He states that "there is never, within Scripture itself, an attempt to prove the existence of God; if proving God's existence were demanded of all believers; one might expect to find at least one of the believers in the Bible discussing theistic arguments." (Clark, unknown). However, Clark does acknowledge that Scripture contains many examples of God proving that He, rather than the false Gods worshipped by people during biblical times, is the true God.
Clark believes this is because the Bible was written during a time when virtually all people believed in some type of god, and that is ill-advised, perhaps impossible, to import that type of approach into a contemporary context. Because Scripture was not written for a modern audience, Clark seems to conclude that Scripture cannot provide adequate support for a modern apologetic argument.
Clark's argument is logically unpersuasive. That does not mean that Clark's argument is fundamentally untrue, because one can come to a true conclusion even using false or faulty premises. However, it is difficult to be persuaded to believe in Clark's position by looking at his argument. This is due to the fact that Clark basis his argument that one can have a rational belief in God without resorting to evidence or argument on the premise that God has given each human being an innate capability to understand God. He does not suggest that all human beings have an innate drive towards religiosity; on the contrary, he posits that God has given all humans the ability to understand Him. However, this is circular reasoning, because Clark is presuming the existence of God as part of his argument about the rationality of belief in God. Logically, such a premise calls his argument into question. "The chief concern of logic is how the truth of some propositions is connected with the trust of another...An argument is a set of two or more propositions related to each other in such a way that all but one of them (the premises) are supposed to provide support for the remaining one (the conclusion)." (Kemerling, 2002). The faulty premises that all men are born with an innate knowledge of God is also troubling in the context of a society where people are raised with the idea of God; under those circumstances, it is impossible to assess whether or not people have any innate feeling for God.
Clark's argument has additional weaknesses, which have nothing to do with his logic. For example, he acknowledges that Scripture is sufficiently ambiguous to permit multiple interpretations of its contents. However, he then relies upon his interpretation of scriptural content...
He states that Scripture does not make an attempt to prove the existence of God, but simply presupposes the existence of God. While this may be true if one supposes that the first words of Genesis represent the first communications between people of faith and others, but that is a faulty assumption. While Genesis does unequivocally state that God exists, it also provides ample evidence that God does exist. Genesis describes a personal relationship between God and Adam and Eve. They both experience God with their senses; they speak with Him on multiple occasions. Whether Genesis should be taken in a literal manner is subject to much debate, but it is clear that the writers of Genesis were providing evidence for the existence of God.
Finally, Clark seems to deliberately misconstrue Clifford's requirements for rational evidence. When Clifford discusses that it is unethical to believe things without evidence, he makes it clear that what he means is that it is unethical for people to believe things without sufficient evidence. Clark attempts to suggest that Clifford would condemn those who believe in verifiable facts, such as the existence of Paraguay. However, Clifford specifically discusses a man's beliefs. Furthermore, Clifford does not condemn those who adhere to facts or beliefs. On the contrary, he states that, "if a man, holding a belief which he was taught in childhood or persuaded of afterwards, keeps down and pushes away any doubts which arise about it in his mind, purposely avoids the reading of books and the company of men that call in question or discuss it, and regards as impious those questions which cannot easily be asked without disturbing it -- the life of that man is one long sin against mankind." (Clifford, 1879). He does not suggest that humans must personally experience everything before believing in it, which is how Clark represents Clifford's beliefs. Because Clark's argument is rife with logical and factual errors, it seems unconvincing, even to a person who believes that Faith does not require evidence.
Clark, K.J. (Unknown). Without evidence or argument: A defense of reformed epistemology.
Retrieved September 23, 2008, from Calvin Virtual Library of Christian Philosophy. Web site: http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/articles/clark_kelly_j/without_evidence_or_argument.pdf
Clifford, W.K. (1879). The ethics of belief. Retrieved September 25, 2008, from Homestead.com
Web site: http://ajburger.homestead.com/files/book.htm
Kemerling, G. (2002). Arguments and inferences. Retrieved September 24, 2008, from the Philosophy Pages.
Web site: http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e01.htm
The documents we provide are to be used as a sample, template, outline, guideline in helping you write your own paper, not to be used for academic credit. All users must abide by our "Student Honor Code" or you will be restricted access to our website.
Once again, the theist can simply point out that human knowledge -- either our own, or in the collective sense -- is not only incomplete but not even necessarily close to complete. Furthermore, inference from incomplete evidence is dangerous; before Columbus, European philosophers would have felt themselves on firm "rational ground" to suppose that no edible starchy tuber existed, and yet the potato would have proved them wrong. Attempts to
Gnostics believed that they belonged to the "true church" of an elect few who were worthy; the orthodox Christians would not be saved because they were blind to the truth. Part E -- Content - if we then combine the historical outline of the "reason" for John's writings with the overall message, we can conclude that there are at least five major paradigms present that are important in a contextual
Reclaiming Children and Youth.. Retrieved October 02, 2009 from HighBeam Research: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-206794465.html Wester, K, MacDonald, C & Lewis, T. (2008). A glimpse into the lives of nine youths in a correctional facility: Insight into theories of delinquency.(Report). Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling. American Counseling Association. 2008. Retrieved October 02, 2009 from HighBeam Research: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-178713105.html Gibbs, J., Potter, G.B., DiBiase, a.M. & Devlin, R. (2008). The EQUIP program: Helping youth to
Organizational Behavior - Analysis of Problems with the Top Leader Team at Greenlife Whenever an organization changes in any way, central problems in organizational behavior often result (Rousseau, 1997; Barley & Kunda 1992; Goodstein, 1994). This is evident within Greenlife, where the top leader team is demonstrating some critical failures and lack of cooperation. Organizational moral behavior can only be obtained through a true "cooperative effort among all employees" (Holmes, et. al,
Persona Christi An Analysis of the Priesthood "in persona Christi" and "in nominee ecclesiae" The questions that surround the functions of the priesthood and the diaconate today appear to be part and parcel of the greater uncertainty that surrounds ancient Church customs. This paper will attempt to analyze the meanings of the phrases "in persona Christi" and "in nomine ecclesiae" as they have reflected the functions of the ministers of the
War has undoubtedly shaped the course of human history. Conflicts, through sheer human nature often arise through disagreement. Occasionally these conflicts end with war as opposing sides believe so vehemently in their respective reasonings and doctrinal views. Oftentimes, these war's end with one "victor" and on defeated party, however, in war everyone losses. The Vietnam War in particular is an example of how war is a zero sum game that only