RE: If you believe in the God of the Bible, why try to prove it logically?
July 2, 2013 at 8:07 pm
(June 14, 2013 at 4:49 pm)Zarith Wrote: Common arguments for the existence of God (such as the ontological argument, the teleological argument, first cause, cosmology, etc), only get you as far as an abstract notion of some sort of god -- the kind that philosophers talk about (if you accept the arguments, that is).
If you believe that the God of the Bible really exists and has the properties ascribed to him by this book, then other means are required to justify belief in this specific God. Typically this comes down to either scriptural authority, or divine revelation, or some combination of the two (for example, belief in the truth of the message of the biblical prophets is belief in both of these things). Am I omitting anything here? Note that I am including 'personal experience with God' under the umbrella of revelation, as God revealing himself to you.
But if you are willing to accept revelation / scripture as vehicles for determining truth from falsehood, then what is the point in attempting to construct a logical argument for the existence of God in the abstract? You already have what you consider proof of his existence, and a logical argument won't prove that your particular God exists. If you are trying to convince someone, they will still have to accept scriptural authority or divine revelation, will they not?
If belief in revelation / scripture is both necessary and sufficient, and logic alone is insufficient -- why bother?
Give this man a cigar! No sense in tossing pearls at swine.
If you are not in the "Book of Life".... well that's your problem! Right?
But the question begs.... why are you, and the other anti's in the Christianity section of this forum?
Why not slap each others backsides in the forum lounge?
Quis ut Deus?