>I know this is Reformed Orthodoxy, but I don't believe it is true. I
>believe that all men already know there is a Creator-God by virtue of:
>a) innate knowledge of God as God's image-bearer; and b) the witness
>of the order, beauty and grandeur of creation (General Revelation).
>Special Revelation confirms this (Ps 19:1; Rom 1:16ff) and of couse
>expands on it in great detail.
>
>My own testimony is that I was brought up in a non-Christian home with
>no knowledge of the Bible or Christianity. I became an atheist in my
>early teenage years, and in my late teens I looked up at the Milky
>Way one night and had an overwhelming feeling that there must be a
>God. I did not become a Christian until 2 years later.
>
>My point is that we cannot believe that there is such a thing as
>"Special Revelation", let alone that it is "reliable" unless we
>already believe in a Creator-God. I agree that later we fine-tune this
>"model" by the learning from "Special Revelation".
I do not deny your feeling, after looking at the milky way, that
"there must be a God". I have had similar experiences. You and I
may believe that this is a valid reason for accepting that there
is a God, but the atheist will suggest that, though this is a
real experience we've had, it is only that - an experience which
made us feel, incorrectly, that there must be a God. We may choose
to accept God on this basis, but we can give little justification
for it - it is a subjective choice.
What I would like to know is: is this (and special revelation and
miracles) the only means to distinguish the "God sustained" model
from the "unintelligent laws" model?
For example, if it could be demonstrated that "unintelligent laws"
can not produce creatures such as ourselves, and we do in fact
exist, then we have objective proof of the existence of the
intelligent. Or if it could be shown that lightning can only
be explained in terms of an intelligent "lightning director" - that
no naturalistic explaination has been, or ever could be found, then
we could demonstrate objectively that this "lightning director"
must exist.
If we believe that God is the creator and sustainer of the universe,
do we also believe that if we knew enough about the workings of this
universe, we would have objective evidence that God exists? Or do
we believe that our understanding of God's sustainance is all
revelation, rather than being necessary for our model of nature?
>I think we can. IMHO all men know that the universe is displays God's
>wisdom and power (Rom 1:16ff), but they supress this knowledge and
>create an idol universe that is "self-existent one which obeys
>unintelligent laws".
But could we demonstrate objectively to these "knowledge supressors"
that this knowledge is correct, provided (a big proviso) they were
open minded and didn't refuse to see the validity of our arguments?
Or is it a matter of accepting this knowedge on a non-objective
basis?
>LH>The universe is full of "contingent" entities -- that is, things
>>which depend for their existence upon the existence of other things.
>>But everyone's philosophy requires that there be at least one
>>self-existing, non-contingent entity.
I don't think I agree with this. Why does the universe have to be
contingent?
Mark.