| I certainly do not wish to take space on this blog to argue for the existence of God.
Then again, abstaining seems a way of avoiding a discussion of first principles based on what has been called God Logic.
That being the case, please allow me to quickly sum the God Logic debate.
First, let us posit that there isn't a person on Earth who knows FOR CERTAIN whether there is a God or no. All we have to go on is a reasoning process made possible because we are reasonably intelligent beings.
College professors who claim to be secular atheists will almost never simply admit that, at bottom, they don't know, any more than, at bottom, the Pope knows the status of what man refers to as God.
Once again, all we all have to go on is a process we will refer to here as God Logic.
Simply stated, both on the physical and psychological plains, we, as thinking and experiencing organisms, no matter how lofty our degrees or in which subjects, must rely on the consistency of laws over which we have no control in order to live reasonable lives.
That is, whether we are speaking of the law of gravity or the law of honesty, there seems to be something within those concepts that have achieved something like universal acceptance among reasonable men and women throughout time.
With regard to gravity, we seem to believe that, without it, Christmas celebrations would be difficult. Trees would not remain on their stands, and stockings would not remain hanging from the mantle in an orderly way. Even if we could contain the fire in the fireplace for any reasonable time, trouble would be bound to occur eventually. In other words, with regard to gravity, we have some agreement that the law is important, and we are grateful for it.
Gravity, Boils Laws, quantum mechanics, the speed of the photon, and hundreds of other physical laws seem to operate in their own spheres in predictable ways, removed from any concern relative to what our opinions may be relative to them.
The same may be said of, for lack of a better term, the moral laws.
The theft of another's property has been condemned in most societies at all times. The famous "honor among thieves" simply verifies that within a group renowned for dishonesty, such activity is, at bottom, unacceptable. That is, it is not unreasonable to postulate a moral law which prohibits stealing as a law, like gravity, that operates with and without our permission. A law given and accepted, like gravity, as simply existing in order for us to live reasonable lives.
The real disagreement among us is not whether these laws exist, but rather from whence they came into being.
The honest secular atheist would, of course, simply say that he or she agrees that there are universal laws, both physical and moral, but that in his or her considered opinion, there is no intelligent giver or creator of these laws.
Theists, on the other hand, would say that gravity and moral laws are the intelligent condition of living reasonable lives, and therefore originate from an intelligent source, a creator or giver present before the so-called singularity so named the big bang by astronomer Fred Hoyle.
Said differently, the secular atheist, although accepting laws from a source unexplained, will deny the intelligent giver. The theist refuses to deny this first logical step, that is, he or she finds it eminently logical to posit an intelligent origin of intelligent laws.
Within God Logic, we can call this intelligent law giver or creator GOD, although we might call him or her Santa as well. Only, if we do, Santa becomes very real, has a real appetite, and would really appreciate cookies on Christmas morn. |
Article Details