The Best Arguments for God’s Existence…and Why They Fail: The Argument from Morality

Introduction: Why Argue for God?

The fool says in his heart,
‘There is no God.’

Psalm 14:1, 53:1

Arguing for the existence of God does not have nearly as long of history as many might suppose. Modern and recognizable discussions do not extend further back than the early middle ages. It is primarily because Christianity developed a theology that placed its central focus on belief-action — the idea that adopting a belief is the most important thing you can do regarding God — that the modern tradition of argumentation exists today.

Socrates was wont to give pensive yet oddly disinterested ruminations on the gods (i.e. Phaedrus, Timaeus, and Republic). His attitude seems to have been typical of polytheism; in which belief was not paramount to one’s relationship to a god. You chose those gods that were relevant to one’s life and praised them as you saw fit. For those gods that were said to be of importance outside of your local sphere (i.e. Isis to an Athenian) your attitude would not have been one of disbelief but rather irrelevance. A typical low-brow polytheist would, more or less, accept the existence of all professed gods but find most to be irrelevant to his daily life and thus not requiring praise.

But we now live in the paradigm of ethical monotheism. Ethical monotheists are those professing a single God from which emanates ethical imperatives of belief, action, and belief-action. These break down as follows: Belief — the imperative to adopt certain factual conclusions (i.e. the Godhead); Action — the imperative to behave according to certain rules (i.e the Commandments, the Five Pillars); Belief-action — the imperative to put oneself in a disposition towards certain ideas and this disposing of oneself constituting an action (i.e. being faithful). Although dry and clinical, it is vitally important that we elucidate such distinctions within theism. Christianity and the other “great” ethical monotheistic religions have essentially co-opted our conceptions of God and limited them to their narrow definitions. Letting myopic theists hogtie us in their own attitudes — attitudes that they believe are the sole reasonable possibility — can only impoverish the scope of the debate.

Ethical monotheism distinguishes itself from practical monotheism, practical polytheism, or ethical polytheism. Although both versions of theism, ethical and practical, clearly bleed into one another they are also distinguishable. Those in the “practical” theistic standpoint conclude that believing in and acting towards god(s) has immense practical benefit (i.e. crops growing, babies surviving, rain coming etc.) but that there is not necessarily an overriding ethical mandate — much less the most important ethical mandate — concerning your beliefs about the god(s). Also, there isn’t a dominating ethical mandate to simply believe in the god(s).

Practical theists often do not praise god(s) because they are worthy of praise. Praise is not given because the god is thought to be particularly worthy but rather because the god is thought to be powerful with regard to important quotidian details. Fear may also play a factor. But with ethical monotheism came the “innovation” that, because He deserves it, it is right to praise God. Saying that something is “worthy” of worship is to claim that no other justification is needed other than the worshiped item’s intrinsic worth. Also, claiming something is worthy is to claim that worship is deserved and, to some extent, imperative. Thus another moral dimension is added to the ethical monotheist’s theology. Furthermore, according to most ethical monotheists, God wants you to believe in Him and to praise Him. He wants this so much so that His favor is dependent upon this kowtowing. While it does seem extremely bizarre that God would care so much that we simply believe in Him — a disposition I like to call “God’s Tinkerbell complex” (clap your hands if you believe in faeries!) — we are nevertheless left with this odd premise. Thus the ethical monotheists (mostly Christians) have muscled up scores of arguments to browbeat us apostates into becoming additions to God’s ceaseless ego-trip.

Such was the path that we took to get to the point that arguing for God’s existence is a vital and important task. With such carefully worked discourses before us it would behoove us to take a look at some of the “greatest hits” of theistic arguments and find their strengths and weaknesses.

Some of these arguments have proven to be better than others. So here are the five best arguments for God’s existence and why they fail to make the case.

The Argument from Morality

One of the primary philosophical problems, perhaps the primary philosophical problem, concerns the grounding of moral truths. To put it simply; the statement “I am currently writing this essay” is true because I am currently writing this essay viz. the statement corresponds with reality. This sense of the word “truth” is the mundane one; what philosophers call the “correspondence theory of truth.”

Other types of statements, however, do not follow the same pattern. The statement “I ought to be out fighting against global warming” cannot be brought under the same analysis. The central question becomes “what makes these types of statements — ‘ought’ statements — true, or “what could make these types of statements true?”

This problem encapsulates much of the angst and misgivings of mankind. With our moral convictions often carrying a sense of “trueness” that exceeds that of mere facts we desire a corresponding level of validation for our convictions. For many this is as far as the argument need go. If the moral sense feels so true, if ethical imperatives implore us so strongly, then there must be an explanation that validates our deepest held attitudes. In other words, these attitudes must be as true as facts of the world and, if possible, more true.

For C.S. Lewis this line of reasoning was sufficient to demonstrate God’s existence. As he writes in Mere Christianity; “for the behaviour we call bad or unfair is not exactly the same as the behaviour we find inconvenient, and may even be the opposite. Consequently the Rule of Right and Wrong, or Law of Human Nature, or whatever you call it, must somehow or other be a real thing — a thing that is really there, not made up by ourselves.”

For centuries this argument has held powerful sway over scores of theists. This is particularly true of ethical monotheists who, as previously discussed, treat God as a source of imperatives. But, even if its ability to demonstrate God’s existence is tenuous, the argument does carry immense practical weight for believers. Believing that one’s actions are ultimately right and approved of by the highest powers goes a long way towards enabling happiness and purpose.

But why does this argument fail to show that God exists? Well, the first obvious objection is that, even if true, the argument only establishes the existence of an external moral law. From this it does not follow that a God, or some sort of Godlike being, must be responsible for the creation and maintenance of that law. There are numerous other ontological possibilities that cannot be ignored in good faith, and good philosophy. Imagine a vast network of computers (or computer-like things) to which we are all unknowingly linked that feed our minds with imperatives and convictions. Although this may be highly fanciful (although perhaps no more fanciful than God), the moral argument does as much to establish this possibility as any other. Furthermore, it does not follow that our moral convictions must be “good” in some absolute sense. It only follows that we have such convictions and that they were not made up by us.

There is also a resemblance between the moral argument and classic Cartesian bafflegab. When philosophy 101 students first encounter Descartes’s “clear and distinct” methodology they often snort in laughter. And this derision is deserved. Only a philosopher could come up with a doctrine as absurd as this. Almost intuitively we seem to know that how strongly, or how clearly, we are able to hold an idea has absolutely no bearing upon whether or not that idea is true. And, if we don’t realize this intuitively, we will soon realize it in the course of a lifetime of discarded “clear and distinct” beliefs. It seems to be the height of human folly and over-confidence to believe that clarity of thought leads to clarity of reality. This same pattern is found in the argument from morality.

But, in the end, C.S. Lewis puts the nails in his own coffin. Early in Mere Christianity, during a discussion of something he calls the “Life-Force” theory, Lewis asks this question, “what is the sense in saying that something without a mind ‘strives’ or has ‘purposes’?” The question is a good one. Minds are the only things that “strive” and have “purposes.” However, Lewis has only demonstrated that minds carry with them their own imperatives. What is a purpose but the desire to pursue “x” over “y?” What is it to strive if not to feel convictions and imperatives? To be mindfull (to have a mind) is to be a directed and purposeful entity which feels the constant pull of imperatives.

Now the clear objection is to claim that all things with minds are imbued with God’s moral law. However, all things with minds clearly do not feel the same duties. Predators, apes, dogs, and sociopaths follow a different set of injunctions. And, while humans may indeed be mentally aligned with God’s moral law, we have simply shown that it is possible to have convictions — to feel the domineering pull of an inescapable sense of duty — without receiving them from God’s law. It is also worth mentioning that this problem — the problem of the source of duty — would also be God’s problem. As a mindfull thing that strives and has purposes, God would feel the pull of imperatives from “a thing that is really there, not made up by [Himself.]”

Although there is a way out of most of these objections (i.e. God has a different moral law for all creatures with minds and he makes his own moral law) the path gets difficult. These objections, combined with plausible and convincing alternatives for the origin of morality (i.e. evolutionary theory’s very convincing account, put very simply; animals that develop a sense of duty about doing and not doing certain things have a survival advantage. And, the deeper the conviction; the better the advantage.), make it advisable for the theist to abandon this argument and move on to another.

Next: The Cosmological Argument


The more you know about Native American religions the better you may be able to understand the culture that existed in the Americas before other religions and peoples came in to influence the people who lived there. The religions that started in the Americas were based on different cultures than the spiritualities that developed in other places of the world.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in The Best Arguments for God's Existence. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to The Best Arguments for God’s Existence…and Why They Fail: The Argument from Morality

  1. J. K. Jones says:

    It’s not just objective standards of morality that must be discussed. An objective standard of truth itself requires a God to make people capable of rational thought and basically accurate perception of their world to hold it.

    Denials of objective standard of truth or morality are often forced and temporary. Everyone assumes an objective standard of some type of morality when they have the gun held by a madman pointing at them.

    As for truth, postmodern, and even modern, philosophy tends to give me a headache. Hume and Kant always make me reach for the Excedrin bottle.

    I oppose any system of thought or philosophy that makes successfully negotiating a stop sign impossible. For example, if our senses are not reliable, we cannot tell if a semi-truck is coming. If the law of non-contradiction is not in effect, the truck could be coming and not coming at the same time and in the same direction. If the law of cause and effect is not in play, we cannot be sure that a resulting accident would damage the sports car we are in or its passengers. Lastly, if truth does not correspond to reality, the reality of the approaching ‘semi’ might prove deadly. Philosophical systems must allow us to survive in the real world in which we live.

    This rules out every view of the world but Christianity. Only a God who created us in this way makes objective standards possible.

  2. SmellyTerror says:

    “An objective standard of truth itself requires a God to make people capable of rational thought and basically accurate perception of their world to hold it. ”

    Why does it require a god?

    “This rules out every view of the world but Christianity. Only a God who created us in this way makes objective standards possible.”

    You know all those other religions? They have gods too. What on earth makes you think that only yours is capable of… whatever it is you’re saying your god does?

  3. J. K. Jones says:

    SmellyTerror,

    Why does any objective standard require a God? You have already stated that our reasoning often comes after we reach non-reasonable conclusions. Why couldn’t all of our conclusions be unreasonable? How do we avoid the conclusion that all of our thinking is not the results of mere instinctive reactions to our environment, or preconditioned responses determined by our genetics? I guess that our thinking could be based on the consequences of our actions (e. g. behaviorism is psychology).

    If any of these things are true, we have no reason to think that we can have rational discourse. We therefore cannot have an argument, so we have wasted a bunch of time talking.

    We reason by the laws of logic combined with facts we observe. For example, the Law of Non-contradiction, that A cannot be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship. These abstract principles must be accounted for.

    If they are just social conventions, then they are not absolute, and they can be ignored at will.

    If the laws of logic are based on human thinking, then we have to realize that people are different and the laws may differ from person to person. They are no longer absolute.

    The laws of logic cannot come from science because science is based on inductive reasoning from facts we determine by observation in our environments. To stay with my example, we cannot see the law of non-contradiction in the world. The property of a non-existent thing (non-A) would have to be observed. It doesn’t exist.

    The laws of logic are abstract constructions that exist only in the mind. We discover the laws of logic by thought, not observation. I could mention the naturalistic determinism thing again, but I went through all that before.

    I will add that if the laws of logic are not absolute, then they cannot be used to prove or disprove anything. If you use logical arguments to prove that there is no God, you are assuming that a God exists to ground absolute abstract things like the laws of logic used to evaluate your arguments.

    “You know all those other religions? They have gods too. What on earth makes you think that only yours is capable of… whatever it is you’re saying your god does?”

    Short version:

    Islam postulates a God whose idea of morality changes from this world to paradise (e. g. monogamous sex now vs. promiscuous sex with the virgins in paradise). His laws change and are not absolute.

    Judaism postulates a god very much like Christianity’s, but the Jew’s God does not forgive based on an atonement (Christ does not pay the penalty for their sins by suffering all of God’s wrath). If he forgives, his standards are not unchanging.

    The god of the process theologians changes himself as time goes on (e. g. he learns things). He cannot then be the ground of anything like the laws of logic, which do not change.

    There is a long version that addresses other ideas of God, but we’ll get to that later–

    Please keep in mind that I sincerely pray for God to bless you every day now. I pray for your protection from harm and repentance to life. I pray for the other conversants on this blog too.

  4. SmellyTerror says:

    If god can do anything, can he make a rock so big that not even god can lift it? Of course he can, he’s god.

    To be god, he has to be able to contradict himself. Why on earth would god be bound by human conceptions of logic? Your own conclusion that god must be unchanging flies in the face of even Christian theology. I have no idea where you got it, but it’s not something that you can just present as well known truth without one hell of a justification.

    If he is perfect in all things, he is also perfectly irrational, and perfectly changing. To be all things, he must also be contradiction.

    If I was granted the power to create a universe (and god could, if he 1. exists and 2. wanted to), I could imbue it with cause and effect, logic, and so on, despite being very much capable of changing my mind, or having double standards. The existence of such laws in NO WAY proves a thing about god.


    And similarly, “laws” do not require a creator. Imagine a universe with no properties (laws are merely human descriptions of those properties), a universe where nothing happens. Is it a law that “nothing happens”? So all you seem to be saying is that existence itself requires god, since any form of existence must have properties.

    Which, again, is just a bald assertion. WHY must it require a creator to have properties? What reason do we have to think that something could ever have NO laws, NO properties? Quite the opposite, without those the thing would not exist.

    While we’re at it, you’ve ascribed certain properties to god. So if you believe that properties of the universe require god to create them, then by the same reasoning shouldn’t you conclude that god, too, has a creator?

  5. J. K. Jones says:

    “If god can do anything, can he make a rock so big that not even god can lift it? Of course he can, he’s god.”

    I never said God could do anything. I have said that God can do anything He wants with respect to His creation. That is the traditional definition of God’s omnipotence. God cannot do something illogical. If He did, there would be no foundation for the laws of logic in my worldview, either. And since we are having a logical discussion about facts that we both perceive to be rational, we must have a ground for logic and rationality.

    Making something so big He cannot lift it is inconsistent with His nature, just like making an irrational and illogical universe.

    “To be god, he has to be able to contradict himself. Why on earth would god be bound by human conceptions of logic?”

    Show me something illogical and I will show you something I do not have to believe in. What is the foundation for your logic?

    “Your own conclusion that god must be unchanging flies in the face of even Christian theology.”

    The idea that God is unchanging is as old as the book of James, really the book of Isaiah.

    “I have no idea where you got it, but it’s not something that you can just present as well known truth without one hell of a justification.”

    You still have not provided me with a basis for the laws of logic.

    “If he is perfect in all things, he is also perfectly irrational, and perfectly changing. To be all things, he must also be contradiction.”

    He possesses all perfections. Irrationality and having a changing being are not perfections. This is the ontological argument, which I have not yet really established. You could read up on it in one of Norman Geisler’s books:

    http://www.amazon.com/When-Skeptics-Ask-Norman-Geisler/dp/0801011418

    “If I was granted the power to create a universe (and god could, if he 1. exists and 2. wanted to), I could imbue it with cause and effect, logic, and so on, despite being very much capable of changing my mind, or having double standards. The existence of such laws in NO WAY proves a thing about god.”

    A changing being cannot be the ground of something that is unchanging because the thing he was the basis for would change as he changed.

    One little argument for the laws of logic, please.

    “Imagine a universe with no properties (laws are merely human descriptions of those properties), a universe where nothing happens.”

    That is the world your view of things requires. Since that world does not exist, and logic applies to all of reality, there must be an unchanging ground of this reality.

    “So all you seem to be saying is that existence itself requires god, since any form of existence must have properties.”

    Actually, that is another form of the cosmological argument. I have heard R. C. Sproul say he often takes off his shoe and uses it as proof for God’s existence on this very same line of argument. He’s an interesting read on the subject if you have the time:

    http://www.amazon.com/Defending-Your-Faith-Introduction-Apologetics/dp/1581345194

    “Which, again, is just a bald assertion. WHY must it require a creator to have properties? What reason do we have to think that something could ever have NO laws, NO properties? Quite the opposite, without those the thing would not exist.”

    It could have properties without an unchanging ground of logic. It would then be illogical and irrational.

    “While we’re at it, you’ve ascribed certain properties to god. So if you believe that properties of the universe require god to create them, then by the same reasoning shouldn’t you conclude that god, too, has a creator?”

    If God came into being, that would be changing. If He had not eternally existed, He could not be the ground of the laws of logic because logic requires an unchanging ground. (He could not be the end of the string of causes you all keep trying to convince me could be infinite on the other post, either.)

    More information on this line of argumentation can be found at:

    http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles_topic.htm#presuppositional

    He’s a lot better at explaining this than I am.

    Good luck and God bless.

  6. Hugh says:

    You have made the mistake of assuming that genetics only provides irrational impulses. The evolutionary advantage of a genetic form of reasoning or objectivity is obvious as it would allow us to far more effectively use our larger brains to create tools but more importantly it would give us a middle ground on which to communicate our plans and ideas. It would also allow us to puzzle out the way the world works in order to create weapons and plans. Also I fail to see why the laws of logic must be unchanging. We’ve found and seen plenty of things( e.g. black holes which are comprised of massive amounts of matter compressed into an area that takes up no space) that disobey the laws of logic and since they exist it seems that the laws of logic are not universal concepts. Finally I would like to point out that deism and gnostism both allow for what you claim only the christian god can do.

  7. J. K. Jones says:

    “Rather than show some unifying morality, your story is an illustration of
    how humans make up their own morality. You, personally, might like one more
    than another, but why does your preference mean that it must be the best, or
    that it must be god given? How do you know the Nazi’s morality isn’t god
    given? He’d probably think so.”

    I’m not using the standard, C. S. Lewis, form of the argument. In my opinion, that form ignores the reality of original sin or total depravity. It doesn’t have to show a unifying morality. It certainly doesn’t have to show that everyone’s morality is the same.

    Total depravity is not that all people are as bad as they possibly could be. It’s the idea that all people have a nature that is prone to disobey God that effects every part of their lives.

    The form of the moral argument I am using comes from the Apostle Paul:

    “Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things.” (Romans 2:1-2, ESV)

    It’s not that everyone knows the moral law off the top of their heads. It’s that everyone knows what is wrong when that wrong is done to them.

    Do you stand up for yourself? Do you recognize wrong when it is done to you? What do you do when you realize you have done wrong? Do you deny it?

    As to the moral argument against God: There is evil in the world. God created the world with the potential to have evil come about. God gave the potential for evil to come about knowing that evil would come. He did this to demonstrate His glory. He has the right to do this with His creation. It is not wrong because God’s being and His actions are the definition of morality. You have not yet provided a basis for morality in your worldview.

  8. J. K. Jones says:

    Hugh,

    “You have made the mistake of assuming that genetics only provides irrational impulses.”

    Rational impulses would then be determined by genetics. There would be no decisions made in any traditional sense. We would all be pre-programmed to do what we do, and therefore there would be no sense in arguing with me.

    On top of that, genetics change from person to person. So we are back to changing laws of logic. They change from one person to the next.

    As for the process of natural selection, please see:

    http://jkjonesthinks.blogspot.com/2007/05/richard-dawkins-2.html

    “Also I fail to see why the laws of logic must be unchanging. We’ve found and seen plenty of things ( e.g. black holes which are comprised of massive amounts of matter compressed into an area that takes up no space) that disobey the laws of logic and since they exist it seems that the laws of logic are not universal concepts.”

    Nothing disobeys the laws of logic. Any discovery you hold must be logically understood. (You have also communicated the concept, and that to shows the laws of logic in effect.) For example:

    If the Law of Non-contradiction (A cannot be both A and Non-A at the same time, in the same relationship, and in the same sense.) is not in effect, then you might as well say to me: We’ve found and seen plenty of things .. that obey the laws of logic. “Obey” and “disobey” can have the same meaning in your sentence.

    If the Law of Identity (Something is what it is. Something that exists has a specific nature.) is not in effect, the black hole would not necessarily be a black hole. It could be a “white hole, where small amounts of matter are expanded into a point that takes up all space.”
    If the Law of Excluded Middle (A statement is either true or false.) is not in effect, your statement could be false even if it were true.
    None of the sentences you are using would have any objective meaning if the laws of logic do not apply. Just because the laws of physics as they are currently understood do not apply does not mean the laws of logic do not.

    As for the other gods you mention:

    Deism does not allow for a God who interacts with His world. The laws of logic would have to be inherent in the universe he made. The universe we live in changes constantly, therefore the laws of logic would change with the universe.

    Gnosticism’s god is irrational and illogical as defined by most expressions of that religion (Keeping in mind that Gnosticism’s definition changes often. If you have a specific version in mind, please specify what you are referring to).

    God bless you.

  9. J. K. Jones says:

    Please keep in mind that every time you argue with me, you assume that the unchanging laws of logic are in effect. If the situation were otherwise, you would not be able to communicate.

    An atheist who communicates a position shows that he / she is not consistent with his / her your own worldview. In a real sense, atheists sacrifice their own intellects and free wills on the altar of their disbelief and rebellion against God.

    Reference: http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Romans+1%3A18-20

  10. J. K. Jones says:

    SmellyTerror,

    “If he is perfect in all things, he is also perfectly irrational, and
    perfectly changing. To be all things, he must also be contradiction.”

    This is an effective argument against pantheism, the idea that god and the world are the same in their being. In this god is all and all is god. The universe shows it changes. The unchanging laws of logic force us to assume that an unchanging God exists, so the universe must be different from God.

  11. J. K. Jones says:

    Trevor Burrus:

    “Oh yeah. You should go live in the Sudan, the slums of Bombay, or as a 12 year old girl locked in her basement and raped nightly by her father before you confidently spout this drivel: “We know something of God’s “eternal power and divine nature” from the world we live in.”
    If your statement is true than God is an asshole. This would be obvious to anyone not clouded by incense, blinded by martyrs and and kowtowing to resurrections.”
    “The point is that your God let’s these things happen in the world. It takes a mountain of delusion, explanation and equivocation to explain these events away (and yes I am painfully familiar with theodicies).”

    SmellyTerror:

    “Oh yeah – if god exists he’s not worth worshiping. He’s either poweless or sadistic.”
    “If you see something terrible happening and have the power to stop it, but don’t, then I’d have a pretty poor opinion of you, too. Either the all-powful god doesn’t exist, or he chooses to do nothing in the face of terrible suffering. Either way, he’s not worth worshipping.
    Imagine a god that’s actually pretty sadistic, but not terribly powerful. He’s perfectly capable of lying, and creating the idea of a good god simply to taunt humanity, for his own amusement. Doesn’t this god seem to fit this world better than a compassionate one?”
    “–but then YOU KILL ME! Where’s God? If people’s morality is God-given, why aren’t you following God’s will? Where’s your guilt?”
    “Oh, the FUTURE! Fear not, baby being tortured! I will eventually punish the evil doer and alleviate your suffering! I mean, not right now, of course. Only after you’re dead.
    Yeah, I’d really respect the hero that said that.”
    “Again, by the same reasoning, wouldn’t a good god have the power to make the world better than it is now? So why doesn’t he?”
    Iamcuriousblue:
    “First, I think there is a huge difference between justice and wrath. I think any person with even a basic degree of ethical development can understand that. I would expect a great deal more still from an entity that is supposed to be so much more than a flawed human being.”
    “Where do I get my concept of wrong and evil? Empathy and culture. Where do you get it?

    Whether you all like it or not, or admit to it, you are assuming a form of absolute morality when you argue like this. This idea of morality cannot be justified by your worldview, by your own admission. You idea is that morality is cultural and situational.
    It is a key premise in the argument:
    An all-powerful God exists.
    There is evil in the world.
    Therefore God is either not all-powerful or not good.
    The whole thing rests on the idea that there is evil in the world, which you cannot substantiate by your worldview.
    I can:
    God is all-good.
    God is all-powerful.
    Absolute evil exists (babies die, people are tortured, rape occurs, minorities are oppressed, etc.).
    Therefore God has a morally sufficient reason to allow evil.
    I do not know what that reason is. I know it is for the good of the people who love God and are called according to His purpose. I know that is to display His glory. But I don’t know how. I don’t have to.
    You are demanding something you do not have a right to demand when you ask for the reason for evil because you cannot justify the existence of evil.
    If you want to continue our discussion, you know where to find me.

  12. Hezekiah King says:

    Trevor wrote:

    “While we’re at it, you’ve ascribed certain properties to god. So if you believe that properties of the universe require god to create them, then by the same reasoning shouldn’t you conclude that god, too, has a creator?”

    If God came into being, that would be changing. If He had not eternally existed, He could not be the ground of the laws of logic because logic requires an unchanging ground.
    ************************************************
    You’ve left out the heart of RC Sprouls thesis which clearly answers your objection. It goes something like this:

    1. Every effect has a cause.
    2. Everything in the universe is an effect and must have a cause.
    3. If you can follow the cause/effect chain of events all the way back to the beginning, you must come to one of two conclusions
    A. Everything was created by absolutely nothing.
    B. Some eternally existent transcendent being created everything.

    Option A is logically impossible.
    Option B is all you are left with.

    To paraphrase RC Sproul:

    IF ANYTHING EXISTS, GOD MUST EXIST!

    If you read Sproul’s book “Definding Your Faith” you could not have missed this point. Are you forgetting it or do you find it to be an inconvenient truth?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s