Arguments for the Existence of God论据为上帝的存在

General Information一般资料

Proofs FOR the Existence of God为了证明上帝的存在

While theology may take God's existence as absolutely necessary on the basis of authority, faith, or revelation, many philosophers-and some theologians-have thought it possible to demonstrate by reason that there must be a God.虽然神学可以采取必要的权力,信仰,或启示的基础上上帝的存在,许多哲学家和一些神学家,都认为有可能表现出原因,必须有一个上帝。

St. Thomas Aquinas, in the thirteenth century, formulated the famous "five ways" by which God's existence can be demonstrated philosophically: 圣托马斯阿奎那,在13世纪,制定了著名的“五种方式”,而上帝的存在可以证明哲学:

BELIEVE Religious Information Source web-site相信宗教信息来源
BELIEVE Religious Information Source相信宗教信息来源
Our List of 2,300 Religious Subjects

我们2300 宗教科目名单
E-mail电子邮件
Two other historically important "proofs" are the ontological argument and the moral argument. The former, made famous by St. Anselm in the eleventh century and defended in another form by Descartes, holds that it would be logically contradictory to deny God's existence.历史上的另外两个重要“证据”是道德本体论的争论论证。前者,由圣安瑟伦而闻名于11世纪和另一形式捍卫笛卡儿,认为这将是逻辑上的矛盾否认神的存在。 St. Anselm began by defining God as "that [being] than which nothing greater can be conceived."圣安瑟伦开始定义为上帝“的[是]没有什么比它更可被设想。”If God existed only in the mind, He then would not be the greatest conceivable being, for we could imagine another being that is greater because it would exist both in the mind and in reality, and that being would then be God.如果上帝存在,只有在脑海中,他以后就不会是最大的设想是,因为我们可以想像另一个被认为是更大,因为它会同时存在于思想和现实,身为然后是上帝。 Therefore, to imagine God as existing only in the mind but not in reality leads to a logical contradiction; this proves the existence of God both in the mind and in reality.因此,要想像现有的心中只有上帝,但不是在现实中导致了逻辑上的矛盾,这证明无论是在思想和在现实中的上帝的存在。

Immanuel Kant rejected not only the ontological argument but the teleological and cosmological arguments as well, based on his theory that reason is too limited to know anything beyond human experience.康德拒绝了,不仅本体论的说法,但目的论和宇宙论的争论,以及关于他的理论,原因是太有限,无法知道什么超出人类的经验为基础。 However, he did argue that religion could be established as presupposed by the workings of morality in the human mind ("practical reason").然而,他认为可以建立由人的头脑中的道德,宗教的运作的先决条件(“实践理性”)。 God's existence is a necessary presupposition of there being any moral judgments that are objective, that go beyond mere relativistic moral preferences; such judgments require standards external to any human mind-that is, they presume God's mind.神的存在是存在任何道德判断,是客观的,超越单纯的道德喜好去相对论的必备前提,这样的判断标准,需要外部的任何人的心灵,也就是说,他们假设上帝的心意。

Arguments AGAINST God's Existence论点,反对神的存在

Arguments against God's existence have been given by philosophers, atheists, and agnostics.对上帝的存在争论已获得由哲学家,无神论者,不可知论者和。Some of these arguments find God's existence incompatible with observed facts; some are arguments that God does not exist because the concept of God is incoherent or confused.对其中一些论点找到神的存在与观察到的事实不符,有些观点认为上帝不存在,因为上帝的概念是不连贯或困惑。Others are criticisms of the proofs offered for God's existence.其他人则对上帝的存在提供了证据的批评。

One of the most influential and powerful "proofs" that there is no God proceeds from "The Problem From Evil."最有影响力和强大的“证据”一说有没有神从收益“的问题,从恶”。This argument claims that the following three statements cannot all be true: (a) evil exists; (b) God is omnipotent; and (c) God is all-loving.这种说法称,以下三个语句不能全是真实的:(一)存在着邪恶;(二)上帝是万能的;及(c)上帝是所有爱好。 The argument is as follows:这个论点如下:

Another argument claims that the existence of an all-knowing God is incompatible with the fact of free will-that humans do make choices.另一种说法称,一个全知的上帝的存在是不符合事实的自由意志,人类也做出选择。If God is omniscient, He must know beforehand exactly what a person will do in a given situation.如果上帝是无所不知的,他必须事先知道究竟什么人会在特定情况下。In that case, a person is not in fact free to do the alternative to what God knows he or she will do, and free will must be an illusion.在这种情况下,一个人其实是免费做的替代品不是上帝知道他或她会做的,自由意志必须是一个幻想。 To take this one step further, if one chooses to commit a sin, how can it then be said that one sinned freely?借此更进一步,如果一个人选择犯了罪,怎么能那么说,一个自由罪?

Hume provided powerful critiques of the main arguments for God's existence.休谟提供了上帝的存在的主要论点有力批判。Against the cosmological argument (Aquinas' third argument), he argued that the idea of a necessarily existing being is absurd.对宇宙论论证(阿奎那的第三个参数),他认为,现有的一个必然被主意是荒谬的。Hume stated, "Whatever we can conceive as existent, we can also conceive as nonexistent."休姆说,“无论我们可以设想为存在的,我们也可以设想为不存在的。”He also asked why the ultimate source of the universe could not be the entire universe itself, eternal and uncaused, without a God?他还问为什么宇宙的最终来源不可能是整个宇宙本身,没有永恒的,独立自存的神?

Hume also criticized the argument from design (Aquinas' fifth argument).休谟也批评了从设计(阿奎那的第五个参数)的参数。In particular, he emphasized that there is no legitimate way we can infer the properties of God as the creator of the world from the qualities of His creation.他特别强调,没有合法的途径,我们可以推断出作为世界从他的创作品质的创造者上帝的属性。For instance, Hume questioned how we can be sure that the world was not created by a team; or that this is not one of many attempts at creations, the first few having been botched; or, on the other hand, that our world is not a poor first attempt "of an infant deity who afterwards abandoned it, ashamed of his lame performance."例如,休谟质疑,我们可以肯定的是,世界不是由一个团队,或者说这不是一个在创作了许多尝试,最初的几个已被拙劣的,或者,另一方面,我们的世界不是一个贫穷的第一次尝试“的婴儿神谁后放弃了,他跛脚的表现感到羞愧。”


Arguments for the Existence of God论据为上帝的存在

Advanced Information先进的信息

The arguments for the existence of God constitute one of the finest attempts of the human mind to break out of the world and go beyond the sensible or phenomenal realm of experience.上帝存在的论据就构成遇到一个人是最好的企图心,打破了世界,超越或以惊人的境界明智的。

Certainly the question of God's existence is the most important question of human philosophy. It affects the whole tenor of human life, whether man is regarded as the supreme being in the universe or whether it is believed that man has a superior being that he must love and obey, or perhaps defy. 当然,存在的问题,上帝的,是人类哲学的最重要的问题。它影响人类生活的全部男高音的,不管是男人被认为是宇宙的至高无上 ​​的或是否相信,人类有一个优越的,他必须爱和服从,或者藐视。

There are three ways one can argue for the existence of God. 有三种方式可以主张的神存在。

The A Priori Approach的先验方法

This approach is the heart of the famous ontological argument, devised by Anselm of Canterbury though adumbrated earlier in the system of Augustine.这种方法是奥古斯丁心脏的著名论点安瑟伦的本体论,设计了坎特伯雷勾画虽然在以前的制度。 This argument begins with a special definition of God as infinite, perfect, and necessary.这种说法首先对上帝无限的,完美的,必要的特殊定义。

Anselm said that God cannot be conceived in any way other than "a being than which nothing greater can be conceived."安瑟伦说,上帝不能以任何方式比其他设想“一所没有比这更大的可被设想。” Even the fool knows what he means by "God" when he asserts, "There is no God" (Ps. 14:1).即使是傻瓜都知道他的意思是“上帝”时,他断言:“没有神”(诗篇14:1)。But if the most perfect being existed only in thought and not in reality, then it would not really be the most perfect being, for the one that existed in reality would be more perfect. Therefore, concludes Anselm, "no one who understands what God is, can conceive that God does not exist." In short, it would be self contradictory to say, "I can think of a perfect being that doesn't exist," because existence would have to be a part of perfection.但如果是最完美只存在于思想,而不是在现实中,那就不是真的是最完美,一个现实的存在会更完美。 因此,总结安瑟伦,“没有人谁明白什么是上帝是,可以设想,神不存在。“总之,这将是自我矛盾地说,”我能想到的是一个完美的不存在“,因为存在将是一个完美的一部分。 One would be saying, "I can conceive of something greater than that which nothing greater can be conceived", which is absurd.一会说:“我所能想象的任何东西比这更可被设想更大”,这是荒谬的。

The ontological argument has had a long and stormy history.本体论的争论已久,和风雨历程。It has appealed to some of the finest minds in Western history, usually mathematicians like Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz.它呼吁在西方历史上最优秀的头脑,平时喜欢笛卡尔,斯宾诺莎,莱布尼茨和一些数学家。However, it fails to persuade most people, who seem to harbor the same suspicion as Kant that "the unconditioned necessity of a judgment does not form the absolute necessity of a thing."但是,它未能说服大多数人来说,似乎谁像康德一样海港的怀疑“的判决无条件的必要性并不构成一个事物的绝对必要的。” That is, perfection may not be a true predicate and thus a proposition can be logically necessary without being true in fact.也就是说,完美未必是一个真正的谓词,因此,一个命题可以不受其实真正的逻辑上必然的。

The A Posteriori Approach后验法

Popular mentality seems to appreciate the a posteriori approach better. The ontological argument can be made without ever appealing to sensation, but the cosmological and teleological arguments require a careful look at the world. 大众的心态似乎体会到事后的做法更好。本体论的论点,可以在没有过的感觉吸引,但宇宙和目的的论点世界需要一个仔细看。The former focuses on the cause, while the latter stresses the design of the universe.前者着眼于事业,而后者则强调了宇宙的设计。

The Cosmological Argument在宇宙论论证

This has more than one form.这有一个以上的表格。The earliest occurs in Plato (Laws, Book X) and Aristotle (Metaphysics, Book VIII) and stresses the need to explain the cause of motion.最早出现在柏拉图(法律,图书X)和亚里士多德(形而上学,图书八),并强调有必要解释运动的原因。Assuming that rest is natural and motion is unnatural, these thinkers arrived at God as the necessary Prime Mover of all things.假设是很自然的休息和运动不自然,这些思想家来到上帝作为必要的原动机的一切。Thomas Aquinas used motion as his first proof in the Summa Theologica (Q.2, Art.3).托马斯阿奎那作为他的神学大全(问题2,Art.3)的第一个证明议案。Everything that moves has to be moved by another thing.一切行动都必须提出另一回事。But this chain of movers cannot go on to infinity, a key assumption, because there would then be no first mover and thus no other mover.但这种推动者链不能去到无穷远,一个关键的假设,因为届时没有先发,因此没有其他动机。 We must arrive, therefore, at a first mover, Aquinas concludes, "and this everyone understands to be God."我们必须准时到,因此,在抢占市场先机,阿奎那总结说:“大家都明白这是神。”

This argument from motion is not nearly as cogent for our scientific generation because we take motion to be natural and rest to be unnatural, as the principle of inertia states.本文从运动参数几乎没有为我们的科学一代有说服力的,因为我们采取议案,其余的是自然和非自然的惯性国家的原则。Many philosophers insist that the notion of an infinite series of movers is not at all impossible or contradictory.许多哲学家坚持认为,一个推动者无穷级数的概念并不是在所有不可能或相互矛盾的。

The most interesting, and persuasive, form of the cosmological argument is Aquinas's "third way," the argument from contingency. Its strength derives from the way it employs both permanence and change. 的说服力,构成宇宙最有趣的论点,是阿奎那的“第三条道路”,从应急参数。它的力量来自它采用的方式既持久性和变化。Epicurus stated the metaphysical problem centuries ago: "Something obviously exists now, and something never sprang from nothing."伊壁鸠鲁说几个世纪以前的形而上的问题:“现在存在着明显的东西,有什么东西从来没有兴起的。” Being, therefore, must have been without beginning.作为,因此,必须已经没有开始。An Eternal Something must be admitted by all, theist, atheist, and agnostic. 一个永恒的东西必须承认所有,有神论者,无神论者,不可知论者。

But the physical universe could not be this Eternal Something because it is obviously contingent, mutable, subject to decay. How could a decomposing entity explain itself to all eternity? If every present contingent thing / event depends on a previous contingent thing / event and so on ad infinitum, then this does not provide an adequate explanation of anything.但物理宇宙可能不是这个永恒的东西,因为它显然是队伍,可变的,受腐烂。 怎能explain分解实体本身所有永恒?如果每本队伍的事情/事件以前的事情,取决于队伍/事件等循环往复,那么它不会提供任何适当的解释。

Hence, for there to be anything at all contingent in the universe, there must be at least one thing that is not contingent, something that is necessary throughout all change and self established. In this case "necessary" does not apply to a proposition but to a thing, and it means infinite, eternal, everlasting, self caused, self existent. 因此,对于有任何事情是宇宙中的所有队伍,必须有至少一个东西是不是队伍,有时候,那是需要在所有的变化和自我建立。在这种情况下,“必要的”不适用于一命题,一个东西,它意味着无限的,永恒的,永恒的,自我造成的,自我存在的。

It is not enough to say that infinite time will solve the problem of contingent being.这是不够的说,无限的时间解决队伍存在问题。No matter how much time you have, dependent being is still dependent on something.不管你有多少时间,取决于所依赖的东西仍然是。Everything contingent within the span of infinity will, at some particular moment, not exist.一切都在无穷的意志,在某些特定的时刻,不存在跨队伍。But if there was a moment when nothing existed, then nothing would exist now.但是,如果有一个时刻,一切都不存在了,那么什么都不会存在了。

The choice is simple: one chooses either a self existent God or a self existent universe, and the universe is not behaving as if it is self existent. In fact, according to the second law of thermodynamics, the universe is running down like a clock or, better, cooling off like a giant stove. 这个选择很简单:一个选择可以是自我存在的上帝或自我存在的宇宙,宇宙是不是表现得好像它是自我存在的时钟事实上,根据热力学第二定律,宇宙是一个跑下来一样或者,更好,更冷静就像一个巨大的火炉。 Energy is constantly being diffused or dissipated, that is, progressively distributed throughout the universe.能源是不断地扩散或消退,也就是说,在整个宇宙中逐步分散。If this process goes on for a few billion more years, and scientists have never observed a restoration of dissipated energy, then the result will be a state of thermal equilibrium, a "heat death," a random degradation of energy throughout the entire cosmos and hence the stagnation of all physical activity.如果这个过程正好为一个数十亿年以上,科学家从未观察到耗能恢复,那么结果将是一个热平衡,一个“热寂”的整个能源和整个宇宙随机退化状况因此,所有身体活动停滞。

Naturalists from Lucretius to Sagan have felt that we need not postulate God as long as nature can be considered a self explanatory entity for all eternity. But it is difficult to hold this doctrine if the second law [of thermodynamics] is true and entropy is irreversible.博物学家从卢克莱修到萨冈感到,我们不需要假设上帝的性质,只要算得上是一个永恒的自我解释的实体。 但它是很难坚持这一原则,如果热力学]第二定律[真实的是不可逆熵。If the cosmos is running down or cooling off, then it could not have been running and cooling forever. 如果宇宙是跑下来或冷静,那么它已经不能运行和冷却下去。It must have had a beginning.它必须有一个开端。

A popular retort to the cosmological argument is to ask, "If God made the universe, then who made God?" If one insists that the world had a cause, must one not also insist that God had a cause? 一个流行的说法反驳宇宙是问:“如果上帝创造了宇宙,那么谁造神吗?”如果有人说,世界上有一个原因,必须一个不还坚持认为,上帝有一个原因吗? No, because if God is a necessary being, this is established if one accepts the proof, then it is unnecessary to inquire into his origins.不,因为如果上帝是一个必要的,这是建立证明,如果人们接受,那么它是不必要的,调查他的出身。It would be like asking, "Who made the unmakable being?"这就像问:“谁言unmakable福利?”or "Who caused the uncausable being?"或“谁造成的uncausable福利?”

More serious is the objection that the proof is based on an uncritical acceptance of the "principle of sufficient reason," the notion that every event / effect has a cause. If this principle is denied, even if it is denied in metaphysics, the cosmological argument is defanged. 更为严重的是宇宙异议证明是基于的原则是不加批判的影响,如果有一个原因。这种接受的“原则充分的理由” ​​的概念,每一个事件/拒绝,即使是在被拒绝形而上学,论点是defanged。Hume argued that causation is a psychological, not a metaphysical, principle, one whose origins lay in the human propensity to assume necessary connections between events when all we really see is contiguity and succession.休谟认为因果关系是一种心理,而不是一种形而上学的,原则上,其起源于人类的倾向,承担必要的事件之间的连接,当我们真正看到的是连续性和继承所在。 Kant seconded Hume by arguing that causation is a category built into our minds as one of the many ways in which we order our experience.康德借调辩称,休谟因果关系是我们的头脑建成的许多方法,使我们以我们的经验,其中一个类别。 Sartre felt that the universe was "gratuitous."萨特认为,宇宙是“无偿的。”Bertrand Russell claimed that the question of origins was tangled in meaningless verbiage and that we must be content to declare that the universe is "just there and that's all."罗素称,起源问题是毫无意义的空话缠住,而我们必须内容,宣布宇宙是“就在那里,这一切。”

One does not prove the principle of causality easily. It is one of those foundational assumptions that is made in building a world view. 一个不能证明因果关系的原则容易。观点之一,是世界建筑的基本假设是由英寸It can be pointed out, however, that if we jettison the idea of sufficient reason, we will destroy not only metaphysics but science as well.它可以指出,但是,如果我们抛弃了充足的理由的想法,我们不仅会破坏形而上学,但科学也。 When one attacks causality, one attacks much of knowledge per se, for without this principle the rational connection in most of our learning falls to pieces.当一个攻击的因果关系,一个攻击的知识本身更因为没有这个原则在我们的学习最合理的联系,属于成碎片。Surely it is not irrational to inquire into the cause of the entire universe.毫无疑问,这是不理性的,调查了整个宇宙的事业。

The Teleological or Design Argument目的论或设计论证

This is one of the oldest and most popular and intelligible of the theistic proofs. It suggests that there is a definite analogy between the order and regularity of the cosmos and a product of human ingenuity.这是一种最古老和最流行 ​​的和可理解的有神论的证据。这表明,有一个明确的比喻人类创造力之间的秩序和规律的宇宙和产品。Voltaire put it in rather simplistic terms: "If a watch proves the existence of a watchmaker but the universe does not prove the existence of a great Architect, then I consent to be called a fool."伏尔泰把它在相当简单的条款:“如果一只手表证明了钟表匠存在一个宇宙,但并不证明存在一个伟大的建筑师,那么我同意被称为傻瓜。”

No one can deny the universe seems to be designed; instances of purposive ordering are all around us.没有人能否认宇宙似乎是设计;订货实例立意是我们身边。Almost anywhere can be found features of being that show the universe to be basically friendly to life, mind, personality, and values.一个被认为可以找到几乎任何地方特征表明宇宙是基本友好的生活,思想,性格和价值观。 Life itself is a cosmic function, that is, a very complex arrangement of things both terrestrial and extraterrestrial must obtain before life can subsist.生活本身就是一个宇宙的功能,就是一个东西,无论是陆地和外星生命,需事先获得可以存在很复杂的安排。The earth must be just the right size, its rotation must be within certain limits, its tilt must be correct to cause the seasons, its land - water ratio must be a delicate balance.地球一定是合适的规模,它的自转必须在一定的限度,其倾斜必须正确造成的季节,它的土地 - 水的比例必须是一个微妙的平衡。Our biological structure is very fragile.我们的生物结构非常脆弱。A little too much heat or cold and we die.有一点过多的热量或冷,我们死了。We need light, but not too much ultraviolet.我们需要光,但不要太多的紫外线。We need heat, but not too much infrared.我们需要热量,但不要太多红外线。We live just beneath an airscreen shielding us from millions of missiles every day.下面我们就住一个屏蔽每天数百万的导弹我们airscreen。We live just ten miles above a rock screen that shields us from the terrible heat under our feet. Who created all these screens and shields that make our earthly existence possible?我们就住十英里以上的岩石屏幕,我们脚下的盾牌我们热受到可怕的。 谁创造了这一切的屏幕和盾牌,使我们的尘世的存在可能吗?

Once again we are faced with a choice. Either the universe was designed or it developed all these features by chance.我们又一次面临着一个选择。 要么宇宙是它开发的功能设计或偶然的这一切。The cosmos is either a plan or an accident!宇宙要么是一个计划或意外!

Most people have an innate repugnance to the notion of chance because it contradicts the way we ordinarily explain things.大多数人有一个观念的先天厌恶的机会,因为它违背了我们通常解释的事情。Chance is not an explanation but an abandonment of explanation.机会是不是一个解释,但放弃了解释。When a scientist explains an immediate event, he operates on the assumption that this is a regular universe where everything occurs as a result of the orderly procession of cause and effect. Yet when the naturalist comes to metaphysics, to the origin of the entire cosmos, he abandons the principle of sufficient reason and assumes that the cause of everything is an unthinkable causelessness, chance, or fate.当一个科学家解释一个即时事件,他操纵的假设,这是一个普通的宇宙中发生的一切作为整个宇宙的一个结果的原因和有秩序地游行效果。 然而,当涉及到自然形而上学的起源,到,他放弃原则的理由充分,假定一切是不可想象的事业causelessness,机会,或命运。

Suppose you were standing facing a target and you saw an arrow fired from behind you hit the bull's eye.假设你站在面对一个目标,你看到一个箭头,你从背后开枪击中了靶心。Then you saw nine more arrows fired in rapid succession all hitting the same bull's eye.然后你看到更多的快速连续九个全部命中相同的靶心箭发射。The aim is so accurate that each arrow splits the previous arrow as it hits.这样做的目的是如此精确,每个箭头上箭头分裂,因为它击中。 Now an arrow shot into the air is subject to many contrary and discordant processes, gravity, air pressure, and wind. When ten arrows reach the bull's eye, does this not rule out the possibility of mere chance?现在一到空气中毒箭,是受很多相反,不和谐的过程中,重力,气压,风力。 当十箭达到公牛的眼睛,难道这不是机会的可能性排除单纯?Would you not say that this was the result of an expert archer?你会不会说,这是射手结果的专家?Is this parable not analogous to our universe?这比喻是不是类似于我们的宇宙呢?

It is objected that the design argument, even if valid, does not prove a creator but only an architect, and even then only an architect intelligent enough to produce the known universe, not necessarily an omniscient being.它是反对的设计论证,即使有效,并不能证明一个创造者,而只是一个建筑师,即使在那时只是一个建筑师智能足以产生已知的宇宙中,不一定是无所不知的福祉。 This objection is correct. We must not try to prove more than the evidence will allow. We will not get the 100 percent Yahweh of the Bible from any evidence of natural theology. However, this universe of ours is so vast and wonderful we can safely conclude that its designer would be worthy of our worship and devotion.这种反对意见是正确的。 我们决不能试图证明以上的证据将允许。圣经,我们不会得到任何的自然神学100证据百分之雅威的。 然而,这对我们的宇宙是如此的广阔和美好的,我们可以放心地得出结论,它的设计者将奉献值得我们崇拜与禁忌。

Many object that the theory of evolution takes most of the wind out of the design argument.许多对象的进化理论以最有效地在风的设计参数。Evolution shows that the marvelous design in living organisms came about by slow adaptation to the environment, not by intelligent creation.演变表明,在生物奇妙的设计是约缓慢适应环境的智能没有创造。This is a false claim.这是一种错误的说法。Even if admitted, evolution only introduces a longer time frame into the question of design.即使承认,只是引入了进化的设计问题较长的时间框架。Proving that watches came from a completely automated factory with no human intervention would not make us give up interest in a designer, for if we thought a watch was wonderful, what must we think of a factory that produces watches?证明手表从一个没有人的干预来完全自动化的工厂不会使我们放弃一个设计师的兴趣,因为如果我们以为一看是美好的,什么是必须我们认为一个工厂,生产的手表,? Would it not suggest a designer just as forcefully? Religious people have been overly frightened by the theory of evolution.难道不会建议一个设计师一样有力? 宗教人士一直害怕过于 ​​演化的理论。

Even the great critics of natural theology, Hume and Kant, betrayed an admiration for the teleological argument.即使是自然神学,休谟和康德,伟大的批评家出卖为目的论的争论是钦佩。Hume granted it a certain limited validity.休谟又给了某些有限的有效性。Kant went even further: "This proof will always deserve to be treated with respect. It is the oldest, the clearest and most in conformity with human reason . . . We have nothing to say against the reasonableness and utility of this line of argument, but wish, on the contrary, to commend and encourage it."康德走得更远:“这证明,将永远值得尊重的对待它是最古老,最清晰和最符合人类理性与我们没有什么可说的合理性和对这种论点行实用程序。。。。但希望,相反,以表彰和鼓励。“


The Moral Argument在道德争议

This is the most recent of the theistic proofs. The first major philosopher to use it was Kant, who felt that the traditional proofs were defective. 这是最近的有神论的证据的。第一个大哲学家康德使用它,谁认为,传统的证明有缺陷。Kant held that the existence of God and the immortality of the soul were matters of faith, not ordinary speculative reason, which, he claimed, is limited to sensation.康德认为,上帝的存在和灵魂不死的信仰问题,不是一般的投机的理由,而且,他声称,只限于感觉。

Kant reasoned that the moral law commands us to seek the summum bonum (highest good), with perfect happiness as a logical result.康德的理由是,道德法律命令我们寻求一个合乎逻辑的结果summum博纳姆(最高不错)完美的幸福。But a problem arises when we contemplate the unpleasant fact that "there is not the slightest ground in the moral law for a necessary connexion between morality and proportionate happiness in a being that belongs to the world as a part of it."但出现问题时,我们考虑了令人不快的事实,“有没有一个被认为属于世界的一部分,在道德之间建立一种必要的和相称的幸福丝毫Connexion的道德法律基础。” The only postulate, therefore, that will make sense of man's moral experience is "the existence of a cause of all nature, distinct from nature itself," ie, a God who will properly reward moral endeavor in another world.唯一的假设,因此,这将使人类的道德体验的感觉是,即上帝谁一定会妥善奖励在另一个世界的道德努力“的所有性质的原因,从本身的性质,不同的存在”。 In a godless universe man's deepest experience would be a cruel enigma.不信神的人​​在宇宙中最深切的经验将是一个残酷的谜。

In his Rumor of Angels, Peter Berger gives an interesting negative version of the moral argument, which he calls "the argument from damnation."天使在他的谣言,彼得伯杰给出了一个道德的说法,他称之为有意义的负版本“从诅咒的说法。”Our apodictic moral condemnation of such immoral men as Adolf Eichmann seems to transcend tastes and mores; it seems to demand a condemnation of supernatural dimensions.我们明白的阿道夫艾希曼作为道义上的谴责这种不道德的人似乎超越口味和习俗,它似乎需要一个超自然的层面的谴责。

Some deeds are not only evil but monstrously evil; they appear immune to any kind of moral relativizing.有些事情不仅是邪恶的,但无情无义的邪恶,他们似乎不受任何一种道德相对化。In making such high voltage moral judgments, as when we condemn slavery and genocide, we point to a transcendent realm of moral absolutes.在作出这样的道德判断,因为高电压时,我们谴责奴隶制和种族屠杀,我们的道德指向一个绝对的超然境界。Otherwise, all our moralizing is pointless and groundless.否则,我们所有的道德说教是毫无意义和毫无根据的。A "preaching relativist" is one of the most comical of self contradictions.一个“说教相对主义”是最滑稽的自我矛盾之一。

Most modern thinkers who use the moral argument continue Kant's thesis that God is a necessary postulate to explain moral experience. Kant thought the moral law could be established by reason, but he called in God to guarantee the reward for virtue. 最道德的争论现代思想家谁使用继续康德的论断,上帝是一个必要的假设来解释道德体验。康德认为道德的法律可以成立的理由,但他叫神的美德,以保证奖励。 Modern thinkers do not use God so much for the reward as for providing a ground for the moral law in the first place.近代思想家不使用这么多的报酬为神为首位在道德法律的理由。

The moral argument starts with the simple fact of ethical experience. The pressure to do one's duty can be felt as strongly as the pressure of an empirical object.道德与伦理的争论始于一个简单的事实的经验。 压力做自己的职责,可以强烈感受到作为一个实证对象的压力。Who or what is causing this pressure? It is not enough to say that we are conditioned by society to feel those pressures.谁或者是什么造成了这种压力?这是不够的,说我们是社会条件所感受到的压力。Some of the greatest moralists in history have acquired their fame precisely because they criticized the moral failings of their group, tribe, class, race, or nation.历史上最伟大的道德有些已获得他们的名利,正是由于他们批评他们的团体,部落,阶级,种族或民族的道德缺陷。If social subjectivism is the explanation of moral motivation, then we have no right to criticize slavery or genocide or anything!如果社会主观主义是道德动机的解释,那么我们就没有权利批评奴隶制或种族灭绝或任何东西!

Evolutionists attack the moral argument by insisting that all morality is merely a long development from animal instincts.进化论者的攻击,坚持认为所有的道德仅仅是一个长期的发展,从动物的本能的道德争论。Men gradually work out their ethical systems by living together in social communities.男子工作,逐步由社会群体共同生活在自己的道德体系。But this objection is a two edged sword: if it kills morality, it also kills reason and the scientific method.但是,这种反对意见是两双刃剑:如果它杀死道德,它也杀死的原因和科学方法。The evolutionist believes that the human intellect developed from the physical brain of the primates, yet he assumes that the intellect is trustworthy.进化论认为,人的智力从灵长类动物大脑发达身体,但他假设智力是可靠的。If the mind is entitled to trust, though evolved from the lower forms, why not the moral nature also?如果心有权信任,虽然从低级生物进化而来,为什么不是道德的性质也?

Many people will go part way and accept moral objectivism, but they want to stop with a transcendent realm of impersonal moral absolutes.很多人会去接受道德的一部分的方式和客观,但他们要停止与道德绝对的客观超然境界。They deny that one must believe in a Person, Mind, or Lawgiver.他们否认人们必须相信一个人,心,或立法者。This seems reductive. It is difficult to imagine an "impersonal mind." How could a thing make us feel duty bound to be kind, helpful, truthful, and loving?这似乎还原性。 这是很难想像一个“客观的态度。”怎么可能的事情让我们感到爱有义务有爱心,乐于助人,诚实,和?We should press on, all the way to a Person, God, the Lawgiver.我们应该按,一路一个人,神,立法者。Only then is the moral experience adequately explained.只有这样的道德体验充分解释。

The Question of Validity效力问题

How valid are all these theistic proofs? This question raises issues in a number of fields: logic, metaphysics, physics, and theory of knowledge. 如何有效的都是这些有神论的证据:这个问题提出了一些问题的一个领域逻辑,形而上学,物理学和理论知识。Some thinkers like Aquinas feel that the proofs reach the level of demonstration.一些思想家如阿奎那认为,证明达到示范水平。 Others like Hume say that we should just suspend judgment and remain skeptics.像休谟也有人说,我们应该暂停判断,并保持怀疑。 Still others like Pascal and Kant reject the traditional proofs but offer instead practical grounds or reasons for accepting God's existence.如Pascal和康德还有一些传统的证明,但拒绝提供接受神的存在,而不是实际的理由或原因。Pascal's famous wager is an appeal to pragmatism; it makes sense, in view of the eternal consequences, to bet on the existence of God.帕斯卡的赌注是一对著名的实用主义上诉,这是有道理的,在永恒的后果,以赌上帝存在。

Paul seems to demand a high view of the theistic proofs when he says that the unbelievers are "without excuse."保罗似乎要求非常高的有神论的证据观点时,他说,信的是“没有借口。”"What can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made" (Rom. 1:19 - 20). “有什么可以对上帝知道是显而易见的,因为上帝显示给他们看。自从他的无形世界的本质,即他的永恒力量和神,创建以来,一直清楚在已经取得的东西视为” (罗马书一时19分 - 20)。

Paul was not necessarily affirming that the arguments are deductive, analytical, or demonstrative. If someone rejected a proposition of high probability, we could still say that he was "without excuse." The arguments, in their cumulative effect, make a very strong case for the existence of God, but they are not logically inexorable or rationally inevitable. If we define proof as probable occurrence based on empirically produced experiences and subject to the test of reasonable judgment, then we can say the arguments prove the existence of God. 保罗并不一定是肯定的论据演绎,分析,或示范。如果有人拒绝了命题的概率高,我们还可以说他是“没有借口。” 的论点,在他们的累积效应,使一个非常有力的理由为上帝的存在的,但它们不是理性的逻辑必然或不可避免的。如果我们定义判断证明合理的测试为可能发生的经验的基础上产生的经验和主题, 那么我们可以说的论据证明上帝存在。

If God truly exists, then we are dealing with a factual proposition, and what we really want when we ask for proof of a factual proposition is not a demonstration of its logical impossibility but a degree of evidence that will exclude reasonable doubt. Something can be so probable that it excludes reasonable doubt without being deductive or analytical or demonstrative or logically inevitable. 如果上帝真的存在,那么我们面对的一个事实命题,我们真正想要的,当我们问事实主张提供证据的A不是不可能的逻辑论证,而是怀疑程度的证据,这将排除合理。有些东西是因此,它可能没有被排除演绎或分析或示范或逻辑上的必然合理的怀疑。 We feel that the theistic proofs, excluding the ontological argument, fall into this category.我们认为,有神论的证据,但不包括本体论的争论,都属于这一类。

Natural theology, however, can never establish the existence of the biblical God.自然神学,但是,不能成立的神存在的圣经。These proofs may make one a deist, but only revelation will make one a Christian. 这些证据可以使一个自然神论者,但只有启示,使一个基督徒。Reason operating without revelation always turns up with a deity different from Yahweh, the Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. One can confirm this easily by comparing Yahweh with the deities of Aristotle, Spinoza, Voltaire, and Thomas Paine. 理性的启示经营无总是轮流与一个神。不同耶和华,耶稣的父亲,我们的主耶稣我们可以证实,这很容易潘恩和伏尔泰,比较与神耶和华亚里士多德,斯宾诺莎。

AJ Hoover欧塞尔胡佛
(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary) (Elwell宣布了福音字典)

Bibliography 参考书目
J Baillie, Our Knowledge of God; D Burrill, The Cosmological Argument; GH Clark, A Christian View of Men and Things; RED Clark, The Universe: Plan or Accident? Ĵ贝利,我们对上帝的知识; ð伯里尔,宇宙的论点;生长激素克拉克事物的男性和基督教认为,红色克拉克,宇宙:计划或意外?HH Farmer, Towards Belief in God; R Hazelton, On Proving God; J Hick, The Existence of God; D Hicks, The Philosophical Basis of Theism; AJ Hoover, The Case for Christian Theism; S Jaki, The Road of Science and the Ways to God; CEM Joad, God and Evil; J Maritain, Approaches to God; EL Mascall, The Openness of Being; G Mavrodes, The Rationality of Belief in God; A Plantinga, ed., The Ontological Argument; RC Sproul, If There Is a God, Why Are There Atheists? HH农民,走向信仰的神ř黑泽尔顿,在证明上帝; Ĵ希克,神的存在; ð希克斯,对有神论的哲学基础;欧塞尔胡佛,为基督教的有神论案例中,S Jaki,科学路和途径神澳电乔德,上帝和邪恶; J旦,接近上帝;发光马斯科尔,存在的开放性; Ğ Mavrodes,在上帝的信仰理性,一个普兰廷卡,海关,本体论的争论。钢筋混凝土斯普劳尔,如果有一位神,为什么有无神论者?AE Taylor, Does God Exist?泰勒自动曝光,上帝是否存在?


The Existence of God上帝的存在

Catholic Information天主教新闻

The topic will be treated as follows:该主题将被视为如下:

I. As Known Through Natural Reason一,众所周知,通过自然理性

A. The Problem StatedA.问题叙述性

1. 1。Formal Anti-Theism正式反有神论

2. 2。Types of Theism有神论的类型

B. Theistic Proofs二有神论的证据

1. 1。A Posteriori Argument事后的说法

(a) The general causality argument(一)一般因果关系的说法

(b) The argument from design(二)从设计论证

(c) The argument from conscience(c)从良心参数

(d) The argument from universal consent(四)从普遍同意的论点

2. 2。A Priori, or Ontological, Argument先验的,或者本体论,引

II.二。As Known Through Faith众所周知凭借信心

A. Sacred Scriptures答:神圣的经文

B. Church Councils二堂议会

C. The Knowability of GodC的可知性神

I. AS KNOWN THROUGH NATURAL REASON一,作为已知的通过自然理性

("THE GOD OF THE PHILOSOPHERS")(“哲学家的上帝”)

A. THE PROBLEM STATEDA.问题注明

1. 1。Formal Anti-Theism正式反有神论

Had the Theist merely to face a blank Atheistic denial of God's existence, his task would he comparatively a light one.如果仅仅是有神论者面对空白的神的存在无神论否认,他的任务他会比较轻的。 Formal dogmatic Atheism is self-refuting, and has never de facto won the reasoned assent of any considerable number of men.正式的教条式的无神论是自我反驳,事实上也从未赢得了相当数量的男性任何理由同意。 Nor can Polytheism, however easily it may take hold of the popular imagination, ever satisfy the mind of a philosopher.也不能多神教,但它可能很容易把握流行的想象力,不断满足一个哲学家的头脑。But there are several varieties of what may be described as virtual Atheism which cannot be dismissed so summarily.但有什么可被视为虚拟无神论不能这么草率解雇描述几个品种。

There is the Agnosticism, for instance, of Herbert Spencer, which, while admitting the rational necessity of postulating the Absolute or Unconditioned behind the relative and conditioned objects of our knowledge declares that Absolute to be altogether unknowable, to be in fact the Unknowable, about which without being guilty of contradiction we can predicate nothing at all, except perhaps that It exists; and there are other types of Agnosticism.还有就是比如不可知论,斯宾塞,其中,虽然承认了理性假定的绝对必要性或背后我们的知识相对无条件和有条件的对象声明,绝对是完全不可知的,实际上是在不可知,约那些没有被定罪的矛盾,我们什么都可以谓词,或许就是它的存在,并有其他类型的不可知论。 Then again there is Pantheism in an almost endless variety of forms, all of which, however, may be logically reduced to the three following types:然后再是有一个表格,所有这些,然而,在逻辑上可能减少到以下三个类型几乎是无限多种泛神论:

the purely materialistic, which, making matter the only reality, would explain life by mechanics and chemistry, reduce abstract thought to the level of an organic process deny any higher ultimate moral value to the Ten Commandments than to Newton's law of gravitation, and, finally, identify God Himself with the universe thus interpreted (see MATERIALISM; MONISM);纯粹的物质,这使得问题的唯一的现实,将解释力学和化学的使用寿命,减少抽象思维到了一个有机的工艺水平否认比牛顿的万有引力定律任何更高的终极道德价值的十诫,并最终,确定神自己这样解释的宇宙(见唯物主义;一元论);

the purely idealistic, which, choosing the contrary alternative, would make mind the only reality, convert the material universe into an idea, and identify God with this all-embracing mind or idea, conceived as eternally evolving itself into passing phases or expressions of being and attaining self-consciousness in the souls of men; and纯粹的理想,其中,选择了相反的选择,会使心中的唯一的现实,转换成一个想法宇宙的物质,并确定这种无所不包的想法是永恒的心灵或演变成被传递阶段或表达自己的设想,神并实现自我在人的灵魂意识;及

the combined materialistic-idealistic, which tries to steer a middle course and without sacrificing mind to matter or matter to mind, would conceive the existing universe, with which God is identified, as some sort of "double-faced" single entity.合并后的唯物主义唯心主义的,试图引导一个中间路线,没有牺牲精神到物质或物质想到,会隐瞒现有的宇宙,与上帝被认定为某种“双面”单一实体进行排序。

Thus to accomplish even the beginning of his task the Theist has to show, against Agnostics, that the knowledge of God attainable by rational inference -- however inadequate and imperfect it may be -- is as true and valid, as far as it goes, as any other piece of knowledge we possess; and against Pantheists that the God of reason is a supra-mundane personal God distinct both from matter and from the finite human mind -- that neither we ourselves nor the earth we tread upon enter into the constitution of His being.因此,要完成,甚至他的任务者必须证明,对不可知论者,一开始,神的理性推理实现由知识 - 不过不足和不完善的,它可能是 - 是真实,有效,尽可能去,任何方面的知识,我们拥有一块;反对pantheists认为上帝的原因是超世俗的神都从个人的问题,从有限的人的头脑 - 这既不是我们自己,也不是我们地球进入践踏宪法他的福祉。

2. 2。Types of Theism有神论的类型

But passing from views that are formally anti-theistic, it is found that among Theists themselves certain differences exist which tend to complicate the problem, and increase the difficulty of stating it briefly and clearly.但是,从正式意见,是反有神论的传递,它是发现,其中有神论者自己的某些分歧存在问题趋于复杂化,并增加说明它简单,明确的困难。 Some of these differences are brief and clear.这些差异有些是简单明了。

Some of these differences are merely formal and accidental and do not affect the substance of the theistic thesis, but others are of substantial importance, as, for instance, whether we can validly establish the truth of God's existence by the same kind of rational inference (eg from effect to cause) as we employ in other departments of knowledge, or whether, in order to justify our belief in this truth, we must not rather rely on some transcendental principle or axiom, superior and antecedent to dialectical reasoning; or on immediate intuition; or on some moral, sentimental, emotional, or æsthetic instinct or perception, which is voluntary rather than intellectual.这些差异有些仅仅是正式的和偶然的,不影响有神论的论文内容,但其他人都是相当大的重要性,例如,因为,我们是否可以有效地建立了理性的推理同类上帝的存在的真理(例如,从效力原因),因为我们在聘请其他部门的知识,还是为了证明我们在这个真理的信念,我们不能,而不是靠一些先验原则或公理,优越的先行,以辩证的推理;或眼前利益直觉,或者对一些道德,情操,情感,或审美本能和知觉,这是自愿的而不是理智。

Kant denied in the name of "pure reason" the inferential validity of the classical theistic proofs, while in the name of "practical reason" he postulated God's existence as an implicate of the moral law, and Kant's method has been followed or imitated by many Theists -- by some who fully agree with him in rejecting the classical arguments; by others, who, without going so far, believe in the apologetical expediency of trying to persuade rather than convince men to be Theists.康德否认在“纯粹理性”的古典有神论的证据推理的有效性的名称,而在“实践理性”,他假设上帝的存在作为牵连的道德律,康德的方法一直沿用或许多模仿名称其他人,谁,不至于在试图说服而不是说服男子相信是有神论者护教的权宜之计;一些谁完全同意他在拒绝了经典的参数 - 有神论者。A moderate reaction against the too rigidly mathematical intellectualism of Descartes was to be welcomed, but the Kantian reaction by its excesses has injured the cause of Theism and helped forward the cause of anti-theistic philosophy.一个反对笛卡尔太拘泥于数学理智温和的反应是值得欢迎的,但其反应过激康德受伤的原因,并帮助有神论提出了反有神论的哲学事业。 Herbert Spencer, as is well known, borrowed most of his arguments for Agnosticism from Hamilton and Mansel, who had popularized Kantian criticism in England, while in trying to improve on Kant's reconstructive transcendentalism, his German disciples (Fichte, Schelling, Hegel) drifted into Pantheism.斯宾塞,众所周知,借从汉密尔顿和曼塞尔,谁曾流行于英国康德的批判不可知论他的论据最多,而在试图改善康德的整复验,他的德国弟子(费希特,谢林,黑格尔)漂入泛神论。 Kant also helped to prepare the way for the total disparagement of human reason in relation to religious truth, which constitutes the negative side of Traditionalism, while the appeal of that system on the positive side to the common consent and tradition of mankind as the chief or sole criterion of truth and more especially of religious truth -- its authority as a criterion being traced ultimately to a positive Divine revelation -- is, like Kant's refuge in practical reason, merely an illogical attempt to escape from Agnosticism.康德也帮助准备为在有关宗教的真理,它构成了人类理性的传统主义的负面影响总贬低的方式,而在积极方面呼吁该系统的共同同意,并为行政或人类的传统真理的唯一标准,更特别是宗教真理 - 它的权威,最终的标准,并追查到一个积极的神圣启示 - 是,像康德的实践理性,仅仅是一个不合逻辑的企图逃离不可知论避难。

Again, though Ontologism -- like that of Malebranche (d. 1715) -- is older than Kant, its revival in the nineteenth century (by Gioberti, Rosmini, and others) has been inspired to some extent by Kantian influences.再次,虽然ontologism - 这样的马勒伯朗士(草1715) - 是不是康德,它在十九世纪的复兴旧(gi oberti,罗斯米尼,和其他人)一直激励着在一定程度上受康德的影响。 This system maintains that we have naturally some immediate consciousness, however dim at first, or some intuitive knowledge of God -- not indeed that we see Him in His essence face to face but that we know Him in His relation to creatures by the same act of cognition -- according to Rosmini, as we become conscious of being in general -- and therefore that the truth of His existence is as much a datum of philosophy as is the abstract idea of being.这一制度坚持认为我们有一些自然立即觉悟,但在第一暗淡,或一些神良知 - 不确实,我们看到了他的本质他的脸去面对,但我们知道他在他的关系由同一行为的生物认知 - 根据罗斯米尼,当我们成为自觉的被一般 - 因此认为,他的存在的真理是作为一个基准的哲学是抽象的概念。

Finally, the philosophy of Modernism -- about which there has recently been such a stir -- is a somewhat complex medley of these various systems and tendencies; its main features as a system are:最后,现代主义哲学 - 关于这点,最近这种轰动 - 是这些不同的系统和倾向有点复杂混合泳作为一个系统,其主要特点是:

negatively, a thoroughgoing intellectual Agnosticism, and positively, the assertion of an immediate sense or experience of God as immanent in the life of the soul -- an experience which is at first only subconscious, but which, when the requsite moral dispositions are present, becomes an object of conscious certainty.消极,深入开展智力不可知论,并采取积极,一个即时的常识或经验的上帝,在生命的灵魂内在的说法 - 一个经验,这是第一只在潜意识的,但,当r equsite道德的处分都存在,成为自觉把握的对象。

Now all these varying types of Theism, in so far as they are opposed to the classical and traditional type, may be reduced to one or other of the two following propositions:现在,所有这些不同类型的有神论,只要他们是反对古典和传统型,有可能减少到一个或另一个以下两个命题:

that we have naturally an immediate consciousness or intuition of God's existence and may therefore dispense with any attempt to prove this truth inferentially;我们很自然地立即意识上帝的存在或直觉,因此可以免除任何试图证明这个真理inferentially;

that, though we do not know this truth intuitively and cannot prove it inferentially in such a way as to satisfy the speculative reason, we can, nevertheless, and must conscientiously believe it on other than strictly intellectual grounds. ,尽管我们不知道这个真理,直观,并不能证明它inferentially这样一种方式,以满足投机,因此,我们可以,不过,必须认真相信这对其他较严格的知识产权的理由了。

But an appeal to experience, not to mention other objections, is sufficient to negative the first proposition -- and the second, which, as history has already made clear, is an illogical compromise with Agnosticism, is best refuted by a simple statement of the theistic Proofs.但是上诉的经验,更遑论其他反对意见,就足以否定第一命题 - 和第二,其中,因为历史已经明确,是一个不可知论不合逻辑的妥协,最好是由一个简单的声明驳斥有神论的证明。It is not the proofs that are found to be fallacious but the criticism which rejects them.它是不是被发现是错误的,但他们的批评,拒绝证明。It is true of course -- and no Theist denies it -- that for the proper intellectual appreciation of theistic proofs moral dispositions are required, and that moral consciousness, the æsthetic faculty, and whatever other powers or capacities belong to man's spiritual nature, constitute or supply so many data on which to base inferential proofs.这当然是真实的 - 并没有有神论否认它 - ,对于有神论的证据妥善处置知识升值道德需要,道德意识,审美教师和任何其他权力或能力属于人类的精神本质,构成或提供这么多的数据,以此为基础的推理证明。 But this is very different from holding that we possess any faculty or power which assures us of God's existence and which is independent of, and superior to, the intellectual laws that regulate our assent to truth in general -- that in the religious sphere we can transcend those laws without confessing our belief in God to be irrational.不过,这是很大的,我们拥有控股或任何权力,保证教职工对上帝的存在我们,这是独立的,并凌驾于的知识产权法律,规范一般我们赞同真理的不同 - 这在宗教领域,我们可以超越不承认我们对上帝的信仰是不合理的法律。It is also true that a mere barren intellectual assent to the truth of God's existence -- and such an assent is conceivable -- falls very far short of what religious assent ought to be; that what is taught in revealed religion about the worthlessness of faith uninformed by charity has its counterpart in natural religion; and that practical Theism, if it pretends to be adequate, must appeal not merely to the intellect but to the heart and conscience of mankind and be capable of winning the total allegiance of rational creatures.这也是事实,仅仅贫瘠智力赞同以上帝的存在的真理 - 而这种同意是可以想象的 - 属于短很远的东西应该是宗教同意,这是教什么启示宗教的信仰无价值约由慈善机构不了解情况有其对应的自然宗教,并认为实际的有神论,如果它假装是适当的,必须呼吁不仅仅是智力,而是对心脏和人类良知,是理性的动物,赢得了总效忠的能力。 But here again we meet with exaggeration and confusion on the part of those Theists who would substitute for intellectual assent something that does not exclude but presupposes it and is only required to complement it.但是在这里我们再次见面夸张和对这些有神论者谁同意将取代智力的东西,但不排除它的先决条件,只需要补充部分混乱。The truth and pertinency of these observations will be made clear by the following summary of the classical arguments for God's existence.的真实性和针对性将这些意见作出了明确规定了经典的论据为上帝的存在的总结。

B. THEISTIC PROOFS二有神论的证据

The arguments for God's existence are variously classified and entitled by different writers, but all agree in recognizing the distinction between a priori, or deductive, and a posteriori, or inductive reasoning in this connection.上帝的存在的论点是不同的分类和不同的作家有权,但都承认先天之间的区别,或演绎同意,并在这方面事后,或归纳推理。 And while all admit the validity and sufficiency of the latter method, opinion is divided in regard to the former.虽然都承认的有效性和充足的一种方法,意见不一对于前者。Some maintain that a valid a priori proof (usually called the ontological) is available; others deny this completely; while some others maintain an attitude of compromise or neutrality.有人认为,一个有效的先验证明(通常称为本体论)是可用,其他完全否认这一点,而有些则保持中立态度的妥协和。 This difference, it should be observed, applies only to the question of proving God's actual existence; for, His self-existence being admitted, it is necessary to employ a priori or deductive inference in order to arrive at a knowledge of His nature and attributes, and as it is impossible to develop the arguments for His existence without some working notion of His nature, it is necessary to some extent to anticipate the deductive stage and combine the a priori with the a posteriori method.这种差异,应该得到遵守,只适用于证明上帝的实际存在的问题,因为,他的自我的存在被承认,有必要聘请先天或演绎推理,从而得出一个他的自然的认识和属性,当它是不可能的发展离不开他的一些概念性质的工作为他的存在的论点,有必要在一定程度上预测演绎舞台,并结合后验方法的先验。 But no strictly a priori conclusion need be more than hypothetically assumed at this stage.但是,没有严格的先验结论需要多假设假设在这个阶段。

1. 1。A Posteriori Argument事后的说法

St. Thomas (Summa Theologica I:2:3; Cont. Gent., I, xiii) and after him many scholastic writers advance the five following arguments to prove the existence of God:圣托马斯(总结theologica我:2:3;连拍根特,一,十三。。)后,他的许多作家,在学术上提前五年以下论据,以证明上帝的存在:

Motion, ie the passing from power to act, as it takes place in the universe implies a first unmoved Mover (primum movens immobile), who is God; else we should postulate an infinite series of movers, which is inconceivable.运动,即从权力的行为传递,因为它发生在宇宙中的地位意味着第一不为所动捷运(primum movens不动),谁是上帝;否则,我们应该假定一个推动者无穷级数,这是不可想象的。For the same reason efficient causes, as we see them operating in this world, imply the existence of a First Cause that is uncaused, ie that possesses in itself the sufficient reason for its existence; and this is God.出于同样的原因,高效率的原因,因为我们看到他们在这个世界上运行,意味着第一个原因是独立自存的,也就是说,在它的存在本身就具有足够的理由存在,这就是上帝。 The fact that contingent beings exist, ie beings whose non-existence is recognized as possible, implies the existence of a necessary being, who is God.事实上,队伍的人存在,即人的不存在是可能的认可,意味着一个必要的,谁是上帝的存在。

The graduated perfections of being actually existing in the universe can be understood only by comparison with an absolute standard that is also actual, ie, an infinitely perfect Being such as God.被宇宙中实际存在的毕业完善可以理解的,只有通过与一个绝对的标准,这也是实际的,即,比较一个无限完美如神存在。The wonderful order or evidence of intelligent design which the universe exhibits implies the existence of a supramundane Designer, who is no other than God Himself.奇妙的命令或智能设计的证据,是宇宙的展品则意味着一个supramundane设计师的存在,没有谁是比上帝本人。

To these many Theists add other arguments:这些很多有神论者添加其他参数:

the common consent of mankind (usually described by Catholic writers as the moral argument),人类共同的同意(通常由天主教作家描述为道德参数),

from the internal witness of conscience to the supremacy of the moral law, and, therefore, to the existence of a supreme Lawgiver (this may be called the ethical argument, or从内部证人良知的道德法律至上,因此,一个最高立法者(这可能是所谓的伦理争论,或存在

from the existence and perception of beauty in the universe (the aesthetical argument).从生存和宇宙中的美的概念(美学参数)。

One might go on, indeed, almost indefinitely multiplying and distinguishing arguments; but to do so would only lead to confusion.有人可能会继续下去,而事实上,几乎无限期地成倍增加,并区分论点,但这样做只会导致混乱。

The various arguments mentioned -- and the same is true of others that might be added -- are not in reality distinct and independent arguments, but only so many partial statements of one and the same general argument, which is perhaps best described as the cosmological.提到的各种参数 - 而同样的,是真实的其他可能加入 - 是不是在现实中的独特和独立的论据,但只有这么多的部分报表同一个一般性的说法,这也许是最好的描述宇宙。This argument assumes the validity of the principle of causality or sufficient reason and, stated in its most comprehensive form, amounts to this: that it is impossible according to the laws of human thought to give any ultimate rational explanation of the phenomena of external experience and of internal consciousness -- in other words to synthesize the data which the actual universe as a whole supplies (and this is the recognized aim of philosophy) -- unless by admitting the existence of a self-sufficient and self-explanatory cause or ground of being and activity, to which all these phenomena may be ultimately referred.这个论点假定的因果关系或有足够的理由原则的有效性,并在其最全面的形式表示,数量,以这样的:这是不可能的,根据人的思维规律作出任何最终的外部经验和合理解释的现象内部意识 - 换句话说合成的数据,实际的宇宙一(这是哲学的认可AIM)的整体用品 - 除非承认一个自给自足,自我解释的原因或理由的存在福利和活动,这是所有这些现象可能是最终转介。

It is, therefore, mainly a question of method and expediency what particular points one may select from the multitude available to illustrate and enforce the general a posteriori argument.这是,因此,主要是方法和权宜之计什么特别点之一,也可以选择从众多可用来说明,并执行一般事后的说法。For our purpose it will suffice to state as briefly as possible为了我们的目的,这将足以说明尽可能简短

the general argument proving the self-existence of a First Cause,一般的说法,证明自身存在的第一个原因,

the special arguments proving the existence of an intelligent Designer and of a Supreme Moral Ruler, and特别论据证明了一种智能设计师和一个最高道德的统治者的存在,并

the confirmatory argument from the general Consent of mankind.从人类的一般同意验证的说法。

(a) The general causality argument(一)一般因果关系的说法

We must start by assuming the objective certainty and validity of the principle of causality or sufficient reason -- an assumption upon which the value of the physical sciences and of human knowledge generally is based.我们必须从客观的确定性和假设的因果关系或有足够的理由原则的有效性 - 一个赖以物理科学和人类知识的价值一般是基于假设。 To question its objective certainty, as did Kant, and represent it as a mere mental a priori, or possessing only subjective validity, would open the door to subjectivism and universal scepticism.其客观必然性的提问一样,康德,并代表仅仅作为一个先验的心理,或只具有主观有效性,将打开了主观主义和普遍持怀疑态度的大门。 It is impossible to prove the principle of causality, just as it is impossible to prove the principle of contradiction; but it is not difficult to see that if the former is denied the latter may also be denied and the whole process of human reasoning declared fallacious.这是无法证明的原则,因果关系,只是因为它是无法证明的矛盾的原则,但我们不难看出,如果前者是后者的拒绝也可以拒绝与人类的推理谬误宣布全过程。 The principle states that whatever exists or happens must have a sufficient reason for its existence or occurrence either in itself or in something else ; in other words that whatever does not exist of absolute necessity - whatever is not self-existent -- cannot exist without a proportionate cause external to itself; and if this principle is valid when employed by the scientist to explain the phenomena of physics it must be equally valid when employed by the philosopher for the ultimate explanation of the universe as a whole.该原则指出,无论存在或发生,必须有其存在或出现足够的理由无论是在自身或别的什么,换句话说,无论是不存在的绝对必要的 - 不论是不是自我存在的 - 离不开一由于外来自身相称的,如果这个原则是有效的聘用时由科学家来解释物理现象,它必须是同等有效的哲学家时雇用了整个宇宙的最终解释。In the universe we observe that certain things are effects, ie they depend for their existence on other things, and these again on others; but, however far back we may extend this series of effects and dependent causes, we must, if human reason is to be satisfied, come ultimately to a cause that is not itself an effect, in other words to an uncaused cause or self-existent being which is the ground and cause of all being.在宇宙中,我们观察到,有些事情是影响,即他们依靠对其他事物的存在,而这些又对他人,但是,但是我们可以延长早这一系列影响和依赖的原因,我们必须,如果人类的原因是得到满足,最终来到一个事业本身不是一个效果,换句话说,以一个uncaused事业或自我存在正在这是地面和一切存在的原因。

And this conclusion, as thus stated, is virtually admitted by agnostics and Pantheists, all of whom are obliged to speak of an eternal something underlying the phenomenal universe, whether this something be the "Unknown", or the "Absolute", or the "Unconscious", or "Matter" itself, or the "Ego", or the "Idea" of being, or the "Will"; these are so many substitutes for the uncaused cause or self-existent being of Theism.而这一结论,从而指出,实际上是承认的不可知论者和泛神论,所有的人都必须讲一个永恒的宇宙现象背后的东西,这东西是否是“未知”,或“绝对”,或“无意识“,或”物质“本身,还是”自我“,或”理念“正在或”会“,这些都为独立自存的原因或自我存在的有神论这么多的替代品。 What anti-Theists refuse to admit is not the existence of a First Cause in an indeterminate sense, but the existence of an intelligent and free First Cause, a personal God, distinct from the material universe and the human mind.哪些反有神论者拒绝承认是不是在一个不确定感存在的第一个原因,而是一种智能和自由的第一个原因,个人的上帝,从物质宇宙和人类思维独特的存在。 But the very same reason that compels us to postulate a First Cause at all requires that this cause should be a free and intelligent being.但是,同样的原因,迫使我们假定在所有的第一事业需要,这导致应该是一个自由和智能化的福利。 The spiritual world of intellect and free will must be recognized by the sane philosopher to be as real as the world of matter; man knows that he has a spiritual nature and performs spiritual acts as clearly and as certainly as he knows that he has eyes to see with and ears to hear with; and the phenomena of man's spiritual nature can only be explained in one way -- by attributing spirituality, ie intelligence and free will, to the First Cause, in other words by recognizing a personal God.的智慧和自由意志,必须由理智哲学家公认的精神世界会像世界上的事实,人知道,他有一个精神文明的性质和表现为明确和肯定的精神,因为他知道,他眼睛看到和耳朵听到同和人的精神自然现象只能解释某种方式 - 由归因于灵性,即情报和自由意志,以第一个原因,也就是说,认识到个人的上帝。For the cause in all cases must be proportionate to the effect, ie must contain somehow in itself every perfection of being that is realized in the effect.对于在任何情况下导致必须相称的影响,即必须含有或多或少在自己的每一个被认为是在实现完美的效果。

The cogency of this argument becomes more apparent if account be taken of the fact that the human species had its origin at a comparatively late period in the history of the actual universe.这个论点的说服力更为明显,如果帐户是一个事实,即人类曾在一个比较实际的宇宙的起源历史后期采取。There was a time when neither man nor any other living thing inhabited this globe of ours; and without pressing the point regarding the origin of life itself from inanimate matter or the evolution of man's body from lower organic types, it may be maintained with absolute confidence that no explanation of the origin of man's soul can be made out on evolutionary lines, and that recourse must be had to the creative power of a spiritual or personal First Cause.曾经有一段时间没有人或任何其他活物居住我们这个地球时间,没有按点关于生命本身的无生命的物或者人的尸体从低有机类型演化的起源,它可能是保持着绝对的信心没有对人的灵魂的起源作出了解释,可在进化路线,并诉诸还必须考虑到一个精神或个人的第一个原因的创造力。 It might also be urged, as an inference from the physical theories commonly accepted by present-day scientists, that the actual organization of the material universe had a definite beginning in time.这也可能会敦促,作为一个普遍接受,从现在的科学家认为,宇宙中的物质在实际组织有明确的开始时间的物理理论推断。If it be true that the goal towards which physical evolution is tending is the uniform distribution of heat and other forms of energy, it would follow clearly that the existing process has not been going on from eternity; else the goal would have been reached long ago.如果这是真的,我们的目标,为此物理演化趋向是热和其他形式的能源分布均匀,它会按照明确表示,现有的程序,却未从永恒的;否则将已达成的目标早已。 And if the process had a beginning, how did it originate?如果过程中有一个开端,它是如何起源的?If the primal mass was inert and uniform, it is impossible to conceive how motion and differentiation were introduced except from without, while if these are held to be coeval with matter, the cosmic process, which is ex hypothesi is temporal, would be eternal, unless it be granted that matter itself had a definite beginning in time.如果原始质量是惰性和统一,是不可能设想如何议案和分化进行了介绍,除了从没有,而如果这些都认为是同时代与物质,宇宙的进程,这是当然hypothesi是暂时的,将是永恒的,除非它被理所当然地认为,事件本身有明确的开始时间。

But the argument, strictly speaking, is conclusive even if it be granted that the world may have existed from eternity, in the sense, that is, that, no matter how far back one may go, no point of time can be reached at which created being was not already in existence.但说法,严格来说,是决定性的,即使它被理所当然地认为世界可能已经从永恒存在的意义,那就是,无论多远,回到一个可去,没有时间点可以达到这被造是不是已经存在。 In this sense Aristotle held matter to be eternal and St. Thomas, while denying the fact, admitted the possibility of its being so.在这个意义上说亚里士多德的问题是永恒的和圣托马斯,同时不可否认的事实,承认其被这样的可能性。But such relative eternity is nothing more in reality than infinite or indefinite temporal duration and is altogether different from the eternity we attribute to God.但这种相对永恒的,是没有什么比在现实时空无限或无限期持续时间,是完全从我们的永恒的上帝不同属性。Hence to admit that the world might possibly be eternal in this sense implies no denial of the essentially finite and contingent character of its existence.因此不得不承认,世界有可能会在这个意义上永恒意味着没有其存在本质上的有限和队伍性质的否定。On the contrary it helps to emphasize this truth, for the same relation of dependence upon a self-existing cause which is implied in the contingency of any single being is implied a fortiori in the existence of an infinite series of such beings, supposing such a series to be possible.相反它有助于强调对依赖于一个自现有的原因是相同的关系在任何一个被应急暗示了这个道理,是隐含在一个无穷级数的这种人的存在更何况,这样的假设系列就可以了。 Nor can it be maintained with Pantheists that the world, whether of matter or of mind or of both, contains within itself the sufficient reason of its own existence.也能维持与泛神论,世界,无论是物质或精神或两者,在本身包含其自身存在的充分理由。A self-existing world would exist of absolute necessity and would be infinite in every kind of perfection; but of nothing are we more certain than that the world as we know it, in its totality as well as in its parts, realizes only finite degrees of perfection.一个自我存在的世界会存在绝对的必要性,并会在每一种完美无限的,但我们没有什么比这更肯定,世界,因为我们知道它的整体情况,以及其零件,实现只有有限度完美。 It is a mere contradiction in terms, however much one may try to cover up and conceal the contradiction by an ambiguous and confusing use of language, to predicate infinity of matter or of the human mind, and one or the other or both must be held by the Pantheist to be infinite.这仅仅是一个方面的矛盾,但很多人可能会试图掩盖和隐藏的是语言模糊和混乱的使用,矛盾谓词物质或人的头脑无限,一方或另一方或双方必须举行由泛神论是无限的。 In other words the distinction between the finite and the infinite must be abolished and the principle of contradiction denied.换句话说,有限与无限的区别必须予以取消和矛盾的原则拒绝。This criticism applies to every variety of Pantheism strictly so called, while crude, materialistic Pantheism involves so many additional and more obvious absurdities that hardly any philosopher deserving of the name will be found to maintain it in our day.这种批评适用于各种严格的每一个所谓的泛神论,而原油,唯物主义泛神论涉及到这么多更多和更明显,几乎没有任何值得哲学家的名字会被发现,以保持它在我们的一天的荒谬。 On the other hand, as regards idealistic Pantheism, which enjoys a considerable vogue in our day, it is to be observed in the first place that in many cases this is a tendency rather than a formal doctrine, that it is in fact nothing more than a confused and perverted form of Theism, based especially upon an exaggerated and one-sided view of Divine immanence (see below, iii).另一方面,关于理想主义的泛神论,它在我们的日常生活中享有相当的时尚,这是必须摆在首位,在许多情况下,这是一个趋势,而不是一个正式的学说,它其实没有什么比观察一个有神论混乱和扭曲的形式,依据的是神圣的内在性(见下文,三)夸大和片面的观点尤其如此。 And this confusion works to the advantage of Pantheism by enabling it to make a specious appeal to the very arguments which justify Theism.而这种混乱的泛神论工程,使其能够利用所作出似是而非的呼吁非常论点证明有神论。Indeed the whole strength of the pantheistic position as against Atheism lies in what it holds in common with Theism; while, on the other hand, its weakness as a world theory becomes evident as soon as it diverges from or contradicts Theism.事实上,作为对无神论的泛神论位置的整体实力在于它在与有神论共同持有,同时,在另一方面,它作为世界的理论变得明显弱点,尽快从它偏离或违背有神论。 Whereas Theism, for example, safeguards such primary truths as the reality of human personality, freedom, and moral responsibility, Pantheism is obliged to sacrifice all these, to deny the existence of evil, whether physical or moral, to destroy the rational basis of religion, and, under pretence of making man his own God, to rob him of nearly all his plain, common sense convictions and of all his highest incentives to good conduct.而有神论,例如,保障措施,如人的个性,自由和道德责任的现实主的真理,泛神论有义务牺牲一切,否认邪恶的存在,不论是身体还是道德,摧毁宗教理性的基础,并根据他自己的上帝在造出人类,夺去他的几乎所有普通常识的信念和他的所有良好行为的最高奖励他的幌子。 The philosophy which leads to such results cannot but be radically unsound.哲学才导致这样的结果不能不从根本站不住脚的。

(b) The argument from design(二)从设计论证

The special argument based on the existence of order or design in the universe (also called the teleological argument) proves immediately the existence of a supramundane mind of vast intelligence, and ultimately the existence of God.特别论据的秩序或在宇宙中的设计(也称为目的论的论据)存在的证明立即一个庞大的情报supramundane心灵的存在,并最终上帝的存在。 This argument is capable of being developed at great length, but it must be stated here very briefly.这种说法是被大篇幅开发能力,但必须指出在这里很简单。It has always been a favourite argument both with philosophers and with popular apologists of Theism; and though, during the earlier excesses of enthusiasm for or against Darwinianism, it was often asserted or admitted that the evolutionary hypothesis had overthrown the teleological argument, it is now recognized that the very opposite is true, and that the evidences of design which the universe exhibits are not less but more impressive when viewed from the evolutionary standpoint.一直以来都与一个哲学家和辩护士喜爱流行的有神论的争论;,虽然在赞成或反对Darwinianism早期过度热情,却常常被断言或者承认的进化假说已被推翻的目的论的争论,现在是认识到,正对面是真实的,而且设计的依据是宇宙的展品是不少,但更令人印象深刻时,从进化的观点来看待。 To begin with particular examples of adaptation which may be appealed to in countless number -- the eye, for instance, as an organ of sight is a conspicuous embodiment of intelligent purpose -- and not less but more so when viewed as the product of an evolutionary process rather than the immediate handiwork of the Creator.首先适应可无数呼吁在特定的例子 - 例如眼睛,作为视觉器官,是一种智能的目的,突出体现 - 而不是更少但更当视为一个产品进化过程,而不是创造者立即手艺。There is no option in such cases between the hypothesis of a directing intelligence and that of blind chance, and the absurdity of supposing that the eye originated suddenly by a single blind chance is augmented a thousand-fold by suggesting that it may be the product of a progressive series of such chances.没有在这种情况下之间的一种假说,并指挥情报盲目选择的机会,以及假设,起源由单一的眼睛突然失明的机会是增加了这表明它可能是产品的一千倍的荒谬一个这样的机会逐渐系列。 "Natural selection", "survival of the fittest", and similar terms merely describe certain phases in the supposed process of evolution without helping the least to explain it; and as opposed to teleology they mean nothing more than blind chance. “自然选择”,“优胜劣汰”,并没有类似的条款只描述帮助最不解释它在进化过程中某些阶段应该和目的论,而不是盲目的,他们只不过意味着更多的机会。 The eye is only one of the countless examples of adaptation to particular ends discernible in every part of the universe, inorganic as well as organic; for the atom as well as the cell contributes to the evidence available.眼睛是唯一明显的适应在宇宙中的所有部分,以及有机无机特别是结束了无数的例子之一,为原子以及细胞有助于证据。 Nor is the argument weakened by our inability in many cases to explain the particular purpose of certain structures or organisms.也不是削弱我们在许多情况下无法解释某些结构或生物体的特殊用途的论点。Our knowledge of nature is too limited to be made the measure of nature's entire design, while as against our ignorance of some particular purposes we are entitled to maintain the presumption that if intelligence is anywhere apparent it is dominant everywhere.我们对自然的认识有限,难以作出自然的整个设计措施,同时作为对我们的一些,我们有权保持无知的推定特定用途的任何地方,如果智力优势明显它是无处不在。 Moreover, in our search for particular instances of design we must not overlook the evidence supplied by the harmonious unity of nature as a whole.此外,我们对设计的特殊情况下的搜索,我们决不能忽视了作为一个整体的自然和谐统一提供的证据。The universe as we know it is a cosmos, a vastly complex system of correlated and interdependent parts, each subject to particular laws and all together subject to a common law or a combination of laws as the result of which the pursuit of particular ends is made to contribute in a marvellous way to the attainment of a common purpose; and it is simply inconceivable that this cosmic unity should be the product of chance or accident.宇宙因为我们知道这是一个宇宙,一个相关的,相互依存的部分大大复杂的系统,每个特定的法律主体和一起受到一个共同的法律或法律相结合的结果,其中对特定目标的实现,是由在一个奇妙的贡献方式向一个共同目标的实现;,这是根本不可想象的,这个宇宙的统一应是偶然或意外的产物。 If it be objected that there is another side to the picture, that the universe abounds in imperfections -- maladjustments, failures, seemingly purposeless waste -- the reply is not far to seek.如果它是反对的,还有另一边的图片,认为宇宙中的缺陷盛产 - 不适应,失败,看似漫无目的的废物 - 答复是不难找到。 For it is not maintained that the existing world is the best possible, and it is only on the supposition of its being so that the imperfections referred to would be excluded.因为这是不保留,现有的世界是最好的,它只能在其正,使不完善提及将被排除在外的假设是。Admitting without exaggerating their reality -- admitting, that is, the existence of physical evil -- there still remains a large balance on the side of order and harmony, and to account for this there is required not only an intelligent mind but one that is good and benevolent, though so far as this special argument goes this mind might conceivably be finite.承认不夸大的事实 - 承认,那就是,存在的物理邪恶 - 仍然存在一些对秩序与和谐方大平衡,并考虑到这一点不仅需要有一个聪明的头脑,但一个是良好的和仁慈的,虽然到目前为止,因为这特殊的参数,去这个心可以设想是有限的。 To prove the infinity of the world's Designer it is necessary to fall back on the general argument already explained and on the deductive argument to be explained below by which infinity is inferred from self-existence.为了证明世界的设计师无穷大,有必要回到属于一般的说法又回来了解释和演绎论证来加以解释的无穷低于从自我存在的推断。 Finally, by way of direct reply to the problem suggested by the objection, it is to be observed that, to appreciate fully the evidence for design, we must, in addition to particular instances of adaptation and to the cosmic unity observable in the world of today, consider the historical continuity of nature throughout indefinite ages in the past and indefinite ages to come.最后,通过直接回答这个问题的办法提出了异议,这是必须指出,要充分理解设计的证据,我们必须适应除特殊情况和对宇宙的统一,在世界上可观察今天,在考虑整个时代的过去和无限期无限期年龄来的自然历史的延续性。 We do not and cannot comprehend the full scope of nature's design, for it is not a static universe we have to study but a universe that is progressively unfolding itself and moving towards the fulfilment of an ultimate purpose under the guidance of a master mind.我们没有,也不可能理解自然的设计,充分发挥,因为它不是一个静态的宇宙,我们要学习,但一个宇宙,正逐步展现自己,朝着一个最终的目的,下一个智囊团指导实现移动。 And towards that purpose the imperfect as well as the perfect -- apparent evil and discord as well as obvious good order -- may contribute in ways which we can but dimly discern.而实现这一目的的不完善以及完美的 - 明显的邪恶与不和,以及明显的良好秩序 - 可能的方式作出贡献,但我们可以依稀辨别。The well-balanced philosopher, who realizes his own limitations in the presence of nature's Designer, so far from claiming that every detail of that Designer's purpose should at present be plain to his inferior intelligence, will be content to await the final solution of enigmas which the hereafter promises to furnish.该井平衡哲学家,谁实现在大自然的设计师在场,他自身的局限性,到目前为止,宣称每一个应该在细节的设计的目的本是普通的,他下的情报,将内容,以等待谜题,最终的解决办法,此后承诺提供的。

(c) The argument from conscience(c)从良心参数

To Newman and others the argument from conscience, or the sense of moral responsibility, has seemed the most intimately persuasive of all the arguments for God's existence, while to it alone Kant allowed an absolute value.纽曼等人从良知的说法,或道义上的责任意识,最密切,似乎所有的神的存在有说服力的论点,而它仅允许康德的绝对价值。 But this is not an independent argument, although, properly understood, it serves to emphasize a point in the general a posteriori proof which is calculated to appeal with particular force to many minds.但是,这不是一个独立的说法,虽然缺乏正确的理解,它强调在一般点一事后证明其中的计算力,特别呼吁许多人的脑海。It is not that conscience, as such, contains a direct revelation or intuition of God as the author of the moral law, but that, taking man's sense of moral responsibility as a phenomenon to be explained, no ultimate explanation can be given except by supposing the existence of a Superior and Lawgiver whom man is bound to obey.这并不是说良心,因此,包含一个直接的启示上帝或作为道德律笔者的直觉,但是,考虑作为一种现象的人的道德责任感来加以解释,没有最终的解释,可以考虑通过假设,除了一个高级和立法者被人所都必须遵守的存在。 And just as the argument from design brings out prominently the attribute of intelligence, so the argument from science brings out the attribute of holiness in the First Cause and self-existent Personal Being with whom we must ultimately identify the Designer and the Lawgiver.而且,正如从设计论证带出了突出的智力属性,所以从科学角度论证中带出的第一个原因和自我存在的因私圣洁的属性与我们最终必须找出设计师及立法者存在。

(d) The argument from universal consent(四)从普遍同意的论点

The confirmatory argument based on the consent of mankind may be stated briefly as follows: mankind as a whole has at all times and everywhere believed and continues to believe in the existence of some superior being or beings on whom the material world and man himself are dependent, and this fact cannot be accounted for except by admitting that this belief is true or at least contains a germ of truth.参数的确定对人类同意为基础,可说简述如下:人类作为一个整体在任何时候,任何地方相信并继续在一些优势正在或相信存在于人的生命的物质世界和人本身都依赖,这一事实不能占除非承认这个信念是真实的,或者至少包含了真理的萌芽。 It is admitted of course that Polytheism, Dualism, Pantheism, and other forms of error and superstition have mingled with and disfigured this universal belief of mankind, but this does not destroy the force of the argument we are considering.这是承认当然,多神教,二元论,泛神论,和迷信的错误和其他形式的交融和毁容这一人类普遍的信仰,但是这并没有破坏我们正在考虑的参数生效。 For at least the germinal truth which consists in the recognition of some kind of deity is common to every form of religion and can therefore claim in its support the universal consent of mankind.至少在生发真理,在某些类型的神承认组成是共同的各种形式的宗教,因此可以在其支持主张人类的普遍同意。And how can this consent be explained except as a result of the perception by the minds of men of the evidence for the existence of deity?这又如何解释,除非同意,作为通过对神的存在的证据的人的头脑中认知的结果呢?It is too large a subject to be entered upon here -- the discussion of the various theories that have been advanced to account in some other way for the origin and universality of religion; but it may safely be said that, abstracting from revelation, which need not be discussed at this stage, no other theory will stand the test of criticism.这是一个需要过大时进入这里话题 - 那些帐户被提前到一些宗教的起源与其他方式的普遍性各种理论讨论,但可以有把握地说,从抽象的启示,这无须在此阶段讨论,没有别的理论经得起批评的考验。 And, assuming that this is the best explanation philosophy has to offer, it may further be maintained that this consent of mankind tells ultimately in favour of Theism.而且,假设这是最好的解释哲学所提供的,它可能会被认为这对人类最终同意赞成的有神论告诉。For it is clear from history that religion is liable to degenerate, and has in many instances degenerated instead of progressing; and even if it be impossible to prove conclusively that Monotheism was the primitive historical religion, there is nevertheless a good deal of positive evidence adducible in support of this contention.因为这是从历史,宗教是明确责任变质,而在许多情况下退化的进步,而不是和它是不可能的,即使最终证明说,神是原始宗教的历史,但有确切证据adducible一个很好的协议在支持这一论点。 And if this be the true reading of history, it is permissible to interpret the universality of religion as witnessing implicitly to the original truth which, however much obscured it may have become, in many cases could never be entirely obliterated.而如果这是历史的真正的阅读,它是允许的见证含蓄地解释为原来的真理,无论怎样掩盖它可能已经成为在许多情况下绝不能完全抹杀了宗教的普遍性。 But even if the history of religion is to read as a record of progressive development one ought in all fairness, in accordance with a well-recognized principle, to seek its true meaning and significance not at the lowest but at the highest point of development; and it cannot be denied that Theism in the strict sense is the ultimate form which religion naturally tends to assume.但即使历史上的宗教是看作为一个逐步发展的一个人应该在所有的公平记录,按照一个公认的原则,不寻求以最低的,但在发展的最高点,其真正的含义和意义;也不能否认,在严格意义上的有神论,是最终的形式,宗教自然倾向于承担。 If there have been and are today atheistic philosophers who oppose the common belief of mankind, these are comparatively few and their dissent only serves to emphasize more strongly the consent of normal humanity.如果已经和今天谁反对人类的共同信仰无神论的哲学家,这是他们的异议比较少,只是为了更有力地强调了正常人类的同意。 Their existence is an abnormality to be accounted for as such things usually are.它们的存在是要为这类事情通常是占异常。Could it be claimed on their behalf, individually or collectively, that in ability, education, character, or life they excel the infinitely larger number of cultured men who adhere on conviction to what the race at large has believed, then indeed it might be admitted that their opposition would be somewhat formidable.难道是他们的代表宣称,单独或集体,在能力,教育,性格,生活,或Excel中大量培养人无限坚持一经定罪,谁在什么大比赛一直认为,那实际上它可能被接纳他们反对将有所艰巨。 But no such claim can be made; on the contrary, if a comparison were called for it would be easy to make out an overwhelming case for the other side.但是,没有这样的索赔可提出;相反,如果一个比较被称为它很容易判断出对方一个压倒性的情况。Or again, if it were true that the progress of knowledge had brought to light any new and serious difficulties against religion, there would, especially in view of the modern vogue of Agnosticism, be some reason for alarm as to the soundness of the traditional belief.再则,如果确有其事,知识的进展揭示了对宗教的任何新的和严重的困难,便,特别是在现代时尚的不可知论认为,有一些恐慌的原因,因为以稳健的传统信仰。 But so far is this from being the case that in the words of Professor Huxley -- an unsuspected witness -- "not a solitary problem presents itself to the philosophical Theist at the present day which has not existed from the time that philosophers began to think out the logical grounds and the logical consequences of Theism" (Life and Letters of Ch. Darwin by F. Darwin, II, p. 203).但到目前为止,从这种情况下,在赫胥黎教授的话本 - 一个意料之外的见证 - “不是一个孤立的问题提出了自己的在现今已不存在的时候,哲学家开始思考哲学的有神论出合乎逻辑的理由和有神论“(生命和甲烷。达尔文的信件由F.达尔文,二,第203页)的逻辑后果。 Substantially the same arguments as are used today were employed by old-time sceptical Atheists in the effort to overthrow man's belief in the existence of the Divine, and the fact that this belief has withstood repeated assaults during so many ages in the past is the best guarantee of its permanency in the future.实质上是相同的论据,今天已应用于由古时候的怀疑无神论者受聘在努力推翻人类在神圣存在的信仰,并认为这个信念,经受在过去这么多世代反复攻击的事实是最好的保证其在未来的永久性。 It is too firmly implanted in the depths of man's soul for little surface storms to uproot it.它太牢固植入为小面风浪,以根除它的人的灵魂深处。

2. 2。A Priori, or Ontological, Argument先验的,或者本体论,引

This argument undertakes to deduce the existence of God from the idea of Him as the Infinite which is present to the human mind; but as already stated, theistic philosophers are not agreed as to the logical validity of this deduction.这个论点进行推断从他作为无限的想法这是目前对人类心灵的神的存在,但如前所述,有神论的哲学家不同意,以这种推论逻辑的有效性。 As stated by St. Anselm, the argument runs thus: The idea of God as the Infinite means the greatest Being that can be thought of, but unless actual existence outside the mind is included in this idea, God would not be the greatest conceivable Being since a Being that exists both in the mind as an object of thought, and outside the mind or objectively, would be greater than a Being that exists in the mind only; therefore God exists not only in the mind but outside of it.正如圣安瑟伦指出,这种观点背道而驰,因此:神的主意,因为无限指最大的,可以想到的,但在这个想法,除非实际存在的以外心计算在内,上帝不会是最大的想像存在由于被认为存在于心中既作为思想的对象,和外部的想法或客观,会比一个被认为只存在于头脑更大,因此上帝存在不只是在脑海中,但它的外面。

Descartes states the argument in a slightly different way as follows: Whatever is contained in a clear and distinct idea of a thing must be predicated of that thing; but a clear and distinct idea of an absolutely perfect Being contains the notion of actual existence; therefore since we have the idea of an absolutely perfect Being such a Being must really exist.笛卡尔在一说法略有不同的方式如下:无论是在一个事物的概念清晰而鲜明的,必须包含该事物的前提,但绝对是一个完美的存在明确和独特的理念包含了实际存在的概念,因此因为我们有一个绝对完美的想法是这样一个存在一定真的存在。

To mention a third form of statement, Leibniz would put the argument thus: God is at least possible since the concept of Him as the Infinite implies no contradiction; but if He is possible He must exist because the concept of Him involves existence.提了第三种形式的声明,莱布尼茨就提出这样的说法:上帝是他的概念以来,至少有可能作为无限意味着没有矛盾,但如果他有可能存在,因为他必须对他的概念涉及的存在。 In St. Anselm's own day this argument was objected to by Gaunilo, who maintained as a reductio ad absurdum that were it valid one could prove by means of it the actual existence somewhere of an ideal island far surpassing in riches and delights the fabled Isles of the Blessed.在圣安瑟伦自己的一天,这个论点是反对由Gaunilo,谁主张作为归谬法被证明是有效的人可以通过它意味着实际存在的地方远远超过了一个理想中的财富与快乐岛群岛的传说的祝福。 But this criticism however smart it may seem is clearly unsound, for it overlooks the fact that the argument is not intended to apply to finite ideals but only to the strictly infinite; and if it is admitted that we possess a true idea of the infinite, and that this idea is not self-contradictory, it does not seem possible to find any flaw in the argument.但是,这种批评它可能看起来聪明但显然是不健全的,因为它忽视了该参数并不适用于在有限的理想,但只限于严格无限的事实,如果这是承认我们拥有一个无限的真实想法,而这种想法是不是自相矛盾,它似乎不可能找到任何缺陷的论点。 Actual existence is certainly included in any true concept of the Infinite, and the person who admits that he has a concept of an Infinite Being cannot deny that he conceives it as actually existing.当然包括实际存在的任何无限的真正概念,人谁也承认,他有一个无限的概念暂时不能否认,他设想它作为实际存在的。 But the difficulty is with regard to this preliminary admission, which if challenged -- as it is in fact challenged by Agnostics -- requires to be justified by recurring to the a posteriori argument, ie to the inference by way of causality from contingency to self-existence and thence by way of deduction to infinity.但困难是,对于这一事件的初步入学,如果挑战 - 因为它是在质疑不可知论的事实是 - 要求是合理的经常性到事后的说法,即从应急用的方式,因果关系推论自我存,并从那里通过演绎到无限的方式。Hence the great majority of scholastic philosophers have rejected the ontological argument as propounded by St. Anselm and Descartes nor as put forward by Leibniz does it escape the difficulty that has been stated.因此,绝大多数哲学家在学术上已经拒绝了本体论的论点propounded由圣anselm和笛卡尔也不会像莱布尼茨提出的提出是否逃生已经被阐明的困难。

II.二。AS KNOWN THROUGH FAITH众所周知因着信

("THE GOD OF REVELATION")(“启示录神”)

A. Sacred Scriptures答:神圣的经文

Neither in the Old or New Testament do we find any elaborate argumentation devoted to proving that God exists.无论是在旧的或新约中我们找不到任何详细论证致力于证明上帝存在。This truth is rather taken for granted, as being something, for example, that only the fool will deny in his heart [Ps.这个真理是相当理所当然的,因为是什么,例如,只有傻瓜会否认,在他的心[诗。xiii (xiv), 1; lii (liii), 1]; and argumentation, when resorted to, is directed chiefly against polytheism and idolatry.第十三(十四),1;崇礼(LIII)号,1];和论证,当使出,是针对主要针对多神教和偶像崇拜。But in several passages we have a cursory appeal to some phase of the general cosmological argument: vg Ps.但是,在一些通道,我们有一些一般性宇宙论论证阶段粗略呼吁:vg的诗。xviii (xix), 1, xciii (xciv), 5 sqq., Is., xli, 26 sqq.; II Mach., vii, 28, etc.; and in some few others -- Wis. xiii, 1-9; Rom., i, 18,20 -- the argument is presented in a philosophical way, and men who reason rightly are held to be inexcusable for failing to recognize and worship the one true God, the Author and Ruler of the universe.十八(十九),1,xciii(xciv),5 sqq,现在,四十一,26 sqq;二马赫,七,28,等等,而且在一些少数其他国家 - 美国威斯康星州十三,1-9。。。。 ;罗,我18,20 - 论点是,在哲学上的方法,谁的理由是正确的举行未能承认并敬拜独一真神,是作者和宇宙的统治者是不可​​原谅的人。。

These two latter texts merit more than passing attention.后两者的优点不是通过文本的注意。Wis., xiii, 1-9 reads:美国威斯康星州,十三,1-9如下:

But all men are vain in whom there is not the knowledge of God: and who by these good things that are seen, could not understand him that is, neither by attending to the works have acknowledged who was the workman: but have imagined either the fire, or the wind, or the swift air or the circle of the stars, or the great water, or the sun and moon, to be the gods that rule the world.但所有的人都在他心里是徒劳的不是神的知识:这些好,谁是见过的东西,可他就是不明白,无论是出席的作品已确认谁是工人:但无论是想象火,或风,或迅速空气或星星的圆圈,或大的水,或太阳和月亮,是神的统治世界。 With whose beauty, if they, being delighted, took them to be gods: let them know how much the Lord of them is more beautiful than they: for the first author of beauty made all those things.随着她的美丽,如果他们作为高兴,把他们是神:让他们知道有多少,他们的主比他们更美好的:对于美的第一作者提出所有这些事情。 Or if they admired their power and effects, let them understand by them that he that made them, is mightier than they: for by the greatness of the beauty, and of the creature, the creator of them may be seen, so as to be known thereby.或者,如果他们钦佩他们的权力和影响,让他们明白他们说,那使他们,比他们强胜:由伟大的美丽,和生物,它们的创造者可以看出,这样才能众所周知从而。 But yet as to these they are less to be blamed.但是,然而,随着这些他们较少受到指责。For they perhaps err, seeking God, and desirous to find him.也许因为他们犯错,寻求神,一心要找到他。For being conversant among his works, they search: and they are persuaded that the things are good which are seen.对于他的作品中所熟悉,他们的搜索:他们是相信,这是很好的事情是看到。But then again they are not to be pardoned.但是,有一次,他们是不能原谅的。For if they were able to know so much as to make a judgment of the world: how did they not more easily find out the Lord thereof?因为如果他们能够知道这么多,以使世界上的判断:他们怎么不更容易地找到了其中的主?

Here it is clearly taught在这里,它是清楚的教导

that the phenomenal or contingent world -- the things that are seen -- requires a cause distinct from and greater than itself or any of its elements;这惊人或然的世界 - 这是见过的东西 - 需要一个事业有别于比其本身或其任何元素较高;

that this cause who is God is not unknowable, but is known with certainty not only to exist but to possess in Himself, in a higher degree, whatever beauty, strength, or other perfections are realized in His works, that this conclusion is attainable by the right exercise of human reason, without reference to supernatural revelation, and that philosophers, therefore, who are able to interpret the world philosophically, are inexcusable for their ignorance of the true God, their failure, it is implied, being due rather to lack of good will than to the incapacity of the human mind.这引起谁是上帝不是不可知,但肯定知道,不仅存在,而且拥有在自己在一个更高的程度,无论美,力量或其他完善,实现了他的作品,认为这个结论是而认同人类理性的权利的行使,而不提超​​自然的启示,那哲学家,因此,谁能够解释世界的哲学,是他们的真神,他们的失败,这是隐含的,而不是由于缺乏不可原谅的无知善意的比对无行为能力的人的头脑。

Substantially the same doctrine is laid down more briefly by St. Paul in Romans 1:18-20:实质上是相同的学说,是订定由圣保禄更简单在罗马书1:18-20:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: because that which is known of God is manifest in them.因为神的忿怒,揭示了从反对一切不虔和那些男子扣留上帝在天上不公不义的真理:因为这是神所认识的是显明在人心里。For God hath manifested it unto them.因为神已经给他们表现。For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, his eternal power also and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.对于他的无形的东西,从世界的创造,都清楚地看到,被认为是由他的永恒的力量,也和神性的东西理解:让他们不可原谅的。

It is to be observed that the pagans of whom St. Paul is speaking are not blamed for their ignorance of supernatural revelation and the Mosaic law, but for failing to preserve or for corrupting that knowledge of God and of man's duty towards Him which nature itself ought to have taught them.这是必须遵守的异教徒,其中圣保罗发言时,没有责备他们超自然的启示和马赛克法律的无知,但未能保持或损坏,上帝的知识和人的责任对他本身的性质应该有教他们。 Indeed it is not pure ignorance as such they are blamed for, but that wilful shirking of truth which renders ignorance culpable.事实上,这并不像他们这样的指责纯粹的无知,而是故意的真相推卸罪责而呈现的无知。Even under the corruptions of paganism St. Paul recognized the indestructible permanency of germinal religious truth (cf. Romans 2:14-15).即使是在圣保罗的异教的腐败认识到宗教真理坚不可摧的永久性生发(参见罗马书2:14-15)。

It is clear from these passages that Agnosticism and Pantheism are condemned by revelation, while the validity of the general proof of God's existence given above is confirmed.正是从这些段落清楚,不可知论和泛神论是谴责启示,而上帝的存在,一般给予上述证明的有效性确认。It is also clear that the extreme form of Traditionalism, which would hold that no certain knowledge of God's existence or nature is attainable by human reason without the aid of supernatural revelation, is condemned.它也清楚地表明,传统主义的极端形式,这将认为,没有上帝的存在和性质,一定的知识是没有借助超自然的启示人类理性实现的,是谴责。

B. Church Councils二堂议会

What the author of Wisdom and St. Paul and after them the Fathers and theologians had constantly taught, has been solemnly defined by the Vatican Council.什么样的智慧和圣保罗和照顾他们的父亲和神学家,作家就不断地教导,已经庄严地界定由梵蒂冈理事会。In the first place, as against Agnosticism and Traditionalism, the council teaches (cap. ii, De revelat.)在第一个地方,对不可知论和传统,安理会任教(第二,德雷韦拉。)

that God, the first cause (principium) and last end of all things, can, from created things, be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason (Denz., 1785-old no. 1634)上帝,第一个原因(原理性),和所有的东西最终目的,可以从创造的东西,知道肯定是由人类理性的自然光(Denz.,1785岁的没有。1634)

and in the corresponding canon (can. i, De revelat.) it anathematizes anyone who would say并在相应的佳能(can.我,德雷韦拉。)anathematizes它的人会说谁

that the one true God our Creator and Lord, cannot, through the things that are made, be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason (Denz., 1806-old no. 1653).,一个真正的上帝,我们的创造主,不能透过所做的,由人类理性(Denz. 1806年,旧的没有。1653)自然光与肯定知道的东西。

As against Agnosticism this definition needs no explanation.随着对不可知论这个定义,无须解释。 As against Traditionalism, it is to be observed that the definition is directed only against the extreme form of that theory, as held by Lamennais and others according to which -- taking human nature as it is -- there would not, and could not, have been any true or certain knowledge of God, among men, had there not been at least a primitive supernatural revelation -- in other words, natural religion as such is an impossibility.随着对传统主义,这是必须指出,定义只反对这一理论的极端形式由Lamennais等人,召开据此,导演 - 以人性,因为它是 - 就没有,也不可能已在男子任何天灾,真或一定的知识,当时有没有在至少一种原始的超自然的启示 - 换言之,因为这种自然宗教是不可能的。There is no reference to milder forms of Traditionalism which hold social tradition and education to be necessary for the development of man's rational powers, and consequently deny, for example, that an individual cut off from human society from his infancy, and left entirely to himself, could ever attain a certain knowledge of God, or any strictly rational knowledge at all.有没有提到以较温和的传统主义形式占据着社会的传统和教育,是为人类的理性力量发展的必要条件,因此拒绝,例如,削减从他的起步阶段人类社会的关个人,并完全留给自己,所能达到的上帝一定的知识,或任何都严格理性认识。 That is a psychological problem on which the council has nothing to say.这是一个心理问题上,安理会已无话可说。Neither does it deny that even in case of the homo socialis a certain degree of education and culture may be required in order that he may, by independent reasoning, arrive at a knowledge of God; but it merely affirms the broad principle that by the proper use of their natural reasoning power, applied to the phenomena of the universe, men are able to know God with certainty.也不否认的是,即使在案件骨头socialis的教育和文化一定程度可能是为了他可以由独立的推理,得出一个认识上帝需要,但它只是申明广泛的原则,即通过适当的其自然的推理能力应用到宇宙的现象,使用,人类是否能够肯定地知道上帝。 In the next place, as against Pantheism, the council (cap. i, De Deo) teaches that God, "since He is one singular, altogether simple and incommutable spiritual substance, must be proclaimed to be really and essentially [re et essentia) distinct from the world most happy in and by Himself, and ineffably above and beyond all things, actual or possible, besides Himself" (Denzinger, 1782-old no. 1631); and in the corresponding canons (ii-iv, De Deo) anathema is pronounced against anyone who would say "that nothing exists but matter"; or "that the substance or essence of God and of all things is one and the same"; or "that finite things both corporeal and spiritual, or at least spiritual, have emanated from the Divine substance; or that the Divine essence by a manifestation or evolution of itself becomes all things; or that God is universal or indefinite being, which by determining itself constitutes the universe of things distinguished into genera, species and individuals" (Denzinger, 1802-4; old no. 1648).在未来的地方,对泛神论,理事会(章我,德迪奥)教导我们,神“,因为他是一个奇异,共简单incommutable精神实质,必须向真正做到从本质上讲[重等essentia)不同于世界上最快乐的,在自己,和ineffably超出所有的东西,实际或可能的,除了他自己,和“(登青格,1782年,旧的没有1631。)和(二,四,德迪奥)相应的大炮诅咒的发音是对谁可以说“存在,但没有什么事”,或者“该物质或上帝和所有事物的本质,是同一个”或“,无论是有形的和精神的,或者至少是精神有限的东西,有出自神的物质,或者是体现,或演变本身成为一切事物神的本质,或者说上帝是万能或无限期的,其中所确定本身就构成了成属,种和个人宇宙中的事物“ (登青格,1802-4;岁,没有1648。)。

These definitions are framed so as to cover and exclude every type of the pantheistic theory, and nobody will deny that they are in harmony with Scriptural teaching.这些定义是诬陷等,以掩护和排除每一个类型的泛神论的理论,没有人会否认它们与圣经教学和谐。The doctrine of creation, for example, than which none is more clearly taught or more frequently emphasized in Sacred Scripture, is radically opposed to Pantheism -- creation as the sacred writers understand it being the voluntary act of a free agent bringing creatures into being out of nothingness.该学说的创造,例如,比没有更清楚的教导或更频繁地在圣经所强调的,是从根本上反对泛神论 - 创作为神圣的作家了解,它作为一个自由将产生出的生物剂自愿的行为虚无。

C. The Knowability of GodC的可知性神

It will be observed that neither the Scriptural texts we have quoted nor the conciliar decrees say that God's existence can be proved or demonstrated; they merely affirm that it can be known with certainty.大家都会注意到这既不是我们所引述圣经的文本,也不是conciliar法令说,上帝的存在可以证明或证明,他们只是确认它可确知。 Now one may, if one wishes, insist on the distinction between what is knowable and what is demonstrable, but in the present connection this distinction has little real import.现在一个可能,如果一个愿望,坚持区别什么是可知的,什么是显而易见的区别,但在目前这个区别就没有真正的进口。It has never been claimed that God's existence can be proved mathematically, as a proposition in geometry is proved, and most Theists reject every form of the ontological or deductive proof.它从未有人声称,上帝的存在数学上可以证明,作为证明几何命题,最有神论者拒绝一切的本体论或演绎证明的形式。But if the term proof or demonstration may be, as it often is, applied to a posteriori or inductive inference, by means of which knowledge that is not innate or intuitive is acquired by the exercise of reason, then it cannot fairly be denied that Catholic teaching virtually asserts that God's existence can be proved.但如果长期证明或示威可能,因为它往往是,适用于事后或归纳推理,通过这一手段的知识,不是天生的或直观的是用理性行使收购,就不能公正地,天主教否认教学实际上声称,上帝的存在可以证明。 Certain knowledge of God is declared to be attainable "by the light of reason", ie of the reasoning faculty as such from or through "the things that are made"; and this clearly implies an inferential process such as in other connections men do not hesitate to call proof.神的某些知识是被宣布为实现“,用理性之光”,作为如从或通过“所做的事情”,即推理能力的人,这显然意味着,如其他连接男子一推理过程不毫不犹豫地要求的证明。

Hence it is fair to conclude that the Vatican Council, following Sacred Scripture, has virtually condemned the Scepticism which rejects the a posteriori proof.因此,它是公平的结论是,梵蒂冈会后,神圣的经文,实际上已经谴责了怀疑主义的拒绝事后证明。But it did not deal directly with Ontologism, although certain propositions of the Ontologists had already been condemned as unsafe (tuto tradi non posse) by a decree of the Holy Office (18 September, 1861), and among the propositions of Rosmini subsequently condemned (14 December, 1887) several reassert the ontologist principle.但是,这并不直接处理Ontologism,虽然某些主张的ontologists已经被谴责为不安全的一个法令的神圣办公室(政党成员俗非波塞)(1861年9月18日),其中命题的罗斯米尼随后谴责( 1887年12月14日)重申了本体论几个原则。This condemnation by the Holy Office is quite sufficient to discredit Ontologism, regarding which it is enough to say here这份由罗马教廷办公室谴责是相当足够抹黑Ontologism,关于它足以在这里说

that, as already observed, experience contradicts the assumption that the human mind has naturally or necessarily an immediate consciousness or intuition of the Divine,说,正如已经指出,经验相矛盾的假设,即人的心灵,自然或必然立即意识或神圣的直觉,

that such a theory obscures, and tends to do away with, the difference, on which St. Paul insists (1 Corinthians 13:12), between our earthly knowledge of God ("through a glass in a dark manner") and the vision of Him which the blessed in heaven enjoy ("face to face") and seems irreconcilable with the Catholic doctrine, defined by the Council of Vienne, that, to be capable of the face to face or intuitive vision of God, the human intellect needs to be endowed with a special supernatural light, the lumen gloriae and finally that, in so far as it is clearly intelligible, the theory goes dangerously near to Pantheism.这样的理论掩盖,而且往往做,差异,坚持上圣保罗(哥林多前书13:12)之间,我们对上帝的世俗知识(“透过玻璃在黑暗的方式”)和远见走这对他的祝福在天堂享受(“面对面”),而且似乎与天主教教义的维埃纳省议会,即,要脸的能力面对或直观的视觉神的定义,不可调和的,人的智力需要被赋予了特殊的超自然的光,管腔gloriae和最后说,在目前为止,因为它显然是理解的,危险的理论去附近的泛神论。

In the decree "Lamentabili" (3 July, 1907) and the Encyclical "Pascendi" (7 September, 1907), issued by Pope Pius X, the Catholic position is once more reaffirmed and theological Agnosticism condemned.在法令“lamentabili”(1907年7月3日)和通谕“Pascendi”(1907年9月7日),由教宗比约十发,天主教会的立场是再一次重申和神学的不可知论谴责。 In its bearing on our subject, this act of Church authority is merely a restatement of the teaching of St. Paul and of the Vatican Council, and a reassertion of the principle which has been always maintained, that God must be naturally knowable if faith in Him and His revelation is to be reasonable; and if a concrete example be needed to show how, of logical necessity, the substance of Christianity vanishes into thin air once the agnostic principle is adopted, one has only to point the finger at Modernism.在关于我们的主题关系,这种教会权威的行为仅仅是在圣保罗和教学的梵蒂冈理事会重申,以及对已一贯主张的原则,上帝一定是自然可知重新抬头,如果信心他和他的启示是合理的,如果需要一个具体的例子来说明,逻辑必然性,基督教的物质消失在稀薄的空气不可知的原则是,一旦获得通过,只有一个点在现代主义的手指。 Rational theism is a necessary logical basis for revealed religion; and that the natural knowledge of God and natural religion, which Catholic teaching holds to be possible, are not necessarily the result of grace, ie of a supernatural aid given directly by God Himself, follows from the condemnation by Clement XI of one of the propositions of Quesnel (prop. 41) in which the contrary is asserted (Denzinger, 1391; old no. 1256).理性的有神论,是一个必要的逻辑基础,揭示了宗教,并认为上帝和自然宗教,自然科学知识,天主教教学认为是可能的,并不一定的宽限期,即一种超自然的援助给予上帝直接导致自己,如下从对克内尔(第41号提案)在其中的命题之一断言相反谴责克莱门特十一(登青格,1391;岁,没有1256。)。

Publication information Written by PJ Toner.出版信息撰稿是PJ墨粉。Transcribed by Tomas Hancil.转录的托马斯汉奇尔。The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VI.天主教百科全书,第六卷。Published 1909.1909年出版。 New York: Robert Appleton Company.纽约:罗伯特Appleton还公司。Nihil Obstat, September 1, 1909. Nihil Obstat 9月1日,1909。Remy Lafort, Censor.人头马lafort,检查员。Imprimatur.认可。+John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York+约翰米farley,大主教纽约


Arguments for the Existence of God论据为上帝的存在

Personal Thoughts By the Editor of BELIEVE主编由相信个人的想法

In general, BELIEVE does NOT contain any of MY thoughts or opinions, because BELIEVE is intended so as to present only the best scholarly authorities on religious subjects.一般情况下,相信我不包含任何想法或意见,目的是因为相信,以目前在宗教主题只有最好的学术机构。However, after 14 years of this presentation ending here, including nine years on the Internet, I see it as potentially useful to include my own thoughts here.然而,经过14多年今天的简报这里结束,包括在因特网上九来,我看见它作为潜在有用的包括我自己的想法了。A reader needs to evaluate whether there is any value or not.一位读者需要评估是否有任何价值与否。


First, Logical Reverse Reasoning首先,逻辑推理反向

A person is certainly free to decide whether the Bible has any value or not.一个人,当然可以自由决定是否圣经有任何价值或没有。 A central issue in that matter is usually regarding whether God "inspired" the Bible's human authors.阿在这个问题上的中心问题是关于上帝是否通常“灵感”圣经的人类作者。Consider the possibilities.考虑各种可能性。

IF a person does NOT think that God inspired the Bible, or that God doesn't even actually exist, then the Book would seem to have very limited value, and it would certainly not deserve to be the central focus of Faith.如果一个人不相信上帝的灵感圣经,或神甚至没有实际存在的,那么书似乎已经非常有限的价值,它肯定不值得对信仰的中心焦点。

On the other hand, if one accepts the idea that God participated in inspiring the Bible, it becomes an important Book.另一方面,如果一个人接受的想法,上帝在圣经参加振奋,它成为一个重要的书。 Technically, there would still be three possibilities to consider.从技术上讲,仍然会有三种可能性考虑。

  1. If God inspired the Bible, and it is all absolutely and precisely true (in its Original language and the Original Manuscripts) and accurate, then we should carefully pay attention to every detail of it.如果上帝的灵感圣经,它是所有真正的绝对精确(在其原有的语言和原始手稿)和准确的,那么我们应该认真关注它的每一细节。 Traditionally, this has always been the case for both Christians and Jews.传统上,这始终是基督徒和犹太人的情况。

  2. If God inspired the Bible, but He is Evil, then it is likely to nearly all be untrue and deceptive.如果上帝的灵感圣经,但他是邪恶的,那么它很可能是不真实的和几乎所有的欺骗性。However, no accepted concept of God would see that as possible of Him.但是,没有上帝接受的概念将看到的是,由于他可能。

  3. If God inspired the Bible, but it Originally contained both Truths and untruths, and it contained inaccuracies or distortions, this appears to be the only possible assumption of those Christians who feel they can freely select the parts of the Bible they want to obey.如果上帝的灵感圣经,但它最初包含两个真理和谎言,它包含不准确或扭曲,这似乎是唯一的基督徒谁觉得他们可以自由地选择他们的圣经的部分要服从可能的假设。 (Many thousands of researchers have compared the more than 20,000 existing Scribe-written Manuscripts to ensure that we accurately know the Original text.) If God is even remotely as Powerful and Considerate and Compassionate as we believe Him to be, would He intentionally include such faults in the Book He provided us as a Guide? (有成千上万的研究人员比较了现行的20,000多抄写写的手稿,以确保我们准确地知道原来的文本。)如果上帝是有力量的,体贴和同情,甚至远程,因为我们相信他是,他会故意包括他在书中提供的错误指导我们? Or, could He be so sloppy as to unintentionally include such flaws in it?或许,他是如此草率,以无意包括在它这样的瑕疵?

For this last matter, it seems impossible that the God we know and Worship would be either intentionally deceptive or incompetent.为了这最后的问题,这似乎是不可能的上帝,我们知道,无论是有意将崇拜欺骗或不称职。For, if He was, then the consistency and reliability of our Universe would be an unexpected and unintentional effort of His.因为,如果他是,那么我们的宇宙的一致性和可靠性,将是他难以预料的和无意的努力。When you step out the door of your house, you might fall into a bottomless pit, rather than stepping out on the sidewalk that you know is there.当你走出你的房子的门,你可能会陷入一个无底洞,而不是踩在人行道上,你知道是那里出来。

For these reasons, it seems inappropriate to feel that a person could pick and choose various parts of the Bible to accept and obey.由于这些原因,似乎不恰当的感觉,一个人,可以选择不同地区的圣经接受和服从。If you accept ANY of it as being valid and valuable, then you are implicitly accepting that God participated in its creation.如果你接受为有效和它的任何有价值的,那么你就含蓄地接受神在其参加创作。And if God participated in the Bible being composed, that seems to necessarily imply that ALL of it was Originally precisely correct and accurate, in its Original language.如果上帝在圣经中被参与组成,这似乎必然意味着这一切本来是正确的,正是在其原有的语言准确。

These observations do not make such claims regarding any specific modern Bible translation.这些意见对于不作任何具体的现代圣经翻译等要求。Given that we see the inconsistencies between various translated Versions, we should certainly be somewhat cautious at totally accepting any one of them.既然我们看到不同的翻译版本之间的矛盾,我们当然应该有所谨慎在完全接受其中的任何一个。Either use two or more different Bible Versions in your studies, or have a Strongs handy, or both!要么使用两个或两个以上不同的圣经版本在您的研究,或有斯特朗斯得心应手,或两者兼而有之!As long as you can get to an understanding of what the Original texts said and meant, you will have the true meaning!只要你能得到一个什么样的原文,意思是说,你将有真正意义的理解!


I sometimes present this all in a different way.有时候,我现在都在以不同的方式这一点。


Each person must decide for himself/herself regarding a variety of religious subjects.每个人必须决定他/她有关的宗教题材的品种。Churches and religions and "experts" can give opinions, but that is really what they are, opinions.教会和宗教,“专家”可以提出意见,但是这实在是它们是什么,意见。

It seems to me that it is reasonable to ask several logical questions in the pursuit of Truth.在我看来,这是合理的要求,在追求真理的几个逻辑问题。

The first is, does God exist?第一个是,没有上帝存在吗?
If your answer is no, then the subject is pretty much closed!如果你的答案是否定的,那么这个问题是相当多休息!

If your answer is yes, He exists, or I think so, then a follow-up question seems logical:如果你的答案是肯定的,他的存在,或者我认为是这样,那么后续问题似乎合乎逻辑:

Does God have Principles, Ethics, Morals, Logic? 上帝是否有原则,伦理,道德,逻辑?
If your answer is no, then we are all in a horrible situation, where God could choose to be irrational, unfair, capricious.如果你的答案是否定的,那么我们都是在一个可怕的情况,如果上帝可以选择是不合理,不公平的,反复无常。 There are people who believe this.有些人谁相信这一点。But I look at the history of everything that is known.但我看着一切历史是众所周知的。As far as is known, the Sun has risen at the proper time each day, gravity has worked consistently, no buildings or fields or cities just disappear or reappear illogically.据我们所知,在太阳的核心在适当的时候每天上升,重力一直坚持,没有任何建筑物或领域或城市刚刚消失或者重新出现不合逻辑。 Based on this rather massive evidence of all history and all experience, I am tempted to think that the Universe appears to be consistent and logical.在这所有的一切历史和经验,而大量的证据,我忍不住想,宇宙似乎是一致的,合乎逻辑的。That suggests that God does not apply irrational actions or motives.这表明上帝并不适用于非理性行为或动机。I take that to suggest that He has at least several positive characteristics.我认为这个建议,他至少有一些积极的特征。 If we grant Him "several" admirable traits, I am willing to accept that He has additional admirable traits which we cannot confirm or deny.如果我们授予他“几个”令人钦佩的特质,我愿意接受他有更多的令人钦佩的特质,我们无法证实或否认。

So, if your answer is yes, He is ethical and moral and logical, then a follow-up question seems logical:所以,如果你的答案是肯定的,他是伦理道德和逻辑,那么后续问题似乎合乎逻辑:

Did He participate in the composition of the Bible? 他参与组成的圣经?
If your answer is no, then you need to explain the specific sequence of events listed in Genesis 1.如果你的答案是否定的,那么你需要解释创世记1特异序列中列出的事件 It has only been in the past hundred years or so that science has begun to establish just when those several events occurred.它只有在过去一百多年来,科学已开始建立时,这些只是几个事件发生。Even skeptics agree that the Bible has said that Light came first, for at least 3500 years!即使怀疑论者同意,圣经说,光来首次至少有3500年!That statement must have seemed odd to many people.该声明必须有很多人看起来很怪异。Why Light first?为什么光先? Why not Man, to witness everything?为什么不是人,见证一切吗?Why not the Earth, to stand on?为什么不是地球,站在?But Genesis 1 starts by saying that Light was first.但创世记一说,光是第一次启动。It is only in the past hundred years that science has discovered that stars are older than anything else we know, and therefore that their light existed before anything else.这是在过去百年只是科学已经发现,恒星是年龄比别的我们知道的,因此,它们的光,然后什么都存在。Prior to a hundred years ago, how could anyone have known that?此前一百年以前,怎么会有人知道吗?Or even guessed it?甚至猜到了吗?So, if God was NOT involved in composing Genesis 1, how could any ancient human have known to write down that Light came first?因此,如果上帝没有参与创作成因1,怎么可能有古人类已经知道那光来写下第一?(more on this theme below) (关于这个主题下面更多)

So, if your answer is yes, God is ethical and moral and He participated in the composition of the Bible, then a follow-up question seems logical:所以,如果你的答案是肯定的,上帝是伦理道德和他参与组成的圣经,那么后续问题似乎合乎逻辑:

Would such an ethical, moral, honorable God have either intentionally put falsehoods or misleading statements in His Book or even permitted the human authors to do such?请问这样的伦理,道德,光荣天主要么故意把他的书虚假陈述或误导,甚至允许人类作者做这样的?
This represents the INTERESTING part!这代表了有趣的部分!Given these seemingly logical questions and conclusions, it would seem that He would have assured that the (Original) Manuscripts of the Bible would have been precisely accurate and Truthful.鉴于这些看似合理的问题和结论,这似乎是说他会保证,圣经中的(原)手稿将被精确地准确和真实的。

This seems to imply that, for an absolute fact, the Flood occurred, David slew Goliath, Moses received the Ten Commandments, and all the rest, EXACTLY as it was presented in those Original Manuscripts.这似乎意味着,一个绝对的事实,洪水发生后,大卫杀死歌利亚,摩西接受十诫,和所有其余的,正是因为它是在介绍自己的原始手稿。

Now, it is well established that Scribes, in copying the roughly three million characters of the text of the Bible, have occasionally made minor errors (which are now known and have been corrected, through a comparison of thousands of early Manuscripts).现在,它是公认的文士,在复制的圣经文本的大约有三百万字,偶尔做一些小错误(这是目前已知并已得到纠正通过成千上万的早期手稿比较)。 Amazingly, that (ongoing) research has also discovered that a few Scribes had (in the first few centuries after Christ) even added some text that was intended as clarifying statements, and those modifications, too, have been largely recognized and corrected.令人惊讶的是,这(正在进行)的研究也发现,有一些文士(在最初的几个世纪后,基督),甚至增加了一些为澄清陈述的文字,这些修改,也一直在广泛承认​​和纠正。

But the point is, all of the central Teachings of the Bible have NOT been altered or mis-copied.但问题是,中央的圣经教义都没有被修改或误复制。That means that, even without ANY (current) scientific documentation, we can confidently say that the Flood of Noah actually occurred.这意味着,即使没有任何(当前)科学的文件,我们可以自信地说,诺亚的洪水确实发生。 More than that: If God told us that He took Six Days to create the Universe, that statement MUST be the Truth.更重要的是:如果上帝告诉我们,他花了六天时间创造宇宙,这句话一定是真相。Otherwise, He was either intentionally telling us a falsehood, or He made an error, or He permitted a central error to exist in the Bible.否则,他不是故意告诉我们一个谎言,或他作出了错误,或者他允许中央错误存在于圣经。


Now, none of this actually PROVES anything.现在,这一切都证明了什么实际。It will always come down to a person's personal choice as to what to believe, a matter of Faith.它总是归结为一个人的个人选择,相信什么,信念的问题。These questions and discussion are only meant to suggest a way to look at the situation, to think through it.这些问题和讨论只是为了提出一个方法,看看情况,想通过它。My conclusion from this is that God exists, He is Good, He guided the composition of the Bible and He made sure it was all Correct and Truthful.我的这个结论是上帝存在,他好,他指导了圣经的组成和他确信这一切都是正确和真实的。So, when many modern Christians see seemingly illogical stories in the Bible, especially things that modern science seems to challenge, I find it sad (and inappropriate) when they then begin to pick through the Bible's contents to decide which parts they want to believe and which they choose to disbelieve.所以,当许多现代基督徒看到看似不合逻辑的故事,在圣经中,特别是东西,现代科学似乎挑战,我觉得难过(和不适当)时,他们又开始回升,通过圣经的内容,以决定哪些部分他们要相信和而他们选择不相信。 In a word, Hogwash!总之就是一派胡言!

As a person who was educated as a serious scientist (my College Degree was in Nuclear Physics), I am familiar with logic and the value in analytical thought and all it has accomplished within the realm of science.作为一个谁是作为一项严肃的科学家(我的大学学位是在核物理)受过教育的人,我对在分析逻辑和思想价值和它的所有科学领域内的成就熟悉。 I have little question regarding that, and accept nearly all of what science has so far figured out.我没有什么问题,关于这一点,接受几乎什么科学迄今都想通了。But at the same time, using the same scientific analytical approach, those questions above lead me to totally believe in the validity of the WHOLE Bible.但在同一时间,使用相同的科学分析方法,以上这些问题使我完全相信,在整个圣经的有效性。

My Second Line of Reasoning, Regarding Genesis 1我的第二线的推理,关于创世记一

It seems to me, as a scientist, that the Bible contains a small number of solid facts, on which solid scientific conclusions might be based.在我看来,作为一个科学家,圣经含有少量固体事实,在坚实的科学结论,这可能是基础。I specifically refer to Genesis 1.我特别是指创世记1。A number of specific, identifiable events are mentioned there, IN A SPECIFIC SEQUENCE.一个具体的,可识别的事件数量有提到,在一个特定的序列。I ask that you momentarily ignore the Days references, and simply make a sequential list of the events that you see there.我请你暂时忽略的日子参考,并简单地做一个连续的事件列表,你看吧。When I was 19 years old, I first made my list, on which I had 14 distinct events, the first being Light and the fourteenth being Man.当我19岁,我第一次做导演,而我有14个不同的事件,首先是光明和第十四存在的人。

First, consider the possibility if God did NOT exist. That means that some ancient speaker or writer had devised the story of Creation, without ANY help from God.首先,考虑这种可能性,如果上帝不存在。这意味着,一些古老的扬声器或作家制订了故事的创作,上帝,没有任何帮助。 Such a writer had 14 events to mention, right?这样的作家有14个事件提,对不对?In principle, he could have selected any of the 14 as the first to mention.原则上,他可以选择的第一个提到的14个任何。Then he would have 13 left to select from for his second event.然后,他将有13个左选择从他的第二个事件。This choice making would continue until he eventually just had one left to choose as the fourteenth.这一选择使将继续下去,直到他最终只留下了一个选择在14。

It turns out that this is a large number of possible choices for his (human-written) storyline!原来,这是一个为他(人类书面)可能的选择,大量的故事情节!In fact, the number of choices is referred to in mathematics as 14 factorial (14!).事实上,众多选择是指在数学为14阶乘(14!)。That seems like an innocent number, but it is actually HUGE!这似乎是一个无辜的数量,但它实际上是巨大的!It is over 87 billion possible storylines!这是超过87亿个可能的故事情节!(87,178,291,200) (87178291200)

Do you see why this is significant?你知道为什么这一点很重要?A HUMAN writer would have had to select from over 87 billion possible sequences in writing such a Creation story for Genesis 1.一个人的作家将不得不从超过87亿个可能的序列中选择写作创世记一这样一个故事的创作。To put it a different way, there would have been one chance in 87 billion that a poorly educated ancient writer could have selected the CORRECT actual sequence which really occurred!为了把它以不同的方式,便一直在870亿一没有受过良好教育的机会,一个古代作家可以有选择了正确的序列,实际真正发生! In other words, it is scientifically and statistically IMPOSSIBLE for this to have happened!换句话说,它是科学和统计学这不可能发生!

It has only been in the last hundred years where science has advanced enough to be able to determine WHEN (in scientific terms) each of those events happened, such as that nearly all stars turn out to be far older than the Earth, and therefore "first" in creating starlight (and then sunlight).它只有在过去的百年里科学的先进的,足以能够确定何时年(科学计算)的每个事件发生,如几乎所有的星星变成远远比地球年龄大了,因此“第一个“创造星光(然后阳光)。 And that the appearance of man turns out to be the most recent of those 14 events.这是人的样子真可谓是最近期的14事件。 And also the relative timing of the other events mentioned in Genesis 1.而且也是在创世记一中提到的其他事件的相对时间。ASTOUNDINGLY, very recent modern science has CONFIRMED the sequence of those events in Genesis 1, with only (in my opinion) a single minor discrepancy (regarding birds being one step different in the two sequential listings).令人吃惊的是,非常近现代科学已证实了这些事件在创世记一序列,只有(在我眼中)是一个单一的轻微差异(关于鸟类,一步上市,在两个连续的不同)。 As far as I am concerned, THIS means that modern science has statistically PROVEN that Genesis 1 could NOT have been written by any human, UNLESS God was directly providing information that ancient writer could not possbily have known!至于我而言,这意味着,现代科学已证明,创世记一统计已经不能由任何人写的,除非上帝直接提供信息,古老的作家不能possbily知道!

I realize that this might seem overwhelming.我知道这似乎势不可挡。So I have a simplified version for you to consider.所以我有一个简化版本为你考虑。Say that, without any reference books, YOU were given the task of writing a story regarding the beginnings of fish, trees, man, large animals and small animals (FIVE events).这么说,没有任何参考书籍,你是考虑到写故事关于鱼,树木,人,大型动物及(五场比赛)小动物的开端任务。It turns out that you could create 5!事实证明,你可以创建5!or 120 different sequences or storylines for just those five incidents.或120个不同的序列,或仅这五个事件的故事情节。 Think about it!想想吧!Which of those five would YOU discuss first?这些五个将要讨论的第一个?And then second?然后第二个呢?

Modern science now knows that there was no free oxygen in the early atmosphere, so that plants and trees HAD TO exist before any of the others, BECAUSE plants and trees GIVE OFF OXYGEN into the atmosphere.现代科学现在知道,有没有免费的早期大气中的氧,使植物和树木之前必须存在其它的,因为植物和树木到大气中的任何给关闭氧气。 Did YOU know that, as an "ancient writer"?你知道,作为一个“古老的作家”?No, you could not have!不,你不能有!It is also now known (rather recently) that the early atmosphere could not have stopped most of the deadly incoming ultraviolet and cosmic rays from getting to the Earth's surface.它也是目前已知的(而不是最近),早期的气氛没有停止最致命的紫外线和获得进入到地球表面的宇宙射线。So land-based animals would certainly have soon died.因此陆基动物一定会很快死亡。It was possible for fish to arise and to multiply and fill the seas, because the water protected them from that radiation.这是可能发生的鱼类繁殖和填补海洋,因为水的保护,他们的辐射。(The oxygen given off by plants and trees had first gradually gotten dissolved in the water by waves and such).(由于被植物和树木关闭氧气先是逐渐走上溶解于水,浪等)。

See the reasoning?见原因何在呢?IF you were given a lot of scientific evidence, you would have been able to get those five events in the correct sequence.如果给你的科学证据很多,你本来可以得到正确的顺序的五个事件。But if you lived 3500 years ago, without any source of such information, you would have been on your own, and you might have selected ANY of the 120 possible sequences to use in writing your story!但如果你住3500年以前没有任何此类信息来源,你会一直在你自己,你可能有任何可能的序列的120选择使用在写你的故事! Even with just five events to mention, you would have had less than 1% chance of getting the order exactly right!即使只有五场比赛更何况,你将不得不越来越不足1%的顺序完全正确的机会!

I have come up with a more personal example for you to try!我想出了一个更加个人的例子给你试试! Imagine that you are given an assignment, to write an essay of a few pages.想象一下,你被赋予一项任务,写了几页的文章。I give you a list of 14 various sports: Baseball, football, soccer, tennis, golf, basketball, rugby, cricket, field hockey, ice hockey, archery, gymnastics, track and field, and wrestling.我给你14个不同的体育清单:棒球,足球,足球,网球,高尔夫,篮球,橄榄球,板球,曲棍球,冰球,射箭,体操,田径和摔跤。 You are to write a brief essay indicating the "history" of sports (no computer or encyclopedia allowed!) The specific point is that you will have to put those 14 sports in some sort of order, a sequence over time.你是写一个简短的文章指出的“历史”的运动(没有电脑或百科全书允许!)的具体问题是,你将不得不把一些顺序排列,比14时间序列的运动。 Which one do you think was first?你认为哪一个是第一个?You have 14 choices to pick from.您可以在14选择,挑选。Then, which was second?然后,这是第二次?You have 13 left to pick from, so you already have 182 different possible storylines for just the first two!你有13个左挑选,所以你已经有182只前两个不同的可能的故事情节!

You might have some tremendous advantages over the Genesis source, as you may have read books or seen programs that gave you information regarding when specific of those sports first arose.您可能已经在一些巨大的成因源优势,因为你可能看过的书或看到的程序给你的信息时,这些运动有关的具体首次出现。But even with that added information, you will have to do amazing things to beat the 87 billion to one odds against you getting the entire sequence exactly correct!但即便如此添加的信息,你将不得不做出令人惊叹的事情拍打您是否获得了整个序列完全正确的87亿美元比1!


I hope it is noted WHY I felt these personal comments needed to be added (after 14 years of struggling about doing that!) The reasoning presented here is so recent that it was not available to Augustine or Aquinas or Anselm.我希望这是为什么我认为需要指出的是将这些个人的评论(约14年后这样做挣扎!)这里的推理是如此的近,这是不向奥古斯丁或阿奎那或安塞尔姆。 I like to think that if they had had access to such recent scientific findings, they might have presented such science-based arguments along with their other approaches!我倾向于认为,如果他们能够获得这样的最新科学发现,他们可能已经提出这样的科学为依据的论点以及他们的其他办法! In any case, whether of value or not, these are MY personal "Arguments for the Existence of God"!在任何情况下,无论价值与否,这是我个人的“为上帝的存在争论”!

Also, see:此外,见:
God 上帝

This subject presentation in the original English language这在原来的主题演讲, 英语



Send an e-mail question or comment to us:发送电子邮件的问题或意见给我们:E-mail电子邮件

The main BELIEVE web-page (and the index to subjects) is at:的, 主要相信网页(和索引科目),是在:
BELIEVE Religious Information Source相信宗教信息来源
http://mb-soft.com/believe/beliecha.html