by the name of William of Ockham (c. 1287 – 1347) countered Anselm's argument with “Well said, however, you have still not proven what kind of God He is. The same could be said about a unicorn on an idyllic island way out in the Pacific somewhere that exist only in your imagination” or words to that effect.
True, I would say, but we dare not dispute there is the possibility of a horn, a horse, a body of water, and an island. Why? Because all this argument gives us is the possibility of a unicorn. Why such possibility? Because it is conceivable. Not so with a dumpydoodlefanastic. So, it goes with the argument for the existence of God. We may conceive the thought, although, it does not tell us what kind of God he is. He might just as week be a giant one-eye octopus looking being that can morph in and out of an eternity of endless creation. Sometimes he makes life pleasant and sometimes he doesn’t.
Now, to be perfectly honest, Anselm's idea of God is much more complicated than that. He argues that nothing be thought of as any greater than God. Or to quote from Anselm of Canterbury, who first developed the ontological argument, in Prosologium :
God is that, than which nothing greater can be conceived.… And [God] assuredly exists so truly, that it cannot be conceived not to exist. For, it is possible to conceive of a being which cannot be conceived not to exist; and this is greater than one which can be conceived not to exist. Hence, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, can be conceived not to exist, it is not that, than which nothing greater can be conceived. But this is an irreconcilable contradiction. There is, then, so truly a being than which nothing greater can be conceived to exist, that it cannot even be conceived not to exist; and this being thou art, O Lord, our God.
This, in my opinion, is too weighty with words, and is often misunderstood. At best it only initiates a definition with little content other than the beginning of a long line of reasoning and descriptive terms in what constitutes a essence we call God. The safest route is to say that the idea of God is presuppositional, an idea that you cannot shake. It is innate, but can be supported with evidences of history, logic and intuitiveness.
These "evidences" do not provide absolute proof; however. They're not enough. We must have more. We must have enlightenment. Revelation, if you please, or the grace of God to believe, to trust, to walk in the light. This we call faith. Such faith is not an empty word, or just a concept. It is full of content. That is found primarily in Jesus Christ, the Bible, and the Church which is the pillar and foundation of all truth (1 Timothy 3:15).
Sometime, or somewhere in our journey through life we must all decide which answer we will accept. To deny is to decide. There is no middle ground.
Trust this helps,
JimR_/
No comments:
Post a Comment