|
"How
to Know God Exists" - part one
Here's an interesting question
that many people have asked: if you
can't see, taste, hear, smell or touch something, then how do
you
know it exists? How can you logically _know_ that a something is
there when there's no way to test for it? Don't you have to just
accept the existence of that something on blind faith?
Of course, in the context of
religious discussion, this question is
often asked by the skeptic regarding the existence of God. Can
anyone _really_ say that they know God exists by some means
other
than personal "feelings" or pure faith? Well,
actually, the answer
is "yes" and over the course of the next few
newsletters I'd like to
discuss this issue in more detail. We will look at several
different
ways we can show God's existence - and you might be surprised at
where these ideas came from. First off, let's look at how God
must
exist in order for people to be moral.
Ethics or morality is the idea
that certain actions or motivations by
people are good or right and other actions or motivations are
evil or
wrong. The idea of judging another's actions as right and wrong
really only apply to people. Nature is not said to be
"wrong" when a
hurricane destroys property and causes death. Nor are animals
judged
as right or wrong when they hunt another beast for food. Even
when
they kill another in their own social group - such as two lions
fighting to establish dominance -we don't categorize them as
doing
the "wrong" thing. So, why are people uniquely thought
of in this way?
This question is at the basis of
one of the arguments for the
existence of God. Philosophers generally refer to this as
"the Moral
Argument" - the idea that if God doesn't exist, ideas of
morality are
nonsense and they are "non-binding". In other words,
if God doesn't
exist, morals are just made up laws by man and there is no
logical
reason to adhere to them.
In contrast to animals, when we
look at the actions of people we
understand that people have an ability to make decisions and
understand the consequences of those actions. Further, we expect
people to be accountable for their actions. But therein lies the
rub. If God doesn't exist, to whom are people accountable? Who
is
going to judge those who break moral laws?
The only way right and wrong can
exist at all is if a God who's
nature is intrinsically moral created us to live in accordance
with
that nature and His laws, and this God holds each person
accountable
for his or her ethical decisions. In other words, morality stems
from God's nature because it is who He is. We as humans are
considered to do moral acts when we are acting in accord with
his
nature and we are immoral when we are acting outside of it.
Romans 2:14,15 says "[W]hen
Gentiles, who do not have the law, by
nature do the things in the law, these show the work of the law
written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness,
and
between themselves [their] thoughts accusing or else excusing
them."
(NKJV) Now, Paul argues in this passage that all mankind has a
kind
of universal understanding of basic rights and wrongs in terms
of
actions and intents.
Everyone on earth understands
that things like duplicity or torture
for fun are just plain wrong. In other words, people understand
ethics or morality. We are supposed to act ethically and
upright,
and not behave in a way that is morally repugnant. The question
that
I raise here is why should we act in such a way? Who says that
being
morally strong is better than being selfish and self-indulgent?
And
if society sets the rules, who says their rules are right?
Only if God exists can there be
things such as right and wrong. And
only if God exists does it make any sense at all to try to
adhere to
those distinctions. Otherwise, even asking the question doesn't
make
any sense.
Now, many an
"enlightened" professor may argue that it is society
that dictates morality by using an objective standard. They say
that
one should do that which maximizes human happiness and minimizes
pain
or suffering. That is logical and it doesn't require God. How
would
you answer this objection? We'll look at that issue next time.
|
