+ IS +

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(ARGUMENT FROM BEING)
ONTOLOGY IS THE PHILOSOPHICAL
STUDY OF THE NATURE OF BEING,
BECOMING, EXISTENCE OR REALITY.
 THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT ATTEMPTS TO
PROVE GOD’S EXISTENCE THROUGH ABSTRACT
REASONING ALONE. THE ARGUMENT IS ENTIRELY A
PRIORI, I.E. IT INVOLVES NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
AT ALL. RATHER, THE ARGUMENT BEGINS WITH AN
EXPLICATION OF THE CONCEPT OF GOD, AND
SEEKS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT GOD EXISTS.
+ +

+m
 ST. ANSELM
• PROPONENT OF THE ONTOLOGICAL
ARGUMENT
 “[EVEN A] FOOL, WHEN HE HEARS OF … A BEING THAN WHICH NOTHING
GREATER CAN BE CONCEIVED … UNDERSTANDS WHAT HE HEARS, AND WHAT HE
UNDERSTANDS IS IN HIS UNDERSTANDING.… AND ASSUREDLY THAT, THAN
WHICH NOTHING GREATER CAN BE CONCEIVED, CANNOT EXIST IN THE
UNDERSTANDING ALONE. FOR SUPPOSE IT EXISTS IN THE UNDERSTANDING
ALONE: THEN IT CAN BE CONCEIVED TO EXIST IN REALITY; WHICH IS GREATER.…
THEREFORE, IF THAT, THAN WHICH NOTHING GREATER CAN BE CONCEIVED,
EXISTS IN THE UNDERSTANDING ALONE, THE VERY BEING, THAN WHICH NOTHING
GREATER CAN BE CONCEIVED, IS ONE, THAN WHICH A GREATER CAN BE
CONCEIVED. BUT OBVIOUSLY THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE. HENCE, THERE IS NO DOUBT
THAT THERE EXISTS A BEING, THAN WHICH NOTHING GREATER CAN BE
CONCEIVED, AND IT EXISTS BOTH IN THE UNDERSTANDING AND IN REALITY.”
- ST. ANSELM
• IT IS A CONCEPTUAL TRUTH (OR, SO TO SPEAK, TRUE BY DEFINITION) THAT GOD IS A
BEING THAN WHICH NONE GREATER CAN BE IMAGINED (THAT IS, THE GREATEST
POSSIBLE BEING THAT CAN BE IMAGINED).
• GOD EXISTS AS AN IDEA IN THE MIND.
• A BEING THAT EXISTS AS AN IDEA IN THE MIND AND IN REALITY IS, OTHER THINGS
BEING EQUAL, GREATER THAN A BEING THAT EXISTS ONLY AS AN IDEA IN THE MIND.
• THUS, IF GOD EXISTS ONLY AS AN IDEA IN THE MIND, THEN WE CAN IMAGINE
SOMETHING THAT IS GREATER THAN GOD (THAT IS, A GREATEST POSSIBLE BEING THAT
DOES EXIST).
• BUT WE CANNOT IMAGINE SOMETHING THAT IS GREATER THAN GOD (FOR IT IS A
CONTRADICTION TO SUPPOSE THAT WE CAN IMAGINE A BEING GREATER THAN THE
GREATEST POSSIBLE BEING THAT CAN BE IMAGINED.)
• THEREFORE, GOD EXISTS.
 EXODUS 3:13-14
• 13 MOSES SAID TO GOD, “SUPPOSE I GO TO THE
ISRAELITES AND SAY TO THEM, ‘THE GOD OF
YOUR FATHERS HAS SENT ME TO YOU,’ AND THEY
ASK ME, ‘WHAT IS HIS NAME?’ THEN WHAT SHALL I
TELL THEM?”
• 14 GOD SAID TO MOSES, “I AM WHO I AM. THIS IS
WHAT YOU ARE TO SAY TO THE ISRAELITES: ‘I
AM HAS SENT ME TO YOU.’”
 ST. ANSELM USED THIS IDEA TO FORMULATE A
PROOF FOR GOD’S EXISTENCE FROM THE VERY
IDEA OF GOD, WITHOUT HAVING TO LOOK AT THE
EVIDENCE IN CREATION. HE REFERRED TO IT AS A
“PROOF FROM PRAYER” BECAUSE HE THOUGHT OF
IT AS WHILE MEDITATING ON THE IDEA OF A
PERFECT BEING.
 ALL FORMS OF THE ARGUMENT MAKE SOME
ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THREE CONCEPTS: THE
CONCEPTS OF GOD, OF PERFECTION, AND OF
EXISTENCE. VERY ROUGHLY, THEY STATE THAT
PERFECTION IS A PART OF THE CONCEPT OF GOD,
AND THAT PERFECTION ENTAILS EXISTENCE, AND
SO THAT THE CONCEPT OF GOD ENTAILS GOD’S
EXISTENCE.
1. WHATEVER PERFECTION CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO
THE MOST PERFECT BEING POSSIBLE (CONCEIVABLE)
MUST BE ATTRIBUTED TO IT.
2. NECESSARY EXISTENCE IS A PERFECTION WHICH
CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE MOST PERFECT BEING.
3. THEREFORE, NECESSARY EXISTENCE MUST BE
ATTRIBUTED TO THE MOST PERFECT BEING.
 ADVOCATES
A FORM OF THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT ALSO CONSTITUTES THE
CRUX OF RENE DESCARTES’ MEDITATIONS. HAVING PRESENTED THE
ARGUMENT FROM DREAMING “THE SKEPTICAL ARGUMENT THAT WE ARE
NOT JUSTIFIED IN BELIEVING THAT THERE EXISTS AN EXTERNAL WORLD ON
THE BASIS OF SENSE-PERCEPTION BECAUSE ONE MIGHT HAVE THE SAME
SENSE-PERCEPTIONS IN A DREAM.” DESCARTES RESCUES HIMSELF FROM
SKEPTICISM ON THE BASIS OF HIS BELIEF IN GOD. GOD IS NO DECEIVER,
DESCARTES ARGUES, AND SO OUR CLEAR AND DISTINCT PERCEPTIONS OF
THE EXTERNAL WORLD CAN BE TRUSTED. DESCARTES ARRIVES AT THE
BELIEF THAT THERE EXISTS A TRUSTWORTHY GOD VIA A FORM OF
ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.
+A
 ADVOCATES
THE MOST PROMINENT MODERN ADVOCATE OF THE
ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT IS ALVIN PLANTINGA. PLANTINGA
IS BEST-KNOWN FOR HIS DEFENSE OF THE VIEW THAT
RELIGIOUS BELIEF IS FOUNDATIONAL, I.E. THAT RELIGIOUS
BELIEF DOES NOT STAND IN NEED OF EXTERNAL
JUSTIFICATION, BUT IS ALSO KNOWN FOR HIS WORK ON
MODAL LOGIC, I.E. ON THE LOGIC OF POSSIBILITY AND
NECESSITY. PLANTINGA APPLIES HIS APPROACH TO MODAL
LOGIC TO THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT, PRESENTING IT IN A
REVISED FORM.
 CRITICS
GAUNILO OF MARMOUTIER, A MONK AND
CONTEMPORARY OF ANSELM'S, IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ONE
OF THE MOST IMPORTANT CRITICISMS OF ANSELM'S
ARGUMENT.
• IT IS A CONCEPTUAL TRUTH THAT A PILAND IS AN ISLAND
THAN WHICH NONE GREATER CAN BE IMAGINED (THAT
IS, THE GREATEST POSSIBLE ISLAND THAT CAN BE
IMAGINED).
• A PILAND EXISTS AS AN IDEA IN THE MIND.
• A PILAND THAT EXISTS AS AN IDEA IN THE MIND AND IN
REALITY IS GREATER THAN A PILAND THAT EXISTS ONLY AS
AN IDEA IN THE MIND.
• THUS, IF A PILAND EXISTS ONLY AS AN IDEA IN THE MIND,
THEN WE CAN IMAGINE AN ISLAND THAT IS GREATER THAN
A PILAND (THAT IS, A GREATEST POSSIBLE ISLAND THAT
DOES EXIST).
• BUT WE CANNOT IMAGINE AN ISLAND THAT IS GREATER
THAN A PILAND.
• THEREFORE, A PILAND EXISTS.
 CRITICS
WHILE ST. THOMAS AQUINAS (1224-1274) BELIEVED THAT GOD'S
EXISTENCE IS SELF-EVIDENT, HE REJECTED THE IDEA THAT IT CAN BE
DEDUCED FROM CLAIMS ABOUT THE CONCEPT OF GOD. AQUINAS
ARGUED, PLAUSIBLY ENOUGH, THAT "NOT EVERYONE WHO HEARS THIS
WORD 'GOD' UNDERSTANDS IT TO SIGNIFY SOMETHING THAN WHICH
NOTHING GREATER CAN BE THOUGHT, SEEING THAT SOME HAVE BELIEVED
GOD TO BE A BODY." THE IDEA HERE IS THAT, SINCE DIFFERENT PEOPLE
HAVE DIFFERENT CONCEPTS OF GOD, THIS ARGUMENT WORKS, IF AT ALL,
ONLY TO CONVINCE THOSE WHO DEFINE THE NOTION OF GOD IN THE
SAME WAY.
..\..\DESKTOP\CONTINGENCY.PPTX
+ +

GUESS THE WORD!!!

 +

GUESS THE WORD!!!

ADEGHIM
OPQRSZN
 TELEOLOGY
----------------------
ARGUMENTS
FROM DESIGN
•DERIVED FROM THE GREEK
WORD TELOS, MEANING “END” OR
“PURPOSE”
•THEY MEAN THAT IT IS ORDERED
TOWARDS SOME END OR PURPOSE.
• ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN OR TELEOLOGICAL
ARGUMENT
• THE UNIVERSE AS A WHOLE HAS AN INTELLIGENT
DESIGNER, WHICH IS GOD.
• THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED BY AN INTELLIGENT BEING
IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THAT PURPOSE THAN IT IS
TO SUPPOSE THAT IT IS THIS WAY BY CHANCE.
• PROPOUNDED ST. THOMAS AQUINAS
• DEVELOPED IN GREAT DETAIL BY WILLIAM PALEY
 AQUINAS’ ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN
THE FIFTH WAY: ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN
• WE SEE THAT NATURAL BODIES WORK TOWARD SOME GOAL, AND DO
NOT DO SO BY CHANCE.
• MOST NATURAL THINGS LACK KNOWLEDGE.
• BUT AS AN ARROW REACHES ITS TARGET BECAUSE IT IS DIRECTED BY
AN ARCHER, WHAT LACKS INTELLIGENCE ACHIEVES GOALS BY BEING
DIRECTED BY SOMETHING INTELLIGENCE.
• THEREFORE SOME INTELLIGENT BEING EXISTS BY WHOM ALL NATURAL
THINGS ARE DIRECTED TO THEIR END; AND THIS BEING WE CALL GOD
THE ARGUMENT FROM SIMPLE ANALOGY

• CAME IN THE 17TH AND 18TH

CENTURIES
• JOHN RAY, RICHARD BENTLEY, AND
WILLIAM DERHAM DREW ON SCIENTIFIC
DISCOVERIES OF THE 16TH AND 17TH
CENTURY TO ARGUE FOR THE
EXISTENCE OF AN INTELLIGENT DEITY.
• WILLIAM DERHAM
 SAW EVIDENCE OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN
THE VISION OF BIRDS, THE DRUM OF THE EAR,
THE EYE-SOCKET, AND THE DIGESTIVE SYSTEM.

• RICHARD BENTLEY
SAW EVIDENCE OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN
IN NEWTON'S DISCOVERY OF THE LAW
OF GRAVITATION.
 PALEY’S WATCH
• PALEY LIKENED THE UNIVERSE TO A WATCH, WITH
MANY ORDERED PARTS WORKING IN HARMONY
TO FURTHER SOME PURPOSE.
• THE ARGUMENT AS HE
CONSTRUCTED IT IS AN
ARGUMENT FROM ANALOGY.
 IF THE UNIVERSE CONTAINS DESIGN THEN
THERE MUST BE SOME INTELLIGENT AGENT THAT
DESIGNED IT. ALTHOUGH A FEW DISPUTE THIS,
SPEAKING OF NATURE, OR EVOLUTION, AS OUR
DESIGNERS, THIS APPEARS TO BE A SIMPLE
LINGUISTIC TRUTH. JUST AS IF SOMETHING IS
CARRIED THEN THERE MUST BE A CARRIER, SO IF
THERE IS DESIGN THERE MUST BE A DESIGNER.
Romans 1:19-20
BASIC IDEA
CAUSALITY
CARL SAGAN
SCIENTIFIC
EVIDENCE
FIN
MIRACLE
GENERAL REVELATION AND SPECIAL REVELATION
 PROGRESSIVE REVELATION AND THE
"MYSTERIES"
•THE USUAL GREEK WORD TRANSLATED
"REVELATION" IS APOKALUPSIS, WHICH
MEANS "UNVEILING." A RELATED NEW
TESTAMENT WORD IS "MYSTERY"
(MUSTERION).
1. EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH AS REVEALED TO
THE APOSTLES
• "FOR THIS REASON I, PAUL, A PRISONER FOR CHRIST JESUS ON
BEHALF OF YOU GENTILES---ASSUMING THAT YOU HAVE HEARD OF
THE STEWARDSHIP OF GOD'S GRACE THAT WAS GIVEN TO ME FOR
YOU, HOW THE MYSTERY WAS MADE KNOWN TO ME BY REVELATION,
AS I HAVE WRITTEN BRIEFLY. WHEN YOU READ THIS YOU CAN PERCEIVE
MY INSIGHT INTO THE MYSTERY OF CHRIST, WHICH WAS NOT MADE
KNOWN TO THE SONS OF MEN IN OTHER GENERATIONS AS IT HAS
NOW BEEN REVEALED TO HIS HOLY APOSTLES AND PROPHETS BY THE
SPIRIT; THAT IS, HOW THE GENTILES ARE FELLOW HEIRS, MEMBERS OF
THE SAME BODY, AND PARTAKERS OF THE PROMISE IN CHRIST JESUS
THROUGH THE GOSPEL." (EPHESIANS 3:1-6)
 2. THE DIVINE INDWELLING OF CHRIST IN THE
BELIEVER IN OUR PRESENT AGE
• "...I BECAME A MINISTER ACCORDING TO THE DIVINE OFFICE WHICH
WAS GIVEN TO ME FOR YOU, TO MAKE THE WORD OF GOD FULLY
KNOWN, THE MYSTERY HIDDEN FOR AGES AND GENERATIONS BUT
NOW MADE MANIFEST TO HIS SAINTS. TO THEM GOD CHOSE TO
MAKE KNOWN HOW GREAT AMONG THE GENTILES ARE THE RICHES
OF THE GLORY OF THIS MYSTERY, WHICH IS CHRIST IN YOU, THE HOPE
OF GLORY. HIM WE PROCLAIM, WARNING EVERY MAN AND TEACHING
EVERY MAN IN ALL WISDOM, THAT WE MAY PRESENT EVERY MAN
MATURE IN CHRIST." (COLOSSIANS 1:25-28)
 3. THE “MYSTERY OF LAWLESSNESS" WHICH
WILL FIND ITS FINAL EXPRESSION IN A WORLD-
RULER OF INCARNATE EVIL
• "FOR THE MYSTERY OF LAWLESSNESS IS ALREADY AT WORK; ONLY HE WHO NOW
RESTRAINS IT WILL DO SO UNTIL HE IS OUT OF THE WAY. AND THEN THE LAWLESS
ONE WILL BE REVEALED, AND THE LORD JESUS WILL SLAY HIM WITH THE BREATH
OF HIS MOUTH AND DESTROY HIM BY HIS APPEARING AND HIS COMING. THE
COMING OF THE LAWLESS ONE BY THE ACTIVITY OF SATAN WILL BE WITH ALL
POWER AND WITH PRETENDED SIGNS AND WONDERS, AND WITH ALL WICKED
DECEPTION FOR THOSE WHO ARE TO PERISH, BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO LOVE
THE TRUTH AND SO BE SAVED. THEREFORE GOD SENDS UPON THEM A STRONG
DELUSION, TO MAKE THEM BELIEVE WHAT IS FALSE, SO THAT ALL MAY BE
CONDEMNED WHO DID NOT BELIEVE THE TRUTH BUT HAD PLEASURE IN
UNRIGHTEOUSNESS." (2 THESSALONIANS 2:7-12)
 THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
• CENTRAL TO BIBLICAL REVELATION IS THE NOTION
THAT MAN, MADE IN THE IMAGE AND LIKENESS OF
GOD, WAS PLACED INTO THE CENTER OF CREATION
TO UNDERSTAND IT AND TO RULE IT.
• EXAMPLE: WHEN GOD GAVE ADAM THE TASK OF
NAMING THE ANIMALS HE CREATED.
 ARGUMENTS ON GOD’S MIRACLES

•A MIRACLE IS NO DIVINE INTERVENTION

INTO, OR INTERRUPTION OF, THE REGULAR
COURSE OF THE WORLD THAT PRODUCES A
PURPOSEFUL BUT UNUSUAL EVENT THAT
WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED OTHERWISE.
1. ARE MIRACLES POSSIBLE?
• ARGUMENTS AGAINST MIRACLES IN THE WRITINGS OF
BENEDICT DE SPINOZA
• MIRACLES ARE VIOLATIONS OF NATURAL LAWS.
• NATURAL LAWS ARE IMMUTABLE.
• IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR IMMUTABLE LAWS TO BE
VIOLATED.
• THEREFORE, MIRACLES ARE NOT POSSIBLE.
THE BOTTOM LINE OF THE MATTER IS
THAT “IF GOD EXISTS, THEN MIRACLES ARE
POSSIBLE”. IF THERE IS ANYTHING
BEYOND THE UNIVERSE WHICH MIGHT
CAUSE SOMETHING TO HAPPEN IN THE
UNIVERSE, THEN THERE IS A CHANCE
THAT IT WILL DO SO.
 2. ARE MIRACLES CREDIBLE?
• DAVID HUME ARGUMENTS ON MIRACLES:
• A MIRACLE IS A VIOLATION OF THE LAWS OF NATURE.
• FIRM AND UNALTERABLE EXPERIENCE HAS ESTABLISHED THESE LAWS.
• A WISE MAN PROPORTIONS HIS BELIEF TO THE EVIDENCE.
- THEREFORE, A UNIFORM EXPERIENCE AMOUNTS TO A
PROOF; THERE IS HERE A DIRECT AND FULL PROOF, FROM THE
NATURE OF THE FACT, AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF ANY
MIRACLE
•FOR HUME, “GREATER EVIDENCE”
MEANS “THAT WHICH IS REPEATED
MORE OFTEN.” SO ANY RARE EVENT
CAN NEVER HAVE AS MUCH EVIDENCE
AS COMMON EVENTS.
 3. ARE MIRACLES SCIENTIFIC?
• PATRICK NOWELL-SMITH - OBJECTS TO THE SUPERNATURALIST
USING MIRACLES AS AN EXPLANATION FOR THINGS, FOR
SCIENCE MIGHT FIND A NATURAL EXPLANATION IN THE
FUTURE. HIS OBJECTION CAN BE SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS:
• ONLY WHAT HAS PREDICTIVE CAPABILITIES CAN QUALIFY AS AN
EXPLANATION FOR AN EVENT (SUCH AS NATURAL LAWS).
• A MIRACLE CANNOT BE PREDICTED.
• THEREFORE, A MIRACLE DOES NOT QUALIFY AS AN EXPLANATION
OF ANY EVENT.
• THE SUPERNATURALIST MAKES THE SAME
CLAIM: A MIRACLE OCCURS WHENEVER GOD
DEEMS IT NECESSARY.
• BUT MIRACLES DO HAVE SOME EXPLANATORY
VALUE IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. SOME
EVENTS CAN EASILY BE EXPLAINED BY NATURAL
FORCES.
• HE HAS A PURPOSE AND COMMUNICATES SOMETHING WITH EACH
MIRACLE. MOSES’ MIRACLES CONFIRMED THAT GOD HAD SENT HIM
AND MOCKED THE EGYPTIAN GODS WHOSE DOMAIN THE MIRACLES
OVERCAME ( EX. 7:14–12:36 ).
• ELIJAH DIDN’T CALL DOWN FIRE FOR NOTHING ( 1 KINGS 18:16–40 ).
THE WHOLE DAY HAD BEEN SPENT WAITING FOR BAAL TO DO
SOMETHING, BUT ELIJAH’S GOD ACTED IMMEDIATELY, PROVING HIS
REALITY AND POWER. THESE KINDS OF EVENTS CALL FOR AN
INTELLIGENT CAUSE, AND THIS IS A PRINCIPLE THAT IS BOTH
REGULAR AND UNIFORM.
4. ARE MIRACLES HISTORICAL?

• SCIENCE IS NOT THE ONLY DISCIPLINE THAT REJECTS MIRACLES.

• ANTONY FLEW DEVELOPS THE FF. ARGUMENT
• ALL CRITICAL HISTORY DEPENDS ON THE VALIDITY OF TWO PRINCIPLES:

• THE REMAINS OF THE PAST CAN BE USED AS

EVIDENCE FOR RECONSTRUCTING HISTORY
ONLY IF WE PRESUME THE SAME BASIC
REGULARITIES OF NATURE HELD THEN AS NOW.
• THE CRITICAL HISTORIAN MUST USE HIS
PRESENT KNOWLEDGE OF THE POSSIBLE AND
PROBABLE AS CRITERIA FOR KNOWING THE
PAST. BUT BELIEF IN MIRACLES IS CONTRARY
TO BOTH OF THESE PRINCIPLES. THEREFORE,
BELIEF IN MIRACLES IS CONTRARY TO
CRITICAL HISTORY.
5. ARE MIRACLES MYTHOLOGICAL?

• RUDOLF BULTMANN SAID:

• MAN’S KNOWLEDGE AND MASTERY OF THE WORLD HAVE
ADVANCED TO SUCH EXTENT THROUGH SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY THAT IT IS NO LONGER POSSIBLE FOR ANYONE
SERIOUSLY TO HOLD THE NEW TESTAMENT VIEW OF THE
WORLD—IN FACT, THERE IS HARDLY ANYONE WHO DOES.… THE
ONLY HONEST WAY OF RECITING THE CREEDS IS TO STRIP THE
MYTHOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK AWAY FROM THE TRUTH THEY
ENSHRINE.
•HIS ARGUMENT MIGHT BE STATED LIKE THIS:
• MYTHS ARE BY NATURE MORE THAN
OBJECTIVE TRUTHS; THEY
• BUT WHAT IS NOT OBJECTIVE CANNOT BE A
PART OF A VERIFIABLE SPACE-TIME WORLD.
• THEREFORE, MIRACLES (MYTHS) ARE NOT PART
OF THE OBJECTIVE SPACE-TIME WORLD.
6. ARE MIRACLES DEFINABLE?

• NEW AGE PROPHET BENJAMIN CREME HAS SAID

THIS OF WHAT HE CALLS “THE CHRIST,”
MEANING A SPIRIT OF POWER AND DIVINATION
WHICH “OVERSHADOWED” JESUS AND IS NOW
AVAILABLE TO THE FOLLOWERS OF “THE CHRIST”
 3 BASIC ELEMENTS OF THE DEFINITION
OF MIRACLE
• THE POWER OF MIRACLES COMES FROM A GOD
WHO IS BEYOND THE UNIVERSE.
• THE NATURE OF MIRACLES IS THAT THEY ARE
WONDERS, WHICH INSPIRE AWE IN THOSE WHO
SEE THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE ASTONISHING.
•THE WORD SIGN TELLS US THE
PURPOSE OF MIRACLES: THEY
CONFIRM GOD’S MESSAGE AND
HIS MESSENGER.
•ONE OF THE KEY DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN
MIRACLES AND MAGIC IS THE USE OF
OCCULT MEANS TO PERFORM ITS ACTS.
THESE ARE PRACTICES WHICH CLAIM TO
CONJURE POWERS FROM THE SPIRIT
REALM.
7. ARE MIRACLES VALUABLE?
• HUMES’ MIRACULOUS CLAIMS IN NON-CHRISTIAN
RELIGIONS:
• ALL NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS ARE SUPPORTED BY
THE SAME KIND OF “MIRACLES.”
• BUT SUCH “MIRACLES’” HAVE NO EVIDENTIAL VALUE
BECAUSE THEY ARE SELF-CANCELING.
• THEREFORE, NO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGION IS
SUPPORTED BY “MIRACLES”
•THIS OPENS THE WAY FOR A SECOND
ARGUMENT:
•ONLY CHRISTIANITY HAS UNIQUE
MIRACULOUS CONFIRMATION
•WHAT HAS UNIQUE MIRACULOUS
CONFIRMATION OF ITS CLAIMS IS TRUE.
•THEREFORE, CHRISTIANITY IS TRUE (AND
ALL OPPOSING VIEWS ARE FALSE).
•NO OTHER RELIGION HAS
THE RECORD OF SPECIFIC
PROPHECY OR DIVINE
DELIVERANCE THAT THE BIBLE
GIVES.