Over the last three posts I have provided three classic cosmological arguments for the existence of God. Over the course of the next several posts I will probably provide you with some more philosophical arguments for God built upon foundations than origins. However, that can come latter. Right now I want to reset just a little bit.
After those three posts you may be saying to yourself, “That was interesting, but what was the point of that? Where does that get us?” If you look back at my original post that begun this topic, you’ll notice that I proposed to examine several points:
- Is it reasonable to believe that God exists?
- If such a God did exist, could He communicate with us?
- Is belief in miracles reasonable?
- Is the Bible trustworthy?
- Is the resurrection reasonable?
- Does the Biblical worldview comport with reality?
- How does Christianity fare against the other leading worldviews of today?
I believe that those arguments, in part, establish my first point that belief in God is reasonable. I only say ‘in part’ because taken individually they are generally written off by skeptics as mental exercises with little merit. But when presented in groups, especially when you have several arguments which support the conclusion from several different premises, they become far more compelling and more difficult to ignore.
Simply put, the point of thinking about these arguments is that they lead to the conclusion that there must be a being who has the creative abilities that we ascribe to God, based not on passages in the Bible but on reason and observation.
Does this mean that we can throw out the Bible, and follow God solely through reason and observation? Absolutely not. But what it does begin to show is that Christians, whether we know it or not, have good reasons to believe what we believe.
In the next post we'll start examining whether such a God, since it appear probable that He does exist, would or could communicate with His creation.
No comments:
Post a Comment