Loading summary
Transcript5 lines
- [00:00]
A
The questions of the existence of God is not an issue that is played out on a neutral playing field. There is an enormous amount at stake here, because if we can prove that God exists, the eternal God of the universe without a doubt exists, that means I'm going to be held accountable for how I behave and how I live.
- [00:35]
B
That's a sobering thought, isn't it? And as RC Sproul will go on to say, it is the moral implications of God's existence that result in the unbeliever denying his existence. Welcome to the Friday edition of Renewing youg Mind. I'm glad you're with us. Ultimately, there are four possible reasons to account for the world's existence, and only one of them is logically compelling. Here's Dr. Sproul.
- [01:04]
A
We've been looking at various ways in which Christian theologians and apologists have sought to defend the truth claims of Christianity. And we've looked at the crisis that ensued from the Critique of Immanuel Kant and how some have gone to a historical evidential means of trying to prove the existence of God. Others have tried to establish belief in the existence of God on the basis of a leap of faith. We've seen a brief introduction to the presuppositionalist school of apologetics. And what I promised the last time was that I would begin to give you a presentation on how the classical method would proceed to try to establish proof for the existence of God. And so that's what we're going to begin with this session. Now, the way I like to proceed in arguing for the existence of God is by following a method that in its rudimentary form was first established by St. Augustine many, many centuries ago. And I've tweaked it a little bit using various insights from philosophers and apologists throughout history. But the basic approach that Augustine used was to try to establish a sufficient reason to explain reality as we encounter it. And what we mean by a sufficient reason is a reason that that is capable of meeting the task of giving a rational explanation for the world as we encounter it. And also Augustine approached this question by looking at it via a process of elimination, looking at possible theoretical options, and then testing them to see if they met the test of rationality or failed the test of rationality. And so what this means is that we start with four basic possibilities to explain reality as we encounter it. And the first is that our experience of reality is itself an illusion. That's one possibility. The second is that reality as we encounter it is self created. The third possibility is that the reality that we encounter is self existent. And the fourth possibility is that it is created ultimately by something that is self existent. Now, I am aware that in the history of philosophy and apologetics there have been nuanced approaches to the question of proving the existence of God that do not fall immediately and exactly into these terms or categories. But I'm using these four categories as the generic categories under which I believe we can subsume all other forms of argument, that is, all other forms of argument for or against the existence of God, or for accounting for the universe as we know it to, can be subsumed under one or more of these categories. Now, I've done this many times with many different audiences, with professors, with scientists, with philosophers, and so far I've never met anybody who wouldn't agree that their assumed alternative to one of these four categories under further reflection couldn't in fact legitimately be subsumed under one of these four. So to cut the Gordian knot here, I'm going to proceed saying that basically, in my judgment, these four categories give us an exhaustive list generically of all of the possible explanations for experience or for reality as we encounter it. Now, if I can step back for just a moment and say this, that I have always said that the simplest argument for the existence of God is that if anything exists, God exists. Now that's a very abbreviated form of an argument, and there's all kinds of steps that I have leapt over in the process without stating. But what I'm going to try to show you is that if something exists, then something must exist necessarily, that is must have the power of being within itself. Or to look at these four categories, what I'm going to try to show is that if something exists, if anything exists, then reason demands in the final analysis that something must be self existent. Now let me just mention about these four options, that of the four options that we have on the board, two of them include the idea of self existence. We have number three that says that which is is self existent. For example, I have a piece of chalk that I'm holding up in front of me. And let's suppose just for the sake of argument that this piece of chalk is not a Fig Newton of my imagination, that it actually exists, that it's real. And I'm going to have to demonstrate that in a little bit. But for now just to skip over that part and let's agree that there is a piece of chalk here. I'm saying that this piece of chalk is either an illusion and it's not really there, or this piece of chalk has ultimately created itself, or it is self existent, or ultimately has come into being as a result of the work of something that is self existent. So I'm saying, to give a sufficient reason for the piece of chalk I'm holding up to you, one of these four principles must be true, two of which establish the necessity of something that is self existent. And if self existent, it would therefore be eternal, as I hope also to show you. So that means that really the burden that we face most heavily here is with options one and two, namely that reality is an illusion, or the world as we know it is, is in some sense self created. Now, before I proceed any further, let me say this. There have been some who have argued that all experience of reality is illusory, that it's all an illusion. And I'm going to talk about that and give a whole lecture to it, I hope. But the second principle, that idea that the universe is self created is far and away the most popular and widely held alternative to divine creation. If you remember, at the beginning of this course I said that I spent time teaching a course in atheism where I insisted that my students read the primary sources of the most profound minds in Western theoretical thought who attacked the idea of God. And we analyzed the arguments that they brought forth against the existence of God and the arguments they substituted to account for the universe as we know it. And I'm trying to show you that virtually all of those came to the conclusion that instead of there being a God who accounts for things as the sufficient reason for anything's existing, that the universe in some sense is self created. Again, I will explore that in much greater detail. Now. I would say today roughly 95% of atheists who want to account for the world as we know it fall back on some concept of self creation, while others will argue that the universe or this piece of chalk that I've held up is itself self existent and eternal, that there was no beginning to the universe. You usually hear the idea of the Big Bang or other kinds of cosmology and cosmogony that will say that 12 to 15 or 17 billion years ago the Big Bang occurred, beginning the universe that we encounter. Some small percentage still argue, however, for the eternality of of matter. And we'll have to look at that when we come to it in our examination. But for the most part, even those who argue for a self existent universe at least agree that there's a self existent something. And then we have to determine whether that self existent eternal something is a spiritual, transcendent, immaterial being called God, or if it is, matter itself. But again, I remind you that of these four categories, two of them are already committed to the principle of self existence. Now some might say, well, wait a minute, thought that you said you were going to prove the existence of God, and now all you're doing is talking about a self existent something. Well, that is true. What I am trying to prove is that reason demands the assertion of a self existent eternal being in order to account for the existence of anything in this world. And that you cannot be consistently rational by denying the necessity of a self existent eternal being. That is what I'm trying to show you, that both reason and science demand the existence of a self existent eternal being to account for the existence of anything else. Now, the character of that self existent eternal being, whether it's personal or impersonal, wise or foolish, good or evil, remains for further discussion. But right now the central point that we're going to be concerned with is the actual existence or essence of a self existent eternal being. Now again, I have said that the difference between the classical approach to apologetics and what's called evidential apologetics is that the evidentialist tries to give you a probability argument based upon physical evidence, or on what we would call empirical evidence, evidence that is available to the five senses. We know that there is a built in limitation to the proof value of empirical evidence. It never delivers what we call in philosophy formal proof or absolute rational proof, such as can be found in the area of mathematics, for example, which is purely formal. 2 and 2 equals 4, that's a logical equation and carries the force of logical compulsion. Now I have said that what the classical approach tries to do is to give compelling proof of the existence of this self existent eternal being and going beyond the level of mere probability, and therefore differs from what we call the evidential approach. I mean, there's a difference between giving evidence and good evidence, great evidence and absolute proof. And so we are arguing here that what we're trying to show you is not just evidence, but proof. Now, in order for that be the case, then that means that I can't start with the piece of chalk, because if I assume the existence of the piece of chalk, I'm assuming sense perception and I'm assuming the physical reality of this piece of chalk, which immediately throws me into the arena of the empirical, of the sensational, that is of what I perceive with the senses. And that can never get me to absolute philosophical proof, only evidence. That's why we have to find a starting point that is of purely a rational nature. And that starting point that I will seek to find in time is the starting point of my own consciousness. And we will explore that again in a separate approach to the matter. But before we do again, let me clarify. What I'm trying to offer here is not evidence but proof. There is a difference. A rational proof that compels a rational person to acquiesce to the proof. Now let me say it again. A rational proof that compels a rational person to acquiesce to or to surrender to that rational proof. Now, before we do that again, I have to make a very important distinction that has been made in theology for centuries. It was certainly popularized by John Calvin, and that is to distinguish between proof and persuasion. Proof and persuasion. I don't remember whether I've gone over this with any detail. I don't believe I did. If I may have mentioned it in passing, but I want to take some time with it. Now, the difference between proof and persuasion. Proof is something objective. Persuasion is something subjective. And somebody could give a proof theoretically that was logically conclusive and compelling, rationally certain that a person could refuse to accept. I could prove that if all men are mortal and Socrates is a man, then beyond a shadow of a doubt, the conclusion of the syllogism is that Socrates is mortal. That is a logically compelling conclusion given the premises. That is, if all men are mortal and if Socrates is a man, then there is no ifness about the conclusion that Socrates would, of logical necessity, by what Luther would have called a resistless logic, be mortal. But I could show that in a diagram in logic and syllogism, and somebody can say, I'm from Missouri. I don't care how rational it is. I don't care how logical it is. I don't believe it. I'm not persuaded, because for me reason is no proof of anything. John Montgomery tells the story I think is an illustrative anecdote about this distinction where he tells of Charlie, who one morning when his wife called him to get up, he said, I can't get up and go to work today because I can't get out of bed. And she says, why not? What's wrong? He said, because I'm dead. She said, charlie, don't be silly. You're talking with me right here. I can see you. Your eyes are open, you're breathing. You look fine to me. Now quit sandbagging. Get out of the bed, get your clothes on and go to work. He says, I can't. I'm dead, and dead men can't work. Don't you understand that? And so Charlie kept insisting that he was dead. So his wife did the rational thing. She called the doctor. The doctor came to the house, took out a stethoscope, listened to Charlie's heart. He said, charlie, your vital signs are fine. Your heart is beating. You have a good pulse rate, blood pressure's fine. You're just having a bad hair day. You need to get up and go to work. He says, I don't believe that stethoscope. And I don't believe the testimony of this doctor. I can't go to work. I'm dead. And as hard as the doctor tried to prove to Charlie that he was not dead and he was alive, Charlie refused to believe it. And finally he gave up. And he said to Charlie's wife, he said, ma', am, I can't get anywhere with Charlie. This requires a different kind of doctor from the kind I am. You're going to have to call in the psychiatrist. So they brought the psychiatrist, and the psychiatrist tried to work with Charlie and convince Charlie that he was being delusional and irrational and that, in fact, he was really alive and Charlie would have none of it. So the psychiatrist came up with a plan. He says, charlie, so I want you to come with me. Going downtown. And he said, what for? He says, I'm taking you to the morgue. I want to give you a lesson on dead people. So he takes Charlie to the morgue. And he said, charlie, I want you to understand something. He says, you know, when people die, their heart stops beating so they don't bleed anymore. So he got one of these cadavers out of the locker, and he took a pin and he stuck this corpse in the toe. And no blood came forth. And he said, cc, Charlie, the dead men don't bleed. Charlie says, that's amazing. He said, I never realized that. He said, well, are you sure? Do you understand what I've just done? And Charlie said, yes, I see that. He says, I'm an intelligent man. I can understand what you're doing. And the psychiatrist says, that's great. He said, now, Charlie, give me your thumb. For a second, Charlie stuck out his thumb, and the psychiatrist took his pin and he poked Charlie in the thumb. And immediately Charlie's thumb began to bleed. And the doctor said, see, Charlie, what do you think of that? Charlie says, well, I'll be. He said, dead men bleed after all. I love that story because we've all met people who, despite all reason and all evidence, refuse to acquiesce because of emotional reasons or bias or whatever there may be. And so this is what John Calvin gets at in the beginning of the Institutes when he talks about the Scriptures. He believes that the Scripture gives objective evidence to stop the mouths of even the most obstreperous. That it is in fact the word of God, that the indications or the evidences for its supernatural origin are plain and clearly there. But he said, because man is so ill disposed towards the things of God, has such a profound bias against the truth of God that he will never be sufficiently persuaded until or unless God the Holy Spirit, changes the disposition of his heart. Because what Calvin says when it comes to Scripture, the problem is not not an intellectual one so much as it is a moral one. And I submit to you that that's exactly what we encounter when we're dealing with the question of the existence of God. The question of the existence of God is not an issue that is played out on a neutral playing field as we saw earlier on in this course. There is an enormous amount at stake here because if we can prove that God exists, the eternal God of the universe without a doubt exists, that means, and as everybody understands, I'm going to be held accountable for how I behave and how I live. And one of the reasons why people want to get rid of the idea of the God hypothesis is to be free from guilt and free from accountability. So the unbeliever has a huge reservoir of wishes and desire for the argument not to be compelling. So even if the argument is as compelling as God's argument is that we saw in Romans 1, where God Himself makes his existence plain to every man. That doesn't mean that everybody is willing to admit to it. But it is not my task to persuade anybody that God exists. We are not called to persuade people, but we are called to give a reason for the hope that is within us. And we are called to be faithful to that responsibility.
- [24:50]
B
We're not called to persuade people, but we are called to give a reason for the hope that is within us. This is renewing your mind. And it's such an encouragement to know that God is the one who's building his church. We're simply called to be faithful in our witness. Today is the final day to request the complete 32 message series defending your faith. When you give a donation to help fuel the spread of renewing your mind and at renewingyourmind.org or when you call us at 800-435-4343. We'll add the series to your learning library, but we'll also send you a copy of it on a special edition DVD set. And to further help you in your study, you'll receive streaming access to Dr. Sproul's classic series, Apologetics of the Early Church. So respond before midnight tonight with your donation@renewingyourmind.org and to receive two teaching series as our way of saying thank you. Well, next week, Ligonier Teaching fellow Michael Reeves will be our featured teacher, so make plans to join us beginning Monday here on Renewing youg Mind.
- [26:08]
A
Sam.