Thread: "The principle of clarity"

Assistant professor explores 'Clarity of God's Existence' | ASU News

There is a local professor who has come up with something he calls his "principle of clarity":

Anderson says there must be clarity in the traditional proofs of God’s existence if Christianity is to continue the claim that unbelief is a sin. Anderson introduces the principal of clarity – this says that if the failure to believing something results in maximum responsibility (as in the case of eternal separation from God), then it must be maximally knowable. This would require that all alternatives to belief are rationally impossible so that there is no excuse for believing them. In fact, the final chapter is devoted to a surface exploration of what must be done, in Anderson’s opinion, to show that it is clear that God exists.

After some conversation with a close friend of mine, who is taking a philosophy of religion class with Anderson, I've been thinking over some things and decided that perhaps his reasoning is not so kosher.

It seems to me that, through the conversations I've had with that friend, who seems to espouse the same views as Anderson, Anderson is asserting the following:

(1) People are going to be held accountable for not believing that God exists.
(2) If (1), then it needs to be clear, proportionately to the level of punishment, that God does exist.
(3) People are rational beings and we operate using reason; thus, reason, properly used, must lead a person to the conclusion that God exists.
(4) By (3), there must be some sort of argument that deductively proves God's existence.
(5) If (4) is false, then people cannot be held accountable for their unbelief. There are other possibilities they could have plausibly held.
(6) If (5) is true, then Christianity ought not make the claim that people can sin by unbelief.

It may be I am misinterpreting him, because I haven't read the book and only know of his position through a friend, but I think this is basically it.

It seems that something here is not right, though. I can't put my finger quite on it, but I know something is not quite right.


Firstly, it seems to me that Paul teaches that God's existence is clearly perceived by the things created:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Then, because, though they clearly perceived God's existence and characteristics and attributes, they decided to suppress that truth in unrighteousness, God gave them up to a debased mind and they became futile in their thinking: I should say, then, that the supposedly "plausible alternatives" are not really plausible whatsoever, but rather the products of debased minds let loose to their darkened thinking.

But does this necessitate that a deductive proof for God's existence be possible to formulate?

Any thoughts?

Prof. Anderson would agree that the other "plausible alternatives" are not really plausible. If the alternatives do not hold water, then why should a deductive proof be impossible to formulate?

CT

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Prof. Anderson would agree that the other "plausible alternatives" are not really plausible. If the alternatives do not hold water, then why should a deductive proof be impossible to formulate?

CT

(1) If such an argument could be formulated, it would be useless; the unregenerate man would either deny one of the premises or abandon logic, or whatever, just so long as they do not have to accept the conclusion.
(2) The assumption that people come to certain beliefs entirely through the use of reason is not true at all--Paul would agree with me, I think, and so do people like Nicholas Wolterstorff and Alvin Plantinga. It doesn't seem to me that man, when coming into the world, and seeing the world around him, formulates this perfect argument in his head, sees the conclusion, and then decides to throw it out. It seems that his cognitive faculties simply produce this belief in the proper circumstances but the sinful nature quickly stamp it out. I don't see why there should be any such argument.
(3) I am skeptical of anyone producing any argument to prove, deductively, beyond any reproof or rebuttal, that God exists (or that Christianity is true). But even if you can formulate the argument that a personal timeless immaterial creator of the universe exists, that does not prove Christianity. Let's say even that you can prove almost without any doubt that Christ existed, lived a life as described in the gospels, and died, and rose again. Is it possible to prove deductively that his resurrection is only because of God rose from the dead? I remember hearing Michael Butler say that there is a professor at U.C.L.A. who accepts the resurrection of Jesus as an unexplained natural phenomenon, not necessarily the product of divine intervention. It's hard to see how you might formulate that perfect, airtight argument...

Originally Posted by steven-nemes

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Prof. Anderson would agree that the other "plausible alternatives" are not really plausible. If the alternatives do not hold water, then why should a deductive proof be impossible to formulate?

CT

(1) If such an argument could be formulated, it would be useless; the unregenerate man would either deny one of the premises or abandon logic, or whatever, just so long as they do not have to accept the conclusion.

It would be useful to show that unbelief or belief in some other god than God is irrational.

(2) The assumption that people come to certain beliefs entirely through the use of reason is not true at all--Paul would agree with me, I think, and so do people like Nicholas Wolterstorff and Alvin Plantinga. It doesn't seem to me that man, when coming into the world, and seeing the world around him, formulates this perfect argument in his head, sees the conclusion, and then decides to throw it out. It seems that his cognitive faculties simply produce this belief in the proper circumstances but the sinful nature quickly stamp it out. I don't see why there should be any such argument.

It seems that your position lays out the perfect excuse for the unbeliever. One cannot believe in the God of the Bible because their sin nature overwhelms them. It was not clear to them. (Contra Paul). According to Paul God's existence is objectively clear.

I believe the Biblical position is that people reject God because they wish to rebel and reject that which is clear.

(3) I am skeptical of anyone producing any argument to prove, deductively, beyond any reproof or rebuttal, that God exists (or that Christianity is true). But even if you can formulate the argument that a personal timeless immaterial creator of the universe exists, that does not prove Christianity. Let's say even that you can prove almost without any doubt that Christ existed, lived a life as described in the gospels, and died, and rose again. Is it possible to prove deductively that his resurrection is only because of God rose from the dead? I remember hearing Michael Butler say that there is a professor at U.C.L.A. who accepts the resurrection of Jesus as an unexplained natural phenomenon, not necessarily the product of divine intervention. It's hard to see how you might formulate that perfect, airtight argument...

You have the right to be skeptical, however you may be spouting off a lot for having read little concerning the position.

I think Prof. Anderson would argue first for the existence of immaterial etc. creator of the Universe, then use that basis to then handle the objection to how the creator would/would not act. (It seems that the objection laid out is assuming that immaterial creator of the universe is not already accepted).

CT

-----Added 2/25/2009 at 08:17:19 EST-----

Here are links to an interview of Prof. Anderson, which should give a bit more background concerning his project.

Blog - Evangelical Philosophical Society

Blog - Evangelical Philosophical Society

CT

Interesting reasoning.

Natural revelation, what is spoken of in Romans 1, is enough to leave man without excuse. Knowing enough about the Creator God, man refuses to worship His Creator. Instead, man wills to worship the created thing- whether elements of nature, other people, the human body, etc.

We know from Scripture (special revelation) the person and work of Christ, the only way idolatrous, rebellious sinners can be forgiven by a holy God whose standard is perfection.

And we know from our biblical theology, the systematic theology of all of Scripture, only that same God can change the nature of a person to make that forgiveness possible.

I think logically you can deduce the natural revelation part, and that's enough to hold men worthy of judgment by their Creator but you can't get past that without evident reason- and that requires faith.

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

It would be useful to show that unbelief or belief in some other god than God is irrational.

To who? To a Christian who already knows it? To a non-Christian who won't accept it despite the odds? And let's say he accepts it is irrational for him to hold to his non-belief: then what? We move on to the next one? No doubt Michael Martin or who knows who would come out with a new explanation of what is rational and then proceed to declare theistic belief irrational...

It seems that your position lays out the perfect excuse for the unbeliever. One cannot believe in the God of the Bible because their sin nature overwhelms them. It was not clear to them. (Contra Paul). According to Paul God's existence is objectively clear.

I believe the Biblical position is that people reject God because they wish to rebel and reject that which is clear.

(1) You said an unbeliever has an excuse because their sin nature overwhelms them and denies their will. I deny that their will is separate at all from the actions of their nature. Their suppressing the truth is their own will and the product of their nature, not against their will by the product of their nature. If I seemed to imply otherwise, I apologize.
(2) I agree with your last two sentences.

You have the right to be skeptical, however you may be spouting off a lot for having read little concerning the position.

I think Prof. Anderson would argue first for the existence of immaterial etc. creator of the Universe, then use that basis to then handle the objection to how the creator would/would not act. (It seems that the objection laid out is assuming that immaterial creator of the universe is not already accepted).

Arguing for the immaterial creator of the world is not enough, in his eyes; or at least that is how I understand him. They need to prove the existence of the Christian God, that God which came to earth in the form of Jesus Christ--which would mean proving a bit more than a personal creator of the universe. But can an airtight proof of that be possible? What with the concept of presuppositions, it seems impossible: any evidence can be interpreted to the opposite side, it seems, and at best the final product that aimed to be quite precise and specific would end up being a probabilistic argument. Is it really possible that an argument that proves Christianity to be true, and only Christianity, be a deductive proof?

-----Added 2/25/2009 at 08:41:12 EST-----

Originally Posted by Scott1

I think logically you can deduce the natural revelation part, and that's enough to hold men worthy of judgment by their Creator but you can't get past that without evident reason- and that requires faith.

I am skeptical even of natural theology: and it is true, I've probably been influenced by some of the stuff I've read, but what Anderson is saying is the argument must prove the Christian God, not just any God. The kalam argument, for example, doesn't even necessarily prove the Christian God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott1 View Post
I think logically you can deduce the natural revelation part, and that's enough to hold men worthy of judgment by their Creator but you can't get past that without evident reason- and that requires faith.

Steven Nemes
Phoenix AZ
I am skeptical even of natural theology: and it is true, I've probably been influenced by some of the stuff I've read, but what Anderson is saying is the argument must prove the Christian God, not just any God. The kalam argument, for example, doesn't even necessarily prove the Christian God.
__________________

Right, and if I am following the pattern of all this reasoning, I would say "proving" the Christian God can really only be done through special revelation, that of Scripture and that requires evident reason, that is, faith.

And of course we know, again by special revelation, there is only one God, so proving "a" means, really, proving "the" one and only. That's logical and reasonable but the human mind cannot really embrace the truth without the gift of faith.

Originally Posted by steven-nemes

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

It would be useful to show that unbelief or belief in some other god than God is irrational.

To who? To a Christian who already knows it? To a non-Christian who won't accept it despite the odds? And let's say he accepts it is irrational for him to hold to his non-belief: then what? We move on to the next one? No doubt Michael Martin or who knows who would come out with a new explanation of what is rational and then proceed to declare theistic belief irrational...

From a practical standpoint, if a person admits that a position is irrational, then he has to give up defending or arguing for it. Cannot continue arguing for keeping God out of public schools etc. because one can only argue for something that someone thinks is rational.

As far as Michael Martin etc., either his new explanation is rational or it is not. If it also is irrational then nothing has been gained.

Someone giving an arguement does not imply that it is a good argument.

It seems that your position lays out the perfect excuse for the unbeliever. One cannot believe in the God of the Bible because their sin nature overwhelms them. It was not clear to them. (Contra Paul). According to Paul God's existence is objectively clear.

I believe the Biblical position is that people reject God because they wish to rebel and reject that which is clear.

(1) You said an unbeliever has an excuse because their sin nature overwhelms them and denies their will. I deny that their will is separate at all from the actions of their nature. Their suppressing the truth is their own will and the product of their nature, not against their will by the product of their nature. If I seemed to imply otherwise, I apologize.

So their "sin" is the refusal to see that which is clear and embrace the triune God. Not that their reasoning capabilities broke down.

(2) I agree with your last two sentences.

Good.

You have the right to be skeptical, however you may be spouting off a lot for having read little concerning the position.

I think Prof. Anderson would argue first for the existence of immaterial etc. creator of the Universe, then use that basis to then handle the objection to how the creator would/would not act. (It seems that the objection laid out is assuming that immaterial creator of the universe is not already accepted).

Arguing for the immaterial creator of the world is not enough, in his eyes; or at least that is how I understand him. They need to prove the existence of the Christian God, that God which came to earth in the form of Jesus Christ--which would mean proving a bit more than a personal creator of the universe. But can an airtight proof of that be possible? What with the concept of presuppositions, it seems impossible: any evidence can be interpreted to the opposite side, it seems, and at best the final product that aimed to be quite precise and specific would end up being a probabilistic argument. Is it really possible that an argument that proves Christianity to be true, and only Christianity, be a deductive proof?

My point is simply that certain arguments rest on previous arguments having already been made. Or put another way, certain things are more basic than other things. Once you have agreement on basic things, then you can move on to discuss less basic things.

The concept of presuppositions is best used to point out disagreements, then reason out which one is correct and which is false. Instead of saying, "hey, he has a different presupposition, I wish he had mine, oh well".

-----Added 2/25/2009 at 08:41:12 EST-----

Originally Posted by Scott1

I think logically you can deduce the natural revelation part, and that's enough to hold men worthy of judgment by their Creator but you can't get past that without evident reason- and that requires faith.

I am skeptical even of natural theology: and it is true, I've probably been influenced by some of the stuff I've read, but what Anderson is saying is the argument must prove the Christian God, not just any God. The kalam argument, for example, doesn't even necessarily prove the Christian God.

The Kalam Cosmo argument does not prove the Christian God by itself, but why should it be by itself?

CT

-----Added 2/25/2009 at 09:08:02 EST-----

Originally Posted by Scott1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott1 View Post
I think logically you can deduce the natural revelation part, and that's enough to hold men worthy of judgment by their Creator but you can't get past that without evident reason- and that requires faith.

Steven Nemes
Phoenix AZ
I am skeptical even of natural theology: and it is true, I've probably been influenced by some of the stuff I've read, but what Anderson is saying is the argument must prove the Christian God, not just any God. The kalam argument, for example, doesn't even necessarily prove the Christian God.
__________________

Right, and if I am following the pattern of all this reasoning, I would say "proving" the Christian God can really only be done through special revelation, that of Scripture and that requires evident reason, that is, faith.

And of course we know, again by special revelation, there is only one God, so proving "a" means, really, proving "the" one and only. That's logical and reasonable but the human mind cannot really embrace the truth without the gift of faith.

One question that Prof. Anderson gets into is: Why do you accept one version of special revelation as opposed to another? Does it really just come down to saying, "The Holy Spirit is telling me that this is the correct book, so he must not be telling you that this other book over there is the correct book; therefore you should embrace the Bible"?

CT

One question that Prof. Anderson gets into is: Why do you accept one version of special revelation as opposed to another? Does it really just come down to saying, "The Holy Spirit is telling me that this is the correct book, so he must not be telling you that this other book over there is the correct book; therefore you should embrace the Bible"?

Well, Scripture tells us the Word bears testimony with our (regenerated) spirits. That's not going to apply to a nonbeliever.

However, you still have overwhelming evidence that the Bible is a uniquely "credible" source of authority because of its many historical attributes. It was written in 3 languages, on 3 continents over 2,000 years and agrees internally. Absolutely incredible. You have all the kinds of rational proofs cited in Josh McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict."

But in the end, even believing what is rational, reasonable, and logically compelling about God requires illumination by the Holy Spirit.

You can go a long way with logic and reasoning, only remember to ask God and trust God that He will use it in the lives of those hearing. Then, it is never a waste.

1 Corinthians 2:14

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Originally Posted by Scott1

One question that Prof. Anderson gets into is: Why do you accept one version of special revelation as opposed to another? Does it really just come down to saying, "The Holy Spirit is telling me that this is the correct book, so he must not be telling you that this other book over there is the correct book; therefore you should embrace the Bible"?

Well, Scripture tells us the Word bears testimony with our (regenerated) spirits. That's not going to apply to a nonbeliever.

However, you still have overwhelming evidence that the Bible is a uniquely "credible" source of authority because of its many historical attributes. It was written in 3 languages, on 3 continents over 2,000 years and agrees internally. Absolutely incredible. You have all the kinds of rational proofs cited in Josh McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict."

But in the end, even believing what is rational, reasonable, and logically compelling about God requires illumination by the Holy Spirit.

You can go a long way with logic and reasoning, only remember to ask God and trust God that He will use it in the lives of those hearing. Then, it is never a waste.

1 Corinthians 2:14

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Put another way, is the person that rejects the Bible behaving sub/irrationally when they do so? Or would you say that without the Holy Spirit's work it is rational to reject the Bible?

CT

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

So their "sin" is the refusal to see that which is clear and embrace the triune God. Not that their reasoning capabilities broke down.

Yes, the breaking down of their reasoning faculties is the product of that sin. But by my discussion with my friend, who possibly is misrepresenting Anderson's position, the sin is the product of improper reasoning.

The Kalam Cosmo argument does not prove the Christian God by itself, but why should it be by itself?

It does not need to be; but it seems to me the more precise a target you are aiming for, the less certainty you will have.

Anderson seems to me to be saying that there should be an argument that proves the Christian God; not just any God.

William Lane Craig's arguments are not conclusive; ultimately, they rest on the probability of whether or not (1) everything that begins to exist is uncased, (2) Jesus Christ's resurrection, if it really did happen, was the product of divine intervention by that uncaused creator, as opposed to simply a natural anomaly.

One question that Prof. Anderson gets into is: Why do you accept one version of special revelation as opposed to another? Does it really just come down to saying, "The Holy Spirit is telling me that this is the correct book, so he must not be telling you that this other book over there is the correct book; therefore you should embrace the Bible"?

Basically: what reasoned arguments are there for believing Christianity to be true (?). He says that it has to be maximally clear; that means it can't be based on probability, but deductive proof; 100% certainty. Surely this has been tried...but is it even possible?

Put another way, is the person that rejects the Bible behaving sub/irrationally when they do so? Or would you say that without the Holy Spirit's work it is rational to reject the Bible?

Adopting Wolterstorff's view of what determines the rationality of a belief or not (paraphrased, perhaps butchered: a belief is rational for a person until he finds reasons to no longer hold that belief (with qualifications of course)), I would say the sinner's rejection of the Bible or the existence of God is irrational while he still holds the belief that God does not exist, beacuse he is constantly assaulted with reasons to the contrary.

Originally Posted by steven-nemes

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

So their "sin" is the refusal to see that which is clear and embrace the triune God. Not that their reasoning capabilities broke down.

Yes, the breaking down of their reasoning faculties is the product of that sin. But by my discussion with my friend, who possibly is misrepresenting Anderson's position, the sin is the product of improper reasoning.

I believe Prof. Anderson would say that their sin is the rebellion that lead to them refusing to properly use their reasoning faculties.

The Kalam Cosmo argument does not prove the Christian God by itself, but why should it be by itself?

It does not need to be; but it seems to me the more precise a target you are aiming for, the less certainty you will have.

Anderson seems to me to be saying that there should be an argument that proves the Christian God; not just any God.

William Lane Craig's arguments are not conclusive; ultimately, they rest on the probability of whether or not (1) everything that begins to exist is uncased, (2) Jesus Christ's resurrection, if it really did happen, was the product of divine intervention by that uncaused creator, as opposed to simply a natural anomaly.

I believe that you are correct concerning WLC's arguments, they are not in fact conclusive. However the objection you raise would probably be answered by attacking Deism. A natural anomaly only seems to make sense if the Christian view of the immaterial creator of the universe interactioning with the Universe is false.

One question that Prof. Anderson gets into is: Why do you accept one version of special revelation as opposed to another? Does it really just come down to saying, "The Holy Spirit is telling me that this is the correct book, so he must not be telling you that this other book over there is the correct book; therefore you should embrace the Bible"?

Basically: what reasoned arguments are there for believing Christianity to be true (?). He says that it has to be maximally clear; that means it can't be based on probability, but deductive proof; 100% certainty. Surely this has been tried...but is it even possible?

That is kind of the $64k question. As far as I can tell the project looks encouraging.

But to be fair, as far as Romans 1 goes, I am not sure how one can somehow expect less than that kind of result. Otherwise it seems that one has a mighty big excuse. ("Uh, God, I took the wrong leap of faith, sorry bout that")

Put another way, is the person that rejects the Bible behaving sub/irrationally when they do so? Or would you say that without the Holy Spirit's work it is rational to reject the Bible?

Adopting Wolterstorff's view of what determines the rationality of a belief or not (paraphrased, perhaps butchered: a belief is rational for a person until he finds reasons to no longer hold that belief (with qualifications of course)), I would say the sinner's rejection of the Bible or the existence of God is irrational while he still holds the belief that God does not exist, beacuse he is constantly assaulted with reasons to the contrary.

If you hold such a belief then should you not be able to demonstrate that the belief that the other person has is irrational and belief in the Bible is the only rational position?

CT

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

I believe Prof. Anderson would say that their sin is the rebellion that lead to them refusing to properly use their reasoning faculties.

I don't know; I'd have to ask him personally to be sure, but it seems to me he thinks that sin is a result of improper use of reason. That if someone were to use reason properly, and formulate arguments in his head, or whatever, that a person would not sin...

I believe that you are correct concerning WLC's arguments, they are not in fact conclusive. However the objection you raise would probably be answered by attacking Deism. A natural anomaly only seems to make sense if the Christian view of the immaterial creator of the universe interactioning with the Universe is false.

But arguments contra deism seem, in my mind, not to be conclusive. It seems to me perfectly possible that a god made the universe and never touched it again, and yet strange, unexplainable events might happen within the universe, like he didn't build the watch all that great and when it starts running, it skips a tick or two. Do you understand my analogy?

If you hold such a belief then should you not be able to demonstrate that the belief that the other person has is irrational and belief in the Bible is the only rational position?

Why does the fact that the Bible says the existence of God is plainly clearly seen necessitate that there is some sort of argument that proves it conclusively? Unless I'm missing something... I honestly doubt that the process described in Romans 1 consists of a person being born, encountering the external universe, and this perfect argument is formulated in their head but then discarded. Does there have to be an argument? Can't God have simply made us such that when we come into the world, a specific cognitive faculty produces this belief, but our sinful nature works its best to deny it? (I think I've said this before...)

Originally Posted by steven-nemes

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

I believe Prof. Anderson would say that their sin is the rebellion that lead to them refusing to properly use their reasoning faculties.

I don't know; I'd have to ask him personally to be sure, but it seems to me he thinks that sin is a result of improper use of reason. That if someone were to use reason properly, and formulate arguments in his head, or whatever, that a person would not sin...

I do not think you understand him correctly. Sin is the refusal/rebellion against what is clear.

I believe that you are correct concerning WLC's arguments, they are not in fact conclusive. However the objection you raise would probably be answered by attacking Deism. A natural anomaly only seems to make sense if the Christian view of the immaterial creator of the universe interactioning with the Universe is false.

But arguments contra deism seem, in my mind, not to be conclusive. It seems to me perfectly possible that a god made the universe and never touched it again, and yet strange, unexplainable events might happen within the universe, like he didn't build the watch all that great and when it starts running, it skips a tick or two. Do you understand my analogy?

If the arguments are inconclusive, then if someone came up to you and said that they were a Deist, would you then say, "that's nice" and move on?

Also is a "not so good creation" consistent with what we can determine about the creator through natural theology?

If you hold such a belief then should you not be able to demonstrate that the belief that the other person has is irrational and belief in the Bible is the only rational position?

Why does the fact that the Bible says the existence of God is plainly clearly seen necessitate that there is some sort of argument that proves it conclusively? Unless I'm missing something... I honestly doubt that the process described in Romans 1 consists of a person being born, encountering the external universe, and this perfect argument is formulated in their head but then discarded. Does there have to be an argument?

I would say that at the very least there should be an argument against every counter belief to Christianity. If something is clearly correct, then everything else should be clearly wrong, right? If it is clearly wrong, then should it not be easy to point out why it is wrong?

Can't God have simply made us such that when we come into the world, a specific cognitive faculty produces this belief, but our sinful nature works its best to deny it? (I think I've said this before...)

And when a Muslim comes up to you and gives you the same argument for Allah, do we then have a stalemate? Do we then just scream at each other or go to blows?

CT

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

I do not think you understand him correctly. Sin is the refusal/rebellion against what is clear.

Probably.

If the arguments are inconclusive, then if someone came up to you and said that they were a Deist, would you then say, "that's nice" and move on?

Also is a "not so good creation" consistent with what we can determine about the creator through natural theology?

No, but I don't think it is possible that I can convince a deist that deism is false with 100% certainty "so that he was without excuse"...

Surely a 14 billion year old universe is capable of containing a few flaws here and there. The arguments from design, etc., lead to a very powerful creator, a very intelligent creator, not a maximally powerful or maximally intelligent creator.

I would say that at the very least there should be an argument against every counter belief to Christianity. If something is clearly correct, then everything else should be clearly wrong, right? If it is clearly wrong, then should it not be easy to point out why it is wrong?

Is it truly easy to prove false every other belief system in the entire history of the universe, so long as humans have been around? And not only that, every possible belief system that might come up in the future? Surely this is what it would take to prove Christianity true. If Christianity is clearly true, then of course it should be easy for fallen human beings, limited in physical endurance as well as mental strength, to prove it right/everything else wrong!

And when a Muslim comes up to you and gives you the same argument for Allah, do we then have a stalemate? Do we then just scream at each other or go to blows?

(1) I would ask, Which Muslim scriptures might point to this conclusion?
(2) I would argue against Islam on the basis of potential inconsistencies within the system, or perhaps on its consistency with eternal evidence, etc.

If the arguments are inconclusive, then if someone came up to you and said that they were a Deist, would you then say, "that's nice" and move on?

Also is a "not so good creation" consistent with what we can determine about the creator through natural theology?

No, but I don't think it is possible that I can convince a deist that deism is false with 100% certainty "so that he was without excuse"...

Why not? Either their position is inconsistent (contradictory) or it is not.

Surely a 14 billion year old universe is capable of containing a few flaws here and there. The arguments from design, etc., lead to a very powerful creator, a very intelligent creator, not a maximally powerful or maximally intelligent creator.

Is 14 billion years problematic for the immaterial creator of the universe/creator of time? 14 billion years is only problematic if you apriori assume that deism is already true.

Next, either the argument from design is appropriate for this task or it is not? If it is not, then that is only problematic if there is no other alternative.

I would say that at the very least there should be an argument against every counter belief to Christianity. If something is clearly correct, then everything else should be clearly wrong, right? If it is clearly wrong, then should it not be easy to point out why it is wrong?

Is it truly easy to prove false every other belief system in the entire history of the universe, so long as humans have been around? And not only that, every possible belief system that might come up in the future? Surely this is what it would take to prove Christianity true. If Christianity is clearly true, then of course it should be easy for fallen human beings, limited in physical endurance as well as mental strength, to prove it right/everything else wrong!

Which side of the fork do you want me to take? 1)Christianity is not clearly true or 2)It is clearly true and alternatives are clearly false?

Do you understand Romans 1 as saying something other than Christianity is clearly true?

And when a Muslim comes up to you and gives you the same argument for Allah, do we then have a stalemate? Do we then just scream at each other or go to blows?

(1) I would ask, Which Muslim scriptures might point to this conclusion?
(2) I would argue against Islam on the basis of potential inconsistencies within the system, or perhaps on its consistency with eternal evidence, etc.

You would be correct to ask these questions. My point was that just putting forth a hypothesis is not enough. You need to also attack the hypotheses put forward by opposing systems.

CT

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Why not? Either their position is inconsistent (contradictory) or it is not.

What is inconsistent about deism?

Is 14 billion years problematic for the immaterial creator of the universe/creator of time? 14 billion years is only problematic if you apriori assume that deism is already true.

Next, either the argument from design is appropriate for this task or it is not? If it is not, then that is only problematic if there is no other alternative.

I think you misunderstood. The argument from design does not point to a maximally intelligent designer, nor does it point to a designer who is still involved with his universe, nor does it point to a designer who is also moral, nor does it point to a designer who revealed himself in the form of a human being some two thousand years ago.

Which side of the fork do you want me to take? 1)Christianity is not clearly true or 2)It is clearly true and alternatives are clearly false?

Do you understand Romans 1 as saying something other than Christianity is clearly true?

Romans 1 says nothing about the truth of Christianity--Paul says that God's divine attributes and great power are clearly seen in the majestic creation, and that human beings have knowledge of right and wrong and choose wrong nonetheless out of the evil in their hearts. There's no indication that people know by nature that Christ came to earth, lived a flawless life, and died, and rose again, and other nuances specific to Christianity. That God exists and that people do the wrong thing is clear enough to them--but why does that mean a deductive argument can be formulated in favor of the former?

You would be correct to ask these questions. My point was that just putting forth a hypothesis is not enough. You need to also attack the hypotheses put forward by opposing systems.

No, you're right; I agree with you.

Originally Posted by steven-nemes

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Why not? Either their position is inconsistent (contradictory) or it is not.

What is inconsistent about deism?

I thought you had said that a not so good creation was not consistent with what we know of God from natural theology. Your previous post seem to imply that you thought deism implied a not so good creation.

Is 14 billion years problematic for the immaterial creator of the universe/creator of time? 14 billion years is only problematic if you apriori assume that deism is already true.

Next, either the argument from design is appropriate for this task or it is not? If it is not, then that is only problematic if there is no other alternative.

I think you misunderstood. The argument from design does not point to a maximally intelligent designer, nor does it point to a designer who is still involved with his universe, nor does it point to a designer who is also moral, nor does it point to a designer who revealed himself in the form of a human being some two thousand years ago.

And my response is so what. I never implied that I was attempting to defend the argument from design (or at least how it is classically understood).

Next, I also never implied that one argument did everything all at once. Or put another way, even if I defend the argument for design for certain purposes does not imply that I use it for any and all purposes.

Which side of the fork do you want me to take? 1)Christianity is not clearly true or 2)It is clearly true and alternatives are clearly false?

Do you understand Romans 1 as saying something other than Christianity is clearly true?

Romans 1 says nothing about the truth of Christianity--Paul says that God's divine attributes and great power are clearly seen in the majestic creation, and that human beings have knowledge of right and wrong and choose wrong nonetheless out of the evil in their hearts. There's no indication that people know by nature that Christ came to earth, lived a flawless life, and died, and rose again, and other nuances specific to Christianity. That God exists and that people do the wrong thing is clear enough to them--but why does that mean a deductive argument can be formulated in favor of the former?

So are you asserting that all Paul is saying is that one only has an no excuse if they choose materialism etc. but as long as they choose some sort of generic Theism/Deism then they have an excuse?

If Paul walked up to a follower of Islam, would he say, "Oh, Romans 1 does not apply to you; you have a good excuse!"

Let us say that someone grows up in an Islamic country and never hears the gospel or knows that the Bible exists and eventually dies in that condition. Can they say to God, "General Revelation lead me to Islam, I followed it; to send me to Hell would be unfair."

Remember the corollary to Christianity is clearly true is that everything else is clearly false.

I am not claiming that special revelation is irrelevant or superfluous. My claim is that general revelation will only fit with Christian special revelation.

You would be correct to ask these questions. My point was that just putting forth a hypothesis is not enough. You need to also attack the hypotheses put forward by opposing systems.

No, you're right; I agree with you.

Good.

Originally Posted by steven-nemes

Assistant professor explores 'Clarity of God's Existence' | ASU News

There is a local professor who has come up with something he calls his "principle of clarity":

Anderson says there must be clarity in the traditional proofs of God’s existence if Christianity is to continue the claim that unbelief is a sin. Anderson introduces the principal of clarity – this says that if the failure to believing something results in maximum responsibility (as in the case of eternal separation from God), then it must be maximally knowable. This would require that all alternatives to belief are rationally impossible so that there is no excuse for believing them. In fact, the final chapter is devoted to a surface exploration of what must be done, in Anderson’s opinion, to show that it is clear that God exists.

After some conversation with a close friend of mine, who is taking a philosophy of religion class with Anderson, I've been thinking over some things and decided that perhaps his reasoning is not so kosher.

It seems to me that, through the conversations I've had with that friend, who seems to espouse the same views as Anderson, Anderson is asserting the following:

(1) People are going to be held accountable for not believing that God exists.
(2) If (1), then it needs to be clear, proportionately to the level of punishment, that God does exist.
I do not agree with 2. The punishment is to be proportionate to the crime, and the crime is high treason against the creator of the universe.
(3) People are rational beings and we operate using reason; thus, reason, properly used, must lead a person to the conclusion that God exists.
That presumes that man is not fallen in his reason. His reason is overruled by his sin, and so not only is man guilty of his treason, he also is guilty of (as your quote of Romans says) suppressing the truth. He stubbornly rejects what he knows to be true.
(4) By (3), there must be some sort of argument that deductively proves God's existence.
Romans says that men are without excuse. The testimony of creation is sufficient evidence for God's justice. We are not the ones to question his justice.
(5) If (4) is false, then people cannot be held accountable for their unbelief. There are other possibilities they could have plausibly held.
Who are you, oh man, to talk back to God? Will the thing formed say to he who formed it "why did you make me thus?" Does not the potter have the right ...."
(6) If (5) is true, then Christianity ought not make the claim that people can sin by unbelief.
Christians don't make the claim, Jesus does. Because he is the judge, jury, and executioner (and righteously so) it behooves those that will stand in the dock before him heed his admonition.
It may be I am misinterpreting him, because I haven't read the book and only know of his position through a friend, but I think this is basically it.

It seems that something here is not right, though. I can't put my finger quite on it, but I know something is not quite right.


Firstly, it seems to me that Paul teaches that God's existence is clearly perceived by the things created:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

My replies in place above in Blue. The thing you stated is part of it, Romans 9 contains enough to thoroughly put that error to bed. While you might not have put your finger on it, you were correct.

[quote=Brian Withnell;559346]

Originally Posted by steven-nemes

Assistant professor explores 'Clarity of God's Existence' | ASU News

There is a local professor who has come up with something he calls his "principle of clarity":

Anderson says there must be clarity in the traditional proofs of God’s existence if Christianity is to continue the claim that unbelief is a sin. Anderson introduces the principal of clarity – this says that if the failure to believing something results in maximum responsibility (as in the case of eternal separation from God), then it must be maximally knowable. This would require that all alternatives to belief are rationally impossible so that there is no excuse for believing them. In fact, the final chapter is devoted to a surface exploration of what must be done, in Anderson’s opinion, to show that it is clear that God exists.

After some conversation with a close friend of mine, who is taking a philosophy of religion class with Anderson, I've been thinking over some things and decided that perhaps his reasoning is not so kosher.

It seems to me that, through the conversations I've had with that friend, who seems to espouse the same views as Anderson, Anderson is asserting the following:

(1) People are going to be held accountable for not believing that God exists.
(2) If (1), then it needs to be clear, proportionately to the level of punishment, that God does exist.
I do not agree with 2. The punishment is to be proportionate to the crime, and the crime is high treason against the creator of the universe.

Do you believe that God's existence is not clear, or do you believe that it is clear but does not need to be? I would disagree with either position, but my arguments would change somewhat.

(3) People are rational beings and we operate using reason; thus, reason, properly used, must lead a person to the conclusion that God exists.
That presumes that man is not fallen in his reason. His reason is overruled by his sin, and so not only is man guilty of his treason, he also is guilty of (as your quote of Romans says) suppressing the truth. He stubbornly rejects what he knows to be true.

Suppression implies, that one does something that they know or should know is bad. Their rebellion against reason and against what is clear is the sin, not the result of it. The person cannot reply, "Sin made me do it".

(4) By (3), there must be some sort of argument that deductively proves God's existence.
Romans says that men are without excuse. The testimony of creation is sufficient evidence for God's justice. We are not the ones to question his justice.

If they are without excuse, then creation is clear about how to act and what to do.

(5) If (4) is false, then people cannot be held accountable for their unbelief. There are other possibilities they could have plausibly held.
Who are you, oh man, to talk back to God? Will the thing formed say to he who formed it "why did you make me thus?" Does not the potter have the right ...."

Romans is a book, and Romans 9 comes after Romans 1. Romans 1 establishes the context for understanding Romans 9.

(6) If (5) is true, then Christianity ought not make the claim that people can sin by unbelief.
Christians don't make the claim, Jesus does. Because he is the judge, jury, and executioner (and righteously so) it behooves those that will stand in the dock before him heed his admonition.

Many make the claim to either be God or have a word from God. One has to decide who to trust. If that person makes a claim that contradicts General Revelation, then we are going to have issues.

I've kind of lost track of the discussion, so I will simply reply in points because a) I don't feel like re-reading the thread and b) I feel some of the points went awry into other discussions and c) I want to propose new ideas.

I claim the following:

(1) No one will be sent to Hell for unbelief because no one actually doesn't believe in God. Everyone clearly perceives and knows that God exists; that their external behavior and personal testimony says otherwise means nothing, for it is precisely the secrets of the heart that will be the judgment of men at the final day, not their external testimony (or at least not exclusively their external testimony).
(2) God can hold someone responsible for not believing in him even if it is not 100% clear that he exists. Surely God's motives for Abraham sacrificing Isaac were not entirely clear to Abraham; for all intents and purposes, I think it could be said that Abraham could see no reason that God had for killing Isaac; yet, God surely could have held Abraham responsible for not listening. For after all, God is the standard of fairness and justice, not our subjective impressions and feelings. Perhaps God wants us to believe he exists even though it is not entirely clear and there are perhaps other plausible explanations of the universe (or at least they seem plausible relative to our fallen and sin-inclined rational faculties; in reality of course they are not)... So, all the same, God could hold a person responsible for not believing in him, even though it was completely clear that he does exist, because surely God gives man this impulse to believe in him (he has written eternity on their hearts, or however it goes), but out of their sinfulness, they distort the image and attributes of the God that has made them, or externally testify that they don't believe in him at all (although they are liars).

Suppression implies, that one does something that they know or should know is bad. Their rebellion against reason and against what is clear is the sin, not the result of it. The person cannot reply, "Sin made me do it".

Their rebellion against reason? What do you mean here? That a human being come into the world properly using reason would come to the conclusion that God exists? Where is there support of this in scripture?

My reply:

He presupposes that people are rational beings and this colors his approach. Where does he get this maxim? People are obviously not rational beings, as is exemplified by our legal system, the need for government, the need for punishment and laws regarding right and wrong, etc., etc., etc. It is clear, quite contrary to what he espouses, that people are not rational, ergo even if a maximally knowable logical proof for God exists, then people cannot necessarily know it at all, if any.

Maximally knowable proof for God's existence exists, but people ignore it. People are without an excuse, because nature itself bears witness of God's existence.

Originally Posted by Zenas

My reply:

He presupposes that people are rational beings and this colors his approach. Where does he get this maxim? People are obviously not rational beings, as is exemplified by our legal system, the need for government, the need for punishment and laws regarding right and wrong, etc., etc., etc. It is clear, quite contrary to what he espouses, that people are not rational, ergo even if a maximally knowable logical proof for God exists, then people cannot necessarily know it at all, if any.

Maximally knowable proof for God's existence exists, but people ignore it. People are without an excuse, because nature itself bears witness of God's existence.

I have also considered what you've written; I wouldn't know how to argue it and how to prove that the "need for government", etc., entail people not being rational. I suppose it would help to know what a "rational being" is, though nonetheless, I think you've also got a good point.

I didn't think of that, but that's another problem with his argument; he never defines rational being or how he determines it.

Originally Posted by steven-nemes

I've kind of lost track of the discussion, so I will simply reply in points because a) I don't feel like re-reading the thread and b) I feel some of the points went awry into other discussions and c) I want to propose new ideas.

Dude, there are two posts since my last reply to you on Friday. It is not like there have been pages and pages of discussion since you last posted.

I claim the following:

(1) No one will be sent to Hell for unbelief because no one actually doesn't believe in God. Everyone clearly perceives and knows that God exists; that their external behavior and personal testimony says otherwise means nothing, for it is precisely the secrets of the heart that will be the judgment of men at the final day, not their external testimony (or at least not exclusively their external testimony).

On what basis do you make this claim? The existence of God being clear and everyone believing that God exists do not necessarily go together. Either one can say that everyone believes or one can say that everyone should believe.

If someone's external testimony says otherwise, then why do you believe in spite of this?

(2) God can hold someone responsible for not believing in him even if it is not 100% clear that he exists. Surely God's motives for Abraham sacrificing Isaac were not entirely clear to Abraham; for all intents and purposes, I think it could be said that Abraham could see no reason that God had for killing Isaac; yet, God surely could have held Abraham responsible for not listening.

Your example helps my claim. The reason that Abraham could be held responsible is by knowing that God exists, and that it was God that told him to sacrifice Isaac.

For after all, God is the standard of fairness and justice, not our subjective impressions and feelings. Perhaps God wants us to believe he exists even though it is not entirely clear and there are perhaps other plausible explanations of the universe (or at least they seem plausible relative to our fallen and sin-inclined rational faculties; in reality of course they are not)... So, all the same, God could hold a person responsible for not believing in him, even though it was completely clear that he does exist, because surely God gives man this impulse to believe in him (he has written eternity on their hearts, or however it goes), but out of their sinfulness, they distort the image and attributes of the God that has made them, or externally testify that they don't believe in him at all (although they are liars).

The reason that people are held responsible for things is because they either know better or should know better. If neither holds, then people would call the punishment unjust.

Even your rebuttal continues to return to the fact that people should know better.

Suppression implies, that one does something that they know or should know is bad. Their rebellion against reason and against what is clear is the sin, not the result of it. The person cannot reply, "Sin made me do it".

Their rebellion against reason? What do you mean here? That a human being come into the world properly using reason would come to the conclusion that God exists? Where is there support of this in scripture?

I would just say that reason is something that one is simply born with (an inborn faculty). One uses it before one takes a single logic course etc.

To put it simply, everyone has various experiences. Those experiences should be interpreted as proof of God's existence. If they are not, then it is failing on the person's part to properly interpret the evidence/ use reason. Now the reason for such is their rebellion against God and the faculties that he has granted us to use.

CT

-----Added 3/2/2009 at 07:38:48 EST-----

Originally Posted by Zenas

My reply:

He presupposes that people are rational beings and this colors his approach. Where does he get this maxim? People are obviously not rational beings, as is exemplified by our legal system, the need for government, the need for punishment and laws regarding right and wrong, etc., etc., etc. It is clear, quite contrary to what he espouses, that people are not rational, ergo even if a maximally knowable logical proof for God exists, then people cannot necessarily know it at all, if any.

Because people fail to reason clearly concerning various issues, does not imply that they are not rational. Giving an argument implies that one assumes that other people are rational and can be convinced by good argumentation. If one does not assume such, then why waste your breathe?

Maximally knowable proof for God's existence exists, but people ignore it. People are without an excuse, because nature itself bears witness of God's existence.

Amen.

CT

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Originally Posted by Brian Withnell

I do not agree with 2. The punishment is to be proportionate to the crime, and the crime is high treason against the creator of the universe.

Do you believe that God's existence is not clear, or do you believe that it is clear but does not need to be? I would disagree with either position, but my arguments would change somewhat.

I would not agree with either of those positions, what I was saying is that it is sufficiently clear that men are without excuse. This was addressing the level of punishment is related to the crime, not the level of clarity.

In one sense, it would not need to be clear ... ignorance of the law is no excuse even in our earthly courts, but that is not the issue with God ... he has made himself known to a sufficient degree (by the statement of his own word) so that men are without excuse.

There is a very logical argument for this: Suppose condemnation required knowledge of God. Suppose knowledge of God requires someone to be at least 1 year of age. The conclusion for a merciful person would be to kill everyone before they reached 1 year old in order to prevent them from entering eternal judgment. It is obviously wrong to kill babies, yet that would be the most merciful thing to do to those that are not elect (you would in essence be forcing God's hand to save those you killed that would otherwise not have been elect, giving them a "get out of hell free" card. Absurd argument that shows the premise is false. God is just in condemning us for original sin. We are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners. We are conceived in sin, and have as our nature the sin nature apart from the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit.

Suppression implies, that one does something that they know or should know is bad. Their rebellion against reason and against what is clear is the sin, not the result of it. The person cannot reply, "Sin made me do it".

Rebellion is the sin, and all actions (or inactions) that result from it.

Q. 14. What is sin?
A. Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God. (WSC)

God is the one stating that men are without excuse ... and he said the reprobate are without excuse.

If they are without excuse, then creation is clear about how to act and what to do.

Within certain limits, it is, but not sufficiently that men would be able to leave their state of rebellion. Nobody is owed the opportunity to be saved. We all, in Adam, became worthy of death and hell. We all became incapable of any fruition of salvation apart from the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit. We are dead in sins ... not just sick, not just disabled and in need of help, but dead and incapable of anything accompanying salvation. It is only through the work of the Holy Spirit quickening us to be able to respond that we come to Christ and are saved, and that by the sovereign act of God grace.

Romans is a book, and Romans 9 comes after Romans 1. Romans 1 establishes the context for understanding Romans 9.

(6) If (5) is true, then Christianity ought not make the claim that people can sin by unbelief.
Christians don't make the claim, Jesus does. Because he is the judge, jury, and executioner (and righteously so) it behooves those that will stand in the dock before him heed his admonition.

Many make the claim to either be God or have a word from God. One has to decide who to trust. If that person makes a claim that contradicts General Revelation, then we are going to have issues.

I would have problems with anyone that claims to be God or have a word from God other than the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; or those that have the Bible and say they have the Word of God (even as all who have the Bible have the Word of God. I have a problem with someone claiming anything that contradicts either Special Revelation (the Bible) or General Revelation.

Dude, there are two posts since my last reply to you on Friday. It is not like there have been pages and pages of discussion since you last posted.

This is true, but nonetheless the discussion has gone away from where I currently waned to take it.

On what basis do you make this claim? The existence of God being clear and everyone believing that God exists do not necessarily go together. Either one can say that everyone believes or one can say that everyone should believe.

I make this claim on the basis of my understanding of Romans 1. Paul clearly teaches that people suppress the truth in unrighteousness; suppression implies apprehension first.

If someone's external testimony says otherwise, then why do you believe in spite of this?

I trust scripture and Paul's assertions that people all over know God over person X's external testimony about their belief in God, that's why. I just so happens that I give more authority to scripture than other people's testimony.

Your example helps my claim. The reason that Abraham could be held responsible is by knowing that God exists, and that it was God that told him to sacrifice Isaac.

I think you misunderstood. I am saying that at that time in history, Abraham was going to be held morally responsible for going to the mountain to sacrifice Isaac. All other factors are irrelevant in this scenario. The reasons to listen to God and sacrifice Isaac may not have been clear at all to Abraham; it may have even seemed to him that perhaps God has no reason (that Abraham could comprehend) for commanding Abraham to kill his son. Nonetheless, God would still have been just for condemning Abraham in not sacrificing his son.

Now, just as God could have held Abraham responsible for not sacrificing Isaac despite the fact Abraham could perhaps not see any reason to or the reasons were not clear, God, therefore, can also hold people responsible for not believing in him (assuming it is possible that a person might truly not believe there is a god) even though the reasons to do so are not clear, meaning that, for example, a deductive proof of his existence is not capable of being formulated (given the limitations of human reason, or what have you), or perhaps people's sin-inclined reasoning faculties cause them to think that other explanations of the facts are more plausible or more enticing (relative to themselves).

Is this a valid analogy?

The reason that people are held responsible for things is because they either know better or should know better. If neither holds, then people would call the punishment unjust.

But surely it doesn't matter that people call God unjust, right? "Who are you, o man, to answer back to God?"

Even your rebuttal continues to return to the fact that people should know better.

When have I said that people do not know better? Clearly people know better. Paul says so. He says they know God's decree against people who commit such things (speaking of various sexual sins, etc.), yet still do it.

To put it simply, everyone has various experiences. Those experiences should be interpreted as proof of God's existence. If they are not, then it is failing on the person's part to properly interpret the evidence/ use reason. Now the reason for such is their rebellion against God and the faculties that he has granted us to use.

Is their misinterpretation of the evidence simply a free act of the will? Did they simply choose to take the argument (which was produced in their minds perfectly fine and clear) and switch a premise or two to change the conclusion? And then possibly after having reached this new conclusion, which they tainted on their own, free of coercion, they espouse it publicly and go on to profess they believe it, etc., despite knowing otherwise?

Originally Posted by Brian Withnell

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Originally Posted by Brian Withnell

I do not agree with 2. The punishment is to be proportionate to the crime, and the crime is high treason against the creator of the universe.

Do you believe that God's existence is not clear, or do you believe that it is clear but does not need to be? I would disagree with either position, but my arguments would change somewhat.

I would not agree with either of those positions, what I was saying is that it is sufficiently clear that men are without excuse. This was addressing the level of punishment is related to the crime, not the level of clarity.

If you agree that it is clear enough so that there is no excuse, for the most part we will agree.

In one sense, it would not need to be clear ... ignorance of the law is no excuse even in our earthly courts, but that is not the issue with God ... he has made himself known to a sufficient degree (by the statement of his own word) so that men are without excuse.

Ignorance is not an excuse if one "should" have known. Otherwise it is a defense.

There is a very logical argument for this: Suppose condemnation required knowledge of God. Suppose knowledge of God requires someone to be at least 1 year of age. The conclusion for a merciful person would be to kill everyone before they reached 1 year old in order to prevent them from entering eternal judgment. It is obviously wrong to kill babies, yet that would be the most merciful thing to do to those that are not elect (you would in essence be forcing God's hand to save those you killed that would otherwise not have been elect, giving them a "get out of hell free" card. Absurd argument that shows the premise is false. God is just in condemning us for original sin. We are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners. We are conceived in sin, and have as our nature the sin nature apart from the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit.[/COLOR]

As I said, condemnation does not require knowledge. If this particular line of thought is something you wish to press, then you can bring it up in a reply.

Suppression implies, that one does something that they know or should know is bad. Their rebellion against reason and against what is clear is the sin, not the result of it. The person cannot reply, "Sin made me do it".

Rebellion is the sin, and all actions (or inactions) that result from it.
God is the one stating that men are without excuse ... and he said the reprobate are without excuse.

Are you disagreeing with me or what?

If they are without excuse, then creation is clear about how to act and what to do.

Within certain limits, it is, but not sufficiently that men would be able to leave their state of rebellion. Nobody is owed the opportunity to be saved. We all, in Adam, became worthy of death and hell. We all became incapable of any fruition of salvation apart from the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit. We are dead in sins ... not just sick, not just disabled and in need of help, but dead and incapable of anything accompanying salvation. It is only through the work of the Holy Spirit quickening us to be able to respond that we come to Christ and are saved, and that by the sovereign act of God grace.

My point here is that the problem is not some outside force holding us back from serving God. We do not want to serve God, and therefore we do not. If we wanted to serve God, then we would. No one wants to serve God, until they are regenerated by God's grace.

(6) If (5) is true, then Christianity ought not make the claim that people can sin by unbelief.
Christians don't make the claim, Jesus does. Because he is the judge, jury, and executioner (and righteously so) it behooves those that will stand in the dock before him heed his admonition.

Many make the claim to either be God or have a word from God. One has to decide who to trust. If that person makes a claim that contradicts General Revelation, then we are going to have issues.

I would have problems with anyone that claims to be God or have a word from God other than the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; or those that have the Bible and say they have the Word of God (even as all who have the Bible have the Word of God. I have a problem with someone claiming anything that contradicts either Special Revelation (the Bible) or General Revelation.

My point here is that is that any one can make a claim about almost anything. We are going to have to evaluate that claim and either say that it is true or false. If one is going to be an apologist, then one is going to have to be able to do better, than "such and such contradicts the Bible", for our opponents are going to ask, so what?

I think "believing" is more a matter of the heart than of rational faculties.

"...those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved." (2 Thess. 2:10).

"The light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil." (John 3:19).

"...because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie..." (Rom. 1:25).

"Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God.... None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory... these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit." (1 Cor. 1:6-10).

"Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my father who is in heaven." (Matth. 16:17).

"If anyone's will is to do God's will, he will know whether the teaching is from God." (John 7:17).

I understand that God's truth operates on our reason, but I think the whole enterprise of trying to "prove" the existence of God, by reason alone, is misplaced. The "will to do God's will" comes before recognition of the truth.

Originally Posted by steven-nemes

Dude, there are two posts since my last reply to you on Friday. It is not like there have been pages and pages of discussion since you last posted.

This is true, but nonetheless the discussion has gone away from where I currently waned to take it.

Okay.

On what basis do you make this claim? The existence of God being clear and everyone believing that God exists do not necessarily go together. Either one can say that everyone believes or one can say that everyone should believe.

I make this claim on the basis of my understanding of Romans 1. Paul clearly teaches that people suppress the truth in unrighteousness; suppression implies apprehension first.

Well there is apprehension/knowledge of something. God's attributes and his wrath are clear. The question is which god are those attributes and wrath pointing towards. Islam etc. make the claim that it is pointing to the god spoke of in the Koran. I see Paul as making the claim that if you equate the various false gods as being the God revealed in General Revelation, then you are without excuse.

I trust scripture and Paul's assertions that people all over know God over person X's external testimony about their belief in God, that's why. I just so happens that I give more authority to scripture than other people's testimony.

You should trust scripture, since you believe it to be God's Word. But the question is what do you say to people who either are not sure there is a God at all or are not sure that the Bible is His Word?

I think you misunderstood. I am saying that at that time in history, Abraham was going to be held morally responsible for going to the mountain to sacrifice Isaac. All other factors are irrelevant in this scenario. The reasons to listen to God and sacrifice Isaac may not have been clear at all to Abraham; it may have even seemed to him that perhaps God has no reason (that Abraham could comprehend) for commanding Abraham to kill his son. Nonetheless, God would still have been just for condemning Abraham in not sacrificing his son.

Actually all I need for my position is that one knows that God exists and that God is speaking. That you do not/cannot understand the implication of everything that he says if fine (and to be expected). The biggest question is how to know that God exists and that God is speaking to you, versus the devil in disguise?

Now, just as God could have held Abraham responsible for not sacrificing Isaac despite the fact Abraham could perhaps not see any reason to or the reasons were not clear, God, therefore, can also hold people responsible for not believing in him (assuming it is possible that a person might truly not believe there is a god) even though the reasons to do so are not clear, meaning that, for example, a deductive proof of his existence is not capable of being formulated (given the limitations of human reason, or what have you), or perhaps people's sin-inclined reasoning faculties cause them to think that other explanations of the facts are more plausible or more enticing (relative to themselves).

Is this a valid analogy?

I do not think it is the sin-inclined reasoning faculties, it is the rebellion against proper use of working reasoning faculties.

But surely it doesn't matter that people call God unjust, right? "Who are you, o man, to answer back to God?"

The problem here is that sort of argumentation only works for someone who already accepts that the Bible is God's Word. If one does not already do so, then why should someone accept such when they already know the concept of Justice from General Revelation. You would be telling them to ignore general revelation and believe the Bible, because you say so?

Even your rebuttal continues to return to the fact that people should know better.

When have I said that people do not know better? Clearly people know better. Paul says so. He says they know God's decree against people who commit such things (speaking of various sexual sins, etc.), yet still do it.

Okay, so the question is what are you going to say to those who do not already accept the Bible. Take a leap of faith?

To put it simply, everyone has various experiences. Those experiences should be interpreted as proof of God's existence. If they are not, then it is failing on the person's part to properly interpret the evidence/ use reason. Now the reason for such is their rebellion against God and the faculties that he has granted us to use.

Is their misinterpretation of the evidence simply a free act of the will? Did they simply choose to take the argument (which was produced in their minds perfectly fine and clear) and switch a premise or two to change the conclusion? And then possibly after having reached this new conclusion, which they tainted on their own, free of coercion, they espouse it publicly and go on to profess they believe it, etc., despite knowing otherwise?

The rebellion is shown when someone does not take the time to think and see that which is clear. When all signs point to all false religions being wrong and that is not taken to mean that one needs to continue to look to find the truth; that is a sign of rebellion.

CT

-----Added 3/4/2009 at 05:13:41 EST-----

Originally Posted by louis_jp

I think "believing" is more a matter of the heart than of rational faculties.

"...those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved." (2 Thess. 2:10).

"The light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil." (John 3:19).

"...because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie..." (Rom. 1:25).

"Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God.... None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory... these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit." (1 Cor. 1:6-10).

"Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my father who is in heaven." (Matth. 16:17).

"If anyone's will is to do God's will, he will know whether the teaching is from God." (John 7:17).

I understand that God's truth operates on our reason, but I think the whole enterprise of trying to "prove" the existence of God, by reason alone, is misplaced. The "will to do God's will" comes before recognition of the truth.

I can agree with everything that you say here and say that point of proving God's existence is just to demonstrate what Paul says in Romans 1, that people are without excuse. If they want to know the true God, then they would know the true God. They just do not want to do so.

CT

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Well there is apprehension/knowledge of something. God's attributes and his wrath are clear. The question is which god are those attributes and wrath pointing towards. Islam etc. make the claim that it is pointing to the god spoke of in the Koran. I see Paul as making the claim that if you equate the various false gods as being the God revealed in General Revelation, then you are without excuse.

Ok, sounds good I guess

You should trust scripture, since you believe it to be God's Word. But the question is what do you say to people who either are not sure there is a God at all or are not sure that the Bible is His Word?

Basically, why should any one believe the Bible? Why is Christianity true? Is that the argument, then?

Actually all I need for my position is that one knows that God exists and that God is speaking. That you do not/cannot understand the implication of everything that he says if fine (and to be expected). The biggest question is how to know that God exists and that God is speaking to you, versus the devil in disguise?

I do not think it is the sin-inclined reasoning faculties, it is the rebellion against proper use of working reasoning faculties.

Are you saying that the reasoning faculties are not sin-inclined?

The problem here is that sort of argumentation only works for someone who already accepts that the Bible is God's Word. If one does not already do so, then why should someone accept such when they already know the concept of Justice from General Revelation. You would be telling them to ignore general revelation and believe the Bible, because you say so?

I don't think there is any such "concept of justice" from general revelation; the notion that God cannot do what he wills with his creation is not something that God would reveal in his creation, I should say rather it is the product of selfish sin-inclined cognitive faculties.

Okay, so the question is what are you going to say to those who do not already accept the Bible. Take a leap of faith?

Natural theology? Presuppositional argumentation? Appeal to force?

The rebellion is shown when someone does not take the time to think and see that which is clear. When all signs point to all false religions being wrong and that is not taken to mean that one needs to continue to look to find the truth; that is a sign of rebellion.

Okay, so do they know that all others are wrong and one is true, and continue anyway?

You should trust scripture, since you believe it to be God's Word. But the question is what do you say to people who either are not sure there is a God at all or are not sure that the Bible is His Word?

Basically, why should any one believe the Bible? Why is Christianity true? Is that the argument, then?

It is a question that we should be prepared to answer.

Are you saying that the reasoning faculties are not sin-inclined?

I would say that the reasoning faculties is not fallen, it is the will to use them properly that is fallen. For example, I can still identify contradictory premises, however in some areas I do not want to search certain things as contradictory and false, even thought I have the ability to do so.

I don't think there is any such "concept of justice" from general revelation; the notion that God cannot do what he wills with his creation is not something that God would reveal in his creation, I should say rather it is the product of selfish sin-inclined cognitive faculties.

So no one knows about justice until they see/read/understand a Bible? To understand that God's wrath is against you due to your evil and that he is just to be angry and wrathful means that the person understands the concept of justice.

Now someone can misunderstand/misapply the concept in various situations, but that does not defeat the clarity of the concept.

Let us use an example, let us say that God decides that everyone alive today and in the future is going to go to hell, irregardless of regeneration, justification, and his promises in the Bible otherwise. Would that be just?

Okay, so the question is what are you going to say to those who do not already accept the Bible. Take a leap of faith?

Natural theology? Presuppositional argumentation? Appeal to force?

You are definitely going to have to say something to justify your standing on the Bible as true. Otherwise, it would become fideistic.

The rebellion is shown when someone does not take the time to think and see that which is clear. When all signs point to all false religions being wrong and that is not taken to mean that one needs to continue to look to find the truth; that is a sign of rebellion.

Okay, so do they know that all others are wrong and one is true, and continue anyway?

No, they do not have to know that. But if they wanted to know, they could. That really seems to be what Paul is saying in Romans 1, when he says that unbelievers are without excuse.

CT

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

It is a question that we should be prepared to answer.

Well, thank you Prof. Anderson for letting us know!

I would say that the reasoning faculties is not fallen, it is the will to use them properly that is fallen. For example, I can still identify contradictory premises, however in some areas I do not want to search certain things as contradictory and false, even thought I have the ability to do so.

Are you saying, then, that there is no effect on the physical faculties and mental faculties of human beings by sin? That simply the person's will is toward evil?

So no one knows about justice until they see/read/understand a Bible? To understand that God's wrath is against you due to your evil and that he is just to be angry and wrathful means that the person understands the concept of justice.

No; they don't need to read/see/understand the Bible to understand that God has the right to do as he wishes with his creation. I would say they already comprehend the fact; they simply act otherwise until they "forget it"; it's not always at the forefront of their mind but occasionally brought out (like other concepts and such, like belief in God, for example) in certain circumstances under certain conditions.

Let us use an example, let us say that God decides that everyone alive today and in the future is going to go to hell, irregardless of regeneration, justification, and his promises in the Bible otherwise. Would that be just?

No, and not from my own standards of right and wrong, but from God's very own standards. Cause God cannot lie; if he has made a promise to be a blessing to the nations through Abraham, and that he will make for himself a people born of the water and spirit, and so on and so forth, he would be acting contrary to his revealed nature. He'd be lying; and he cannot lie, says Paul.

No, they do not have to know that. But if they wanted to know, they could. That really seems to be what Paul is saying in Romans 1, when he says that unbelievers are without excuse.

That doesn't seem to me as what Paul is teaching; I should think Paul is saying that everyone clearly knows that all other religions, conceptions of God, etc., are all false, but continue in them because of their lusts, etc. Although your interpretation is interesting to me.

Originally Posted by steven-nemes

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

It is a question that we should be prepared to answer.

Well, thank you Prof. Anderson for letting us know!

I only stated it that way, because it seems like you have not put forward much in this thread concerning the move from general revelation to special revelation.

I would say that the reasoning faculties is not fallen, it is the will to use them properly that is fallen. For example, I can still identify contradictory premises, however in some areas I do not want to search certain things as contradictory and false, even thought I have the ability to do so.

Are you saying, then, that there is no effect on the physical faculties and mental faculties of human beings by sin? That simply the person's will is toward evil?

Let us assume some measure of mental faculty diminishing, even with that diminishing, a person's reasoning ability is good enough to leave them without excuse for accepting a false religion, for acting immorally etc.

No; they don't need to read/see/understand the Bible to understand that God has the right to do as he wishes with his creation. I would say they already comprehend the fact; they simply act otherwise until they "forget it"; it's not always at the forefront of their mind but occasionally brought out (like other concepts and such, like belief in God, for example) in certain circumstances under certain conditions.

I guess the problem is that you seem to be implying that general revelation does not reveal that God is justified in his wrath due to unrighteousness. If you agree with this, then we are pretty much on the same page.

Let us use an example, let us say that God decides that everyone alive today and in the future is going to go to hell, irregardless of regeneration, justification, and his promises in the Bible otherwise. Would that be just?

No, and not from my own standards of right and wrong, but from God's very own standards. Cause God cannot lie; if he has made a promise to be a blessing to the nations through Abraham, and that he will make for himself a people born of the water and spirit, and so on and so forth, he would be acting contrary to his revealed nature. He'd be lying; and he cannot lie, says Paul.

So you know those things by General Revelation? If you say no, then you have a problem of getting a person to buy into the Biblical version of special revelation, as opposed to various other versions.

Or put another way, why should person X believe what Paul has to say about God versus what anyone else says in contradiction?

No, they do not have to know that. But if they wanted to know, they could. That really seems to be what Paul is saying in Romans 1, when he says that unbelievers are without excuse.

That doesn't seem to me as what Paul is teaching; I should think Paul is saying that everyone clearly knows that all other religions, conceptions of God, etc., are all false, but continue in them because of their lusts, etc. Although your interpretation is interesting to me.

Well Paul says God's attributes and wrath are revealed. You can accept those things without also accepting that all other non Christian Theistic religions are false.

Also one can be without excuse without knowing that the God of the Bible is the true and only God.

CT

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

I only stated it that way, because it seems like you have not put forward much in this thread concerning the move from general revelation to special revelation.

I didn't know we were talking about special revelation here; I thought that I asked whether or not God's existence must be capable of being formulated into a deductive proof for it to really be maximally clear.

Let us assume some measure of mental faculty diminishing, even with that diminishing, a person's reasoning ability is good enough to leave them without excuse for accepting a false religion, for acting immorally etc.

I don't mean that the effects sin has on the mental faculties simply diminish their quality a bit; I mean, do you think sin corrupts the mental faculties so that they produce beliefs that are completely false and tend towards evil?

I guess the problem is that you seem to be implying that general revelation does not reveal that God is justified in his wrath due to unrighteousness. If you agree with this, then we are pretty much on the same page.

(1) General revelation does not reveal that God is justified in his wrath towards the unrighteous.

I'm supposed to agree to that? Seems to me that since (1) everyone knows what they do is sin and (2) everyone knows God exists and (3) everyone agrees that evil ought to be punished, then (4) through general revelation, everyone knows that God is justified in the destruction of the wicked by way of hurricanes or tornadoes or eternal punishment, or what have you. Of course this knowledge might not be on the "surface", so to speak, but surely they know these things even if they are not aware of it or would deny it.

So you know those things by General Revelation? If you say no, then you have a problem of getting a person to buy into the Biblical version of special revelation, as opposed to various other versions.

Or put another way, why should person X believe what Paul has to say about God versus what anyone else says in contradiction?

Well, let's see. Does general revelation reveal that God is moral? If it does, then I can assume that God would never lie. I might not know that God made a promise to Abraham to save certain peoples, but if I did ever come across that knowledge, using the knowledge I already have of God's righteousness by way of general revelation, I could know that God could not be just in breaking a promise.

Well Paul says God's attributes and wrath are revealed. You can accept those things without also accepting that all other non Christian Theistic religions are false.

Are you saying this:

(1) God's attributes, include his moral and demanding nature, his great power, his intelligence, etc., are revealed in nature.
(2) The fact that all other conceptions of God are false is not revealed in nature.

Originally Posted by steven-nemes

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

I only stated it that way, because it seems like you have not put forward much in this thread concerning the move from general revelation to special revelation.

I didn't know we were talking about special revelation here; I thought that I asked whether or not God's existence must be capable of being formulated into a deductive proof for it to really be maximally clear.

It started out there, but your responses and attempted rebuttal have attempted to use special revelation to bolster your case. You can do that but first have to justify its use.

Let us assume some measure of mental faculty diminishing, even with that diminishing, a person's reasoning ability is good enough to leave them without excuse for accepting a false religion, for acting immorally etc.

I don't mean that the effects sin has on the mental faculties simply diminish their quality a bit; I mean, do you think sin corrupts the mental faculties so that they produce beliefs that are completely false and tend towards evil?

I have two points/comments here:

1)What is the downside of putting the problem in the area of the will to see clearly things that are clear vs. the mental faculties being diminished to the point of things just not being clear.

2)Romans 1 seems to rebut the view you are putting forth, at least as far as God's existence and rightful condemnation of our sinful behavior is concerned. Your position seems to imply that I have excuse for not seeing the clear existence of God and that the God of the Bible is that God revealed in General Revelation because my mind is messing up due to my fallen state.

We must remember that Romans was written to people in a fallen state.

(1) General revelation does not reveal that God is justified in his wrath towards the unrighteous.

I'm supposed to agree to that? Seems to me that since (1) everyone knows what they do is sin and (2) everyone knows God exists and (3) everyone agrees that evil ought to be punished, then (4) through general revelation, everyone knows that God is justified in the destruction of the wicked by way of hurricanes or tornadoes or eternal punishment, or what have you. Of course this knowledge might not be on the "surface", so to speak, but surely they know these things even if they are not aware of it or would deny it.

The statement of mine that you replied to was a bit unclear. I was attempting to say that "your position seems to imply that that Paul said was in General Revelation is not in general revelation".

On your point 2)everyone knows God exists, what do you mean here? What is being claimed that people know?

Next, if you accept that people do not have to know things in order to be responsible, then what exactly do you gain by claiming that they know even when they do not know that they know?

So you know those things by General Revelation? If you say no, then you have a problem of getting a person to buy into the Biblical version of special revelation, as opposed to various other versions.

Or put another way, why should person X believe what Paul has to say about God versus what anyone else says in contradiction?

Well, let's see. Does general revelation reveal that God is moral? If it does, then I can assume that God would never lie. I might not know that God made a promise to Abraham to save certain peoples, but if I did ever come across that knowledge, using the knowledge I already have of God's righteousness by way of general revelation, I could know that God could not be just in breaking a promise.

My reasoning here was to attack the "not my own standard but instead God's standard which is revealed in the Bible position", which seems to be your position. There are certain "standards" revealed in General Revelation, that if something claims to be Special Revelation but rejects these standards, then it can itself be rejected. If this was not the case, then various other religions could just say, "Don't trust your own understanding, but instead believe what is spoken in this book"; and we could not rebut it.

I would say that you do not need to know special revelation to know that God does not lie. That is part of our concept of righteousness, justice etc. A special revelation that revealed a god who lied etc. could be rejected out of hand.

Well Paul says God's attributes and wrath are revealed. You can accept those things without also accepting that all other non Christian Theistic religions are false.

Are you saying this:

(1) God's attributes, include his moral and demanding nature, his great power, his intelligence, etc., are revealed in nature.
(2) The fact that all other conceptions of God are false is not revealed in nature.

Nope, what I am saying that general revelation does not reveal: "At some point in history, there will be a language called English and if you hear of someone who calls themselves by the English word 'Mormon', then you should reject what they have to say."

Instead given God's clearly revealed attributes, you are going to have to decide what claim to special revelation matches the revealed attributes. Now if you run into a Mormon attempting to proselytize you, then you can either accept what they say or reject it. If you accept it, then you are without excuse.

CT

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

It started out there, but your responses and attempted rebuttal have attempted to use special revelation to bolster your case. You can do that but first have to justify its use.

I attempted to use special revelation in the course of this discussion? If I did I don't remember it....

I have two points/comments here:

1)What is the downside of putting the problem in the area of the will to see clearly things that are clear vs. the mental faculties being diminished to the point of things just not being clear.

It seems to me that if it is simply a person not wanting to "see" that God exists, his commandments are binding on me, etc., it implies that he is able to see and respond, etc., of his own free will, and firstly I disagree with that; secondly, for him to simply "ignore" the evidence before him doesn't seem to me to be what Paul is saying the unbeliever does; I think Paul says that the unbeliever clearly grasps and comprehends the existence of God, but still doesn't listen.

2)Romans 1 seems to rebut the view you are putting forth, at least as far as God's existence and rightful condemnation of our sinful behavior is concerned. Your position seems to imply that I have excuse for not seeing the clear existence of God and that the God of the Bible is that God revealed in General Revelation because my mind is messing up due to my fallen state.

No, I don't mean to say that. Though perhaps my position could use some refinement, and possibly I have been refining/changing it over the course of the discussion.

Let's say this. Upon coming into the world, a person clearly grasps that God exists, that his moral law is binding on me, that I do things that are sinful though I know I will be punished for them, etc. All these things are the "inputs" from external universe, and the cognitive faculties apprehend them and hold onto them all the time, at a subconscious level; but, because the faculties are tainted by sin, they produce beliefs, opinions, etc., that are improper given the "inputs"; for example, they might see that God exists, but given certain dispositions the person and his faculties have, inclination towards sin for example, they might produce the belief that God does not exist, or that there is no moral law binding on all people, etc. The truth, then, is clearly perceived by the unbeliever, but the end products, because of his disposition towards sin, are contradictory, sinful, etc.

On your point 2)everyone knows God exists, what do you mean here? What is being claimed that people know?

Next, if you accept that people do not have to know things in order to be responsible, then what exactly do you gain by claiming that they know even when they do not know that they know?

I claim that when everyone knows that God exists, I mean that there is this proposition "God exists" that everyone has somewhere in or at the base of their cognitive structure, let's say, that they believe in. T

My reasoning here was to attack the "not my own standard but instead God's standard which is revealed in the Bible position", which seems to be your position. There are certain "standards" revealed in General Revelation, that if something claims to be Special Revelation but rejects these standards, then it can itself be rejected. If this was not the case, then various other religions could just say, "Don't trust your own understanding, but instead believe what is spoken in this book"; and we could not rebut it.

I would say that you do not need to know special revelation to know that God does not lie. That is part of our concept of righteousness, justice etc. A special revelation that revealed a god who lied etc. could be rejected out of hand.

I think that's about what I said...

Nope, what I am saying that general revelation does not reveal: "At some point in history, there will be a language called English and if you hear of someone who calls themselves by the English word 'Mormon', then you should reject what they have to say."

Instead given God's clearly revealed attributes, you are going to have to decide what claim to special revelation matches the revealed attributes. Now if you run into a Mormon attempting to proselytize you, then you can either accept what they say or reject it. If you accept it, then you are without excuse.

Ok, sure I would agree with that; but let's say, just for fun, someone proposes to use Fristianity, a religion identical Calvinist Christianity except that God is composed of four persons as opposed to three. Would you be guilty for accepting Fristianity?

-----Added 3/7/2009 at 04:52:25 EST-----

I will tell you what; I will need to develop a better opinion on the matter; it seems to me I've been making slight changes in my position or perhaps defining terms kind of weakly.

I will have to get back to you on the topic.