INTRODUCTION TO HEBREW SCRIPTURES: GENESIS 1:1-2

REVIEW: ULTIMATE QUESTIONS:

04/19/23TEMPLATE COPYRIGHT 2005 WWW.BRAINYBETTY.COM

2

1. Origin: Where did we come from?

2. Identity: What are we? Who are we?

3. Meaning: Why are we here?

4. Morality: How should we live?

5. Destiny: Where are we going?

6. Evil: What’s gone wrong with the world?

7. Hope: What can be done to fix the problems of the world?

NATURAL THEOLOGY:

• Witness of Creation

• Witness of Human Design

• Witness of Conscience

• Witness of God-ward Longings

• Witness of Consequences

04/19/23TEMPLATE COPYRIGHT 2005 WWW.BRAINYBETTY.COM

4

God

Experiences

Evidences

Arguments Existential

Big Bang:

Anthropic Principle

Specified Complexity

Irreducible Complexity

Objective Values

Objective Duties

Altruistic Acts

Cosmological

TeleologicalOntological

Moral Law

Obj. Beauty

Conscience

Existential Need

Innate Idea

Morals:

Cross-cultural Awareness

General Revelation Salvation

Meaning- Significance

Answered Prayer

Peace

1. A Major Premise: All mortals things will die.

2. A Minor Premise: All men are mortal.

3. A Conclusion: All men will die.

WHAT IS A SYLLOGISM:

ANYTHING LOGICAL MAY BE EXPRESSED IN SYLLOGISTIC FORM. A SYLLOGISM INVOLVES

THREE ASPECTS:

REVIEW: WHAT IS A WORLDVIEW?

• A worldview is a habituated way of seeing and doing.

• A worldview is the “big” picture that directs our daily decisions and behavior.

1. The universe had a beginning.

2. Anything that had a beginning must have been caused by something (someone) else (Out of nothing, nothing comes)

3. Therefore the universe was caused by something (someone) else.

THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT:A CAUSE AT THE BEGINNING. THE UNIVERSE HAD A BEGINNING

CAUSED BY SOMETHING BEYOND THE UNIVERSE (VERTICAL ARGUMENT):

1 . Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being.

THE COSMOLOGICAL KALAM ARGUMENT:TIME CANNOT GO BACK INTO THE PAST FOREVER, FOR IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PASS THROUGH AN ACTUAL INFINITE NUMBER OF MOMENTS. IF SO, THEN TIME MUST HAVE HAD A BEGINNING. IF THE WORLD NEVER HAD A BEGINNING, THEN WE COULD NOT HAVE REACHED NOW. BUT WE HAVE REACHED NOW, SO TIME MUST HAVE BEGUN AT A PARTICULAR POINT

AND PROCEEDED TODAY. THEREFORE, THE WORLD IS AS A FINITE EVENT AFTER ALL AND NEEDS A CAUSE FOR ITS BEGINNINGS.

1. An infinite number of moments cannot be traversed.

2. If an infinite number of moments had to elapse before today, then today would never have come.

3. But today has come.

4. Therefore, an infinite number of moments have not elapsed before today (i.e., the universe had a beginning).

5. But whatever has a beginning is caused by something else.

6. Hence, there must be a Cause (Creator) of the universe.

THE COSMOLOGICAL KALAM ARGUMENT:

THIS ARGUMENT WAS FORMULATED BY THE ARAB PHILOSOPHERS OF THE MIDDLE AGES AND EMPLOYED BY BONAVENTURE (1217-1274). THE CONTEMPORARY CHRISTIAN THINKER

WILLIAM LANE CRAIG HAS WIDELY PUBLISHED ON IT.

ANSELM’S COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT: FROM GOODNESS TO GOD:

• 1. Good things exist.

• 2. The cause of this goodness is either one or many.

• 3. But it can’t be many, for then there would be no way to compare their goodness, for all things would be equally good. But some

things are better than others.

• 4. Therefore, one Supreme Good (God) causes the goodness in all things.

1. All designs imply a designer.

2. There is a great design in the universe.

3. Therefore, there must be a Great Designer of the universe.

THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT:SINCE THE UNIVERSE IS EXCEEDINGLY MORE COMPLEX IN ITS

OPERATION, THERE MUST BE A MAKER OF THE UNIVERSE (E.G., PSALM 19:1-6; ACTS 14:15-18).

1. Every part of the universe is dependent.2. If every part of universe is dependent,

then the whole universe must also be dependent.

3. Therefore, the whole universe is dependent for existence right now on some Independent Being.

THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT:

A CAUSE TO CONTINUE EXISTING. SOMETHING NOT ONLY CAUSED THE WORLD TO COME INTO BEING (GEN. 1:1) BUT SOMETHING CAUSES IT TO CONTINUE TO BE (CF. COL. 1:17:

1. God is by definition an absolutely perfect being.

2. But existence is a perfection.

3. Therefore, God must exist.

THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT:“THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT SEEKS TO SHOW THAT ONCE WE GRASP THE CONCEPT OF GOD AS THE GREATEST CONCEIVABLE BEING, THEN IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT GOD MUST EXIST.” ~ J. P.

MORELAND & WILLIAM L. CRAIG

1. God exists in the mind but not in reality.

2. Real existence (as well as mental) is greater than mental existence alone.

3. God’s existence in reality is conceivable.

4. If God had real existence he would be greater than he is (from 1 & 2)

5. It is conceivable that there is a being greater than (from 3 & 4).

6. It is conceivable that there is a being greater than the being than which is none greater can be conceived (this is self-contradictory)

7. Therefore, step 1 is false (i.e., it is false that God exists in the understanding but not in reality.

8. God exists in reality.

THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT:ANSELM’S ARGUMENT (AN A PRIORI ARGUMENT; REDUCTIO ARGUMENT;

ASSUME THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU TRYING TO PROVE AND SO A SELF-CONTRADICTION OCCURS). GOD = THAT THAN WHICH A GREATER CANNOT

BE CONCEIVED. ARGUMENT FROM PROSLOGION 2 BY ST. ANSELM

1. God is by definition an absolutely perfect being.

2. But existence is a perfection.

3. Therefore, God must exist.

THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT:THE PERFECT BEING. THE MERE CONCEPT OF GOD AS AN ABSOLUTELY PERFECT BEING

DEMANDS THAT HE EXIST. IT ARGUES FROM THE IDEA OF GOD TO THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. IF GOD DID NOT EXIST, THEN HE WOULD BE LACKING ONE PERFECTION, NAMELY,

EXISTENCE. BUT IF GOD LACKED ANY PERFECTION, THEN HE WOULD NOT BE ABSOLUTELY PERFECT. BUT GOD IS BY DEFINITION AN ABSOLUTELY PERFECT BEING.

1. If God exists, we must conceive of Him as a Necessary Being.

2. But by definition, a Necessary Being cannot exist.

3. Therefore, if a Necessary Being can, then it must, exist.

THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT:

THE NECESSARY BEING. THE VERY CONCEPT OF A NECESSARY BEING DEMANDS ITS EXISTENCE. FOR THE VERY IDEA OF A NECESSARY BEING

DEMANDS THAT IT MUST EXIST. FOR IF IT DID NOT EXIST, THEN IT WOULD NOT BE A NECESSARY EXISTENCE.

1. It is possible that there be a maximally perfect being (assumption).

2. It is necessary that there be a maximally perfect being (result).

THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT:GOD’S EXISTENCE IN REALITY IS CONCEIVABLE

.ALVIN PLANTINGA USES MODAL LOGIC (S5) WHEREBY THIS PROOF IS LOGICALLY COGENT. MODAL LOGIC IS A STANDARD SYSTEM OF LOGIC BY CONTEMPORARY

PHILOSOPHERS.

1. Moral laws imply a Moral Law Giver.

2. There is an objective moral law.

3. Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver.

THE MORAL LAW ARGUMENT:

THE ROOTS OF MORAL ARGUMENT FOR GOD ARE FOUND IN ROMANS 2:12-15 IN WHICH HUMANITY IS SAID TO STAND UNEXCUSED SINCE THERE IS “A LAW

WRITTEN ON THEIR HEARTS.” MORAL LAWS DON’T DESCRIBE WHAT IS, THEY PRESCRIBE WHAT OUGHT TO BE.

BEAUTY:• Beauty implies a mind of Beauty.

• There is objective beauty.

• Therefore, there is an objective Mind of beauty.

In the same way..

How had I got this idea of beauty and ugliness? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing object X with when I called it ugly?

Straight Line = Standard

The Standard of Validity

1. Human beings really need God.

2. What humans really need, probably really exists.

3. Therefore, God really exists.

THE RELIGIOUS NEED ARGUMENT:

IS THE DESIRE TO BELIEVE IN GOD AN ILLUSION, HUMAN WISHES, PURELY PSYCHOLOGICAL, OR IS IT FACTUAL? THE DESIRE FOR GOD DOES EXIST, NOT AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL WISH, BUT FROM REAL EXISTENTIAL NEED. THIS IS A

PSYCHOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.

1. Human beings really need God.

2. What humans really need, probably really exists.

3. Therefore, God really exists.

SAKE OF CLARIFICATION:1. THIS ARGUMENT DOES NOT MEAN EVERYONE GETS WHAT THEY WANT (E.G., I NEED A RED LAMBORGHINI);

2. THIS ARGUMENT DOES NOT MEAN EVERYTHING GETS WHAT THEY NEED (FOOD AND WATER DURING A FAMINE);

3. RATHER, THIS ARGUMENT IS DECLARING THAT WHAT WE ACTUALLY NEED, REALLY EXISTS (E.G., WATER, FOOD, OXYGEN, ETC.).

EVIDENCE FOR THE FIRST PREMISE THAT EVERYONE NEEDS GOD-CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: BERTRAND RUSSELL

“Even when one feels nearest to other people, something in one seems obstinately to belong to God…-at

least that is how I should express it if I thought there was a God. It is odd,

isn’t? I care passionately for this world and many things and people in

it, and yet …what is it all?” There must be something more important

one feels, though I don’t believe there is.”

~ Bertrand Russell, Letter to Lady Ottoline

1872-1970, Bertrand Russell

CONSIDER ATHEIST WALTER KAUFMANN:

“Religion is rooted in man’s aspiration to transcend himself….Whether he worships idols or strives to perfect

himself,

man is the God-intoxicated ape.”

~Critique of Religion and Philosophy, 355, 359.

~Walter Kaufmann

1871-1947, Walter Kaufmann

JEAN PAUL SARTRE

“I need God …. I reached out for religion, I longed for it, it was the remedy. Had it been denied me, I would have invented it myself.”

Jean Paul Sartre (Words, 102, 97).

1905-1980 Jean Paul Sartre

EVIDENCE FOR THE FIRST PREMISE THAT EVERYONE NEEDS GOD-CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: SIGMUND FREUD

“Freud stated that religion is an “illusion,” but—

He admitted, “it would be very nice if there were a God….”

He admitted “a sense of man’s insignificance or impotence in the

face of the universe.”

He referred to “our God Logos [reason]…” So, here he substitutes a personal God for “reason.”

Why the need for any “god”?

~ Sigmund Freud (The Future of an illusion, 52, 88). 1905-1980 Jean Paul Sartre

He denied a theistic God, but – He affirmed a humanist

religion.

In fact, he used the name “God for his object of

devotion to the whole of humanity.

~ The legacy of Erich Fromm (Psychoanalysis and Religion,

49, 54, 87).

Erich Fromm, 1900-1980

VICTOR FRANKL: ALL SEEK GOD

“Man has always stood in an intentional relation to

transcendence, even if only on an unconscious level.”

If understood correctly, all men seek the “Unconscious God.”

(~ Victor Frankl, The Unconscious God).

1905-1997 Victor Frankl

WILLIAM JAMES:

“In a general way, then on the whole… our testing of religion by practical common sense and the

empirical method, leave it in possession of its towering place in history…. Let us be saints, then, if

we can, whether or not we succeed visibly and temporally”

~ James, The Variety of Religious Experience, 290.

William James, 1842-1910

NIETZSCHE:

“God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, the murderers, of all

murderers, comfort ourselves?”

~ “The Madman” in Gay Science,125.

Friedrich Nietzsche, 1844-1900

NIETZSCHE:

“I hold up before myself the images of Dante and Spinoza, who were

better at accepting the lot of solitude. Of course, their way of thinking, compared to mine was

one which made solitude bearable; and in the end, for all those who somehow still had a

‘God’ for company…. My life now consists in the wish that it might

be otherwise…. And that somebody might make my ‘truths’

appear incredible to me…”

~ Letter to Overbeck, 7/2/1865.

Friedrich Nietzsche, 1844-1900

“Thou lightening-shrouded one! Unknown one! Speak. What wilt thou, unknown-god?... Do come back With all thy tortures! To the last of all that are lonely, Oh, come

back!... And my heart’s final flame-Flares up for thee! Oh,

come back, My unknown god! My pain! My last-

happiness!”

~ Thus Spoke Zarathrusta, part Four, “the Magician”,

Friedrich Nietzsche, 1844-1900

ALBERT CAMUS:

“For anyone who is alone, without God and without a master, the weight of

days is dreadful”

~ The Fall, 133.

Albert Camus, 1913-1960

EVIDENCE FOR THE FIRST PREMISE THAT EVERYONE NEEDS GOD-CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: ALBERT CAMUS:

“Despite the fact that there is no God, at least the Church

must be built”

~ The Rebel, 147.

Albert Camus, 1913-1960

JOHN DEWEY:

“Here are all the elements for a religious faith that shall not be

confined to sect, class, or race. Such as faith has always been implicitly the common faith of

mankind. It remains to make it explicit and militant.

~ A Common Faith, 87.

John Dewey, 1859-1952

CONSIDER THIS QUOTE:

The following is from the cover of Time Magazine, European edition from 1978:

“God is dead; Marx is dead, and I am not feeling too well either.”

CONSIDER THIS QUOTE:

Atheists speak of ‘loyalty,’ ‘devotion’ and ‘love’ of the truth. But these terms make proper sense only when used of persons.

“The joy and wonder which men feel in the search for truth is the same kind of feeling we know best when there is real communication between two finite minds”

~ Elton Trueblood, Philosophy of Religion, 115.

1. Every natural innate desire has a real object that can fulfill it.

2. Human beings have a natural, innate desire for immortality.

3. Therefore, there must be an immortal life after death.

THE ARGUMENT FROM JOY:CREATURES ARE NOT BORN WITH DESIRES UNLESS

SATISFACTION FOR THOSE DESIRES EXISTS. A BABY FEELS HUNGER; FOOD CAN SATISFY.

TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT: DEPENDENCE STRATEGY:

• 1. If I raise doubt whether (b), I must grant (a) is true.

• 2. But if I grant (a), then (b) [this is the embedded transcendental argument].

• 3. So if I raise a doubt whether (b), I must grant (b) is true.

INNATE IDEA ARGUMENT: KNOWLEDGE OF GOD IS INNATE

• 1. All people have some knowledge of God.

• This knowledge is constitutive to the human framework.

• 2. The mind perceives certain things to be true without proof and without instruction.

• There is no instruction or use of senses needed to have some knowledge of God…it is intrinsic knowledge (e.g., the deaf/blind know possess within themselves some knowledge of God) within man.

• 3. Related to the Moral Law argument in that there is this sense of dependence and accountability to a being higher than themselves which exists in the minds of all people.

APPLYING THE INNATE ARGUMENT USING THE: DEPENDENCE STRATEGY FOR GOD’S EXISTENCE:

• 1. If I raise doubt whether (b) I have an idea of God, I must grant that (a) that I recognize that I doubt.

• 2. If (a) that I recognize that I doubt, then (b) I have an idea of God.

• 3. So if I raise a doubt whether (b) I have an idea of God, I must grant (b) that I have an idea of God.

ANOTHER LOOK AT THE INNATE ARGUMENT:

1. We have ideas of many things.

2. These ideas must arise either from ourselves or from things outside us.

3. One of the ideas we have is the idea of God-an infinite, all-perfect being.

4. This idea could not have been caused by ourselves, because we know ourselves to be limited and imperfect and no effect can be greater than its cause.

5. Therefore, the idea must have been caused by something outside us which has nothing less than the qualities contained in the idea of God.

6. But only God himself has those qualities.

7. Therefore, God Himself must be the cause of the idea we have of him.

8. Therefore God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES:

1. A miracle is an event whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God.

2. There are numerous well-attested miracles.

3. Therefore, there are numerous events whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God.

4. Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM CONSCIOUSNESS:

1. We experience the universe as intelligible. This intelligibility means that the universe is graspable by intelligence.

2. Either this intelligible universe and finite mind so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence or blind chance.

3. Blind chance cannot be the source of our intelligence.

4. Therefore, this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence.

ARGUMENT FROM RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE:

1. Many people of different eras and of widely different cultures claim to have had an experience of the “divine.”

2. It is inconceivable that so many people could have been so utterly wrong about the nature and content of their own experience.

3. Therefore, there exists a “divine” reality which many people of different eras and of widely different cultures have experienced.

ARGUMENT FROM COMMON CONSENT:

1. Belief in God—that Being to whom reverence and worship are properly due—is common to almost all people every era.

2. Either the vast majority of people have been wrong about this most profound element of their lives or they have not.

3. It is most plausible to believe that they have not.

4. Therefore, it is most plausible to believe that God exists.

PASCAL’S WAGER:THIS IS NOT A PROOF FOR GOD’S EXISTENCE BUT IS HELPFUL IN CONSIDERING

GOD IN THE “ABSENCE” OR “LACK” OR PROOF:

As originally proposed by Pascal, the Wager assumes that logical reasoning by itself cannot decide for or against God’s existence; there seems to be good reasons on both sides. Now since reason cannot decide for sure, and since the question is of such importance that we must decide somehow, then we must “wager” if we cannot prove. And so, we are asked: Where are you going to place your bet?

PASCAL’S WAGER:

If you place your bet with God, you lose nothing, even if it turns out that God does not exist. But if you place it against God and you are wrong and God does not exist, you lose everything; think about it: God, eternity & heaven with those who did wager correctly. “Let us assess the two cases: if you win, you win everything, if you lose, you lose everything.”

“If there is a God of infinite goodness, and he justly deserves my allegiance and faith, I risk doing the

greater injustice by not acknowledging Him.”

CLOSING: CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: BY DAVID HUME:

• When we analyze our thoughts or ideas, however compounded or sublime, we always find, that they resolve themselves into such simple ideas as were copied from a precedent feeling or sentiment. Even those ideas, which, at first view, seem the most wide of this origin, are found, upon a nearer scrutiny, to be derived from it. The idea of God, as meaning an infinitely intelligent, wise, and good Being, arises from reflecting on the operations of our own mind, and augmenting, without limit, those qualities of goodness and wisdom. ~ Enquiry concerning Human Understanding 2. Of the Origin of Ideas.6.