Henry Reyenga - So I don't know if you're like me, but you start thinking  philosophically, and you start wondering, you know, is this really important? And  then new ideas come to you, and these ideas sort of, you know, your your child,  hold them into your brain and and you know, you're growing at the same time,  you're not totally understanding it. And you've heard a lot of stuff, and you're  doing your ministry training, and you're figuring things out, or maybe you're into  enterprise and all this philosophy stuff, and then, and then your mind drifts. You  daydream about what you're gonna do later, and then you stop the video and  you rewind it just a little bit to do, what did I hear that correctly? I'm going to be  tested on this. These are all the things you're thinking about. So sometimes it's  just really good to sort of like, okay, let's go deeper in a subject. And one of the  subjects that I think needs deeper reflection is this whole concept of is okay? So the arguments for the existence of God in you know, you probably heard some,  and you're hearing more. Many people actually believe that there are really  strong arguments that logic can show us, or observation can show us and prove that God is real, and in this course, we're sort of asking those questions, can it  be proved by logic? So I just think we have a good round table discussion here.  A little bit. So. Dr Clouser, you actually believe that the laws of logic cannot  prove that God exists.  

Dr. Clouser - That's right, because he's the creator of them. God. God's  existence is independent of whatever he brings into existence, whether  whatever else he creates, and because Colossians 1 insists that he's created  everything visible or invisible, that would include the laws of logic, include the  laws of mathematics.  

Henry Reyenga - I hear that I'm like, yeah, probably the strictest sense, but they still are helpful to me.  

Dr. Clouser - Well, of course, they govern creatures. We can't think any other  way by using those so we form concepts of the world around us and the  concepts, we call them logical, which means we use the logical laws, even if not  consciously, what unconsciously we're assuming that things can't both be true  and false all the time. So if somebody owes me 20 bucks, you can't tell me,  Well, I paid you even though I didn't. Nobody's going to buy that, and we  shouldn't, but the laws of logic, the necessary truths the Cappadocian father  said, are necessary for creatures, not for God. God brought them all into  existence. Calvin says God is not subject to any laws, except as he subjects  himself in making a covenant with us. Yes, even though, let's  

Henry Reyenga - talk about some of these arguments, and you know, Bob, you  can chime in anytime. Do let's talk about some of these logical arguments. Go 

over them again. I like you to go over them again, right? You know them, write  out a little bit while we're talking. Now, Bob, have you ever pastor, ever while  he's right now, use some of these logical arguments?  

Bob Zomermaand - Well, I was taught them early on in college, already, I was  being taught these, and then it was expanded on and and in seminary, I had this course in apologetics, right,  

Henry Reyenga - right? And we have an apologetics class that we even talk  about some of these logical arguments  

Bob Zomermaand - and but, but what always bothered me was that it just  seemed like we were trying to argue, right and, and as soon as I start arguing  with you, I have to give your premises just as much credence as my own right.  And so in order for us to have a good conversation, I have to grant that you're  right at least some of the time, exactly, and you have to grant that I'm right,  right? Well, we can't both be right if one says God exists, and the other says  God doesn't exist, right, right? And I always was, was challenged by that, but  you know, I taught these arguments, right? And when you know, and they're  probably,  

Henry Reyenga - they remain useful, but you understand that in the strictest  sense of the word faith is still faith. It's still faith.  

Bob Zomermaand - Okay, I and, and the thing I always have liked to come back to is Jesus says, and you will be my witnesses right now, witnesses in as I look  in the court of law. Right? They're the ones who get asked questions, and they  tell what they have seen, what they have experienced. This is the kind of thing.  Dr Clouser, coming back to your experience, yeah, but, but I don't come along to you as the trial lawyer, and you're the jury, and I'm to convince you, right? I bear  witness. Gotcha. Jesus doesn't call me a lawyer. He called me a witness, right?  But you know, some of my best sermons, people have told me were wondering  like I was a lawyer, trying to convince Well, I would use this right, right? I did. I  know I did, right.  

Henry Reyenga - Okay, so here you are. You're almost done writing this first  proof for the existence of God. And so who originated this proof? Again, Thomas Aquinas. So Thomas, the famous Thomas Aquinas. You know the thing about  Thomas Aquinas? I've read Thomas Aquinas, and some of you might want to  attempt it, summa theology,  

Dr. Clouser - theological. I mean, I remember that. 

Henry Reyenga - I'm proud of the president. He actually remembers the title of  the book. And I will tell you that he was like you read, and I had to concentrate.  You're concentrating now. Read Summa, theologia, and let me tell you. So this  is from Thomas Aquinas. So what does he say? So  

Dr. Clouser - he starts with the observation that there are things that can either  exist or not, and I don't know how anybody could deny that. We look around and think about it, it's hard to think of anything that isn't like that can either exist or  not right. Whatever can fail to exist must okay. And the reason for that is the  principle is sufficient reason okay? And I explained this at some length, but you  guys already know what the principle is, so let me say how it applies. If you've  got something that really is one of the things talked about. Number one, it can  fail to exist. Okay? That has to be because it contains within itself no reason why it would continue to exist, gotcha. And it could only be that kind of thing if, not  only if there's no reason within itself, but outside of itself, right? There is just no  reason at all for it to continue to exist. If there is no reason it can't happen, right? Because there's everything must have a causal explanation.  

Bob Zomermaand - Okay, so let me go try to grasp, grasp that a little bit if  something could have within itself the ability not to exist that can't be is that the  

Dr. Clouser - if a thing is the kind of thing that can fail to exist, it's because  nowhere is there a cause or explanation for its continued existence. Oh, okay, it  can only be that kind of thing, if there were no reason that would make it exist  forever, no reason it can't happen because the principal search and reason says everything's got to have a cause or expiration. So premise two assumes the  principal search and reason. Now Thomas didn't think there was any problem  with that, because up to his time, everybody accepted the principal search and  reason, right? All the greats, Plato, Aristotle and so on. But beginning with David Hume, died in 1776, beginning with David Hume, he rejected the principle, and  since then, philosophers are divided on it. Okay, I had a professor who claimed  that he could show in modal logic that if you didn't take the principles. He didn't  say for everything there must be a cause or explanation, but you just said it is  possible that for everything, it still works, right? You know, all the oh, okay, yeah. So he liked to try to rescue proofs like this, and he came up with one of his own  in modern modal logic that concluded that God exists and he's an admirer of  Aquinas. He thinks this doesn't work for a lot of the reasons I'm giving here, but  it can be made to work. Yeah, if all things could not exist, then it sometimes all  things would cease. Sometime all things would cease to exist, and there would  there'll be nothing. This is the embodiment of the fallacy called composition. It  says that if, if a certain characteristic is true of all the parts of a thing that is true 

of the thing as a whole. So he's saying, if everything in the universe were the  kind of thing that could fail to exist, then the universe would be the kind of thing  that could fail to exist, and there'd be nothing, right? But that's not true. I mean,  yeah, all you observed, that's a fallacy. And we could all say, Yeah, but this could have come into existence, caused that, and then this goes out of existence, this  causes something else, and it goes out, but there's always something right, right and that, and he's just ignored that. And. There's no rescuing premise three, it's  absurd that there's now nothing. By logical law. It does follow from three and  four that not everything is such, that it cannot exist. And then he concludes,  therefore there is something that cannot not exist. And we call this God, but  what he's done here is put one over on us. There is some undisclosed number  of things. Not one thing. He hasn't shown there's only one, but he speaks of it,  and this we say, is this, this one is God, but there could be billions. In fact, I had  a colleague at the college, or at first college where I taught, say to me, Oh, this  is perfect logic. I think, though, that there are any undisclosed number and there are subatomic particles. I'm a materialist. There is no gun. It's the particles  everything depends on. And I said, well, that it's too bad the argument doesn't  work, right there.  

Henry Reyenga - That which everything depends on, which is a theme in this.  Course, yes, when you subject something to the laws of logic and the  relationship to that which everything depends on, and the laws of logic, they  don't always connect, you know? So you're talking like, okay, so like, so God is  other than us, other than the world, other than the creation, creation, yeah, and  here we have these laws of logic, and we see a fallacy here. But what if there  was no fallacy? What if that was a perfectly airtight would it still prove? If this,  

Dr. Clouser - oh no, why I'm saying No, and that's, that's the follow up talk that I  gave to showing the proofs. There's a problem with the project of proving and  the problem is that it subjects God to the laws of creation, the laws that he  created and built into the universe. It demotes him to being one more creature in the universe subject to the same laws. Now, the Tomas once the who follows the name we give to people who follow Thomas quite Yeah, Thomas, the Tomas  theologian, wants to say God has all the perfections. He's the unity of all and  only perfections. And he includes within himself all the necessary truths. So God can't violate the laws of logic, and he can be proven by them, but that's just his  own nature. So you're not subjecting him to something created. The laws of  logic are uncreated because they're they are a constituent of God's own nature.  

Henry Reyenga - Okay, so, okay, Professor, yeah, I have a question. So now  you got me. You mentioned Hume, and you know, as you study philosophy, that  you're going to meet many of these people, and very interesting people, sort of 

Kant, K, a, n, t, so Kant, in some ways, would say you are proving my point, that God is unknowable, that we cannot, Since we cannot prove God. What we can  is only show scientific truth modernism and in fact, by debunking these  arguments, you strengthen the secularist enlightenment view, there is no God,  

Dr. Clouser - all right, Kant thought that it was impossible to prove the existence of God as well, and not for the reason that I gave, but for the reason this is, this  is fine for doing science, investigating the world and so on, but it's not fine  logical analysis and argument not fine for what he called ideas of the reason.  Now, these ideas just arise in the minds of any rational person, They can neither be proven or not, but people can't get along without them, and one of those  ideas is God, and so he wants to rescue it by making that unprovable, therefore  faith, but grounding it in reason, you have to be a rational being To have the idea right? And the idea of the totality of reality is another idea of the reason, the idea that there's purpose in nature. We feel almost impelled to say that when we  when we talk about parts of the body in surgery, we say, well, this is there to do  this, it sounds like it's designed for a purpose. He says, We can't really prove  that there's design in nature, but we can't help seeing it that way. That's an idea  of the reason. It's another thing we can't get along without, but can't prove  

Henry Reyenga - right. So really, I mean, so the arguments for the existence of  God here, even with you know, you just mentioned that, like the design a watch? Yes, okay, that, what was that guy who did the watch? William Paley. Okay,  Paley, yeah, you're mentioning blah, blah, blah. So Paley comes in and says,  you find a watch. I mean, that seems convincing.  

Dr. Clouser - Oh, it was at the time, and it still is to a lot of people.  

Henry Reyenga - I mean, I would say, in fact, I utilize that in witnessing all the  time. I might be getting away with a little fallacy here. I'm getting away with a  little fallacy, but it does seem awfully conveniently. I mean, I'm saying,  

Bob Zomermaand - I know exactly what you're saying, because there is, there's so much talk in our culture here in North America about intelligent design about  it. And so this whole argument is about intelligent and you look around and you  know, this very white board, somebody designed this right here, right, right?  

Dr. Clouser - So they're still there lie those hidden pitfalls in the and one of them is, right, that the intelligence that we want to look for, that we claim to find in the  universe, is what we would have done if we had designed it. It's we're actually  talking about human intelligence, right? Whereby, whereas the Scripture talks to  us about God not only having made things and planned them and so on, but 

he's the God over what's random and chaotic too. So in Proverbs, 16 says, We  toss the dice, but how they turn out controlled by God. So God takes the credit  for exactly what's the most random sort of thing to us. So that for the believer  who encounters God in His Word and hears God speak to him, right? And it's  self evident, then it's not just the things that look orderly, but the chaotic ones  that are also under God's control and reflect his creativity. So again, I'm worried  about that argument for a number of reasons. I don't find it compelling. Again,  it's, it's using a logical construct to try to show that God's more probable. These  arguments, like Thomas and Descartes, try to show that certain, these are  certain premises. And if they're right, this has to be right. And Haley has given  that up. Well, we'll show that it's more probably designed than accidental, right?  And then it's more probable that belief in God is true than false. And that, of  course, again, it seems to be blatantly at odds with the way the Scripture talks  about knowing God. It's not you know your belief in God isn't a belief that it's  more probable that God exists than not in the New Testament. It's something  you believe and know that occurs eight to 10 times in the New Testament. Don't  just believe it. We also know it. There's belief that mere belief, I believe  tomorrow be nice. I can't be sure of that, but know what that Christ is the Son of  God, and then God has sent Him into the world to redeem the human race, is  something we believe and know they repeat. It's repeated over and over. It's in  Hebrews. It's in Paul, it's in the gospel. So Jesus says to Peter, who do you say? I am? We believe and know that you are the Christ.  

Henry Reyenga - What you're saying is someone comes to a walk with God, not in the family tree, through logic itself, but through relational belief, yes, through,  like we talk in the Getting Started class here, you know, you guys have taken the Getting Started class, and you know we talk about, especially in the ministry  class, talk about the seven connections. So the class asks a question, what's  your spiritual dream? Then it goes on to say, well, it's seeking God, seeking  others. Those are answers that are answered 1000s of different ways by people. And then it comes to the question of, it's like, so what is a relationship with God? And we talk about it's talking, listening repeatedly. And then it goes on, and at  some point in that class, you remember that you talk about your personal life,  your marriage, family. At some point in the class, it comes down to this, open the Word of God and pray and see if God shows up. And in evangelism, get people  to open God's word and that and pray and see if God, the God of heaven, enters into my reality, and all of a sudden a relationship is born through the power of  the Holy Spirit.  

Dr. Clouser - And that's the way the New Testament talks about acquiring belief  in God, not by proof. And that's another objection. It could be that there are other ways to find it out than what the New Testament Christ says, but when it points 

to those instances, when it points to encountering God's word, encountering  God's word incarnate in Christ for those who lived at the same time, the record  of it for those who didn't live at the same time. And Jesus says, Blessed are  those who haven't seen and yet believe yet, because the Spirit gives them the  capacity to see this is true. It's self evident that this is the truth about God from  God, right? That that's the way it speaks. And it doesn't do that, suggesting there may be other ways of coming to this. It repeats it often enough, and says, This is how you know, and that, I think that the New Testament's own position stands  against this kind of stuff.  

Henry Reyenga - Well, and I can say, Here's my objection to this. It's what I've  observed this from my experience of being church planter for many, many years. It's called, I call it the DNA reality. However, someone comes into their  understanding, perception of their relationship with God is how they grow or  don't grow, or how they reproduce or don't reproduce, that experience. So when  I have observed that, when somebody comes in through a logical way, what  start very much Tomistic Thomas Aquinas, or wherever I observe this, what I find is that it affects the very DNA of that relationship. Okay, when someone comes  into a relationship, and you see that in these various traditions, so you have, like the liturgical tradition, you have the Pentecostal experiential tradition. You have  the Baptist tradition. You have the knowledge you know, might come from the  Christian reform background. And Steve Elzinga really brought this all out in the  Getting Started class. And he constructed this sort of the DNA argument,  however you come in. So you'll find that people who come in through liturgical  thing, you know, it's more of a liturgy. They don't know exactly when they started alive in their faith. They just, you know, they participate in the Pentecostal. It's  like when you experience the indwelling the Holy Spirit is when, okay, then the  Baptist, or whatever. It's like, you know, sign on this sideline, come down to the  front and confess your sins. And then, of course, in my background, it's like  when you know enough, one day you think, okay, you know you got it.  

Dr. Clouser - You'll be surprised to hear that among the people who would  agree with what you said, was Thomas Aquinas, because late in his life, he had  a religious experience with God. Okay? He said, That makes all my arguments  look like so much. Straw fascinating, and yet it's the arguments he's  remembered for. Yeah, and that's not where he put his put his trust. It is. It was  in meeting God, right?  

Henry Reyenga - So, really, so when we talk about whether it's Descartes  argument and, or it's, you know, Thomas Aquinas argument, or argument for  design, or, or what, or what about the argument? I like this argument again. I  used it in evangelist, you know, the whole argument of like, if you believe in 

God, I think it was Pasquale, you know, if you believe in God, you get lose  nothing. Don't believe in God, you potentially  

Dr. Clouser - lose off.  

Bob Zomermaand - It's a gamble,  

Henry Reyenga - like, you know, I just heard that got me the other day, and  somebody who's like a believer kind of goes to church a little bit, made that  whole point is, you know, I might as well be safe.  

Dr. Clouser - That's not real beliefs.  

Bob Zomermaand - And then I have personally had a young man grow up who I believe was a young man in the Lord and one day he decided I don't need to  anymore. I don't need and this is how he put it, fire insurance right. See, so  back, I've lost my fear of going to hell. I don't need God because that's what God was,  

Dr. Clouser - that's all it was to him 

Bob Zomermaand - that's a really greatly dismaying to me.  

Henry Reyenga - So you're reducing God to a very thin story, that you're putting a very narrow DNA into that relationship, and it becomes brittle,  

Dr. Clouser - right? And it can break, yeah? And there's another fault with this, if I may add, oh, yeah, I'm gonna add it. If I sit here long enough, I'll forget it.  When we construct proofs like this, our absolute reliance is on the laws of logic,  okay, and things like the principle of social reason, if we premise those and so  on. So what we are doing is showing that God passes the logical credit check  and our ultimate trust is really in the in the laws that yield the proof that He  exists, rather than in God, right in him, in him. Because  

Bob Zomermaand - what you're saying, Do I hear this right? What you're saying is that really what we're trusting when we do this kind of thing, is this argument,  but God's still over here, and we haven't. We haven't established a relationship  with God at all. In  

Dr. Clouser - other words, coming, trying to come. God, in this way, contains  within it, intrinsically, the pitfall that we're asked to trust totally the laws of life.  These things are certain, and therefore it's certain that this follows right. And 

therefore God's allowed, recommended on the basis of the logical predator.  Bob Zomermaand - He's certified.  

Henry Reyenga - We may try to certify each other. We certainly will never be in  your plans. You'll never be able to certify God's existence,  

Dr. Clouser - but not by the way God requires of us a wholehearted love of Him, yeah, and that our trust should be in him. And that's why I made the point about  him being the creator of the laws of logic. They're reliable because God made  them that way. That's why we can it's not they are absolutely reliable, and God is because they make him that way. No, that's no, not even just in our own Yes.  

Henry Reyenga - Again, I know we have to wrap this segment up, but I have  one more to have thought. Yeah, so all arguments for the existence of God, we  throw out any. I think we teach them here at CLI, I've used them. I still sort you  know, and how I use them. Dr Clouser, is this way i in when I do evangelism and I hear like an intellectual doubter and all the other stuff, my goal is more to get  them to doubt their doubts than it is to introduce them to faith, necessarily. 

Dr. Clouser - there's certainly a role for logical thinking and argument in in our  belief and explaining it to others and defending it from criticisms, right? That are  usually not accurate. You want to show more. No, that's not what we were  saying. But even sometimes we are saying this, but your objection fails,  because, right, there's nothing the matter with that. I'm not I'm not saying we'd  be if we believe in God, we'd be better off without an upper brain, right? I'm just  saying that we that our belief in God Himself needs to come about in the way  the New Testament describes of encountering God, in our experience, in reading the Word and in other ways, people have many experiences that confirm their  belief, answered prayer, things turning out the way we would expect. We often  see that charges reveal people and people are contacted by God in special  ways. And we were talking last night about the near death experiences in which  people encounter God, and I know that those are dismissed by some people as  mere oxygen deprivation of the brain. You're dying, and so everything all  screwed up. Why, then does everybody see the same that narrow tunnel with a  light? And I told you the story of my friend, a friend I made when I was in  seminary, who was a no nonsense sort of fella. And he thought all those stories  about near death were just trash, he had no time for them. And then it happened to him, right? And he was in very bad shape. He was on oxygen and so on, and  he passed out and and he said he saw that. He said, damned, if I didn't see that, it bought was but a friend of his. I remember the friend's name, you know,  George Smith came up the tunnel and said, You have to go back Cliff. It's not 

your time yet. And I said to him, George, what are you doing here? And he said,  Well, I died last month. So now Cliff is brought to and he says to his wife and call call up Cliff. So she goes over and dials up the number. His wife answers. She  says, is Cliff there? no he died last month. Right now explain how accurate  information he had no other way of getting or had not gotten that. I think that's  pretty  

Bob Zomermaand - hard.  

Dr. Clouser - Yeah, it's hard to dismiss that. That's right, yeah,  

Henry Reyenga - yeah, well, and I think again, back how can we know God is  real? The The fact is, is we using logic? Cannot be difinitively. Sure, based by  logic, we must encounter God, that's right. And these arguments are valuable,  and how I use them is to get somebody to doubt their doubts, because I know  

that I can get them to doubt their doubts. That would mean they believe  anything, but at least. Oh, you see beautiful creation. Oh, don't you just wonder  again if they think really hard and they heard what you said today, they have a  good argument to even quickly, but they're not going to do that.  

Dr. Clouser - Another thinker that makes these same points and surprises  people hear this was Wittgenstein, that great icon of analytic philosophy and the  critical thinking in the 20th century. And and Wittgenstein wrote a letter to a  friend of his one time. Said, I was sorry to hear you become a priest. He said,  because I think you're going to cave into the temptation of trying to prove God's  existence. That's not how we come to know God. He says, we know God  because it's lived. Yes, we want to live in me, and that's, that's how you know,  that's how we know a lot of things. He went on to say, a lot of the rest of life, you only know by being lived, by living in it, and and it has its own internal logic,  

Henry Reyenga - but and that internal logic cannot be reduced. That's right,  okay. Well, I think we got to wrap this up here. I think everybody got enough for  the day? Well, I myself, was blessed in this. Thank you all for this conversation. I 

Dr. Clouser - enjoyed this. Thanks. 



最后修改: 2024年10月14日 星期一 08:45