My Final Thoughts on GR, SR and the Existence of God

Using the reason within human nature, through general revelation is enough to show us that some things are clear, specifically about the nature of the Eternal. Although, there has been a rejection of general revelation, thus requiring there to be more knowledge, this found in scripture, but because scripture presupposes the existence of God, it is a necessity to learn the essentials from general revelation. I am not undermining the importance of redemptive revelation and sacred scripture; however, I am implying the importance to strive to have wisdom about the Eternal before one relies solely on scripture. With this said, because general revelation is available to all persons at all times, when studied rationally and properly, as I have done thus far, we will find there is a rightful path to follow, and that not all religions lead to the same Ultimate Truth, as John Hick states. A foundation must be established in order to find a commonality within the world’s different religions; general revelation is that foundation.

Skeptics believe that we cannot know about the Eternal because it is not clear, but now, with an understanding of general revelation, we come to see that this knowledge is clear. While knowing what is clear about the Eternal, brings meaning to life, because if nothing is clear then there can be no meaning. This meaning must be sought for; otherwise humans are living a meaningless, empty life. In Anselm’s preface to the Proslogion he states:

“I do not try, Lord, to attain Your lofty heights, because my understanding is in no way equal to it. But I do desire to understand your Truth a little, that truth that my heart believes and loves. For I do not seek to understand so that I May believe, but I believe so that I may understand. For I believe this also, that “unless I believe, I shall not understand” (6).

Understanding and seeking knowledge about the world and what is clear about the Eternal (God), puts meaning into one’s life. For what we can know about the Eternal from general revelation is that there must be something eternal. For one to deny this argument, one would have to give up reason. As reason and rationality are our gifts of being human, it would be shameful to deny this assumption. But on the contrary, this is precisely why there are distortions within different religions. My claim is that if everyone thought critically and sought to understand the nature of God through general revelation, it would be clear that there can be a commonality, a correct path to attain the knowledge of God. Religious pluralism only delays conflicts we have in the world, it does not solve them. It does not solve these disputes precisely because not all religions lead to the same Ultimate Reality. Once general revelation is understood, clarity is found, leading one to know how to live and understand special revelation. But special revelation can never be fully comprehended until one accepts and values the necessity of general revelation to know the nature of God.

Philosophers Arguments for Proof of God

It is inexcusable to not seek for knowledge about what it eternal, specifically the knowledge within general revelation; now that it is clear that there is something eternal, it is important to determine if and how this is the theistic God. Since having a religious experience is not valid enough for proof of the existence of God, we must, while using the knowledge from general revelation, study how to determine that this something that is eternal is the God of theism. It is clear that many people forget that having knowledge of God, or what is eternal, is not beyond man’s concepts. Now that we have a clear understanding that something must be eternal, our next step is to identify if this is proof for the existence of God, particularly in theism. I have already stated two philosophers who attempted to show the existence of God, René Descartes, and Blaise Pascal. There are in fact many different concepts, from many different philosophers and theologians, who make an effort to do this.

Famous for his ontological argument, Anselm of Canterbury “sought to prove the existence of God with a single proof rather than with several” (6). Anselm believed that there was one supreme good, and there was one supreme being higher than all others. In Anselm’s second chapter of his book, Proslogion, he states:

“Even the fool is convinced that there is something, at any rate in the understanding, than which nothing greater can be conceived, for when he hears this, he understands it, and whatever is understood is in the understanding. And certainly that than which a greater cannot be conceived cannot exist in the understanding alone. For if it be in the understanding alone, it is possible to conceive it as existing in reality, which is greater. If, therefore, that than which a greater cannot be conceived is in the understanding alone, that very thing than which a greater cannot be conceived is one than which a greater can be conceived. But this assuredly cannot be. Without any doubt, therefore, there exists something both in the understanding and in reality than which a greater cannot be conceived” (6).

In other words, Anselm believes that something exists that which nothing greater can be conceived in both the understanding and in reality. Critics of Anselm’s argument, such as Immanuel Kant don’t think this idea of a God is enough to prove it is actually God. Is Anselm’s argument proof for the God of theism? For Anselm, “God is absolutely simple; therefore, the divine attributed are not accidents but rather the very essence of God. God is present in every place and time and is not in any place or time, for all times and places are in God” (6). His attempts to prove the existence of God by rational means are worthy to take note of. More often than not, people already assume the existence of God, either because of certain scriptures, such as the Bible or the Koran for example, or more commonly because of lack of critical thought. What we have now discovered is that we must have knowledge and understanding of the eternal, through general revelation before we accept sacred scripture.

Another well known philosopher, of the thirteenth century, was Thomas Aquinas, who disagreed with Anselm’s argument that the idea of God was a necessary thought. Aquinas believed that “God can be proved by arguments drawn from the universe, from creation” (6). Aquinas gives five arguments for the proof of God’s existence, though his “way of “proving” God’s existence presupposes at least some kind of idea of god” (6). For Aquinas, “God is not a non-being but the supreme being, an ever active power” (6). He attributes properties to God for the being of God and his relation to the world, quite similar to the concepts of general revelation.

Both Anselm and Aquinas use similar arguments from the perception of general revelation. From the general knowledge within human nature we can derive how the eternal, or God, is to act, according to the nature of things. What we have established is the need and importance of coming to understand general revelation. This is vital because the good for humans is to find meaning of the world, while meaning of the world reveals the nature of the creator, this found through general revelation. All persons have the ability and responsibility to have this knowledge because it is general; however, we are then responsible for being able to take that knowledge and apply it to understanding sacred scripture properly.

Is Religious Experience Enough for Proof of the Existence of God?

Before I start discussing some quarrels of religious experiences, it is important that we understand what exactly this is. Religious experiences can also be known as sacred, spiritual or mystical experiences. A religious experience is a phenomenon that someone may have that they believe is divinely inspired. This, for the individual, is proof for the existence of God. To read more on religious experiences visit the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Some people believe that because they have a certain religious experience, that is enough proof for the existence of God, we will find that this is a false testimony, insofar that these experiences are interpreted differently through different people.

The importance behind religious experience for religious pluralism is different from a rational interpretation of religious experiences. According to John Hick, in his book The Problems of Religious Plualism, when asked the question of which religious experience is liable, or that the situation is indeed as one describes it, he answers “that he does not profess to know this, if by knowledge we mean infallible cognition. Nor indeed can anyone else properly claim to have knowledge, in this sense, of either the exclusivist or the inclusivist picture. All of them are, strictly speaking, hypotheses” (1). If Hick is concluding that no one is capable of having infallible knowledge, I would certainly disagree. As I have shown earlier, we have discovered what can be known about the Eternal through general revelation. It is possible to know fallacies to certain experiences with our ability to rationally interpret them. Religious experiences have meaning to the individual that they occurred to, but “interpretations of a given experience that contradict the nature of the eternal are not valid interpretations” (2). Hick asserts, “that there is in fact a good argument for the rationality of trusting one’s own religious experience, together with that of the larger tradition within which it occurs, so as both to believe and to live on the basis of it” however, he fails to demonstrate this argument (1). Hick also acknowledges the fact that if one is to treat one’s own religious experience as absolute, then that person must also accept that members of other religions will also have religious experiences in a different form, and that they are just as real as his own.

It is no doubt in my mind that people of different religions have different experiences of the Eternal, but what is of concern is how these experiences are interpreted. Someone of the Hindu or Buddhist religion may interpret an experience that is a contradiction to the nature of the Eternal I have thus far proved. The focus on the interpretations of these experiences is that they need to be less self-centered and more reality-centered. This way we can develop a common, rational interpretation that can be a form of “infallible cognition.” It is evident that this sort of interpretation is not being done today as a result from not knowing the Eternal through general revelation. This is evidence that people are not taking into the account of the reality of sin and the need for redemption revelation. This shows us that the “failure to draw the correct interpretation, and the failure to be reality-centered are faults that require redemption” (2). Because people have sinned and not sought to understand the need of general revelation, there is a necessity for scripture. Because we know from general revelation that something is eternal (in contrast to ‘none is eternal’ or ‘all is eternal’) we are then required to be aware of this, and not deny the truth and clarity of reason.

How we are to Know the Eternal: The First Step

The Eternal reveals itself in a way that makes knowledge of the Eternal possible to all persons. This means that, “the Eternal will act in a way to reveal its nature to humans. If the Eternal is loving, then it will act consistently with this” and again “if the Eternal is also just then it must act in a way that is consistent with this” (2). This leads me to ask, if one is to know God as the Eternal, through reading the Bible, and one does not have access to the Bible, how is this consistent with a God of love and who is just? A God of justice and love would never expect a person to do something they are incapable of doing. Along the same lines, the seventeenth-century French philosopher René Descartes believes that “If God were a deceiving spirit, he could not be the most perfect being. The concept itself of the idea of the perfect being therefore includes not only the existence but also the truthfulness and goodness of God. A deceiver-God is impossible” (6). Descartes believed that God instilled his mind with the idea of a perfect being. According to Descartes, this idea of God is instilled in human beings and one that of which they are born with.

Although for some, such as Blaise Pascal for example, this still may not be enough to be proof for the existence of God. Pascal disagreed with Descartes on the grounds that “the God of Jesus Christ… can only be found by the ways taught in the Gospel” (6). Whereas Descartes believed that self-awareness and the idea of God is proof alone. Pascal believed the ultimate grounds of certainty was found in the Bible. But again, this brings me to the question of, if one does not have access to the Bible how is he expected to read it? Referring back to the God of love, this would be inconsistent with God’s actions.

Thus far, we have come to understand that there must be something eternal; this is not enough to state that this eternal is the God in theism. So what then is our next step?


(6) Karkkainen, Veli-Matti. The Doctrine of God. Michigan: Backer Academic, 2004.

5 Spititual Trends to Watch for in 2009

An article that discusses 5 spiritual trends to watch for in 2009 brings up many questions in my mind. I wonder if these things already exist today, or if they are expanding at a rate faster than we realize because of the falling economy?

I suggest you take a read, it’s quick and easy. Then think about these few questions, or develop some of your own.
1.) Why is it that Buddhism has such an appeal to Westerners? Is it acceptable to “mix” different religious aspects to best suit your own beliefs?
2.) Will we see more terrorist related wars in the upcoming years? Why is it that Muslims are so strongly related to terrorism? Are we too quick to assume someone could be a terrorist or have terrorist intentions? Take a look at this article where this exact assumption caused a terrible hold up on an airplane.
3.) Will we see more liberal activities and protests with the new presidency of Barack Obama or have they been there all along, we just notice them more now? Is it really such a bad thing that people are “working at reconciling religion and science and protecting the environment”?
4.) If evangelicalism is becoming less monotheistic (although I’d like to see the source for this), and apparently will be fearful to the “dominant culture” (is this in reference to the Democratic Party?) how can we expect to see a change in society? Is this something to fear or is it merely an assumption?
5.) Is there a difference between being religious and being spiritual? Can you be both? Do you need to be a member of an institution to be a follower of God? Why or why not?
I look forward to your thoughts…