A Simple Argument for God's Existence

This argument can begin with any object that exists. Think of anything. Let's say.. A red cup.

Now, this cup has qualities it shares with other objects. This means that it is related to many other objects. Its redness, for example, relates it to other red things. And its "cup-ness" (the qualities that make it a cup) relates it to other cups.

This is true for any object we come across in our experience. If there was an object that had nothing in common with other objects, we wouldn't even be able to recognize it as an object.

An interesting observation to make is that the relations between objects transcends time and space.

Think of that red cup. It's redness relates it all red things in the past, and also all red things in the future.

The implication of this is that all objects form part of a timeless system which encompasses all objects and in which all objects are related. Let's call this the Comprehensive Timeless System (CTS).

So even before any particular object comes into being in time, its relations have been exhaustively pre-determined by virtue of belonging to CTS.

But how is it possible for an object that is constrained by space-time to enter into relations that transcend space-time? How can this red cup be related to the red car from 10 years in the future - a car that doesn't exist yet? How can temporal things belong to a timeless system?

The only answer seems to be that the temporal system of objects is a replication of CTS. In a way, CTS prescribes the flow of history, and all temporal objects are what they are in virtue of CTS.

Just like an author plans out the flow of a narrative, CTS plans out the flow of history. CTS is analogous to an author's conception of a story's plot, and the events of history are like the unfolding of that plot.

Here comes the main point: CTS cannot exist if God does not exist. The exhaustive pre-determination of the entirety of history does not make sense unless upon the supposition of a sovereign God.

To reject the existence of a CTS is to affirm that the objects we experience have no relation to one a other. This is an untenable view.

The alternative - affirming CTS - requires that one also affirms the existence of God.

Therefore, God exists.

Comments

  1. NecessitarianSeptember 12, 2023 at 10:08 AM

    I wonder if you think this is a decent formalization. A few premises are not covered/argued in this article; I'll mark them.

    P1. If some objects are unclassified, classification is impossible.
    P2. If classification is impossible, knowledge is impossible.
    P3. If all objects are classified, God exists.
    P4. Knowledge is possible.
    P5. All objects are classified.
    C: God exists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NecessitarianSeptember 12, 2023 at 10:11 AM

      I think P2 is not stated or defended in this article. I think P1 may be mostly implicit in this article.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Failure of Classical Apologetics

Classical apologetics attempts to rationally defend the Christian faith by employing, in most cases, the traditional proofs for God's existence. Offering proofs such as the cosmological, teleological, ontological and moral are the first in a two-step approach to establishing Christianity. The second being offering arguments from fulfilled  prophecy, miracles, resurrection, etc. Classical apologists aim to first establish that this is a theistic universe and then appeal to the arguments mentioned in the second step to distinguish Christianity from other forms of theism. In my estimation, such an approach to apologetics proves inadequate and unsatisfactory for reasons I will spell out shortly. I will divide these reasons into two categories - theological and philosophical. Theological Since the conclusion of the classical approach is that Christianity is probably true or is the most probable amongst others, the unbeliever is always left with an excuse to reject the existence of Go...
Read more

Brute Facts Are Mute Facts: A Van Tilian Transcendental Argument

Recent discussions on the Internet have led me to believe that there is a need to write this post. Here I will be clarifying, formalizing, and defending an argument which I believe is central to Van Til’s thought. To my knowledge, there is no such clarification and formalization of the argument available and so in writing this article, I hope to bring something fresh to the Van Tilian’s arsenal of arguments. Van Til’s Doctrine of Analogy Central to Van Til’s thought is the doctrine of analogy. Van Til made a distinction between reasoning that is univocal and reasoning which is analogical . Greg Bahnsen describes univocal reasoning in this way: “ Univocal” reasoning does not honor the Creator-creature distinction, but assumes that God and man approach knowing in the same way and under essentially the same conditions. It refuses to “think God’s thoughts after Him” (cf. chap. 4.5 above) and asserts its intellectual autonomy. 1 However, for Van Til, human knowledge must be analogical. Tha...
Read more

Why Atheists Can’t Know That 2 Apples + 2 Apples = 4 Apples...

The title of this article may be a bit misleading. There are obviously very capable and very knowledgeable mathematicians who are atheists. Such people do not only know that two apples plus two apples equals four apples, they can also provide elaborate proofs of the various mathematical theorems that undergird such a truth. This post is not meant as an attack on the intellect of atheists but rather as an attack on atheism as a philosophical system . A more accurate title would be “ Why Atheists Can’t Know that 2 Apples + 2 Apples = 4 Apples If They Were Being Consistent With Their Philosophical System ”. I know, not very catchy! But what is it about atheism as a philosophical system that precludes knowledge of a truth so basic and fundamental that even children know it? The short answer is that atheism commits one to an autonomous epistemology—an epistemology that rejects the necessity of divine revelation. Believing that two apples plus two apples equals four apples is easy enough. Th...
Read more