Kelly Clark - believable without proofs"...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Kelly Clark's critique of "classical apologetics" A. Clark seems to confuse A with D or E. Aquinas, Geisler, Sproul & Gerstner all claim that God's existence can be proved absolutely (in sense A) -- not that it can be proved by the Enlightenment or Cartesian standard. B. So, the mere existence of sane and knowledgeable atheists does not refute the position of classical apologetics. The question is: are these sane and knowledgeable atheists reasonable in their unbelief? Gilson's Arguments for the need to prove (demonstrate) God's existence. A. If the existence of God were evident (knowable without proof), then there would be no atheists. Makes a mistake similar to Clark's: assuming that "evident" means "irresistibly
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: believable without proofs" instead of "reasonably believable without proofs". B. Aristotle and Aquinas prove God's existence: you can't prove what is already evident. Why not? The proof might be of help to people who are atheists despite the evident character of God's existence. C. The only things directly accessible to our knowledge are sensible things. How does Gilson know this? D. Theological reason: for God's existence to be evident to us, we would have to be able to grasp God's essence. However, we obviously cannot do so. Grasping God's essence is equivalent to the beatific vision enjoyed by the saints in heaven, which we clearly do not enjoy....
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online