We often think, when confronted by people who don't believe in the existence of God,with the difficult task of having to prove ourfaith, having to prove the existence of God according to somerulesof inference from observational facts. But is this right thing to do? We should ask ourselves If this is at all possible, or we're starting from a wrong point of view. So let's first ask this question: can we prove rationally the existence of God?
How would such a proof be structured? Such a prrof would contain some basic truths (or axioms) , rules of inference , some provable theoritcal statements derived from observable facts, accepted other truths(knowledge) or from the axioms. And then it would use the rulesof inferance stated in the begining to obtain a statement about the existance of God from all this previous information. What would such a proof achieve? Would such a proof be about the Real, Living GOD or about something else? Ithinks that carefully understanding these proofs we can easily see that they do not relate to our Living LORD God,but refer to an abstraction, an idea of God. These theoretical proofs are just that, theoretical. But they do notgo beyond the theoretical, which is into reality. And while they prove that give certain contidions and rules , the idea of God is concievable, that the existence of God should be true if these and these circumstances apply, even though those circumstances are observable in reality , that does not translate the result of these inferences into something real. Because the idea of God, the abstraction of God is not the same thing as the LORD God. Proving that God is within reason is impossible, because thatwould prove a limitation and such would be aelf-contradictory.
I think we must try not tofall into this problem, that of abstracticising God. Rather we should see that God is beyond rational proof, because He is beyond rationality , which is not to say at God is irratonal ,rather that He is beyond conceptuality. And being beyond conceptuality is shown times and again by our LORD in the bible. Just try to conceptualise God in the book of Job, to create a rational model of Him. But God, being beyond rational proof is in reach for something else, something much deeper and richer: faith. For in faith God reveals Himself to us through Jesus Christ. And should this faith be blind, or should it be backed up by something else, other that rational proof ( for this is the ultimoate purpose of such ontological arguments - to establish faith rationally, as a rational proven conviction). To back up our faith, to support it, to hold it God gave us experience. god gave us the possibility of first-hand experience of Him through Jesus Christ. And this is what we really need to establish our faith - experience. The catxh is such an experience of our LORD requires faith first-hand, but if you are prepared to tKe a leap of faith, that leap will be supported by the LORD Himself, through first-hand experiencing Him. What more could you want to see or hear or think when you feel God love for you? If you experience a relationship with our LORD what more could ask for to establish your faith. And only now your faith is not blind, because if you experience the LORD you no longer dwell in darkness and in the shadow of death, but you dwell in Light and in Life. And thus you are no longer blind but you , having the Light, can see.
I think this is what we should pray for , an hones loving relationship with our LORD God , and to find all our reasons in this relationship. We should say, like the father of the possessed child in Mark 9:24 " Lord , I belive; help thou mine unbelief".
No comments:
Post a Comment