|
|
|
|
|
[논문] THE ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IN CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS (영문) (36)
|
|
|
PAUL
|
2023-12-22 13:51:13, 조회 : 190 |
|
|
Paul Jang
✝✝✝ A DEMONSTRATION OF GOD AND THE ARGUMENTS
FOR THE EXISTENCE OF CHRISTIAN GOD IN CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS (36)
by Dr. Paul B. Jang (Ph.D. Christian Apologetics) (영문) ✝✝✝
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURES:
PHILOSOPHICAL AND THEOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE CONCEPTS AND EXISTENCE OF God
HISTORICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL SURVEY
THE ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.
Rational Arguments:
The Cosmological Argument (4)
The Defects of the Cosmological Argument
These arguments suffer from the same defect, in spite of, both being premised on the idea that a phenomenon of the world, whether it be conceptual or casual, can be explained adequate only in terms of something ultimate--absolute mind or necessary and transcendent being (Geisler and Corduan, 1988, 170).
Augustus Hopkins Strong summarized the defects of the cosmological argument as this:
(1) It is impossible to show that the universe, so far as its substance is concerned, has had a beginning. (2) Granting that the universe, so far as its phenomena are concerned, has had a cause, it is impossible to show that any other cause is required than a cause within itself, such as the pantheist supposes, (3) Granting that the universe must have had a cause outside of itself, it is impossible to show that this cause has not itself been caused, i.e., consists of an infinite series of dependent cause, (4) Granting that the cause of the universe has not itself been caused, it is impossible to show that this cause id not finite, like the universe itself (Strong, 1985, 73-74).
But Buswell insisted that among the various hypotheses it is most probable that God of the Bible existed eternally as the potential Originator of Motion (Buswell, 1965, 48).
He assumed an ambiguous attitude to the cosmological argument having been analyzing the cause and effect. And he evaluates if this argument could be properly used, it would be sound. But God of the Bible as the First Cause is the proper God for us to search (Buswell, 1962, 47-57).
Dr. Park tries to rationally prove the existence of God in the restatement for the criticism of the concept of nothing and soul in his book, Dogmatic Theology. But he presupposes the belief in God who is eternal, personal, and absolute (Park, 1970, 38-40).
This cosmological argument also is suffering in the rational category of rationalism for it cannot be beyond the sphere of reason. Because God is the absolutely transcendent Being beyond the sphere of the reason. This cosmological argument also is worthy only presupposing the belief in Biblical God. This has been suggested in Hebrew 3:4: For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God. Geisler and Corduan have concluded as follows:
The existence of God does not result from the cosmological argument. What results from the argument is a truth (i.e., a statement about God s existence that corresponds to reality). Theistic arguments are not the ground for God s existence; God s existence needs no ground (he is the ungrounded Ground of all other existence).
At best, cosmological argument is a logical schema, based on reality, which rationally explains why limited being (caused being) must be caused by an unlimited Being (uncaused Being) (Geisler and Corduan, 1988, 207).
The Moral Argument
This moral argument for the existence of God is to prove the moral Creator on the basis of the subjective and objective moral law. This was not taken as a rational argument using a pure reason but as a practical postulate. But later this has been offered as bona fide approach to prove God s existence by rational argument.
This argument has been discovered in the simplest form of the absolute unconditional moral law of conscience (Categorical Imperative) which is the Great Imperative of Immanuel Kant.
Kant points out that in the Critique of the Pure Reason, theoretic proofs, namely ontological argument, cosmological argument, and teleological argument cannot give us the knowledge about moral God, therefore, in the Critique of Practical Reason, we need a moral postulate (Wahl, 1948, 32; Thiessen, 1976, 61).
In other words, the eternity of soul, the existence of God, and freedom cannot be known because our mind cannot be beyond an imaginative and conjectural category in the sphere of pure reason, and therefore, in order to be beyond this category, we need to get into the practical reason which is the sphere of moral principle.
He judged that the failure of Greek philosophy, Epicurean, and Stoics to prove the existence of God was the reason why they had disregarded the practical reason. He also pointed out, that the theoretic proofs can give us no knowledge of God as a moral Being; for this we are depended upon the Practical Reason (Thiessen, 1976, 61).
He asserts that this argument is a priori, and it does postulate the existence of God from the relationship of infinite virtue and happiness, and the practical reason is the rational fact of faith.
Shedd explains this moral argument with two ways: Firstly, Human conscience proves a fact of obedience by the moral law, and this suggests the lawgiver, who is God (Shedd, 1889, 247).
In this proof, Kant says, Du Sollist namely the voice of conscience presupposes its Sovereign One. In other words, this means that there is God in the moral conscience of man (Hoeksema, 1966, 46). Calvin, Melanchton, and Turretine advocated this moral argument of God s existence.
Secondly, in the light of the righteous judgement between the good and the bad, there must be the righteous Judge in the world (Shedd, 1889, 248).
In fact, man has a conscience in nature, and it needs a morality. And every man has the evidence of the existence of God who gives the morality in his own nature, because man s nature takes after some nature of God who is personal and moral Being. Therefore, man s conscience has proved the existence of God by the moral postulate. For this proof, Charles Hodge states as follows:
Every man has in his own nature the evidence of the existence of God, the evidence which never can be obliterated, and which will force conviction on the most unwilling. It is n less true that every man has in himself the same irresistible evidence that God is an extramundane personal Being; that the is intelligent, voluntary, and moral; that He knows; He has the right to command; and that He can punish and can save. (Hodge, 1973, 234)
Charles Hodge inferred the arguments for the existence of God from the nature of the existence of the mind, the existence of God, the nature of the soul, and the moral nature of man. In particular, he states about the proofs of the moral nature of man, in details, in which it has, at least seven subjects:
(1) that we have, by the constitution of our nature, a sense of right and wrong; we perceive or judge some things to be right, and others to be wrong, (2) Our moral perceptions or judgements are sui generis, (3) these moral judgements are independent, (4) our moral judgements, or, in other words, the conscience, has an authority from which we cannot emancipate ourselves, (5) our moral judgements involve the idea of law, i.e., of a rule or standard to which we are bound to be conformed, (6) This law has an authority which it does not derive from us, (7) our moral nature involves, therefore, a sense of responsibility (Hodge, 1973, 233-239). ❤️❤️❤️
- To be Continued -
. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
선교운동소개
동역자실 