Is Christianity True?
This is the question that I will be investigating on this blog site for the next four or five years.
Sunday, October 9, 2016
Craig's Case for God
At the end of his article "Does God Exist?" William Craig provides a brief summary of his case for God:
======================
Summary
In summary, we’ve seen eight respects in which God provides a better account of the world than naturalism: God is the best explanation of
(I) Why anything at all exists.
(II) The origin of the universe.
(III) The applicability of mathematics to the physical world.
(IV) The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
(V) Intentional states of consciousness.
(VI) Objective moral values and duties.
Moreover
(VII) The very possibility of God’s existence implies that God exists.
(VIII) God can be personally experienced and known.
(from Philosophy Now, Nov./Dec. 2013)
======================
Summary
In summary, we’ve seen eight respects in which God provides a better account of the world than naturalism: God is the best explanation of
(I) Why anything at all exists.
(II) The origin of the universe.
(III) The applicability of mathematics to the physical world.
(IV) The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
(V) Intentional states of consciousness.
(VI) Objective moral values and duties.
Moreover
(VII) The very possibility of God’s existence implies that God exists.
(VIII) God can be personally experienced and known.
(from Philosophy Now, Nov./Dec. 2013)
==================
Swinburne's Case for God
At the beginning of his article "The Justification of Theism" Richard Swinburne provides a summary of his case for God:
=================
Why believe that there is a God at all? My answer is that to suppose that there is a God explains
and so much else. In fact, the hypothesis of the existence of God makes sense of the whole of our experience, and it does so better than any other explanation which can be put forward, and that is the grounds for believing it to be true.
(from Truth: An International, Inter-Disciplinary Journal of Christian Thought, Vol. 3 (1991), bullets added here to emphasize Swinburne's list of arguments)
=======================
=================
Why believe that there is a God at all? My answer is that to suppose that there is a God explains
- why there is a world at all;
- why there are the scientific laws there are;
- why animals and then human beings have evolved;
- why humans have the opportunity to mould their characters and those of their fellow humans for good or ill and to change the environment in which we live;
- why we have the well-authenticated account of Christ's life, death and resurrection;
- why throughout the centuries men have had the apparent experience of being in touch with and guided by God;
and so much else. In fact, the hypothesis of the existence of God makes sense of the whole of our experience, and it does so better than any other explanation which can be put forward, and that is the grounds for believing it to be true.
(from Truth: An International, Inter-Disciplinary Journal of Christian Thought, Vol. 3 (1991), bullets added here to emphasize Swinburne's list of arguments)
=======================
Saturday, October 8, 2016
4. Was Jesus God?
One of the central beliefs of the Christian faith is this:
(JIG) Jesus is God.
There are a number of arguments that Christians give in support of (JIG). We will consider five main arguments that are commonly given for the divinity of Jesus:
4.1P: The Argument from Messianic Prophecy
4.2P: The Trilemma Argument
4.3P: The Argument from the Resurrection of Jesus
4.4P: The Argument from Jesus' Wisdom and Character
4.5P: The Argument from Jesus' Supernatural Powers
We will also consider some arguments against the divinity of Jesus:
4.1C: Jesus was a false prophet.
4.2C: Jesus was not a morally perfectly good person.
4.3C: Jesus was not an omniscient person.
4.4C: Jesus was not an omnipotent person.
(JIG) Jesus is God.
There are a number of arguments that Christians give in support of (JIG). We will consider five main arguments that are commonly given for the divinity of Jesus:
4.1P: The Argument from Messianic Prophecy
4.2P: The Trilemma Argument
4.3P: The Argument from the Resurrection of Jesus
4.4P: The Argument from Jesus' Wisdom and Character
4.5P: The Argument from Jesus' Supernatural Powers
We will also consider some arguments against the divinity of Jesus:
4.1C: Jesus was a false prophet.
4.2C: Jesus was not a morally perfectly good person.
4.3C: Jesus was not an omniscient person.
4.4C: Jesus was not an omnipotent person.
Geisler's Case for God
When Skeptics Ask
by Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks
Chapter 2: Questions about God (p.15-33)
Argument from Creation
"There are two different forms of this argument..." (p.16)
Argument #G1: The universe was caused at the beginning (p.15-18)
1. The universe had a beginning.
2. Anything that has a beginning must have been caused by something else.
3. Therefore, the universe was caused by something else, and this cause was God. (p.16)
Argument #G2: The universe needs a cause for its continuing existence (p.18-19)
1. Finite, changing things exist.
2. Every finite, changing thing must be caused by something else.
3. There cannot be an infinite regress of these causes.
4. Therefore, there must be a first uncaused cause of every finite, changing thing that exists. (p.18-19)
Argument #G3: Argument from design (p.20-22)
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. (p.20)
Argument #G4: Argument from moral law (p. 22-24)
1. All men are conscious of an objective moral law.
2. Moral laws imply a moral Lawgiver.
3. Therefore, there must be a supreme moral Lawgiver. (p.22)
Argument #G5: Argument from being (p.24-26)
1. Whatever perfection can be attributed to the most perfect Being possible (conceivable) must be attributed to it (otherwise it would not be the most perfect being possible).
2. Necessary existence is a perfection which can be attributed to the most perfect Being.
3. Therefore, necessary existence must be attributed to the most perfect Being. (p.24-25)
by Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks
Chapter 2: Questions about God (p.15-33)
Argument from Creation
"There are two different forms of this argument..." (p.16)
Argument #G1: The universe was caused at the beginning (p.15-18)
1. The universe had a beginning.
2. Anything that has a beginning must have been caused by something else.
3. Therefore, the universe was caused by something else, and this cause was God. (p.16)
Argument #G2: The universe needs a cause for its continuing existence (p.18-19)
1. Finite, changing things exist.
2. Every finite, changing thing must be caused by something else.
3. There cannot be an infinite regress of these causes.
4. Therefore, there must be a first uncaused cause of every finite, changing thing that exists. (p.18-19)
Argument #G3: Argument from design (p.20-22)
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. (p.20)
Argument #G4: Argument from moral law (p. 22-24)
1. All men are conscious of an objective moral law.
2. Moral laws imply a moral Lawgiver.
3. Therefore, there must be a supreme moral Lawgiver. (p.22)
Argument #G5: Argument from being (p.24-26)
1. Whatever perfection can be attributed to the most perfect Being possible (conceivable) must be attributed to it (otherwise it would not be the most perfect being possible).
2. Necessary existence is a perfection which can be attributed to the most perfect Being.
3. Therefore, necessary existence must be attributed to the most perfect Being. (p.24-25)
Reasons and Arguments For the Resurrection of Jesus
We will consider various cases for the resurrection of Jesus presented by modern Christian apologists. With the exception of Josh McDowell, all of these Christian apologists are professional philosophers who are very familiar with the philosophy of religion.
McDowell is not a philosopher, and he does not have expertise in the philosophy of religion, but he is an influential Christian apologist who has presented a detailed and widely-read case for the resurrection of Jesus.
Here are six different cases for the resurrection of Jesus:
Norman Geisler's Case for the Resurrection of Jesus
"The Resurrection: Myth or History" by Norman Geisler
When Skeptics Ask by Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks, Chapater 6: "Questions about Jesus Christ", esp. pages 120-127.
Peter Kreeft's Case for the Resurrection of Jesus
see Chapter IX: "The Resurrection" of Pocket Handbook of Christian Apologetics, by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, pages 69-78.
Josh McDowell's Case for the Resurrection of Jesus
"Evidence for the Resurrection" by Josh McDowell
The Resurrection Factor by Josh McDowell, Chapters 1 through 8, pages 1-120.
William Craig's Case for the Resurrection of Jesus
"Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ" by William Craig; Source: Truth 1 (1985): 89-95.
Gary Habermas's Case for the Resurrection of Jesus
"Facts Concerning the Resurrection of Jesus Christ" by Gary Habermas
The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, Chapters 3 through 8, p.64-150.
Richard Swinburne's Case for the Resurrection of Jesus
"The Probability of the Resurrection of Jesus" by Richard Swinburne; source: Philosophia Christi 15, 239-252.
The Resurrection of God Incarnate by Richard Swinburne, Chapters 1 through 13, pages 1-203.
McDowell is not a philosopher, and he does not have expertise in the philosophy of religion, but he is an influential Christian apologist who has presented a detailed and widely-read case for the resurrection of Jesus.
Here are six different cases for the resurrection of Jesus:
Norman Geisler's Case for the Resurrection of Jesus
"The Resurrection: Myth or History" by Norman Geisler
When Skeptics Ask by Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks, Chapater 6: "Questions about Jesus Christ", esp. pages 120-127.
Peter Kreeft's Case for the Resurrection of Jesus
see Chapter IX: "The Resurrection" of Pocket Handbook of Christian Apologetics, by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, pages 69-78.
Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Chapter 8: "The Resurrection", pages 176-198.
Josh McDowell's Case for the Resurrection of Jesus
"Evidence for the Resurrection" by Josh McDowell
The Resurrection Factor by Josh McDowell, Chapters 1 through 8, pages 1-120.
William Craig's Case for the Resurrection of Jesus
"Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ" by William Craig; Source: Truth 1 (1985): 89-95.
Reasonable Faith by William Craig, Chapter 8: "The Resurrection of Jesus", esp. p.272-297.
Gary Habermas's Case for the Resurrection of Jesus
"Facts Concerning the Resurrection of Jesus Christ" by Gary Habermas
The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, Chapters 3 through 8, p.64-150.
Richard Swinburne's Case for the Resurrection of Jesus
"The Probability of the Resurrection of Jesus" by Richard Swinburne; source: Philosophia Christi 15, 239-252.
The Resurrection of God Incarnate by Richard Swinburne, Chapters 1 through 13, pages 1-203.
Kreeft's Case for God
Peter Kreeft's Case for God
in Pocket Handbook of Christian Apologetics
Argument #K1: The Argument from Efficient Causality (p.20)
Argument # K2: The Design Argument (p.20-21)
Argument # K3: The Kalam Argument (p.22)
Argument # K4: The Ontological Argument (p.23)
Argument # K5: The Moral Argument (p.23-24)
Argument # K6: The Argument from Conscience (p.24-26)
Argument # K7: The Argument from Desire (p.26-27)
Argument # K8: The Argument from Aesthetic Experience (p.27)
Argument # K9: Pascal's Wager (p.27-29)
3. Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?
One of the most basic beliefs of Christianity is this:
(JRD) Jesus rose from the dead.
If claim (JRD) is false (or improbable), then Christianity is false (or improbable).
If claim (JRD) is true (or probable), that would not prove that Christianity is true (or probable), but it would provide support for the truth of Christianity, including providing the basis for a key argument for the central Christian belief that Jesus is God.
Before we investigate the question "Did Jesus rise from the dead?", we need to clarify the meaning of claim (JRD):
What Does the Claim "Jesus rose from the dead." Mean?
We also ought to formulate an approach to investigating this controversial question:
Investigating the Question "Did Jesus rise from the dead?"
An investigation of this question should include both of the following kinds of considerations:
Reasons and Arguments Against the Resurrection of Jesus
After identifying and evaluating the best reasons and arguments for and against (JRD), one needs to synthesize the various pros and cons and arrive at an all-things-considered conclusion:
All Things Considered, What is the Probability of (JRD)?
Reasons and Arguments For the Existence of God
One of the most central and most important beliefs of the Christian faith is this:
(G) God exists.
Many arguments have been given in support of (G) over the past 2,500 years. We will not attempt to examine every argument that has ever been given in support of (G). Instead, we will examine cases for the existence of God that have been presented by modern Christian apologists who are philosophers and who are very familiar with the philosophy of religion.
These apologists are familiar with a wide range of traditional and modern arguments for the existence of God, and they have selected what they believe to be the strongest and best arguments to form their cases for God.
These apologists are familiar with a wide range of traditional and modern arguments for the existence of God, and they have selected what they believe to be the strongest and best arguments to form their cases for God.
If the cases for God presented by modern Christian apologists who are philosophers who are very familiar with philosophy of religion fail to establish that God exists or fail to show that it is probable that God exists, then we can reasonably conclude that it is not possible to show that God exists or that it is probable that God exists, because we will have reviewed a good sample of the arguments for God that Christian apologists who have expertise in this area have judged to be the strongest and best arguments available for the existence of God.
Here are four cases for the existence of God presented by four well-known Christian apologists who are philosophers with expertise in the philosophy of religion:
1. Norman Geisler's Case for God
- "Questions About God" - A four-part series by Norman Geisler presenting his case for the existence of God (excerpted from When Skeptics Ask) available on the John Ankerberg Show website.
- When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook of Christian Evidences by Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks, Chapter 2: "Questions about God" (Victor Books, 1990).
- I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, Chapters 3 through 7 (Crossway Books, 2004).
2. William Craig's Case for God
- "Does God Exist?" by William Craig, in Philosophy Now, Nov./Dec. 2013.
- Reasonable Faith by William Craig, Chapter 3: "The Existence of God" (Crossway Books, revised ed., 1994).
- Foundations for a Christian Worldview by J.P. Moreland and William Craig, Chapters 23 and 24: "The Existence of God I" and "The Existence of God II" (IVP, 2003).
3. Peter Kreeft's Case for God
- Pocket Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Chapter 3: "Arguments for the Existence of God", pages 19-29 (IVP, 2003).
- Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Chapter 3: "Twenty Arguments for the Existence of God" (IVP, 1994).
4. Richard Swinburne's Case for God
- "The Justification of Theism" by Richard Swinburne, in Truth: An International, Inter-Disciplinary Journal of Christian Thought, Vol. 3 (1991).
- Is There a God? by Richard Swinburne (Oxford Univ Press, 1996).
- The Existence of God by Richard Swinburne (Clarendon Press, 2nd ed., 2004).
Friday, October 7, 2016
Argument #G1: The Universe was Caused at the Beginning
Before we examine Geisler's first argument for God, we need to carefully consider the opening paragraph of his case for God in When Skeptics Ask (hereafter: WSA). He makes some very important points in this first paragraph:
The existence of a personal moral God is fundamental to all that Christians believe. If there is no moral God, there is no moral being against whom we have sinned; therefore, salvation is not needed. Furthermore, if there is no God, there could be no acts of God (miracles), and the stories of Jesus can only be understood as fiction or myth. So the first question that must be addressed in pre-evangelism is, “Does God exist?” The second question is very closely related to the first: “If God exists, what kind of God is He?” (When Skeptics Ask, p. 15)
COMMENTARY
The existence of a personal moral God is fundamental to all that Christians believe.
This seems right to me. If there is no God, then most of the basic beliefs or doctrines of Christianity are false or are probably false.
If there is no moral God, there is no moral being against whom we have sinned;
This conditional claim appears to be false. We can "sin" against (or wrong) other human beings even if God does not exist, and human beings are moral beings. So, we can sin against moral beings even if God does not exist.
Now, if one defines "sin" as meaning "an act of disobedience towards God", then obviously the non-existence of God would, on that definition, logically imply the non-existence of "sin".
But if we understand "sin" more generally to mean "an act that is bad, morally wrong, or evil", then it seems that we could "sin" even if there were no God.
Geisler will argue against this possibility later, but he has not argued that point yet, so he is not yet entitled to simply assume that no action could be morally wrong if there was no God (i.e. to assume that morality exists only if God exists). To make that assumption at this point in the game would amount to the fallacy of begging the question.
Also, I'm not sure that the qualifier "moral" is essential here. One could "sin" against a non-moral creature. If a person raised a dog from a puppy and treated the dog in kind and loving way as it grew up, and then one day took the dog into a basement, chained the dog to a table, and then brutally tortured the dog for hours until the dog died from the pain, shock, and loss of blood, then one would have "sinned" against a non-moral creature. So, the adjective "moral" seems unnecessary here. Human beings can do morally wrong actions against non-moral creatures (such as dogs).
therefore, salvation is not needed.
Clearly, if one has never "sinned" or done something that is bad or evil, then one has no need of "salvation" from one's sins. That is obviously true.
However, it is NOT in any way obvious that "salvation" MUST be conceived of as "salvation from one's sins". Different religions and worldviews have different conceptions about what the fundamental issue or issues are for human beings. Different religions diagnose the "disease" or basic problem(s) of human beings differently. Christianity asserts that the basic human problem or "disease" is sin, but other religions and other worldviews do not accept this view of human nature or of the human situation. Thus, Geisler appears to be begging the question, begging a very basic worldview question here in favor of the Christian religion or worldview.
Furthermore, if there is no God, there could be no acts of God (miracles)...
It is certainly true that if there is no God, then there are no "acts of God" either. But Geisler then sneaks the word "miracles" into this claim in parentheses, making the claim significantly more problematic and dubious.
If we simply define the term "miracle" to MEAN "an event brought about by an act of God", then clearly the above claim would be correct. However, the term "miracle" can be used in a broader sense, to mean "an event brought about by any sort of supernatural being or force." On such a broader defintion, it would be possible for "miracles" to occur even if there were no God.
God is NOT the only possible supernatural being nor the only possible being who has supernatural powers. Many Christians believe that there are angels and demons, and they believe that these are supernatural beings who have supernatural powers. So, even within the Christian worldview, there is the belief that there are supernatural beings and supernatural powers other than God and other than the powers that God directly exerts.
Furthermore, if there is no God, ... the stories of Jesus can only be understood as fiction or myth.
This statement is clearly false.
Geisler is assuming that the alleged supernatural events and supernatural powers asserted in the Gospel accounts of the life and death of Jesus could be true ONLY IF God exists. But as I just argued, supernatural beings and supernatural powers can exist even if there were no God.
According to traditional Christian belief and theology, angels and demons exist, and these are supernatural beings who have supernatural powers, and thus they can bring about supernatural events. We can conceive of a world in which there are angels or demons but no God, and in such a world there would be supernatural beings and supernatural powers, but no God.
The non-existence of God, therefore, does NOT logically imply that the Gospel accounts of the life and death of Jesus are "fiction or myth". The "miracles" in the Gospel accounts could have been brought about by a supernatural being other than God, or by some animal or human who possessed supernatural powers.
We see in the first few sentences of the opening paragraph of Geisler's case for God, that his thinking is infected with some false beliefs and some illogical reasoning related to God. This does not inspire confidence that his case for God will be based on true premises and logical reasoning. But the final sentences of the opening paragraph indicate that there is a very serious problem with Geisler's case for God.
So the first question that must be addressed in pre-evangelism is, “Does God exist?”
While this statement has some initial plausibility, I believe Geisler is completely wrong on this point, and that this statement represents a very fundamental error in Geisler's thinking, an error that destroys or severely damages his case for the existence of God.
The first question that must be addressed in any evaluation of Christianity is, rather, this:
The second question is very closely related to the first: “If God exists, what kind of God is He?”
Here Geisler clearly reveals that he is following in the footsteps of Thomas Aquinas.
In the standard view of Aquinas, Aquinas provides Five Ways of proving the existence of God, and then proceeds to prove that God has various divine attributes. This is exactly the way that Geisler builds his case for the existence of God.
But this is ASS BACKWARDS. One must first clarify the MEANING of the word "God" and THEN proceed to prove the existence of God.
The meaning of the word "God" is ordinarily (and properly) defined in terms of various divine attributes, such as "eternal", "omnipotent", "omniscient", and "perfectly morally good", and "creator of the universe". Such a definition reflects the ordinary meaning and use of the word "God" in relation to Christian belief and theology.
Apart from clarifying or defining the word "God" we literally do not know what Geisler is talking about, and thus we have no rational way to evaluate the strengths or weaknesses of his arguments for the existence of "God".
Suppose that I want to persuade you that GORPU exists, and I present you with the following argument:
1. If grass is green, then GORPU exists.
2. Grass is green.
Therefore:
3. GORPU exists.
This is a perfecly logical argument. The inference from the two premises to the conclusion is a valid deductive inference. But would you accept this argument? Of course not. You don't know what "GORPU" means, so you have no way to determine whether premise (1) is true or not.
Before you can evaluate this argument, you must first understand what the assertion "GORPU exists" means, and since I am the one who is presenting the argument, it is up to me to clarify or define the meaning of this expression, so that you will be able to understand what it means and thus be in a position to rationally evaluate premise (1).
Geisler is violating one of the most basic principles of critical thinking: BE CLEAR, and clarify the meanings of the key concepts that you use in your arguments (especially when those concepts are abstract ideas and/or controversial ideas and/or vague ideas):
Clarity is the gateway standard. If a statement is unclear, we cannot determine whether it is accurate or relevant. In fact, we cannot tell anything about it because we don't yet know what it is saying. ("Universal Intellectual Standards" by Richard Paul and Linda Elder)
Before Geisler, or anyone else, can prove that "God exists", it is necessary to clarify or define the meaning of this assertion:
To prove or to produce evidence that a certain being, x, exists, is, one might say, to prove that a certain set of compossible properties is actualized. That is, we cannot prove or know that x exists without at the same time knowing something about the nature or essence of x.
To prove the existence of God is, then, to show that the properties ascribed to the Christian God in the Bible are actualized in one and only one being. ("Thomas Aquinas" by Knut Tranoy, in A Critical History of Western Philosophy, p.110)
Because Geisler fails to clarify or define the meaning of the assertion "God exists", his case for God appears to be doomed to failure even before he presents the very first premise of his first argument for the existence of God.
Argument #G1: The universe was caused at the beginning
1. The universe had a beginning.
2. Anything that has a beginning must have been caused by something else.
3. Therefore, the universe was caused by something else, and this cause was God.
(WSA, p.16)
The first thing to note about argument #G1 is that it is clearly logically invalid. It is clear that the conclusion (3) does NOT follow logically from the premises.
The following argument form is logically valid:
1. x is a B.
2. Everything that is a B is also a C.
Therefore:
3. x is a C.
But the form of #G1 has an additional claim in the conclusion:
1. x is a B.
2. Everything that is a B is also a C.
Therefore:
3. x is a C AND y is G.
But the premises of #G1 do not mention anything about G, so the added claim "y is G" does not follow logically from the premises.
Suppose that there is no God, but that there was an angel who existed before the universe came into being. Suppose that angel caused the universe to come into being. In that case the universe "was caused by something else" but was NOT caused by God.
This scenario is completely compatible with the truth of the premises of #G1. It is compatible with the claim that the "universe had a beginning" and it is compatible with the claim that "anything that has a beginning must have been caused by something else."
Thus, it is possible for premise (1) and premise (2) to both be true, and yet for the added conclusion "this cause [of the universe] was God" to be false. Since we can conceive of circumstances in which the premises of #G1 are true and the conclusion of #G1 is false, this argument is logically invalid.
But we can fix Geisler's embarrassing logical goof quite easily, by removing the added claim that Geisler had mistakenly inserted into the conclusion:
Argument #G1revA
1. The universe had a beginning.
2. Anything that has a beginning must have been caused by something else.
3. Therefore, the universe was caused by something else.
This argument, unlike #G1, is perfeclty valid. However, it will not do, because it is missing a very important phrase:
God exists.
In order to repair Geisler's first argument for the existence of God, we must remove the claim that "God exists" from the conclusion of the agument. But if we do this, then it is no longer an argument for the existence of God!
In order to prove that God exists, one must provide an argument which has as its conclusion, the claim that "God exists" or that "There is a God". An argument that concludes with the claim "the universe was caused by something else" is NOT an argument for the existence of God.
So, either we leave argument #G1 alone and reject it because it is logically invalid, or else we correct the logic of this argument and then reject it because it is no longer an argument for the existence of God. Either way, the argument fails to prove that God exists.
The existence of a personal moral God is fundamental to all that Christians believe. If there is no moral God, there is no moral being against whom we have sinned; therefore, salvation is not needed. Furthermore, if there is no God, there could be no acts of God (miracles), and the stories of Jesus can only be understood as fiction or myth. So the first question that must be addressed in pre-evangelism is, “Does God exist?” The second question is very closely related to the first: “If God exists, what kind of God is He?” (When Skeptics Ask, p. 15)
COMMENTARY
The existence of a personal moral God is fundamental to all that Christians believe.
This seems right to me. If there is no God, then most of the basic beliefs or doctrines of Christianity are false or are probably false.
If there is no moral God, there is no moral being against whom we have sinned;
This conditional claim appears to be false. We can "sin" against (or wrong) other human beings even if God does not exist, and human beings are moral beings. So, we can sin against moral beings even if God does not exist.
Now, if one defines "sin" as meaning "an act of disobedience towards God", then obviously the non-existence of God would, on that definition, logically imply the non-existence of "sin".
But if we understand "sin" more generally to mean "an act that is bad, morally wrong, or evil", then it seems that we could "sin" even if there were no God.
Geisler will argue against this possibility later, but he has not argued that point yet, so he is not yet entitled to simply assume that no action could be morally wrong if there was no God (i.e. to assume that morality exists only if God exists). To make that assumption at this point in the game would amount to the fallacy of begging the question.
Also, I'm not sure that the qualifier "moral" is essential here. One could "sin" against a non-moral creature. If a person raised a dog from a puppy and treated the dog in kind and loving way as it grew up, and then one day took the dog into a basement, chained the dog to a table, and then brutally tortured the dog for hours until the dog died from the pain, shock, and loss of blood, then one would have "sinned" against a non-moral creature. So, the adjective "moral" seems unnecessary here. Human beings can do morally wrong actions against non-moral creatures (such as dogs).
therefore, salvation is not needed.
Clearly, if one has never "sinned" or done something that is bad or evil, then one has no need of "salvation" from one's sins. That is obviously true.
However, it is NOT in any way obvious that "salvation" MUST be conceived of as "salvation from one's sins". Different religions and worldviews have different conceptions about what the fundamental issue or issues are for human beings. Different religions diagnose the "disease" or basic problem(s) of human beings differently. Christianity asserts that the basic human problem or "disease" is sin, but other religions and other worldviews do not accept this view of human nature or of the human situation. Thus, Geisler appears to be begging the question, begging a very basic worldview question here in favor of the Christian religion or worldview.
Furthermore, if there is no God, there could be no acts of God (miracles)...
It is certainly true that if there is no God, then there are no "acts of God" either. But Geisler then sneaks the word "miracles" into this claim in parentheses, making the claim significantly more problematic and dubious.
If we simply define the term "miracle" to MEAN "an event brought about by an act of God", then clearly the above claim would be correct. However, the term "miracle" can be used in a broader sense, to mean "an event brought about by any sort of supernatural being or force." On such a broader defintion, it would be possible for "miracles" to occur even if there were no God.
God is NOT the only possible supernatural being nor the only possible being who has supernatural powers. Many Christians believe that there are angels and demons, and they believe that these are supernatural beings who have supernatural powers. So, even within the Christian worldview, there is the belief that there are supernatural beings and supernatural powers other than God and other than the powers that God directly exerts.
Furthermore, if there is no God, ... the stories of Jesus can only be understood as fiction or myth.
This statement is clearly false.
Geisler is assuming that the alleged supernatural events and supernatural powers asserted in the Gospel accounts of the life and death of Jesus could be true ONLY IF God exists. But as I just argued, supernatural beings and supernatural powers can exist even if there were no God.
According to traditional Christian belief and theology, angels and demons exist, and these are supernatural beings who have supernatural powers, and thus they can bring about supernatural events. We can conceive of a world in which there are angels or demons but no God, and in such a world there would be supernatural beings and supernatural powers, but no God.
The non-existence of God, therefore, does NOT logically imply that the Gospel accounts of the life and death of Jesus are "fiction or myth". The "miracles" in the Gospel accounts could have been brought about by a supernatural being other than God, or by some animal or human who possessed supernatural powers.
We see in the first few sentences of the opening paragraph of Geisler's case for God, that his thinking is infected with some false beliefs and some illogical reasoning related to God. This does not inspire confidence that his case for God will be based on true premises and logical reasoning. But the final sentences of the opening paragraph indicate that there is a very serious problem with Geisler's case for God.
So the first question that must be addressed in pre-evangelism is, “Does God exist?”
While this statement has some initial plausibility, I believe Geisler is completely wrong on this point, and that this statement represents a very fundamental error in Geisler's thinking, an error that destroys or severely damages his case for the existence of God.
The first question that must be addressed in any evaluation of Christianity is, rather, this:
- What does the assertion "God exists" mean?
The second question is very closely related to the first: “If God exists, what kind of God is He?”
Here Geisler clearly reveals that he is following in the footsteps of Thomas Aquinas.
In the standard view of Aquinas, Aquinas provides Five Ways of proving the existence of God, and then proceeds to prove that God has various divine attributes. This is exactly the way that Geisler builds his case for the existence of God.
But this is ASS BACKWARDS. One must first clarify the MEANING of the word "God" and THEN proceed to prove the existence of God.
The meaning of the word "God" is ordinarily (and properly) defined in terms of various divine attributes, such as "eternal", "omnipotent", "omniscient", and "perfectly morally good", and "creator of the universe". Such a definition reflects the ordinary meaning and use of the word "God" in relation to Christian belief and theology.
Apart from clarifying or defining the word "God" we literally do not know what Geisler is talking about, and thus we have no rational way to evaluate the strengths or weaknesses of his arguments for the existence of "God".
Suppose that I want to persuade you that GORPU exists, and I present you with the following argument:
1. If grass is green, then GORPU exists.
2. Grass is green.
Therefore:
3. GORPU exists.
This is a perfecly logical argument. The inference from the two premises to the conclusion is a valid deductive inference. But would you accept this argument? Of course not. You don't know what "GORPU" means, so you have no way to determine whether premise (1) is true or not.
Before you can evaluate this argument, you must first understand what the assertion "GORPU exists" means, and since I am the one who is presenting the argument, it is up to me to clarify or define the meaning of this expression, so that you will be able to understand what it means and thus be in a position to rationally evaluate premise (1).
Geisler is violating one of the most basic principles of critical thinking: BE CLEAR, and clarify the meanings of the key concepts that you use in your arguments (especially when those concepts are abstract ideas and/or controversial ideas and/or vague ideas):
Clarity is the gateway standard. If a statement is unclear, we cannot determine whether it is accurate or relevant. In fact, we cannot tell anything about it because we don't yet know what it is saying. ("Universal Intellectual Standards" by Richard Paul and Linda Elder)
Before Geisler, or anyone else, can prove that "God exists", it is necessary to clarify or define the meaning of this assertion:
To prove or to produce evidence that a certain being, x, exists, is, one might say, to prove that a certain set of compossible properties is actualized. That is, we cannot prove or know that x exists without at the same time knowing something about the nature or essence of x.
To prove the existence of God is, then, to show that the properties ascribed to the Christian God in the Bible are actualized in one and only one being. ("Thomas Aquinas" by Knut Tranoy, in A Critical History of Western Philosophy, p.110)
Because Geisler fails to clarify or define the meaning of the assertion "God exists", his case for God appears to be doomed to failure even before he presents the very first premise of his first argument for the existence of God.
Argument #G1: The universe was caused at the beginning
1. The universe had a beginning.
2. Anything that has a beginning must have been caused by something else.
3. Therefore, the universe was caused by something else, and this cause was God.
(WSA, p.16)
The first thing to note about argument #G1 is that it is clearly logically invalid. It is clear that the conclusion (3) does NOT follow logically from the premises.
The following argument form is logically valid:
1. x is a B.
2. Everything that is a B is also a C.
Therefore:
3. x is a C.
But the form of #G1 has an additional claim in the conclusion:
1. x is a B.
2. Everything that is a B is also a C.
Therefore:
3. x is a C AND y is G.
But the premises of #G1 do not mention anything about G, so the added claim "y is G" does not follow logically from the premises.
Suppose that there is no God, but that there was an angel who existed before the universe came into being. Suppose that angel caused the universe to come into being. In that case the universe "was caused by something else" but was NOT caused by God.
This scenario is completely compatible with the truth of the premises of #G1. It is compatible with the claim that the "universe had a beginning" and it is compatible with the claim that "anything that has a beginning must have been caused by something else."
Thus, it is possible for premise (1) and premise (2) to both be true, and yet for the added conclusion "this cause [of the universe] was God" to be false. Since we can conceive of circumstances in which the premises of #G1 are true and the conclusion of #G1 is false, this argument is logically invalid.
But we can fix Geisler's embarrassing logical goof quite easily, by removing the added claim that Geisler had mistakenly inserted into the conclusion:
Argument #G1revA
1. The universe had a beginning.
2. Anything that has a beginning must have been caused by something else.
3. Therefore, the universe was caused by something else.
This argument, unlike #G1, is perfeclty valid. However, it will not do, because it is missing a very important phrase:
God exists.
In order to repair Geisler's first argument for the existence of God, we must remove the claim that "God exists" from the conclusion of the agument. But if we do this, then it is no longer an argument for the existence of God!
In order to prove that God exists, one must provide an argument which has as its conclusion, the claim that "God exists" or that "There is a God". An argument that concludes with the claim "the universe was caused by something else" is NOT an argument for the existence of God.
So, either we leave argument #G1 alone and reject it because it is logically invalid, or else we correct the logic of this argument and then reject it because it is no longer an argument for the existence of God. Either way, the argument fails to prove that God exists.
Wednesday, October 5, 2016
Sunday, October 2, 2016
1. Does God Exist?
One of the most basic beliefs of Christianity is this:
(G) God exists.
If claim (G) is false (or improbable), then Christianity is false (or improbable).
If claim (G) is true (or probable), that would not prove that Christianity is true (or probable), but it would provide some support for the truth of Christianity, and it would help the case for Christianity by eliminating some alternatives to Christianity (e.g. atheism and Secular Humanism).
Before we investigate the question "Does God exist?", we need to clarify the meaning of claim (G):
What Does the Claim "God Exists" Mean?
We also ought to formulate an approach to investigating this controversial question:
Investigating the Question "Does God exist?"
An investigation of this question should include both of the following kinds of considerations:
Reasons and Arguments For the Existence of God
Reasons and Arguments Against the Existence of God
After identifying and evaluating the best reasons and arguments for and against (G), one needs to synthesize the various pros and cons and arrive at an all-things-considered conclusion:
All Things Considered, What is the Probability of (G)?
(G) God exists.
If claim (G) is false (or improbable), then Christianity is false (or improbable).
If claim (G) is true (or probable), that would not prove that Christianity is true (or probable), but it would provide some support for the truth of Christianity, and it would help the case for Christianity by eliminating some alternatives to Christianity (e.g. atheism and Secular Humanism).
Before we investigate the question "Does God exist?", we need to clarify the meaning of claim (G):
What Does the Claim "God Exists" Mean?
We also ought to formulate an approach to investigating this controversial question:
Investigating the Question "Does God exist?"
An investigation of this question should include both of the following kinds of considerations:
Reasons and Arguments For the Existence of God
Reasons and Arguments Against the Existence of God
After identifying and evaluating the best reasons and arguments for and against (G), one needs to synthesize the various pros and cons and arrive at an all-things-considered conclusion:
All Things Considered, What is the Probability of (G)?
What is Christianity?
Before we can determine whether Christianity is true (or false), we need to determine whether Christianity is the kind of thing that could be true (or false)?
In order to determine whether Christianity is the kind of thing that could be true (or false), we need to determine what kind of a thing Christianity is. Or, conversely, if Christianity is the kind of thing that could be true (or false), then that is an important clue as to what kind of a thing Christianity is.
Is Christianity a religion or a relationship?
What is a religion?
What is a worldview?
Is Christianity a worldview?
What makes a worldview true (or false)?
What is the Christian worldview?
In order to determine whether Christianity is the kind of thing that could be true (or false), we need to determine what kind of a thing Christianity is. Or, conversely, if Christianity is the kind of thing that could be true (or false), then that is an important clue as to what kind of a thing Christianity is.
Is Christianity a religion or a relationship?
What is a religion?
What is a worldview?
Is Christianity a worldview?
What makes a worldview true (or false)?
What is the Christian worldview?
Is Christianity True?
Is Christianity True?
This is the question that I will be investigating on this blog site for the next four or five years.
Before I go into specific arguments for or against some key Christian beliefs, I will first discuss a preliminary question (in 2016):
What is Christianity?
1. Does God exist? (investigation targeted to complete in 2017)
2. Did Jesus exist? (investigation targeted to complete in 2018)
3. Did Jesus rise from the dead? (investigation targeted to complete in 2019)
4. Was Jesus God? (investigation targeted to complete in 2020)
The following diagram shows how these questions are related to the larger question "Is Christianity true?" (click on the image below for a clearer view of the diagram) :
If the answer to any one of these questions is "No" (or "probably not"), then the Christian faith is false (or is probably false).
If the answer to all four of these questions is "Yes", then Christianity might be true.
The Christian faith includes more than just the beliefs that God exists, that Jesus existed, that Jesus rose from the dead, and that Jesus was God incarnate. For example, the Christian faith also includes the belief that human beings are sinful and in need of God's forgiveness, and that the death of Jesus provides a way for humans to be forgiven and to be reconciled with God, and that faith in Jesus as the risen lord and savior of humankind is the key to being forgiven and reconciled with God, and to obtaining an eternal life of happiness.
Thus, even if the Christian beliefs concerning the above four key questions are all true, it could still be the case that Christianity is false (or probably false), if other key Christian beliefs turned out to be false (or probably false).
This is the question that I will be investigating on this blog site for the next four or five years.
Before I go into specific arguments for or against some key Christian beliefs, I will first discuss a preliminary question (in 2016):
What is Christianity?
1. Does God exist? (investigation targeted to complete in 2017)
2. Did Jesus exist? (investigation targeted to complete in 2018)
3. Did Jesus rise from the dead? (investigation targeted to complete in 2019)
4. Was Jesus God? (investigation targeted to complete in 2020)
The following diagram shows how these questions are related to the larger question "Is Christianity true?" (click on the image below for a clearer view of the diagram) :
If the answer to any one of these questions is "No" (or "probably not"), then the Christian faith is false (or is probably false).
If the answer to all four of these questions is "Yes", then Christianity might be true.
The Christian faith includes more than just the beliefs that God exists, that Jesus existed, that Jesus rose from the dead, and that Jesus was God incarnate. For example, the Christian faith also includes the belief that human beings are sinful and in need of God's forgiveness, and that the death of Jesus provides a way for humans to be forgiven and to be reconciled with God, and that faith in Jesus as the risen lord and savior of humankind is the key to being forgiven and reconciled with God, and to obtaining an eternal life of happiness.
Thus, even if the Christian beliefs concerning the above four key questions are all true, it could still be the case that Christianity is false (or probably false), if other key Christian beliefs turned out to be false (or probably false).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
