"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God." (Psalms 14:1). It seems rather harsh to call someone 'a fool' for what at first glance appears to be ignorance.
A person who doesn't know God is clearly ignorant, since the word "ignorance" means 'not knowing'. Ignorance is not a pejorative, although it is often hurled as an insult.
Babies are ignorant. People are ignorant of those things they haven't either discovered for themselves or been taught by others. But the Bible uses instead the word, 'fool' which means, "a person who acts unwisely or imprudently."
The word 'fool' is independent of educational background or innate mental acuity. And by its application, it means 'only the unwise and imprudent would say there is no God'.
"For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse," Paul writes in Romans 1:20.
It is obvious to any unbiased observer that the earth is too intricately and perfectly designed not to have a Designer. It is at the minimum, 'imprudent' to deny the obvious.
Paul anticipated the evolution vs creation argument (1850 years before Darwin first articulated it) and dismissed it out of hand as 'foolishness':
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things." (Romans 1:23)
Read it in reverse order. From creeping things to four-footed beasts, to birds, to man -- Darwin's 'Evolution of Species -- the sacred text for secular humanism.
Which culminates precisely as Paul predicted, with the elevation of man to the role of supreme being.
There are five unassailable arguments that demand the existence of God, not the least of which is the ontological argument offered in Romans 1:20.
In brief, the ontological argument for God is that the existence of the idea of God can only be explained if God really exists.
In other words, it is beyond man's intellectual ability to imagine the existence of something for which there is no frame of reference.
There are but three prime colors for example, red, yellow and blue. All the rest are shades and hues of these three obtained by mixing these three.
Since no fourth prime color exists, whatever color we might imagine it to be, it would actually be a mixture of the three prime colors. There is no frame of reference upon which to imagine a fourth.
For example, we can imagine pink elephants only because elephants exist and pink exists.
Human beings have no frame of reference upon which to imagine the existence of a Personal Being Who exists outside of space and time, that is all powerful, all knowing, present in every atom of the universe, yet intimately concerned with the well-being of the inhabitants of one of the billions of created planets in the universe on a personal level.
We could not have imagined Him; yet the most widely-read Book of all time is all about Him. Just look at the very word, 'history' - His Story.
The second unassailable argument is the one from cosmology. Cosmology is the study of the processes of the cosmos, whose fundamental operating law requires that the cosmos be in motion. And for the cosmos to be in motion, there had to be a Prime Mover.
Cosmology points to the Big Bang, but in so doing, ignores its own fundamental law. Something (or Some One) had to light the fuse that set it off, first.
The third unassailable argument is that of teleology. Teleology is the study of goals or ends and it presents the argument that the evidence of order and design in nature indicates purpose, which in turn demands a Designer.
The fourth unassailable argument is that offered by aesthetics. Aesthetics is the study of beauty and truth. It argues that there exist relative standards of beauty and truth. That is to say, some things are more beautiful than others, some truths, more absolute than others.
The aesthetical argument demands some absolute standard against which all things must ultimately be compared, or the concepts of ''beautiful' and 'ugly' could not exist.
The fifth unassailable argument for the necessity of the existence of God is that of morality. Morality is also subjective, but still, some actions are considered more moral, or immoral, than are others.
For there to be a concept of morality demands an absolute standard of morality against which the relative standards can be measured.
For each of these systems to work, there is an absolute necessity for the existence of an absolute God of absolutes.
"Absolute" means, "not subject to any limitation." God IS the ultimate Absolute. Without the existence of God, the word 'absolute' has no meaning.
It takes willful rejection of simple and unassailable evidence to say in one's heart, "there is no God" because if such were true, there remains no explanation for the existence of beauty, truth, morality, science or logic.
Despite the evidence, however, if somebody's mind is set against believing in God, all the evidence in the world won't convince them. Faith still plays a critical role.
The Scriptures say, "But without faith it is impossible to please Him: for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him." (Hebrews 11:6)
So, no matter how strong your argument, or how unassailable your evidence, no argument or combination of arguments will move the truly dedicated unbeliever to submit to God.
All we can do is offer the evidence and pray the Holy Spirit will impart the necessary faith to receive it.
To summarize the five unassailable arguments, they are:
1. Ontology: The evidence for the existence of God is that the existence of the idea of God can only be explained if God really exists.
2. Cosmology: For the cosmos to be in motion demands a Prime Mover to set it all in motion in the first place.
3. Teleology: The evidence of order and design in nature cannot be explained apart from a Designer.
4. Aesthetics: For both beauty and truth to exist, there must first exist absolute standards against which relative beauty and truth can be measured.
5. Morality: The argument from morality also demands absolute standards of morality against which relative standards can be measured and judged. As in the case of beauty and truth, morality as a concept cannot exist apart from the assumption of the existence of absolutes.
A Creator God MUST exist to explain the existence of these abstract concepts. To argue otherwise is obviously both imprudent and unwise. It is imprudent because it is a irrevocable judgment call that defies the evidence and it is unwise because any argument against the existence of God is illogical. It is illogical because one cannot KNOW there is no God.
Given all that we know, and all that we don't know, the best an unbeliever can say is "don't confuse me with facts. My mind is made up."
Romans 1:22 anticipated that, too.
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."
No comments:
Post a Comment