Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
-
Upload
marcos-blanco -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
1/48
Theistic Proofs of Gods
Existence and NaturalTheology
Doctrine of God
Marcos Blanco
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
2/48
Theistic Proofs of Gods
Existence The proofs for the existence of God are withinthe discipline known as the philosophy of
religion. They offer arguments for the
existence of God.
It began in ancient Greek philosophythat is,some 2,500 years agoand continues to this
day. In Book X of Platos Laws(fourth centuryBC) there is the first recorded version of what
we now call the cosmological argument for the
existence of God.
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
3/48
Theistic Proofs of Gods
ExistenceAlthough many philosophy of religion scholars
for those who hold that God has revealed
things to human beings natural theology
usually takes on only a secondary and
auxiliary importance, they have played a main
role in the history of classical theology,
together with natural theology and the via
negativa.
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
4/48
Theistic Proofs of Gods
Existence
It is evident in the fact that most ofphilosophers who have offered theistic proofs
have also held to the validity, in at least some
sense, of revealed theology. That is, most
have believed that God could be known in
other ways than through theistic proofs.
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
5/48
Aquinas Five Ways
First Way:The first and more manifest way isthe argument from motion. It is certain, and
evident to our senses, that in the world some
things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion
is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in
motion except it is in potentiality to that towards
which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves
inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing
else than the reduction of something from
potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be
reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by
something in a state of actuality.
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
6/48
Aquinas Five Ways
Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makeswood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot,
and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not
possible that the same thing should be at once in
actuality and potentiality in the same respect, butonly in different respects. For what is actually hot
cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is
simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore
impossible that in the same respect and in thesame way a thing should be both mover and
moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore,
whatever is in motion must be put in motion by
another.
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
7/48
Aquinas Five Ways
If that by which it is put in motion be itself put inmotion, then this also must needs be put in
motion by another, and that by another again.
But this cannot go on to infinity, because then
there would be no first mover, and,consequently, no other mover; seeing that
subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they
are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff
moves only because it is put in motion by thehand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first
mover, put in motion by no other; and this
everyone understands to be God. (Summa
TheologicaI.2.2)
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
8/48
Aquinas Five Ways
The Way of Motion:
(a) The ultimate cause of motion exists.
(b) The first mover is the ultimate cause ofmotion.
(c) Therefore, the first mover exists.
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
9/48
Aquinas Five Ways
Second Way:The second way is from thenature of the efficient cause. In the world of
sense we find there is an order of efficient
causes. There is no case known (neither is it,
indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to bethe efficient cause of itself; for so it would be
prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in
efficient causes it is not possible to go on to
infinity, because in all efficient causes followingin order, the first is the cause of the intermediate
cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the
ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause
be several, or only one.
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
10/48
Aquinas Five Ways
Now to take away the cause is to take awaythe effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause
among efficient causes, there will be no
ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in
efficient causes it is possible to go on to
infinity, there will be no first efficient cause,
neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any
intermediate efficient causes; all of which is
plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to
admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone
gives the name of God. (Summa Theologica
I.2.2)
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
11/48
Aquinas Five Ways
The Way of Causation:
(a) All things have an immediate or efficientcause.
(b) The efficient causes cannot go back
infinitely.
(c) There must be a first, uncaused cause.
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
12/48
Aquinas Five Ways
Third Way:The third way is taken from possibility andnecessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are
possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be
generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are
possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these
always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some
time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be,
then at one time there could have been nothing in
existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be
nothing in existence, because that which does not exist
only begins to exist by something already existing.
Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would
have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist;
and thus even now nothing would be in existence---which
is absurd.
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
13/48
Aquinas Five Ways
Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, butthere must exist something the existence of
which is necessary. But every necessary thing
either has its necessity caused by another, or
not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity innecessary things which have their necessity
caused by another, as has been already proved
in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we
cannot but postulate the existence of somebeing having of itself its own necessity, and not
receiving it from another, but rather causing in
others their necessity. This all men speak of as
God. (Summa TheologicaI.2.2)
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
14/48
Aquinas Five Ways
The Way of Contingency:
(a) It is not necessary for any particular thingto exist, they are, rather, contingent things.
(b) All possible things at one point did notexist.
(c) If all things are merely contingent, then atone time things did not exist.
(d) There must be a necessary essence thatcaused all contingent things to be.
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
15/48
Aquinas Five Ways
The Way of Contingency:
(a) It is not necessary for any particular thingto exist, they are, rather, contingent things.
(b) All possible things at one point did notexist.
(c) If all things are merely contingent, then atone time things did not exist.
(d) There must be a necessary essence thatcaused all contingent things to be.
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
16/48
Aquinas Five Ways
Fourth Way:The fourth way is taken from thegradation to be found in things. Among beings there
are some more and some less good, true, noble and
the like. But more and less are predicated of
different things, according as they resemble in theirdifferent ways something which is the maximum, as a
thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly
resembles that which is hottest; so that there is
something which is truest, something best,something noblest and, consequently, something
which is uttermost being; for those things that are
greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written
in Metaph. ii.
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
17/48
Aquinas Five Ways
Now the maximum in any genus is the cause
of all in that genus; as fire, which is themaximum heat, is the cause of all hot things.
Therefore there must also be something
which is to all beings the cause of their being,
goodness, and every other perfection; and thiswe call God. (Summa TheologicaI.2.2)
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
18/48
Aquinas Five Ways
The Way of Goodness:
(a) Things have degrees of perfectionlarger or smaller, heavier or lighter, warmer or
colder.
(b) Degrees imply the existence of amaximum of perfection.
(c) This maximum perfection we call God.
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
19/48
Aquinas Five Ways
Five Way:The fifth way is taken from the governanceof the world. We see that things which lack
intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end,
and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly
always, in the same way, so as to obtain the bestresult. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but
designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever
lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless
it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge
and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the
archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by
whom all natural things are directed to their end; and
this being we call God. (Summa TheologicaI.2.2)
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
20/48
Aquinas Five Ways
The Way of Design:
(a) Things in this world are ordered toparticular ends.
(b) Even unintelligent things are predisposedto this and not that.
(c) This order inherent in even inanimatethings necessitates an intelligence to direct it.
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
21/48
The Ontological Argument
The famous ontological argument was first formulated byAnselm of Canterbury in the eleventh century. This
argument for the existence of God has fascinated
philosophers ever since Anselm first stated it.
How can we outline this argument? It is best construed as areductio ad absurdumargument. In a reductio you prove a
given propositionp by showing that its denial, not-p, leads to
(or more strictly, entails) a contradiction or some other kind
of absurdity. Anselm's argument can be seen as an attempt
to deduce an absurdity from the proposition that there is noGod. If we use the term God as an abbreviation for
Anselm's phrase the being than which nothing greater can
be conceived, then the argument seems to go
approximately as follows:
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
22/48
The Ontological Argument Suppose
(1) God exists in the understanding but not in reality. (reductio assumption)
(2) Existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone. (premise)
(3) God's existence in reality is conceivable. (premise)
(4) If God did exist in reality, then He would be greater than He is. [from (1) and (2)]
(5) It is conceivable that there is a being greater than God is. [(3) and (4)]
(6) It is conceivable that there be a being greater than the being than which nothinggreater can be conceived. [(5) by the definition of God]
But surely (6) is absurd and self-contradictory; how could we conceive of a being
greater than the being than which none greater can be conceived? So we may concludethat
(7) It is false that God exists in the understanding but not in reality.
It follows that if God exists in the understanding, He also exists in reality; but clearlyenough He does exist in the understanding, as even the fool will testify; therefore, He
exists in reality as well.
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
23/48
The Ontological Argument
For the critique of Kant to this argument, andthe restate of it by Alvin Plantinga, see
http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/02-
03/01w/readings/plantinga.html
http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/02-03/01w/readings/plantinga.htmlhttp://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/02-03/01w/readings/plantinga.htmlhttp://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/02-03/01w/readings/plantinga.htmlhttp://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/02-03/01w/readings/plantinga.htmlhttp://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/02-03/01w/readings/plantinga.html -
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
24/48
The Cosmological Argument
The cosmological argument begins with a fact about experience, namely, thatsomething contingent exists. We might sketch out the argument as follows:
(1) A contingent being (a being such that if it exists it could have not-existed orcould cease to) exists.
(2) This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence.
(3) The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than thecontingent being itself.
(4) What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either besolely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
(5) Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account orexplanation for the existence of a contingent being.
(6) Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being mustinclude a non-contingent (necessary) being.
(7) Therefore, a necessary being (a being such that if it exists cannot not-exist)exists.
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
25/48
The Argument from Religion
The argument from religious experience goessomething like this:
(a) If an entity is experienced, then it mustexist.
(b) God is the sort of being that it is possibleto experience or encounter directly.
(c) People claim to have experienced Goddirectly.
(d) Therefore, God exists.
The Teleological Arg ment
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
26/48
The Teleological Argument
or Argument from Design
Design arguments are routinely classed as analogical argumentsvarious parallels between human artifacts and certain natural entities
being taken as supporting parallel conclusions concerning operative
causation in each case. The standardly ascribed schema is roughly
thus:
(a) Entity e within nature (or the cosmos, or nature itself) is likespecified human artifact a (e.g., a machine) in relevant respects R.
(b) a has R precisely because it is a product of deliberate design byintelligent human agency.
(c) Like effects typically have like causes (or like explanations, likeexistence requirements, etc.)
(d) Therefore, it is (highly) probable that e has R precisely because ittoo is a product of deliberate design by intelligent, relevantly human-
like agency.
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
27/48
Humes critique of the
Design Argument In his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Hume first presented a
powerful version of the Design Argument through his character Cleanthes:
Look round the world: contemplate the whole and every part of it: You willfind it to be nothing but one great machine, subdivided into an infinite
number of lesser machines, which again admit of subdivisions, to a degree
beyond what human senses and faculties can trace and explain. All thesevarious machines, and even their most minute parts, are adjusted to each
other with an accuracy, which ravishes into admiration all men, who have
ever contemplated them. The curious adapting of means to ends, throughout
all nature, resembles exactly, though it much exceeds, the productions of
human contrivance; of human designs, thought, wisdom, and intelligence.
Since therefore the effects resemble each other, we are led to infer, by all
the rules of analogy, that the causes also resemble; and that the Author ofNature is somewhat similar to the mind of man; though possessed of much
larger faculties, proportioned to the grandeur of the work, which he has
executed. By this argument a posteriori, and by this argument alone, do we
prove at once the existence of a Deity, and his similarity to human mind and
intelligence.
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
28/48
Humes critique of the
Design Argument These are the facts, Cleanthes says. Next comes his
argument from analogy:
Since therefore the effects resemble each other, we
are led to infer, by all the rules of analogy, that thecauses also resemble, and that the Author of nature
is somewhat similar to the mind of man, though
possessed of much larger faculties, proportioned to
the grandeur of the work which he has executed.
Hume presents five counterarguments against thedesign argument through his character Philo. Here
the three more relevant:
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
29/48
Humes critique of the
Design Argument 1. What caused the designer of the
universe?If the cause of the universe is the
mind of some sort of intelligent designer,
Hume said, then why cant we ask who or
what caused that mind? What licenses designarguers to stop the regress once they get to
the designer? Doesnt the order exhibited in
minds require explanation as much as the
order that we see in the universe? For all we
can tell from the Design Argument alone, the
designer of the universe might well have had
a maker.
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
30/48
Humes critique of the
Design Argument 2. The Design Argument, even if sound, is
not a proof of God: Humes point here was that
even if the Design Argument is an entirely
successful theistic proof, the designer whose
existence will have been proved is far from the
God of theism. For if your view of the designer is
formed simply by the argument itself, there is no
reason to hold that the designer is unique, that
is, that there is but one designer. There is noreason to hold that the designer is infinite or
perfect. There is no reason to hold that the
designer is everlasting or even still exists today.
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
31/48
Humes critique of the
Design Argument 3. The existence of evil in the world makes the
Design Argument unable to prove a morally perfect
designer:Similarly, Hume argued that if one practices
pure natural theology and reaches conclusions about the
designer only on the basis of the Design Argument, the
existence of evil and suffering in the world ruins theDesign Argument as an argument for the existence of a
morally good designer. The evidence for design plus the
evil that we see do not together suggest the existence of
an all-powerful and morally good designer. For if the
designer were omnipotent, it would have the power to
create a world devoid of useless and undeserved
suffering; and if it were morally perfect, it would surely
want to create such a world. Why then is there so much
suffering?
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
32/48
Arguments Against the
Theistic Proofs
For several reasons, theistic proofs are widelycriticized and even denigrated by believers
and unbelievers in God alike. Here are thereasons:
1. Not a proof:Most of the participants in
the debate concede that none of the theisticproofs succeeds in demonstrating the
existence of God.
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
33/48
Arguments Against the
Theistic Proofs 2. Unpersuasive:Perhaps for the previous reason, it is
often pointed out that the theistic proofs are
unpersuasive: few people are converted to belief in God
because of one of the theistic proofs. Bertrand Russell,
for example, tells the following story about his days as a
Cambridge undergraduate: I remember the precisemoment, one day in 1894, as I was walking along Trinity
Lane, when I saw in a flash (or thought I saw) that the
ontological argument in valid. I had gone out to buy a tin
of tobacco; on my way back, I suddenly threw it up in the
air, and exclaimed as I caught it: Great Scott, the
ontological argument is sound. Of course, Russells
impression of the soundness of the ontological argument
did not stick, and for the rest of his life was a confirmed
atheist or at least agnostic.
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
34/48
Arguments Against the
Theistic Proofs 3. Irrelevant to religious faith and practice:
Theologians, religious people, and some philosophers
play down or even scoff at the proofs as totally irrelevant
to religious faith and practice. Believers do not need the
proofswhy try to demonstrate something you alreadyknow? And the proofs, it is said, are cold, formal, and
philosophical; they do no call for faith or commitment,
nor do they meet the spiritual needs.
4. Just a philosophical God:The God of thetheistic proofs, it is said, is a mere philosophicalabstraction (a necessary being, the Greatest
Conceivable Being, the Prime Mover, etc.) rather than
the living God of the Bible.
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
35/48
Arguments Against the
Theistic Proofs 5. The Methodological Objection:Perhaps
the main objection to the theistic proofs is that
they place the understanding of God in the
multiple sources of theological knowledgematrix, which greatly distort the self-revelation
of God testified to in Scripture. The teachings
of Natural Theology dominate in the
interpretation of biblical information aboutGod's being and acts. In the process, biblical
thought is either completely neglected or
distorted.
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
36/48
Relative Value of the
Theistic Proofs Instead of attempts to convince people that God exists, it is
better to think of these arguments as indications that it is
reasonable to believe in God. Their effect is to show that
religious faith is a genuine option for thinking people, not to
persuade those who are convinced otherwise.
For decades, theologians, most famously, Karl Barth, havebeen contending that Anselms argument was prepared for
those that already have faith in God and simply need to
discover the intelligibility of their belief. Although arguments
along these lines have helped to dispel the longstandingmyth that Anselms proof is pretheological, they do not seem
to fully elaborate what exactly is involved in making faith
intelligible and how Anselms argument facilitates efforts to
do this.
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
37/48
NATURAL THEOLOGY
Theistic proofs are used in the context of that is callednatural theology. What is natural theology? John
Macquarries definition accurately captures the
consensus: there is a knowledge of God accessible to
all rational beings without recourse to any special orsupposedly supernatural revelation.
Natural theology is the attempt to reach soundconclusions about the existence and nature of God
(among other things) based on human reasoning alone.Natural theology uses such human cognitive faculties as
experience, memory, introspection, deductive reasoning,
inductive reasoning (such as probabilistic and analogical
reasoning), and inference to best explanation.
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
38/48
NATURAL THEOLOGY
Natural theology is traditionally associatedwith Catholic tradition, and was given official
endorsement by the First Vatican Council,
which affirmed that God, the beginning andend of all things, can be known with certainty
by the natural light of human reason from the
works of creation. Concilium Vaticanum I,
Constitutio dogmatica Dei Filius,chap. 2,De revelatione, available in Enchiridion
Symholorum (Freiburg: Herder. 1965) 588, no.
3004.
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
39/48
Revealed Theology and
Natural Theology St. Augustine, in describing how he was taught as a
catechumen in the Church, writes:
From this time on, however, I gave my preference to theCatholic faith. I thought it more modest and not in the
least misleading to be told by the Church to believe what
could not be demonstratedwhether that was because a
demonstration existed but could not be understood by all
or whether the matter was not one open to rational
proofYou [God] persuaded me that the defect lay notwith those who believed your books, which you have
established with such great authority amongst almost all
nations, but with those who did not believe them.
ConfessionsVI.7.
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
40/48
Revealed Theology and
Natural Theology Here Augustine describes being asked to believe certain
things, that is, take them on authority, even though they
could not be demonstrated. The distinction between what
one takes on authority (particularly the authority of Scripture)
and what one accepts on the basis of demonstration runsthroughout the corpus of Augustines writings.These two
ways of holding claims about God correspond roughly with
things one accepts by faith and things that proceed from
understanding or reason. Each of the two ways will produce
a type of theology. The program for inquiring into God on thebasis of faith/text-commitments will be called revealed
theologymany centuries later. Also, the program for
inquiring about God strictly on the basis of understanding or
reason will be called natural theologymany centuries later.
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
41/48
Revealed Theology and
Natural Theology The distinction between holding something by faith and
holding it by reason, as well as the distinction between
the two types of theology that each way produces, can
be traced through some major figures of the Middle
Ages. Two examples follow.
First, Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius (480524)presented an elaborate account of Gods existence,
attributes, and providence. Although a Christian,
Boethius brings together in his Consolation ofPhilosophythe best of various ancient philosophical
currents about God. Without any appeal to the authority
of Christian Scripture, Boethius elaborated his account
of God as eternal, provident, good, and so forth.
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
42/48
Revealed Theology and
Natural Theology Second, Pseudo-Dionysius (late 5th century) also raised the
distinction between knowing things from the authority of Scripture and
knowing them from rational arguments:
Theological tradition has a dual aspect, the ineffable and mysteriouson the one hand, the open and more evident on the other. The one
resorts to symbolism and involves initiation. The other is philosophicand employs the method of demonstration. EpistolaIX (Luibheid,
1987)
Here we have the distinction between the two ways of approachingGod explicitly identified as two aspects of theology. Augustine,
Boethius, and Pseudo-Dionysius (to name but a few) thus make
possible a more refined distinction between two types of aspects to
theology. On the one hand, there is a program of inquiry that aims to
understand what one accepts in faith as divine revelation from above.
On the other hand, there is a program of inquiry that proceeds without
appeal to revelation and aims to obtain some knowledge of God from
below.
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
43/48
Revealed Theology and
Natural Theology For Aquinas, there are two sorts of truths about
God:
There is a twofold mode of truth in what we
profess about God. Some truths about Godexceed all the ability of human reason. Such is
the truth that God is triune. But there are some
truths which the natural reason also is able to
reach. Such are the truth that God exists, that he
is one, and the like. In fact, such truths about God
have been proved demonstratively by the
philosophers, guided by the light of natural
reason. (Summa Contra GentilesI.3.2)
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
44/48
Revealed Theology and
Natural Theology
The truths of natural reason are discovered orobtained by using the natural light of reason.The natural light of reason is the capacity for
intelligent thought that all human beings have
just by virtue of being human.
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
45/48
Revealed Theology and
Natural Theology Theology (in the Thomistic sense), as it later came to be
called, is the program for inquiring by the light of faith
into what one believes by faith to be truths beyond
reason that are revealed by God. Natural theology, as it
later came to be called, is the program for inquiring bythe light of natural reason alone into whatever truths of
natural reason human beings might be able to find about
God. Theology and natural theology differ in what they
inquire into, and in what manner they inquire. What
theology inquires into is what God has revealed himselfto be. What natural theology inquires into is what human
intelligence can figure out about God without using any
of the truths beyond reasonthat is, the truths divinely
revealed.
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
46/48
Revealed Theology and
Natural Theology Theology proceeds by taking Gods revelation
as a given and using one divinely revealed
truth to account for another divinely revealed
truth (or to give a higher account of truths of
natural reason). Natural theology proceeds bybracketing and setting aside Gods revelation
and seeking to discover, verify, and organize
truths of natural reason about God. Aquinass
distinctions remain the historical source of howmany contemporary theologians and
philosophers characterize the differences of
their respective disciplines.
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
47/48
General Revelation vs.
Natural Theology General revelation is a revelatory activity performed by
God.
Natural theology is an interpretative activity performed
by human beings.
In general revelation, God uses nature and history toreveal His will to each person with the goal of their
salvation.
In natural theology, however, human beings addressthese same objects, but with the purpose of
interpreting them from their own perspectives to gain
an understanding of God.
-
8/22/2019 Theistic Proofs of God's Existence
48/48
General Revelation vs.
Natural Theology One should not confuse the revelatory act of
God with the hermeneutical act of human
beings. These two activities are different in
agentand nature.
In general revelation, God is the agent and Hiswill the content; His purpose is to lead each
individual to Himself.
In natural theology, human beings are theagents and the contents are theoretical ideas
about God produced by their imagination.