For centuries now, frankly, there has been a concerted, sustained, hyperskeptical, acid critique of the credibility of faith in the reality of God; often resulting in the -- false! -- impression today, that believing in God is little more than a mark of intellectual suicide: ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked (as a common sneer goes). But in fact, there are very good, world-structural reasons to believe in and trust the Good, Wise, True, Loving, Eternal God; regardless, of whether typical, commonly seen arguments to God carry the force of Geometry proofs.
(H'mm . . . Q: Do we see a similar loudly promoted hyperskeptical fussiness, fuming or dismissiveness over the fact that scientific -- yes, scientific . . . , legal and historical or economic/financial evidence or just plain common sense practical reason cannot "prove" to the level of Geometry? A: Tellingly, no. Shouldn't that wake us up to the difference between responsible warrant/prudence and utter deductive certainty on matters of grave import?
As in,we can and do have moral certainty on a matter of grave import, if, on evidence that is in hand or reasonably accessible, we would be irresponsible -- or outright recklessly foolish [cf. Ac 27] -- to act as though such matters are false. Where, clearly, prudence counsels that, if we know -- yes, Virginia: negative knowledge -- that we lack such decisive warrant, then we should proceed with due caution; to minimise needless exposure to risk of harm or chaos [again, cf. Ac 27 i/l/o Prov 1:20 - 33].
{So, too, we credibly can and do have, knowledge [in the usual -- confident, actionable but fallible, day-to-day -- sense, i.e. warranted, credibly true (so, reliable) belief we willingly act on.]}
[And, of course, for 2,000 years now, millions of people have personally met and have been blessed and transformed by God in the face of Jesus; through, the cross-wrought redemptive power of the gospel -- something, that is too often overlooked.])
To begin to see this more clearly, let's start with Paul,
Rom 2:14 When Gentiles, who do not have the [Mosaic] Law [since it was given only to Jews], do instinctively the things the Law requires [guided only by their conscience], they are a law to themselves, though they do not have the Law. 15 They show that the essential requirements of the Law are written in their hearts; and their conscience [their sense of right and wrong, their moral choices] bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or perhaps defending them [AMP]
Here, we see a most peculiar thing, something he looked at from another angle a few verses above this clip: "you have no excuse or justification, everyone of you who [hypocritically] judges and condemns others; for in passing judgment on another person, you condemn yourself" [v. 1] Yes, we often quarrel [argue to try to show the other in the wrong], and in so doing, we consistently reveal that we expect one another to know that we are duty-bound by first duties . . .
1: to, truth
2: to right reason
3: to warrant (and wider prudence)
4: to sound conscience
5: to neighbour, so too
6: to fairness, and
7: to justice,
. . .
xth: etc.
Nor, can we wriggle off the hook.
For, when we attempt to deny or dismiss these as binding, we only manage to do so by bringing back the same duties by the side-door.
If, instead we try to say, it's all an illusion, we are programmed to feel that way, again, by the side-door we are saying, there is a failed duty of warrant (as well, because this is so pervasive, we would thus imply grand, pervasive delusion, self-referentially discrediting our own selves -- a form of, trying to condemn the other, only to indict our own selves). Yes, our conflicting, but conscience-prodded thoughts . . . speak. So, does the book of duty, written in our hearts. We find in ourselves, then, a book, written in our hearts; a conscience-attested, built-in -- creation order, thus, natural -- law. With, pivotal, intelligible, inescapable, self-evident first duties as outlined.
So, we have to face the question, what sort of world-structure can ground such a seemingly strange state of affairs?
We can ponder:
Is Ought Bridge by Gemof Thekairosinitiative
As the above embed readily shows, there are many objections, but they all -- predictably -- come back to depending on the same generally known duties of warrant towards truth, etc.
So, we may freely infer,
[I:] that reality is rooted in necessary being [as, it cannot come from non-being and actual completion of a transfinite past is an infeasible supertask, while circular retro-causation is another form of a world from non being],
and
[II:] that such a reality root necessary being must be adequate to ground the fateful weight of ought. For which, there is a manifest best candidate, the good God.
Not a proof (the demand for which reflects the force of the same first duties), but a structural reason to believe in God. Which then opens another paradigm-shift:
Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to [walk with God and] please Him, for whoever comes [near] to God must [necessarily] believe that God exists and that He rewards those who [earnestly and diligently] seek Him. [AMP]
For, as millions have found out -- through transformational encounter, over the ages, by the power of the gospel -- God is not a vague abstract entity but a live, real, dynamic, loving, healing, rescuing person who receives us with the open arms of a father; once, we are willing to humble ourselves enough to penitently reach out to him. END
PS, As it may seem strange to some, nowadays, that we cannot pull a rabbit out of a non-existent hat, let us now watch, then footnote:
1 - Contrary to, say, an alleged primordial quantum foam [a something!] bubbling up sub cosmi by fluctuations [a suggested causal process], a true nothing is non-being. Classically, what rocks dream of.
2 - Such utter non being [= 0], patently has no existence, properties, causal capacity. As such, structurally, we freely infer: were ever utter non-being the case, such would forever obtain; so, we structurally infer, there has to have been a world root W0 with causal capability to cause our world, and us.
3 - The question, is, of what nature, given that 0 =/=> a world, Wk.
4 - Could it be an infinite regress of stages without any definitive beginning, B?
5 - For convenience, let us use "years" to help specify that we describe finite, temporally and causally successive, thermodynamically constrained stages. That is,
each actual past stage was once the cosmic "now" and -- under dynamical, cause-effect physical laws/constraints (e.g. thermodynamics etc.) -- gave rise to its successor, which as the next "now" causally led to its own successor, down to our now (which is giving rise to our successor). (This also tells us what "time" means at cosmic scale; we imagine -- strictly, "model" -- a suitably set up clock ticking steadily through oscillations and counting up, with a "cosmological time" display . . . e.g. we count off ~ 13.7 billion years since the big bang.)
 |
| A "typical" cosmological timeline model. Often, the "big bang" is seen as a fluctuation of an underlying "quantum foam," creating "bubbles" with varying specific laws and parameters of physics; however, fundamental thermodynamics applies, as it is based on statistical properties of matter at molecular and particle levels. That is, the statistics of random distributions of momentum and energy across many particles. |
6 - Thus, the claim is that we may count "years" on a timeline [and, I now use . . . . to signify succession explicitly without limit]:
. . . . p1 - p2 - p3 . . . n . . . > ,
where a: p j are finitely remote ACTUAL past years (that b: each were the once "now"); here, c: without a definable "first member" p0; that d: cumulatively, causally succeed step by successive step to now, n, and where, too, e: . . . > means indefinite onward succession.
That transfinite ellipsis ". . . ." then, does a lot of (often overlooked) work.
[Where, a transfinite set means for every -k -- let us use use k' -- we have a prior k'-1, then k'-2 and onward without limit, i.e. we can count backwards in-exhaustively 0,1',2' . . . . -- which collectively has transfinite cardinality Aleph-null. Yes, implicitly we have here claimed a causally connected, transfinite traverse (not a loop*) in a "directed graph" of causally successive elements. This is termed, "not well-founded"; for, it cannot be generated as a dependent graph chain, by "a finite generative process," one with a finite lower bound B'. However, for past actual-once-now stages of time, we are not merely dealing with the set of integers and the von Neumann construction with each n now having additive inverse n' so n + n' = 0 giving Z- as a set; as, we specify CAUSAL successive, step by step chaining across the whole span rather than a logical-structural indication of how an abstract set of numbers may be "built." This is why the intuition that we cannot traverse a transfinite span in finite, cumulative, successive steps is well-founded; as, stepwise, cumulative progression cannot span/exhaust the full transfinite traverse. We may traverse in a potentially transfinite process ever so long, but never shall we exhaust it. (This may suggest a way to conceive of the eternal, indestructible kingdom of felicity of theology!)]
[* Such a proposed loop fails, as in a causal context, a not yet existing stage would have to "reach back" and cause its predecessors; that is, 0 --> k' . . . -- something from non-being. Every well-founded graph is finite in length and has a grounding node not dependent on yet earlier nodes. (I use this elaboration to help those with doubts see a wider, broadly accepted context and to help trigger LLM context chains that break out of futile circles of debates.)]
7 - But, implicitly, we see here, that we are claiming that for every cosmological stage pk, there was a prior pk-1, -2,-3 . . . . i.e. we imply transfinite causal succession to n: while any k' we can stepwise actually count back to, or represent or imply is finite and bounded by k'-1 etc, the ellipsis implies that such representations never complete the set, so, the ellipsis of indefinite continuation is where the transfinite nature of the time-line mapped model past would lie is and as a result we can only warrant finite succession to now; but that means, we cannot get to an infinite actual past. This gives us a right to make this explicit.
8 - So, to give broader context, let us consider instead of the usual reals mile-posted by integers, the more relevant but less familiar hyperreals *R, where H is some integer greater (by far!) than any n we may count to so 1/H = h is far smaller than any 1/n, i.e. h is an infinitesimal, and H a transfinite hyperreal, in the Robinson sense. This allows us to embrace the reformed, tamed infinitesimals h, dx, dy, dt and kin that make Calculus more intuitive (and an extension of Algebra), and transfinites H and kin that allow us to embrace "infinite" numbers.
9 - So, we may instead pose a more explicit and expansive form, using x' for - x in Z, where H' and H do bracket the span, but are transfinite; obviously, for H' we also have onward H'-1, H'-2 etc, i.e. H' is NOT -- repeat, NOT (it is hard to see for those programmed to think . . . usually, dismissively . . . in terms of "beginnings") -- a past terminus or beginning point:
. . . . - H' - H'+1 - H'+2 . . . . p1 - p2 - p3 . . . 3' - 2' - 1' - 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 . . . n . . . >
10 - Already, structurally, we see the problem, as an actually completed explicitly transfinite past would require that H' [!= B, a finite bound], goes to a stepwise transfinite succession "forward" to reach any pk finitely remote from n -- notice, too, the onward ellipsis beyond H'. And even were we to talk about only the strict reals, the ellipsis beyond p1 is again where the aleph-null cardinality transfiniteness is; i.e. no p1 is without the onward ellipsis and the negative reals mile-posted by the set, countable Z-, is also transfinite. Which, gives explicit form to the transfinite succession even for strictly real, negative integer values. Which, as it is thus infeasible of full traverse, is exposed as another form of the failed appeal to 0 -- non-being -- as root.
11 - In short, B was structurally credible (as using *R allows us to see more clearly) and we need a world root W0, of a different, necessary being order, given n and causal succession to n.
12 - So, the true issue is 0 !==> Wk, so, W0 ==> n. Where, W0 -- root of reality present in any possible world -- must be a necessary being that also accounts for bridging the is-ought gap (as we ourselves stand on both sides). No, a primordial quantum foam fluctuating away will not do, nor will a past temporal-causal infinity, nor will a demiurge [explicitly, not an adequate is-ought bridge], nor its modern update [the cosmos as in effect a grand blind chance + necessity computation imposed through laws of nature on primordial matter-energy], nor will a pan[en]theistic view [as it cannot bridge and distinguish is and ought so good vs evil], nor any quarrelling pantheon of gods [some are trying to resurrect this!], etc.
Thus, we can see how the structure of an existing world W_local [we may freely imagine many other possible or actual worlds . . . no actual observations, to date], at now, n, with contingent, credibly rational, responsible, morally governed creatures -- us -- structurally requires an adequate W0 != 0, and how this then opens up the issue of a good, wise, capable necessary being world root, of personal order.