|
|
|
|
|
[논문] THE ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IN CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS (영문) (39)
|
|
|
PAUL
|
2024-02-11 21:28:01, 조회 : 98 |
|
|
✝✝✝ A DEMONSTRATION OF GOD AND THE ARGUMENTS
FOR THE EXISTENCE OF CHRISTIAN GOD IN CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS (39)
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
THE ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF God.
Rational Arguments:
The Moral Argument (3)
Other Forms Of The Moral Argument Against God
There are several moral arguments against God, for examples, Ronald Puccetti, J.L. Mackie, H.J. McCloskey, and so on (Gleisler and Corduan, 116-119).
J.L. Ronald Puccetti argued in response to John H. Hick s defense of theism as this: (1) There are instances of innocent suffering. (2) An all-wise, all powerful, all good God would not allow innocent suffering. (3) Therefore, such a God does not exist.
But even though if we do not know what the reason is, God exists there, is a good reason for all sufferings. Therefore, God is Absolute One, and man is an infinite one.
J.L. Mackie also objected to the theistic moral argument for God s existence. He has offered the basic logic of the moral argument against God as this: (1) An all powerful God could eliminate evil and an all-loving God would stop it. (2) there is evil in the world that is not being eliminated. (3) Therefore, there is no God.
Eventually, it is always possible that the evil in the world is somehow necessary to a greater good in the world. Unless these possibilities can be eliminated, the attempt at a moral disproof of God fails.
And H.J. McCloskey s argument against God is this way: (1) Either we should work to eliminate all suffering or we should not. (2) If we should not work against all suffering, then the moral law is wrong. (3) If we should work against suffering, then theism is wrong. (4) But the moral law is right. (5) Therefore, theism is wrong.
Even if the antitheist insists that an ultimate standard of justice is not to be identified with God but perhaps with something like the Platonic Good, nonetheless he has granted a major premise in the theistic argument-the objectivity of the moral law-and leaves for the theist to establish only the premise that ultimate moral laws imply an ultimate moral Lawgiver (Geisler and Corduan, 1988, 119).
Hans Küng s Attitude
Hans Küng was a Catholic theologian, who has been a radical disjunction theory in his thought. According to his theory, said he, God cannot both exist and not-exist; the disjunction and affirm the other. He first offered the argument in On Being a Christian and then expanded it in Does God Exist.
His argument is this: (1) Traditional defenses of God s existence are inadequate. (2) Modern atheism is not rationally defensible, but neither is it rationally refutable. (3) For thinkers, such as Friedreich Nietzsche, atheism has given way to nihilism. denial of a meaningful reality--saying not to reality. (4) Human beings find themselves constantly confronted by the threat of nihilism. One must make a choice whether to affirm reality or to deny it. (5) As we affirm meaningfulness, we can say yes to reality and exercise fundamental trust. (6) Reality does not slow itself to be self-grounded. (7) We must make a choice whether to see reality as grounded in something ultimate or not. (8) We can say yes to God as the ground of reality (Küng, 1976, 55-79; Küng, 1981; 1971).
In this argument, Hans Küng has no absolute principle. Instead, he appeals to the power of the will. He insists that we must use our reason, but we must recognize that on such questions reason can never be the final authority. Thus, he takes a radical disjunctive attitude to the traditional thought.
He explained the disjunctive theory as that God cannot both exist and not-exist; reality cannot both be and not-be meaningful. And we must deny one half of the disjunction and affirm the other. Which one to affirm is a complex matter. Therefore, he takes a deliberate attitude in this matter. Putting his various materials together, his argument for the existence of God must be cosmological as well as moral.
He insisted that God s existence is not rationally inescapable, otherwise to affirm Him is not irrational, but neither is atheism. Thus he appeals not only to our reason (even though not to our reason in a sense), but also to our moral faculties and even to our survival instinct.
In conclusion, the moral argument derived from the actual premise was used in the cosmological argument. And if so, we must look for the relationship between the cosmological argument and the moral argument on the basis.
Strong evaluates the defects and the value of this moral argument as follows: (1) It cannot prove a creator of the material universe. (2) It cannot prove the infinity of God, since man from whom we argue is finite. (3) It cannot prove the mercy of God. The value of the argument is, that it assures us of the existence a personal Being, who rules us in righteousness, and who is the proper object of supreme affection and service.
But whether this Being is the original creator of all things, or merely the author of our own existence, whether he is infinite or finite, whether he is a Being of simple righteousness of also of mercy, this argument cannot assure us. Among the arguments for the existence of God, however, we assign to this the chief place, since it adds to the ideas of causative power (which we derived from the Cosmological Argument), the far wider ideas of personality and righteous lordship. (Strong, 1985, 84)
Dr. Park, Hyong Yong evaluates this moral argument of God s existence in his Dogmatic Theology as follows:
This argument is a practically valid argument because it is based on not only the proof of a simple objective theory but the moral experience by a subjective conscience. Nevertheless, it is effective only on the condition of one s regeneration. Therefore, this is valuable in case of being supported by the special revelation of God (Park. 1970, 44-46)
Fitzwater said that it is possible for man to prove the fact of God s existence through his conscience because his personality has had the responsive instinct toward the Divine personality of which man had been, in nature, made in the image of God (Fitzwater, Christian Theology, p.73).
Hoecksema said that if not starting from faith, it is quietly impossible for this argument to prove the existence of God (Hoeksema, 1966, 47). ❤❤❤
- to be continued -
.
. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
선교운동소개
동역자실 