08.01.2013 Views

roger wasson company - cheapersunglasses.com

roger wasson company - cheapersunglasses.com

roger wasson company - cheapersunglasses.com

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

is unknowable or He does not exist. The first alternative is selfcontradictory;<br />

the second is naturalism.<br />

But suppose VanTil intends the second possible meaning<br />

suggested: that the absolute being is finite because He is shown<br />

to be necessarily related to a finite knower who argues through<br />

to His existence. This objection would then apply against any<br />

view that maintains the knowability of God. For suppose God's<br />

existence to be revealed in some other way than through facts<br />

of experience available to all rational minds---through special<br />

revelation, for example, the possibility and actuality of which I<br />

do not in the least deny. God's reality will either be known<br />

through this revelation or not. If it is known, it is still known<br />

relatively to a finite knower: and this is [[257]] true regardless<br />

of the mode of revelation, so that either God's existence as absolute<br />

is unknowable or else the fact that He is always known<br />

by a finite knower does not deprive Him of infinity and necessity<br />

in the least. On the other hand, if God's reality is not<br />

known through such a proposed revelation, the argument ceases<br />

at once. In any case the objection is either directly invalid and<br />

unsustained, or it is indirectly thus by asserting the selfcontradictory<br />

proposition that God is unknowable.<br />

Therefore, whichever meaning is put on VanTil's words, his<br />

objection reduces to the assertion that God is unknowable,<br />

which is in turn either self-contradictory or equivalent to the<br />

bare assertion that God does not exist. Again we land in the<br />

territory of a naturalistic world view. I consequently conclude<br />

that the entire objection, both metaphysically and epistemologically,<br />

undermines any theistic view of the world whatever.<br />

And thus the third ground for asserting finitude in God goes<br />

up in the smoke that springs from the fire of rational analysis.<br />

Either no argument to God is possible at all or else the fact that<br />

God is necessarily related to finite being does not impose any<br />

limit whatever upon His infinite and necessary existence. The

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!