Da li postoji dokaz da ima Boga?/Is there an argument for the existence of God?

Pitanje da li postoji ubedljiv dokaz da Bog postoji bio je tema rasprava tokom istorije, u kojima su se izuzetno inteligentni ljudi zauzimali za obe strane. U poslednje vreme, rasprave o mogućnosti da postoji Bog preuzele su militantan duh koji optužuje svakog koji se usuđuje da veruje u Boga da je u zabludi i da je nerazuman. Karl Marks je tvrdio da svako ko veruje u Boga ima mentalni poremećaj prouzrokovan neispravnim načinom razmišljanja. Psihijatar Sigmund Frojd je pisao da je osoba koja veruje u Boga Tvorca obmanuta i da se drži tih verovanja zbog faktora „želje za ispunjenjem", što je za Frojda predstavljalo neopravdan stav. Filozof Fridrih Niče je otvoreno rekao da verovati znači neželeti poznavati istinu. Glasovi ove tri istorijske ličnosti (ima ih još) su samo papagajska ponavljanja nove generacije ateista koji tvrde da je vera u Boga u intelektualnom smislu bez ikakve osnove. Da li to zaista tako? Da li je vera u Boga iracionalno razmišljanje? Da li postoji logičan i razuman razlog za postojanje Boga? Bez citiranja Svetog pisma, da li može da se da pouzdan dokaz o postojanju Boga koji opovrgava stavove ateista kako iz prošlosti tako i sadašnjosti, i koji daje garanciju za veru u Boga? Odgovor je, da, to je moguće. Štaviše, kada se pokaže opravdanost za argument da Bog postoji, očigledno je da ateizam intelektualno nema opravdanje. Da bismo dali dozkaz za postojanje Boga, moramo da počnemo sa pravim pitanjima. Počinjemo sa najosnovnijim metafizičkim pitanjem: „Zašto da postoji nešto umesto da nema baš ničega?" Ovo je osnovno pitanje postojanja – zašto smo ovde, zašto postoji zemlja, zašto postoji kosmos umesto da ne postoji ništa? Jedan teolog je, komentarišući ovo pitanje rekao: „Na neki način čovek ne postavlja pitanja o Bogu, samo njegovo postojanje postavlja pitanje da li Bog postoji". Uzimajući u obzir ovo pitanje, postoje četiri moguća odgovora zašto postoji nešto umesto ničega: 1. Stvarnost je iluzija. 2. Stvarnost je sama sebe stvorila. 3. Stvarnost postoji sama od sebe (večno). 4. Stvarnost je stvorio neko ko samostalno postoji. Koji je najprihvatljiviji odgovor? Da počnemo sa realnošću kao iluzijom, što je ono u šta većina istočnjačkih vernika veruje. Ovu mogućnost je odavno isključio pre mnogo vekova Rene Dekart koji je čuven po svojoj izjavi: „Mislim, dakle jesam". Dekart, matematičar, tvrdio je da ako razmišlja onda "postoji". Drugim rečima: „Mislim, dakle nisam iluzija". Iluzija zahteva doživljaj iluzuje, i štaviše, ne možeš da sumnjaš u postojanje sebe a da ne dokažeš svoje postojanje. To je kontradiktorna tvrdnja. Tako da je isključena mogućnost da smo iluzija. Sledeća mogućnost je da je stvarnost samu sebe stvorila. Kada proučavamo filozofiju, saznajemo o "analitički pogrešnim" tvrdnjama, što znači da su po definiciji lažne. Mogućnost da je stvarnost samu sebe stvorila je jedna od ovakvih tvrdnji iz prostog razloga što nešto ne može da postoji pre sebe. Ako si sebe stvorio to znači da si postojao pre nego što si sebe stvorio, a to je prosto nemoguće. U evoluciji ovo se ponekad odnosi na "spontano stvaranje" – nešto što proističe ni iz čega, stanovište koje vrlo malo ljudi, ako ih uopšte i ima, zauzima, jednostavno zato što ne može nešto da proistekne ni iz čega. Čak je i ateista Dejvid Hjum rekao: „Nikada nisam tvrdio nešto tako apsurdno kao što je ideja da bilo šta može da proistekne bez uzroka." Pošto nešto ne može da dođe ni iz čega, alternativa da je realnost samu sebe stvorila je isključena. Ostala su nam samo dva izbora – večna stvarnost ili stvarnost koju je stvorilo nešto večno: večni kosmos ili večni Tvorac. Teolog iz 18. Veka, Džonatan Edvards ovo raskršće je ovako sumirao: • Nešto postoji. • Ništa ne može da stvori nešto. • Zbog toga, neophodno i večno "nešto" postoji. Zapazite da moramo da se vratimo na večno "nešto". Ateista koji se podsmeva onome koji veruje u Boga zbog toga što veruje da postoji večni Tvorac mora da se okrene oko sebe i prihvati večni kosmos; to je jedini izbor koji ima. Međutim, pitanje je, kuda vodi taj dokaz? Da li dokazi ukazuju na to da je materija postoji pre uma ili um pre materije? Do danas, svi ključni naučni dokazi ukazuju na to da postoji večni Tvorac a ne večni univerzum. Sa naučne tačke gledišta, iskreni naučnici priznaju da je kosmos imao svoj početak, i sve što ima početak nije večno. Drugim rečima, štagod da ima početak ima uzrok, i ako kosmos ima početak, imao je i uzrok. Činjenica da je kosmos imao početak naglašava dokaz kao što je drugi zakon termodinamike, eho zračenja velikog praska koji je otkriven u ranim 1900-tim godinama, činjenica da se kosmos širi i da to može da se svede na jedini početak, i na Ajnštajnovu teoriju relativiteta. Svi oni dokazuju da kosmos nije večan. Štaviše, zakoni koji idu u prilog uzroku nasuprot onih koji govore da je kosmos konačni uzrok svega što znamo proističu iz jednostavne činjenice: efekat mora da se poklapa sa svojim uzrokom. Sa obzirom na ovu istinu, nijedan ateista ne može da objasni kako je bezličan, besmislen, besciljan i amoralan kosmos slučajno stvorio bića kao što smo mi, punih ličnosti, i opsednutih smislom, značenjem i moralom. Tako nešto, sa uzročne tačke gledišta, u potpunosti pobija ideju prirodnog kosmosa koji je stvorio sve što postoji. Tako je na kraju, eliminisan koncept večnog kosmosa. Filozof Dž.S. Mil (nehrišćanin) ovako je sumrao ovo do čega smo upravo došli: "Samo po sebi se vidi da samo Um može da stvori um". Jedini racionalan i razuman zaključak je da je večni Tvorac taj koji je odgovoran za stvarnost takvu kakvom je vidimo. Ili da to stavimo u logičan niz tvrdnji: • Nešto postoji. • Ne može nešto da poistekne ni iz čega. • Zbog toga postoji to "nešto" neophodno i večno. • Jedine dve mogućnosti su večni kosmos i večni Tvorac. • Nauka i filozofija su dokazale da ne postoji concept večnog kosmosa. • I zato, postoji večni Tvorac. Nekadašnji ateista Li Strobel, koji je došao do ovog zaključka pre mnogo godina, rekao je: „U suštini, shvatio sam da bih ostao ateista morao bih da verujem da ništa proizvodi sve, da ne-život proizvodi život, da slučajnost proizvodi preciznost, da haos daje informacije, da nesvest daje svest, i da besmisao daje smisao. Ti koraci vere su jednostavno bili preveliki za mene, pogotovo u svetlu pozitivnog razmatranja Božijeg postojanja… Drugim rečima, po mojoj proceni, hrišćanski pogled na svet daje totalni dokaz mnogo bolje od ateističkog pogleda na svet." Međutim, moramo se pozabaviti ovim pitanjem: ako postoji večni Tvorac (a pokazali smo da On postoji), kakav je On? Možemo li da donosimo zaključke o Njemu na osnovu onoga što je stvorio? Drugim rečima, možemo li da shvatimo uzrok na osnovu njegovih efekata? Odgovor na ovo je da, možemo, sa sledećim karakteritikama kao pretpostavkama: • On mora da je natprirodan u prirodi (da je stvorio vreme i prostor). • On mora da ima moć (izuzetnu). • On mora da je večan (samopostojeći). • On mora da je sveprisutan (On je stvorio prostor i nije njim ograničen). • On mora da je bezvremen i nepromenljiv (stvorio je vreme). • On mora da je nematerijalan jer prevazilazi prostor/sve fizičko. • On mora da je ličnost (ne-ličnost ne može da stvori ličnost). • On mora da je beskonačan i jedinstven jer ne mogu da postoje dve beskonačnosti. • On mora da je razlnolik, a opet da ima jedinstvo jer jedinstvo i raznolikost postoje u prirodi. • On mora da je superiorno inteligentan (vrhunski). Samo biće koje spoznaje može da proizvede drugo biće koje spoznaje. • On mora da ima cilj jer je sa namerom sve stvorio. • On mora biti da je moralan (nijedan moralni zakon ne može da postoji bez onog koji ga je dao). • On mora da je brižan (u suprotnom, ne bi bilo moralnih zakona). Sa obzirom na ovo, postavlja se pitanje da li bilo koja vera opisuje takvog Tvorca. Odgovor na to pitanje je da: Bog iz Svetog pisma se savršeno uklapa u taj profil. On je natprirodan (Postanje 1:1), moćan (Jeremija 32:17), večan (Psalam 90:2), sveprisutan (Psalam 139:7), bezvremen, nepromenljiv (Malahija 3:6), nematerijalan (Jovan 5:24), ličan (Postanje 3:9), neophodan (Kološanima 1:17), beskonačan, jedinstven (Jeremija 23:24, Ponovljeni zakon 6:4), raznolik ali ujedinjen (Mateja 28:19), inteligentan (Psalam 147:4-5), ima svrhu (Jeremija 29:11), moralan (Danilo 9:14), i brižan (1.Petrova 5:6-7). Poslednja tema o kojoj treba govoriti u vezi sa Božijim postojanjem je pitanje koliko je u stvari opravdano stanovište ateista. Pošto ateisti tvrde da je stanovište vernika nerazumno, jedino što je razumno je direktno uputiti isto pitanje ateisti. Prva stvar koju treba shvatiti je da je tvrdnja koju ateisti prave – "nema Boga", što je i značenje reči "ateista", nedostižno stanovište koje treba gledati sa filozofskog stanovišta. Kao legitiman naučnik i filozof, Mortimer Adler kaže: „Portvrdna egzistencijalna pretpostavka može da se dokaže, ali negativna pretpostavka ona koja negira postojanje nečega, ne može da se dokaže." Na primer, neko može da tvrdi da postoji crveni orao a neko drugi da crveni orlovi ne postoje. Prvi samo treba da nađe jednog jedinog crvenog orla da bi to potvrdio, ali ovaj drugi mora da bude siguran da nije propustio negde nekog crvenog orla, što je nemoguće uraditi. Zato intelektialno iskreni ateisti priznaju da ne mogu da dokažu da nema Boga. Zatim, bitno je razumeti ozbiljnost tvrdnji o istini koje su date i količinu dokaza koji su potrebni da bi se opravdali određeni zaključci. Na primer, ako neko stavi dve čaše limunade ispred vas i kaže da je jedna kiselija od druge, pošto ne bi bilo posledica, ako popijete onu koja je kiselija, ne bi vam bilo potrebno mnogo dokaza da biste napravili izbor. Međutim, ako je domaćin u jednu dodao zaslađivač, a u drugu otrov za pacove, trebaće vam prilično mnogo dokaza pre nego što napravite izbor. Ovo je tačka u kojoj se osoba nalazi kada se odlučuje bilo za ateizam, bilo za veru u Boga. Pošto verovanje u ateizam može potencijalno da proizvede nepopravljive i večne posledice, čini se da bi ateista trebalo da pruži snažne i neoborive dokaze da bi podupro svoje stanovište, ali on to ne može. Ateizam jednostavno ne može da zadovolji test za dokaz za ozbiljnost tvrdnji koje iznosi. Umesto toga, ateista i oni koje ubeđuje u svoje mišljenje skliznu u večnost držeći palčeve i nadajući se da neće otkriti neprijatnu istinu da večnost zaista postoji. Kao što je Mortimer Adler rekao: „Više posledica za život i delovanje sledi iz potvrde ili poricanja da postoji Bog nego iz bilo kog drugog suštinskog pitanja." Dakle, da li vera u Boga ima intelektualnu opravdanje? Da li postoji racionalan, logičan i razuman dokaz za postojanje Boga? Apsolutno. Dok ateisti poput Frojda tvrde da oni koji veruju u Boga imaju želju za zadovoljenjem nesvesnih fantazija, možda su Frojd i njegovi sledbenici oni koji pate od takvih fantazija: nade da nema Boga, da nema odgovornosti, a time ni suda. Međutim, Bog je taj koji pobija Frojda, Biblijski Bog, koji potvrđuje svoje postojanje i činjenicu da sud zaista dolazi za one koji duboko u sebi znaju da On postoji, ali potiskuju tu istinu (Rimljanima 1:20). Međutim, za one koji prihvate dokaz da Tvorac zaista postoji, On nudi put spasenja koji je ostvaren kroz Njegovog Sina, Isusa Hrista: „A svima, koji ga primiše, dade moć da postanu deca Božija, onima što veruju u njegovo ime, koji se ne rodiše od krvi, ni od volje tela, ni od muževljeve volje — nego od Boga" (Jovan 1:12-13).

....................................................................................................................................................................

The question of whether there is a conclusive argument for the existence of God has been debated throughout history, with exceedingly intelligent people taking both sides of the dispute. In recent times, arguments against the possibility of God’s existence have taken on a militant spirit that accuses anyone daring to believe in God as being delusional and irrational. Karl Marx asserted that anyone believing in God must have a mental disorder that caused invalid thinking. The psychiatrist Sigmund Freud wrote that a person who believed in a Creator God was delusional and only held those beliefs due to a “wish-fulfillment” factor that produced what Freud considered to be an unjustifiable position. The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche bluntly said that faith equates to not wanting to know what is true. The voices of these three figures from history (along with others) are simply now parroted by a new generation of atheists who claim that a belief in God is intellectually unwarranted. Is this truly the case? Is belief in God a rationally unacceptable position to hold? Is there a logical and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Outside of referencing the Bible, can a case for the existence of God be made that refutes the positions of both the old and new atheists and gives sufficient warrant for believing in a Creator? The answer is, yes, it can. Moreover, in demonstrating the validity of an argument for the existence of God, the case for atheism is shown to be intellectually weak. An argument for the existence of God — something rather than nothing To make an argument for the existence of God, we must start by asking the right questions. We begin with the most basic metaphysical question: “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?” This is the basic question of existence—why are we here; why is the earth here; why is the universe here rather than nothing? Commenting on this point, one theologian has said, “In one sense man does not ask the question about God, his very existence raises the question about God.” In considering this question, there are four possible answers to why we have something rather than nothing at all: 1. Reality is an illusion. 2. Reality is/was self-created. 3. Reality is self-existent (eternal). 4. Reality was created by something that is self-existent. So, which is the most plausible solution? Let’s begin with reality being simply an illusion, which is what a number of Eastern religions believe. This option was ruled out centuries ago by the philosopher Rene Descartes who is famous for the statement, “I think, therefore I am.” Descartes, a mathematician, argued that if he is thinking, then he must “be.” In other words, “I think, therefore I am not an illusion.” Illusions require something experiencing the illusion, and moreover, you cannot doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence; it is a self-defeating argument. So the possibility of reality being an illusion is eliminated. Next is the option of reality being self-created. When we study philosophy, we learn of “analytically false” statements, which means they are false by definition. The possibility of reality being self-created is one of those types of statements for the simple reason that something cannot be prior to itself. If you created yourself, then you must have existed prior to you creating yourself, but that simply cannot be. In evolution this is sometimes referred to as “spontaneous generation” —something coming from nothing—a position that few, if any, reasonable people hold to anymore simply because you cannot get something from nothing. Even the atheist David Hume said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.” Since something cannot come from nothing, the alternative of reality being self-created is ruled out. Now we are left with only two choices—an eternal reality or reality being created by something that is eternal: an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. The 18th-century theologian Jonathan Edwards summed up this crossroads: • Something exists. • Nothing cannot create something. • Therefore, a necessary and eternal “something” exists. Notice that we must go back to an eternal “something.” The atheist who derides the believer in God for believing in an eternal Creator must turn around and embrace an eternal universe; it is the only other door he can choose. But the question now is, where does the evidence lead? Does the evidence point to matter before mind or mind before matter? To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points away from an eternal universe and toward an eternal Creator. From a scientific standpoint, honest scientists admit the universe had a beginning, and whatever has a beginning is not eternal. In other words, whatever has a beginning has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. The fact that the universe had a beginning is underscored by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang discovered in the early 1900s, the fact that the universe is expanding and can be traced back to a singular beginning, and Einstein’s theory of relativity. All prove the universe is not eternal. Further, the laws that surround causation speak against the universe being the ultimate cause of all we know for this simple fact: an effect must resemble its cause. This being true, no atheist can explain how an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe accidentally created beings (us) who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals. Such a thing, from a causation standpoint, completely refutes the idea of a natural universe birthing everything that exists. So in the end, the concept of an eternal universe is eliminated. Philosopher J. S. Mill (not a Christian) summed up where we have now come to: “It is self-evident that only Mind can create mind.” The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for reality as we know it. Or to put it in a logical set of statements: • Something exists. • You do not get something from nothing. • Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists. • The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator. • Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe. • Therefore, an eternal Creator exists. Former atheist Lee Strobel, who arrived at this end result many years ago, has commented, “Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God’s existence … In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.” An argument for the existence of God — knowing the Creator But the next question we must tackle is this: if an eternal Creator exists (and we have shown that He does), what kind of Creator is He? Can we infer things about Him from what He created? In other words, can we understand the cause by its effects? The answer to this is yes, we can, with the following characteristics being surmised: • He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space). • He must be powerful (exceedingly). • He must be eternal (self-existent). • He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it). • He must be timeless and changeless (He created time). • He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical. • He must be personal (the impersonal cannot create personality). • He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites. • He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature. • He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being. • He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything. • He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver). • He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given). These things being true, we now ask if any religion in the world describes such a Creator. The answer to this is yes: the God of the Bible fits this profile perfectly. He is supernatural (Genesis 1:1), powerful (Jeremiah 32:17), eternal (Psalm 90:2), omnipresent (Psalm 139:7), timeless/changeless (Malachi 3:6), immaterial (John 5:24), personal (Genesis 3:9), necessary (Colossians 1:17), infinite/singular (Jeremiah 23:24, Deuteronomy 6:4), diverse yet with unity (Matthew 28:19), intelligent (Psalm 147:4-5), purposeful (Jeremiah 29:11), moral (Daniel 9:14), and caring (1 Peter 5:6-7). An argument for the existence of God — the flaws of atheism One last subject to address on the matter of God’s existence is the matter of how justifiable the atheist’s position actually is. Since the atheist asserts the believer’s position is unsound, it is only reasonable to turn the question around and aim it squarely back at him. The first thing to understand is that the claim the atheist makes—“no god,” which is what “atheist” means—is an untenable position to hold from a philosophical standpoint. As legal scholar and philosopher Mortimer Adler says, “An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition—one that denies the existence of something—cannot be proved.” For example, someone may claim that a red eagle exists and someone else may assert that red eagles do not exist. The former only needs to find a single red eagle to prove his assertion. But the latter must comb the entire universe and literally be in every place at once to ensure he has not missed a red eagle somewhere and at some time, which is impossible to do. This is why intellectually honest atheists will admit they cannot prove God does not exist. Next, it is important to understand the issue that surrounds the seriousness of truth claims that are made and the amount of evidence required to warrant certain conclusions. For example, if someone puts two containers of lemonade in front of you and says that one may be more tart than the other, since the consequences of getting the more tart drink would not be serious, you would not require a large amount of evidence in order to make your choice. However, if to one cup the host added sweetener but to the other he introduced rat poison, then you would want to have quite a bit of evidence before you made your choice. This is where a person sits when deciding between atheism and belief in God. Since belief in atheism could possibly result in irreparable and eternal consequences, it would seem that the atheist should be mandated to produce weighty and overriding evidence to support his position, but he cannot. Atheism simply cannot meet the test for evidence for the seriousness of the charge it makes. Instead, the atheist and those whom he convinces of his position slide into eternity with their fingers crossed and hope they do not find the unpleasant truth that eternity does indeed exist. As Mortimer Adler says, “More consequences for life and action follow from the affirmation or denial of God than from any other basic question.” An argument for the existence of God — the conclusion So does belief in God have intellectual warrant? Is there a rational, logical, and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Absolutely. While atheists such as Freud claim that those believing in God have a wish-fulfillment desire, perhaps it is Freud and his followers who actually suffer from wish-fulfillment: the hope and wish that there is no God, no accountability, and therefore no judgment. But refuting Freud is the God of the Bible who affirms His existence and the fact that a judgment is indeed coming for those who know within themselves the truth that He exists but suppress that truth (Romans 1:20). But for those who respond to the evidence that a Creator does indeed exist, He offers the way of salvation that has been accomplished through His Son, Jesus Christ: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:12-13).