Post by Jesse Morrell on Nov 9, 2009 17:23:34 GMT -5
THE NECESSITY FOR GOD
METAPHYSICAL, AXIOLOGICAL, EPISTEMOLOGICAL
Preached in the open air at the University of Alabama, Birmingham
During my second day on campus I decided to start at square one and talk about the existence of God. I explained that there was a metaphysical necessity for God, an axiological necessity for God, and an epistemological necessity for God.
The metaphysical necessity for God is that the finite cannot exist without the existence of the infinite, since only the self-existent can cause that which is not self-existent. Every effect must have a cause. That which is not self-existent must have a cause. If the infinite did not exist, the finite could not exist, because nothing could have ever caused it. The nature of reality (metaphysics) requires the existence of God.
The axiological necessity for God is that, apart from an infinite transcendent mind, there can be no moral absolutes. Without a superior and infallible mind who governs over us, the final court of appeal would be our own finite thinking and understanding. We could not be absolutely sure of moral law, since the views and opinions of men’s minds different and vary so widely. There must be an infinite, infallible, superior, transcendent mind that governs over us, that gives us moral revelations through our conscience, if we are to have any certainty regarding absolute moral law. Axiology (morality) requires the existence of God.
In one of my dialogs with an atheist I asked him, “were the crusades wrong? He said, “Yes”. I asked, “Where the witch hunts wrong?” He said, “Yes”. I asked, “Where the inquisitions wrong?” Again he said, “Yes”. Then I asked, “Where does morality come from?” He didn’t know what to say. If he said morality comes from the minds of individuals, how could these individuals have been wrong if they thought this was the right thing to do? If he said morality comes from society, how could these societies be wrong since this is what they thought was right to do? If there is no transcendent God, who infallibly knows what is right and what is wrong, who writes His law upon our very own conscience, all we can have is relative or subjective morality, but nothing that is absolute or objective. We all know right from wrong because God, who infallibly knows what’s right and what’s wrong, has revealed it to us.
Besides, if we are random accidents of the Universe, instead of precious and valuable creations of God, what would make our well-being absolutely valuable? We could arbitrarily say that we are valuable, but this is not the same as being intrinsically valuable. The object of moral law is to secure the well-being of the governed. The foundation of moral law itself is the intrinsic value of well-being. If you take away the intrinsic value of well-being, you take away the very foundation of moral law.
The epistemological necessity for God is that, if we are not created and designed by God, how can we trust the accuracy of our five senses, or believe in the reliability of our reason or conscience? Apart from the presupposition of Divine Design, we cannot put any confidence in the accuracy of these means of acquiring knowledge. They could be flawed, inaccurate, and completely deceptive, if we are the result of mere “time and chance”. One atheist told me, “I don’t believe in the accuracy of my five senses.” I said, “You don’t stop at red lights?” I went on to say, “Every time you get up in the morning and go to the mirror brush your hair, you are believing in your sense of sight and the sight of others.” Everyone believes in the accuracy of their five senses, but apart from Divine Design, we cannot account for them. Epistemology (study of knowledge and justified belief) necessitates the existence of God.
METAPHYSICAL, AXIOLOGICAL, EPISTEMOLOGICAL
Preached in the open air at the University of Alabama, Birmingham
During my second day on campus I decided to start at square one and talk about the existence of God. I explained that there was a metaphysical necessity for God, an axiological necessity for God, and an epistemological necessity for God.
The metaphysical necessity for God is that the finite cannot exist without the existence of the infinite, since only the self-existent can cause that which is not self-existent. Every effect must have a cause. That which is not self-existent must have a cause. If the infinite did not exist, the finite could not exist, because nothing could have ever caused it. The nature of reality (metaphysics) requires the existence of God.
The axiological necessity for God is that, apart from an infinite transcendent mind, there can be no moral absolutes. Without a superior and infallible mind who governs over us, the final court of appeal would be our own finite thinking and understanding. We could not be absolutely sure of moral law, since the views and opinions of men’s minds different and vary so widely. There must be an infinite, infallible, superior, transcendent mind that governs over us, that gives us moral revelations through our conscience, if we are to have any certainty regarding absolute moral law. Axiology (morality) requires the existence of God.
In one of my dialogs with an atheist I asked him, “were the crusades wrong? He said, “Yes”. I asked, “Where the witch hunts wrong?” He said, “Yes”. I asked, “Where the inquisitions wrong?” Again he said, “Yes”. Then I asked, “Where does morality come from?” He didn’t know what to say. If he said morality comes from the minds of individuals, how could these individuals have been wrong if they thought this was the right thing to do? If he said morality comes from society, how could these societies be wrong since this is what they thought was right to do? If there is no transcendent God, who infallibly knows what is right and what is wrong, who writes His law upon our very own conscience, all we can have is relative or subjective morality, but nothing that is absolute or objective. We all know right from wrong because God, who infallibly knows what’s right and what’s wrong, has revealed it to us.
Besides, if we are random accidents of the Universe, instead of precious and valuable creations of God, what would make our well-being absolutely valuable? We could arbitrarily say that we are valuable, but this is not the same as being intrinsically valuable. The object of moral law is to secure the well-being of the governed. The foundation of moral law itself is the intrinsic value of well-being. If you take away the intrinsic value of well-being, you take away the very foundation of moral law.
The epistemological necessity for God is that, if we are not created and designed by God, how can we trust the accuracy of our five senses, or believe in the reliability of our reason or conscience? Apart from the presupposition of Divine Design, we cannot put any confidence in the accuracy of these means of acquiring knowledge. They could be flawed, inaccurate, and completely deceptive, if we are the result of mere “time and chance”. One atheist told me, “I don’t believe in the accuracy of my five senses.” I said, “You don’t stop at red lights?” I went on to say, “Every time you get up in the morning and go to the mirror brush your hair, you are believing in your sense of sight and the sight of others.” Everyone believes in the accuracy of their five senses, but apart from Divine Design, we cannot account for them. Epistemology (study of knowledge and justified belief) necessitates the existence of God.