Age of the Universe in Jewish Commentaries

Hmm. Existence needs no proof. Huh, but a claim for God needs proof. So existence needs no proof, God does? In good first century New Covenant theology God needs no proof, 1 John 5:9-15.

 

Well there is the argument from Romans 1:20-21, ". . . For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. . . ." Now in Genesis 1:1, God is a given. In order to deny "there is a God" one must deny God is God. We as Christians know God as per Romans 8:16 and 1 John 4:7. Those are the arguments we should be using. God's Hebrew Name translated "Who is" as the third person of "I AM" or of "I will BE." The Apostle Paul said of God, "In Him we live and move and have our being, . . ." in Acts of the Apostles 17:28. God being the uncaused omnipresent REALTY in which all caused things have their existence.

 

The bible says we (humanity) do not know how God created all that was created, Job 38. All those people telling us the earth is less than 10,000 years old, or is more than 10,000 years old are claiming knowledge God said we do not have, or did not have when the book of Job was written.

 

Perhaps I understand Paul on this principle a bit differently:

"We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." –2 Corinthians 10:5

 

". . . Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; . . ."
We as genuine Christians know God.

 

How does that establish or support your seeming desire to limit apologetics to addressing only some imaginations, some arguments, or some high things, some pretensions against the knowledge of God?

 

All apologetic methods and styles are presuppositional, in that, no apologetic is without presupositions. Our New Testament, it's simple teachings. Our Christian faith is to be founded on our New Testament.

Our problems are where we disagree. Our success are our common ground of essential truths we agree on.

 

Most any. With corrections based on New Testament truths and methods.

 

Address a single issue at a time should not be construed limit one's apologetics. We who are genuine Christians we know God.

 

Yes. Existence needs no proof. Why would what needs no proof need any God?

The answer? Unless God is the fundamental self evident truth by which all other self evident truths are self evident. God being the uncaused existence, the uncaused reality.

 

This is misunderstanding the point, the issue really. Consider this rather opaque, self-contradictory response:

The existence of existence is axiomatic. The existence of someone or something else is entirely another matter.

That something rings true to your own mind is no proof to someone else, nor should it be. Effective communication is required for that. After all, one’s own mind could be mistaken.

 

Either God is God or there is no God. You fail to understand to deny God to be the Existence in which we exist (Acts of the Apostles 17:28a) is to deny God is God.

Huh. Either one knows God or they do not. John 17:3, 1 John 5:9-12. Romans 8:9, 2 Corinthians 13:5.

 

Yes, “huh” is right. We seem to be talking past each other. Your response does not address the issue at all. It seems to be arguing that Christians should already know that God exists, and in fact know God. But on that we readily agree. It is not an issue.

Atheists argue or at least claim there is no such being as God and many are not silent about this. Others claim other forms of religion that deny God as well. Refuting their statements is the issue.

Is it or is it not against your principles to stand against their statements via apologetics in any form? Your posts seem to limit or oppose others who would refute them. Such limitation or opposition would contradict Paul in 2 Corinthians 10:5.

 

No one disagrees that there must be an uncaused reality. An atheist or agnostic may claim space-time to be uncaused in some way.

To make any kind of argument for the "existence" of God requires an uncaused existence. Any uncaused existence does not need any kind of God. But "God" in any kind of "existence of God" argument is needing a proof of "God." The argument presumes existence not God. As Christians God is our presupposition.

 

That really has it backward. As a Christian, my conclusion is God. I was not born a Christian, rather I was born again a Christian.

But as far as discussion, if someone wants to work it backward, that’s fine with me. Suppose there is God, suppose there isn’t. The answer will be the same—God works either way.

BTW, the claim, “Any uncaused existence does not need any kind of God,” is not axiomatic. One would have to demonstrate that God was not involved, that that uncaused existence was not his own. However, we both know that it is in fact his own and cannot be otherwise. But it seems we’ve had this discussion before.

Also, from what I've seen, atheists don't seem particularly keen to think much about an uncaused reality other than to presume it. The implications tend to be rather awkward for them.