Does God Exist? (Part 1)

This is the first portion of a three-part series on the defense of the Christian faith.

"The Refuge" is a ministry directed toward high school and college students in the Cedar Grove, WI area. The Refuge meets in the First Reformed Church basement on Sunday nights.

Part 1 of this message is an introduction to the series and to the all-important issue of God's existence. The remaining parts regard the philosophical and scientific lines of evidence for God's existence.

*Note: the video which introduces the message contains audio files from the following sources:

Richard Dawkins:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg

Ravi Zacharias:
http://www.rzim.org/

The music is from "A Beautiful Mind" soundtrack.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• God
• Exist
• Refuge
• Apologetics
• Cedar
• Grove
• Jesus
• Christ
• Reformed
• Church
• Philosophy
• Kalam
• Cosmological
• Argument

[sacrosanct24]

You seem to mix faith in something that has no empirical evidence with faith in tried and true methodologies.

I have faith that gravity works because I can do simple, repeatable test to prove it works. Being an atheist doesn't require faith because it doesn't require you to believe in anything that doesn't demonstrate empirical evidence.

[SteamyStats]

You just said that you exercise faith in gravity. I do, too. My point was not that faith in gravity is of the same type as faith in God, but simply that faith, in the general sense, is practically everywhere. I reject the claim that something can only be known empirically, and so I think that indeed there is strong evidence for the existence of God apart from scientific testing.

[JoshuaTrio]

It's not "faith" when you think a chair will take your weight it's "reasonable expectation" you have sat on 1'000's of seats that have taken your weight, If I throw a pool ball in the air I don't have faith that it will fall to the ground, I have reasonable expectation based on evidence, "Faith" has absolutely nothing to do with it, it's a feeble effort by the speaker to justify a belief for which there is no evidence

[charizardsspirit]

islam anybody?..hehe

[brad78ton]

I've already replied to "proof on logic" in your last post. I don't know how much you've studied on this subject, but if you are a strcit materialist, like you claim. You will have to give up many things, like: personality, consciousness, morality, free-will, and get this "logic." Go to Google or Yahoo can look up "eliminative materialism." I guarantee you won't like what you are forced to hold by your presuppossed materialistic reality.

[brad78ton]

Actually, logic is defined as "a system of rules that govern thinking." Logic is axiomatic; to prove logic I have to use logic, thus it would be arguing in a circle. thats why logical principles are called foundational principles. All your example can cash out is a correlation between a thought and a reaction in the brain. At this point you are commiting a post hoc fallacy. not to mention, you are claiming that non-conscious material is the cause of consciousness, which can't be demonstrated.

[4Methods]

Again, logic needs proof - there is no way getting out of that requirement regardless how you reword your argument. As for morality, consciousness, personality, etc, they all exist in the physical world and are a result of your physical surroundings and your experiences in the physical world (aka reality). They do not exist outside reality because their source is reality. And reality is by definition materialistic. You cannot have a non-materialistic reality.

[4Methods]

Your definition of logic does not exist. Your definition of logic does not require demostration or proof, which is a direct contradiction to the real definition of logic. As for thoughts, they can be demostrated as they are based on the physical surroundings of the thing having those thoughts. Without the physical brain you cannot have thoughts. And where have I said logic doesn't need proof?

[brad78ton]

The problem is your definition of reality is strictly materialistic, which begs the question. If that is the case, you must deny logic, morality, consciousness, personality, the mind. None of these can be reduced to physical properties, you can't prove this empirically. You presuppose this, since it conforms to your worldview. These things are non-physical, so they would be, by your definition of reality, outside of it.

[brad78ton]

Logic is my proof, and your definition of logic fails. Since your definition of logic is based on empiricism. But to even make a claim, based on empiricism, you need transcendental (i.e. a priori) evidence. This is true by definition (deductive), not emprical (inductive). So to hold your view, you must deny any thought you might have, since you thoughts can't be demonstrated, at least by the defintion you hold. By the way, God is not physical, nor have I ever claimed he was.

[4Methods]

You say your facts can be proven, but have yet to in the form of examples. Before anybody can say your argument is logical, you need to provide evidence - which you have not. Logic, by definition, requires valid inherence and demostration, so unless you can apply both of these criteria to a thing outside reality God as something physical is illogical. I can make absolute claims about the physical world, because I can prove those claims.