Yes, Dear Intelligentsia,
It is not so much that others "must prove" the reality of God to one's satisfaction (and there is little or no "evidence") for him, but instead, that we need to humble ourselves enough to acknowledge that we need God, and that we need redemption. That is almost the opposite of the approach of the past few hundred years, but it is in fact precisely the approach of the Scriptures, especially Rom 1. Let us now explore . . .
For starters, while I agree that the centuries old traditional "proofs" for God are not up to the standard, say, of the proof that the diagonal of a square is incommensurate with its sides, I suggest, it is wrong-headed (perhaps, even arrogant or irresponsible) to use such to try to put believers in God on the back foot, defending an imagined sticky wicket. For in fact, that lack of classic geometric rigour is true of ever so many domains of common sense and professional or academic knowledge that only a truly ill-advised person would question, in engineering, in the sciences, in management, in medicine, in statistics, in history (and in law courts), etc. Indeed, post Godel and his incompleteness theorems, we know no mathematical axiomatisation strong enough to cover say Arithmetic will be complete and coherent, and that there is no constructive proof that even an incomplete axiomatisation is consistent.
That's why we distinguish adequate warrant for a weak sense, commonplace knowledge from establishment of utter incorrigible certainty: Knowledge in effect is warranted, credibly true (and so reliable) belief. So, common sense, what the people mean, knowledge is a responsible judgement not an assertion of utter, incorrigible certainty delivered by some new magisterium, whether dressed in lab coats or not; if a claim is shown unreliable, it will lose credibility and we will freely admit, we were mistaken. That is, all of us must in the end live by faith; the question is which one, why -- how can it be reasonable, responsible, reliable well grounded faith. To adapt Dallas Willard's framing:
To have knowledge . . . is to be able to represent something as it is on an adequate basis of thought or experience, not to exclude communications from qualified sources (“authority”) [--> compare, "warranted, credibly true (and so, reliable) belief"] This is the “knowledge” of ordinary life [--> knowledge belongs to the people], and it is what you expect of your electrician, auto mechanic, math teacher, and physician. Knowledge is not rare, and it is not esoteric . . . .
[K]nowledge authorizes one to act, to direct action, to develop and supervise policy, and to teach. It does so because, as everyone assumes, it enables us to deal more successfully with reality: with what we can count on, have to deal with, or are apt to have bruising encounters with. Knowledge involves
assured[--> I substitute here, warranted, credible] truth . . . [pp. 4, 19 & 20: Dallas Willard & Literary Heirs, The Disappearance of Moral Knowledge, Routledge| Taylor& Francis Group, 2018.]
Once we are willing to recognise such, it becomes instantly clear that the true point of balance is that we need God and should be willing to acknowledge and walk with him. In the haunting words of Micah:
Similarly, Jeremiah warns us:
 |
| The silent, unanswerable, elephant in the room fact |
As we saw last time, it is equally ill advised to dismiss the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, or the basic validity of the C1, New Testament accounts of his life. Similarly, it is clear that the witness and record of that first Christian generation, is that he is Messiah, God's anointed one who fulfilled the key, then centuries old prophecies, including rising from the dead with 500 witnesses. Where, as a striking instance, on trial for his life c. 59 AD, the former chief harrier of the church and now apostle Paul of Tarsus challenged his judges, why does it seem inconceivable that God (author and sustainer of life) should raise the dead? When challenged, your great learning has driven you mad, he replied that his words were true and reasonable as the matter "was not done in a corner." He then turned to Agrippa and called him as expert witness. Agrippa ducked the bouncer, implicitly acknowledging the force of what Morison called a silent, unanswerable fact; the elephant in the room.
To help us clarify, let us consider an extension of the Oracle concept in theory of computing:
Here, we see the issue that computing by Garbage In, Garbage Out (GIGO) limited substrates is just that: limited, facing for example the halting problem. However, converting to a decision challenge, if a reliable oracle can render decisions, the power of a computing entity is drastically enhanced. Closely linked, is the point that computation is not contemplation, it is a dynamic-stochastic process that -- based on the organisation of its components -- mechanically processes input and stored information, creating outputs. This is why GIGO holds, as the mechanical processing depends on the quality of inputs, stored information, functional organisation and programming (or patching [for analogue computers] or weighting [for neural networks]), there is no inherent "does this make sense" oracle to provide quality assurance; nor is computation a free, responsible reasoned process, it is programmed action haunted by GIGO. So, self-referentiality lurks, if we are free enough to reason and warrant knowledge, our minds must be oracle machines, there is something beyond the brain as blindly programmed, GIGO-limited neural network computer. Mind, or even soul. Which opens the door to, greatest, unlimited mind.
That's also why J B S Haldane long ago warned:
It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.]
Where, we must never overlook what a fine tuned cosmos points to:
Further to that, our responsible rational freedom is also inescapably morally governed, as we may recall from the Ciceronian, branch- on- which- we- all- sit, first duties:
Then, as we ponder logic of being, we will readily recall that a contingent cosmos points to a necessary being world root. One, that is capable of founding creatures like us that are morally governed. For, we operate on both sides of the is-ought gap: truth is about being correct on what is (or is not), and ought is about doing what is right, good, honourable, virtuous, loving, kind etc. (so the right things are put in place). Where, this brings us back to cicero's "highest reason." Yes, it means, our rationality is itself governed by a built-in, intelligible first law, requiring duties to truth, right reason, prudence (including warrant), sound conscience, neighbour, so too, fairness and justice, etc. And, after Hume, we recognise, the is-ought gap can only be bridged in the root of reality, or we have ungrounded ought.
That's why the necessary being world root/source needs to be inherently good and utterly wise (which, BTW, implies, personal . . . yes, God has entered, stage right).
Hence, too, we see the only serious candidate, reality root necessary being (just try to put up another _____ and explain why it bridges the gap ______ while being coherent _______ . . . a tall, unfilled order -- no atheist or skeptic has ever put up a good alternative).
Namely, we see here:
The inherently good, utterly wise Creator-Sustainer God, a necessary and maximally great being; one, worthy of our fealty, and of the honourable, responsible, reasonable service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature. (That is, the Good, True, Wise God of ethical theism.)
Which, sounds quite familiar (and, for many who are even noddingly familiar with the Bible, this is recognisably close to the God of the Bible).
That screaming noise is atheists trying to get off the hook and burning the drag hard.
Won't work.
First, we really need a necessary being as world/reality root. A causal-temporal, thermodynamically constrained world cannot be past-infinite. For, every actual past year has to succeed year by year to this one, and you cannot traverse an explicit or implicit transfinite span in finite stage steps. And begging the question of transfinite traverse by asserting that at any given year y, the traverse was already completed (as I have seen) or the like, is an obvious logical boo-boo.
That is, once a contingent world now is, something -- the reality root capable of causing worlds -- always was. Similarly, once the world has morally governed creatures . . . us, for starters . . . we need a root capable of founding goodness and oughtness (which, BTW, reduces the problem of evil to due perspective, an issue WITHIN a world with God as root). We really do need an inherently good, utterly wise necessary being at the root.
Just for those unfamiliar with the logic of being, remember 2 + 3 = 5, or just the 2 part, never began, cannot cease from being, holds everywhere, every-when, in any possible world. Yes, eternity and reality root issues lurked in even our 1,2,3's in elementary school. So, as a reminder -- as "modern" education leaves a huge gap here, tabulating on possible/impossible being:
Yes, we clearly need God.
God, powerful enough to build worlds and unique enough that he is creator of all worlds: maximally great, supreme being. So good and so wise as to found moral government and creatures capable of freedom, love, truth, reason, knowledge, duty, honour, virtue. Us.
And yes, atheism and its associates are dead. Its ardent supporters just don't know it yet.
We need God. END
PS, next time, we will turn to the natural, intelligible, built-in, creation order first law, as foundational to urgently needed reformation -- or else, we are heading over the cliff. Moretime.
