The four possibilities for reality

13th, defending faith

4 Possibilities for Reality

We have been looking at different ways that Christian theologians and apologists have sought to defend the truth claims of Christianity. We looked at the crisis that ensued from the critique of Emmanuel Kant. How, after this upheaval, some went to a ‘historical-evidential’ way of having to prove the existence of God. Others have tried as their basis for establishing God by ‘fideism or the-leap-of-faith‘ approach. Today we will go over how the Classicist approach will differentiate and prove their case for God.

The way R.C. Sproul likes to proceed for arguing for the existence of God is by following a certain type of method, which in its rudimentary form, was first established by Aurelius Augustine many many centuries ago. Sproul has tweaked it a bit with various insights from other philosophers throughout history. The basic approach Augustine used was to establish a ‘sufficient reason’ to explain reality the way we encounter it. What we mean by a ‘sufficient reason’ is that it meats the task for giving a rational explanation for this reality. Augustine also looked at it via a process of elimination. He looked for possible theoretical options and then tested them to see if fit inside of full rationality or, possibly, have failed the test.

We start with 4 possibilities to explain reality as we encounter it.

1. The experience of reality is itself and illusion
2. Reality is self created
3. Or reality is self existent
4. Reality is created ultimately by something that is self-existent

I know that there have been nuanced approaches to proving the existence of God that do not fall immediately into these exact terms or categories. But these are generic categories that will subsume all other forms of argument variations. All other forms for argument, for and against, and all other accounting for the universe, as we know it, can be put into these 4. He has done this explanation many times with professors and scientists and the like in the audience, and so far, Sproul has never mete anyone who would take issue that all variations couldn’t be put into on of these 4 categories. So, these four categories give us an exhaustive list, generically, of the possible explanations for existence or reality as it is.

The most popular one for today

Let’s step back for just a moment. Sproul has always said that the simplest way to argue for the God is this: that if anything exists; God exists. There are many steps to this abbreviated declaration that were leapt over here. But if something does exists then it must exist, necessarily, by having the ‘power of being in itself.’ If something exists then reason demands that, in the final analysis, that something must be self-existent. So, of the four options - two deal with self-existence. We must say something first. We will deal with number 1 shortly, but number 2, far and away, is the most popular and widely held alternative to divine creation. If you remember at the beginning of this course, Sproul said he spent time teaching a course in atheism where students read primary sources of the most profound minds in these theories who attack the idea of a self-existent God. They then analyzed the arguments that they brought forth against God that they substituted to account for the universe as the way we know it. They all conclude that their in no number 4 but want to prove that there is just a number 2 on our list as the sufficient reason. Where today about 95% think that there was a beginning but that it was created by itself. Some 5% think that all matter is eternal and therefore wasn’t created, this being #3. We will explore all of this in more detail. But most think there is a self-existent something which numbers 3 and 4 deal with. What has to be determined, within those two choices, is it a self-existent eternal something; or is it a Spiritual-Eternal-Immaterial Being called God or if it is ‘all of Matter’ that is - itself - the self.

Well, wait a minute here, I thought you were going to prove that there is a God. Now your talking about a self-existent somethings, what gives? What I’m trying to prove is that reason demands the assertion that there is a self-existent eternal being that is able to account for the existence of anything in this universe. You cannot be consistently rational by denying the necessity of a self-existent eternal Being. This is what Sproul is trying to show here that both reason and science bear out this accounting.

The character of this self-existent eternal Being, whether personal or impersonal, wise or foolish, good or evil remains for further discussion. But for right now, the central point we are going to be concerned with is essence or existence. Also, remember that the Evidentialist tries to give probabilities by reasons based on material-physical evidence. What we would call empirical evidence that is available to the 5 senses. Which we can agree that built therein, are useful but limiting in the proof-value because it just factors only what the human senses. It never delivers what in Philosophy we call ‘formal proof’ or absolute rational proof. Where we can find this in mathematics which is purely formal. The Classicist tries to give compelling proves beyond just the level of probabilities. Which distinguishes the two. There is a difference between giving good evidence, even great evidence and absolute proof.

Evidence or Proof

In order for that to be the case, it means I can’t start with my example of chalk that refers to physical reality, because if I do, I am assuming sense perception. Which puts me into the arena of the empirical and the sensational and that can never get me to absolute and philosophical proof. We gather only evidence. We have to find a starting point that is purely of a rational nature. A rational proof that is so compelling to a rational person one will acquiesce to the proof. This starting point that Sproul will seek to find is the point of ones own consciousness. Which will be explored in a separate session.

Proof or Persuasion

One other distinction that must be made, before we go on. One that has been made for many centuries. The difference between proof and persuasion. Proof is something objective. Persuasion is something subjective. Someone could give a proof that was logically conclusive and compelling, rationally certain that a person could not refuse to accept. Now:

I could prove that ‘all men are mortal; Socrates is a man and therefore without a doubt - to conclude the syllogism - Socrates is mortal.’ That is a logically compelling conclusion - given the premises. The steps being: If all men are mortal and If Socrates is a man; then there is no ‘ifness’ about the conclusion - Socrates would, of logical necessity, by mortal. This would be termed a ‘resistless logic’.

I still won’t agree that it is resistless logic

But what if someone says ‘I still don’t believe it. Because reason is no proof of anything to me!’ You may remember the story of Charlie which Sproul illustrated earlier in another session. Charlie says to his wife he can’t get out of bed because he says, ‘I’m dead.’ But don’t be silly Charlie, your talking to me right now, your breathing, you look fine to me. Get to work she says! Charlie says I can’t because I‘m dead and dead men can‘t work. He insisted and insisted, so the wife got a doctor. The doctor said your good to go. Charlie refused to believe the results of the doctors tests. So they get a psychiatrist. He takes Charlie to a morgue. Shows Charlie that dead people don’t bleed. See here with this dead body. Charlie says, yeh, I see this. So the Doc pokes Charlie with a needle and shows Charlie that he bleeds and therefore isn’t dead. But Charlie says, ‘gee, that’s amazing, dead people bleed after all.’

We’ve all met people like this. In spite of all reason and evidence they refuse to acquiesce. Whether for emotional reasons, bias or other maladies. This is referred to by John Calvin in his ‘Institutes’ where he says the text of scripture gives objective evidence to stop the most obstreperous from denying it’s claim that it is the very word of God. The indications and evidence for its super natural origin is plain. But Calvin says, because humankind is so indisposed to this and has such a profound bias toward self cunning, that he-she will never be sufficiently persuaded. Until a Truthful Being comes to change this very disposition that we possess. This is not an intellectual problem so much that it is a moral will one.

This the same concept, exactly, when it comes to the arguments for the existence of God. The questions of existence is an issue that is not played out on a neutral playing field. As we saw earlier on in this course, there is an enormous amount at stake here. Because if we can prove that God exists, the Eternal God of the universe, without a shred of doubt, that means and as everyone understands, Myself and you are going to be held accountable for how we act and live. The central reason that humankind is so keen to get rid of the ‘God hypothesis’ is we will be free from the guilt of this accounting. So unbelief maintains a reservoir of wishes and desires for the argument not to be true and compelling. As we know now, God makes plain his existence by that which he made, visible and beyond the senses. But we also know that humankind is not so readily willing to agree to it.

It is not Sproul’s task to persuade anybody that God exists. We are not called to persuade but to give reasons for the hope that we have been given within us. To be faithful to that responsibility is what we should do. We will deal with more in our next session.