Arguments for the Existence of God論據為上帝存在

General Information 一般資料

Proofs FOR the Existence of God為證明上帝存在

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.而神學,可採取上帝的存在是絕對必要在此基礎上的權威,信仰,或啟示,許多哲學家和一些神學家-以為它可能證明由正因如此,必須有一個上帝。

St. Thomas Aquinas, in the thirteenth century, formulated the famous "five ways" by which God's existence can be demonstrated philosophically: 聖托馬斯阿奎那,在13世紀,制定了著名的"五種方式" ,而上帝的存在可以證明哲理:

BELIEVE Religious Information Source web-site相信宗教信息來源
Our List of 2,300 Religious Subjects我們所列出的2300名宗教科目
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.其他兩個在歷史上的重要"證據" ,是本體論的論點道德論據。前者,取得了著名的聖anselm在11世紀捍衛了另一種形式的,由笛卡爾認為,它會在邏輯上有矛盾否認神的存在。 St. Anselm began by defining God as "that [being] than which nothing greater can be conceived."聖anselm開始通過界定上帝" [正]比一事無成更可被設想" 。 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.如果上帝只存在於頭腦,然後,他會不會成為最大可以想像的,因為我們能夠想像另一個被認為是更大,因為它會存在,無論是在心靈和現實,並正在然後將神。 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,要想像上帝存在的,只有在他心中,而不是在現實中導致邏輯上的矛盾,這證明上帝存在的,無論是在頭腦中的現實。

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.康德拒絕了,不僅本體的說法,但teleological和宇宙學的論據,那麼,根據他的理論,原因是太有限知道,任何超出人類經驗。 However, he did argue that religion could be established as presupposed by the workings of morality in the human mind ("practical reason").不過,他當時認為,宗教可以被確立為假定所運作的道德在人的頭腦( "實踐理性" ) 。 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.上帝的存在是一個必要預設有任何道德判斷,這是客觀存在,即超出僅僅相對論道德偏好;這種判斷標準需要外部的任何人的心態是,他們假定上帝的心。

Arguments AGAINST God's Existence論據反對上帝的存在

Arguments against God's existence have been given by philosophers, atheists, and agnostics.論據反對上帝的存在已獲得由哲學家,無神論者,不可知論者。 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.其中一些論點尋找上帝的存在不符合觀察事實,有些言論認為上帝不存在,因為神的觀念是不連貫或混淆。 Others are criticisms of the proofs offered for God's existence.別人的批評,該所提供的證據對上帝的存在。

One of the most influential and powerful "proofs" that there is no God proceeds from "The Problem From Evil."其中最有影響和最有力的"證據" ,是沒有神的收益"的問題,從惡" 。 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.這個論點聲稱以下三個報表不能全部屬實: (一)存在著邪惡; (二) ,神是萬能的; (三)上帝是一切愛好。 The argument is as follows:其論點是,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.另一種說法稱,存在著一種全知神,是不符合事實的自由意志,即人類做作出的選擇。 If God is omniscient, He must know beforehand exactly what a person will do in a given situation.如果上帝是無所不知,他必須事先知道到底什麼人會做的,在某一特定的情況。 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.在這種情況下,一個人,其實絕非免費做替代,以何種上帝才知道他或她會做,並且自由意志必須是一個幻想。 To take this one step further, if one chooses to commit a sin, how can it then be said that one sinned freely?藉此更進一步說,如果有人選擇以一種罪過,又怎麼能那麼說,其中一個犯罪自由嗎?

Hume provided powerful critiques of the main arguments for God's existence.休謨提供了強有力的批判主要論據,因為上帝的存在。 Against the cosmological argument (Aquinas' third argument), he argued that the idea of a necessarily existing being is absurd.對宇宙的說法(阿奎那的第三個論點) ,他辯稱,這一構想一個必然存在的,是荒謬的。 Hume stated, "Whatever we can conceive as existent, we can also conceive as nonexistent."休謨指出, "無論我們可以設想,作為存在的,我們也可以設想,作為不復存在" 。 He also asked why the ultimate source of the universe could not be the entire universe itself, eternal and uncaused, without a God?他還問,為什麼最終來源,宇宙可能不會對整個宇宙本身,永恆和uncaused ,沒有一個上帝嗎?

Hume also criticized the argument from design (Aquinas' fifth argument).休姆也批評論調,從設計(阿奎那'第五論點) 。 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.他特別強調指出,沒有合法的途徑,我們可以推斷性質的,因為上帝造物的世界,從素質,他的創作風格。 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,休謨質疑,我們可以肯定的是,世界上並沒有產生一組;或者這個是不是一個多種嘗試,在創造中,首數已拙劣;或者,在另一方面,我們的世界是沒有一個貧窮的第一次嘗試"的一個嬰兒神,他們後來放棄了它,慚愧,他的跛的表現" 。

Arguments for the Existence of God論據為上帝存在

Advanced Information 先進的信息

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. 論據為上帝存在的構成是一個最好的企圖的人的頭腦,以擺脫世界,超越理智或以驚人的境界的體驗。

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. 當然,問題的上帝的存在是最重要的問題,人類哲學,而是影響到整個男高音的人的生命,不論是男子,被視為是最高人民法院在宇宙中,還是可以相信,人類有優越的是,他必須熱愛聽從指揮,或者藐視。

There are three ways one can argue for the existence of God. 有三種方式之一,可以說為上帝存在的。

The A Priori Approach該先驗辦法

This approach is the heart of the famous ontological argument, devised by Anselm of Canterbury though adumbrated earlier in the system of Augustine.這種做法是香港的心臟著名的本體論的說法,制定anselm坎特伯雷勾畫雖然較早前在該系統內的奧古斯丁。 This argument begins with a special definition of God as infinite, perfect, and necessary.這種說法始於一個特殊的定義,上帝無限的,完美的,也是必要的。

Anselm said that God cannot be conceived in any way other than "a being than which nothing greater can be conceived." anselm說,上帝無法構思任何方式以外的其他"一項被比一事無成更可被設想" 。 Even the fool knows what he means by "God" when he asserts, "There is no God" (Ps. 14:1).即使是傻瓜也知道他的意思,由"上帝"的時候,他斷言: "有沒有神" (詩篇14時01分) 。 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.但是,如果最完美的正只存在於思想,而不是在現實中,那麼它會不會真的是最完美的,對於一個存在的現實,將是更完美,因此,最後anselm " ,沒有一個人明白上帝是,可以設想,上帝不存在, "總之,這將是自我矛盾的說: "我可以想到的一個完美被認為是不存在的" ,因為存在將有一部份和完善。 One would be saying, "I can conceive of something greater than that which nothing greater can be conceived", which is absurd.一會說: "我可以隱瞞的東西,比這更沒有什麼可被設想" ,這是荒謬的。

The ontological argument has had a long and stormy history.本體論的爭論已久,並在風雨飄搖的歷史。 It has appealed to some of the finest minds in Western history, usually mathematicians like Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz.它已呼籲一些最優秀的頭腦,在西方歷史上,通常是數學家們像笛卡爾,斯賓諾莎,萊布尼茲。 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,它未能說服大多數人來說,他們似乎包庇,同時懷疑,因為康德說, "無條件的必要性作出判斷,並不構成絕對必要的事" 。 That is, perfection may not be a true predicate and thus a proposition can be logically necessary without being true in fact.即是完美,未必是一個真正的謂詞,因此一個命題可以從邏輯上必要的,沒有被這樣的事實。

The A Posteriori Approach該後驗辦法

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. 流行心態,似乎體會到事後的辦法更好。本體論的論點可以作出從來沒有吸引力的知覺,但宇宙和目的的論點需要仔細看看世界。 The former focuses on the cause, while the latter stresses the design of the universe.前者著眼於事業,而後者則講宇宙的設計。

The Cosmological Argument宇宙說法

This has more than one form.這有一個以上的表格。 The earliest occurs in Plato (Laws, Book X) and Aristotle (Metaphysics, Book VIII) and stresses the need to explain the cause of motion.最早出現在柏拉圖(法律,預訂x )和亞里士多德(形而上學,預訂八) ,並強調有必要解釋原因的議案。 Assuming that rest is natural and motion is unnatural, these thinkers arrived at God as the necessary Prime Mover of all things.假設其餘的是自然和議案是違反自然規律的,這些思想家來到上帝作為必備的原動機的一切事物。 Thomas Aquinas used motion as his first proof in the Summa Theologica (Q.2, Art.3).多瑪斯使用運動作為他的第一證據,在總結theologica ( q.2 ,第3條) 。 Everything that moves has to be moved by another thing.一切動作要提出的另一件事。 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.但是,這條鎖鏈的動議不能再繼續下去至無限遠,一個關鍵的假設,因為那裡便沒有先機,因此並沒有其他動機。 We must arrive, therefore, at a first mover, Aquinas concludes, "and this everyone understands to be God."我們一定要到達,因此,在一個市場先機,阿奎那的結論是, "這個大家都明白,以得到上帝" 。

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.這個論點,從議案,是不是差不多有說服力的,為我們的科學的一代,因為我們採取的議案,將自然和休息要違反自然規律的,因為原則上的惰性。 Many philosophers insist that the notion of an infinite series of movers is not at all impossible or contradictory.許多哲學家堅持認為,這個概念的無窮級數的動議,是不是這回事,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. 最有趣的,有說服力的,形式的宇宙學的論據是阿奎那的"第三條道路"的論點,從應急,其力量來自於這樣的僱用雙方的持久性和變化。 Epicurus stated the metaphysical problem centuries ago: "Something obviously exists now, and something never sprang from nothing."其半徑聲明形而上的問題,幾百年前說: "一些明顯存在,現在,一些從未源於什麼都不是" 。 Being, therefore, must have been without beginning. 正因此,要一直沒有開始。 An Eternal Something must be admitted by all, theist, atheist, and agnostic. 一個永恆的東西必須承認,人人都當者,無神論者,不可知論。

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這個永恆的東西,因為這是明顯的一支隊伍,變化無常,受老化的問題。 如何能夠分解實體解釋姿態向所有永恆?如果每本特遣隊事/事件取決於先前的隊伍中的事情/事件等,對廣告多不勝數,那麼,這並沒有提供充分的解釋什麼。

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,有什麼在所有隊伍在宇宙中,必須至少有一件事是沒有一支隊伍,而這是有必要在所有的改變和自我確立,在這種情況下, "必要時" ,並不適用於一個命題,但一事,它意味著無限的,永恆的,永恆的,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.這是不足夠的說,無窮的時間,將解決問題的隊伍。 No matter how much time you have, dependent being is still dependent on something.不管花多少時間,你有,供養正在仍倚賴的東西。 Everything contingent within the span of infinity will, at some particular moment, not exist.一切隊伍內部跨度的無窮意願,在某些特定的時刻,不存在。 But if there was a moment when nothing existed, then nothing would exist now.但是,如果有一個的時候,沒有什麼存在的,那麼就什麼事情會存在,現在。

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. 選擇很簡單:一,選擇一種自我存在的上帝或自我存在的宇宙,宇宙是不是表現得好像它是自我存在的。事實上,根據熱力學第二定律,宇宙是跑下來像一個時鐘或者,更好,更冷靜很像一個巨大的火爐。 Energy is constantly being diffused or dissipated, that is, progressively distributed throughout the universe.能源正不斷地擴散或消退,也就是逐步在全國范圍內發行的宇宙。 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.如果這個過程繼續下去了數億元以上,而科學家從未觀察到一個恢復的能量耗散,那麼結果將是一個國家的熱平衡,這是一次"熱寂說, "一個隨機降解能源在整個宇宙因此停滯,所有身體活動。

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.博物學家從lucretius以sagan感到,我們不需要設上帝,只要性質,可以被視為一個自我解釋性實體來管理所有的永恆, 但它是很難堅持這一學說,如果第二定律[熱力學]是真實而熵是不可逆轉。 If the cosmos is running down or cooling off, then it could not have been running and cooling forever. 如果宇宙是跑下來或冷靜,那麼,它已經不能運行與冷靜永遠。 It must have had a beginning. 它必須有一個開端。

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? 熱門反駁到宇宙,爭論的焦點在於追問, "如果上帝所作的宇宙,那麼,是誰上帝嗎? "如果人們堅持認為世界上有一個原因,其中一個必須是不是還堅持認為上帝了,原因何在? 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.沒有,因為如果上帝是一個必要的,這是既定的,如果人們接受證明,那實在是不必要的,調查他的出身。 It would be like asking, "Who made the unmakable being?"這樣做就像是問: "誰使unmakable正在" ? or "Who caused the uncausable being?"或"誰造成uncausable正在" ?

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. 更為嚴重的是,反對意見認為,證據是基於一種無條件接受"的原則,充分的理由, "概念,即每一事件/效果有一個原因,如果這一原則被否定,即使是否認在形而上學,宇宙論據是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.休謨認為,因果關係是一個心理,而不是形而上的,原則上,一,其起源在於人的傾向,以承擔必要的之間的聯繫,事件的時候,我們實在看不出是連續性和繼承。 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.康德借調,由休謨認為因果關係是一個類內置著我們的頭腦,作為其中的許多方法,使我們為了我們的經驗。 Sartre felt that the universe was "gratuitous."薩特認為,宇宙是"無償" 。 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."羅素聲稱的問題,起源是糾纏在沒有意義的詞,而且我們必須內容要申報,宇宙是"剛剛有這一切" 。

One does not prove the principle of causality easily. It is one of those foundational assumptions that is made in building a world view. 一個不能證明的原則,因果關係很容易,它是那種基礎性的假設是建立一個世界的看法。 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.可以指出,但如果我們放棄的想法足夠的理由,我們將摧毀不僅形而上學的,但科學也。 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.當一個攻擊的因果關係,其中一個攻擊的許多知識本身,因為如果沒有這個原則,理性方面,在我們大部分的學習適逢得粉身碎骨。 Surely it is not irrational to inquire into the cause of the entire universe.這當然是不理性的,以查究原因,整個宇宙。

The Teleological or Design Argument該teleological或設計說法

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. 這是一個最古老和最流行的和理解的有神論證明,它已顯示出有一定的比喻之間的秩序和規律的宇宙和一個產品的人的創造力。 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."伏爾泰把它放在比較單一的條款: "如果一隻手錶,證明存在著一個鐘錶匠,但宇宙並不證明存在著這樣一個偉大的建築師,那麼我同意,被稱為傻瓜" 。

No one can deny the universe seems to be designed; instances of purposive ordering are all around us. 任何人都不能否認的宇宙似乎是設計;事例立法目的的訂貨都在我們身邊。 Almost anywhere can be found features of being that show the universe to be basically friendly to life, mind, personality, and values.幾乎隨時隨地可以找到的特點就是顯示宇宙是基本的友好生命,胸襟,人格和價值觀。 Life itself is a cosmic function, that is, a very complex arrangement of things both terrestrial and extraterrestrial must obtain before life can subsist.生活本身是一個宇宙的功能,即是一個非常複雜的安排事物的陸地和外星人的,必須取得前生活能夠度日。 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.地球必須是公正的權利大小,它的自轉,必須是在一定的限額,其傾斜一定要有正確的,以事業季節,其土地-水比必須是一個微妙的平衡。 Our biological structure is very fragile.我們的生物結構,是非常脆弱的。 A little too much heat or cold and we die.有點太大量的熱能或冷,我們死。 We need light, but not too much ultraviolet.我們需要的,但是不是太多紫外線。 We need heat, but not too much infrared.我們需要熱量,但不能太多紅外線傳輸。 We live just beneath an airscreen shielding us from millions of missiles every day.我們生活剛剛下方的一個airscreen屏蔽我們從以百萬計的導彈,每一天。 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?我們所生活的短短10英里的上空一石擊屏幕盾牌,把我們從可怕的熱量就在我們腳下,是誰創造了這一切屏幕和盾牌,使我們的俗世的存在可能嗎?

Once again we are faced with a choice. Either the universe was designed or it developed all these features by chance.再次,我們面臨的一個選擇。 要么宇宙是設計還是開發所有這些特徵是出於偶然。 The cosmos is either a plan or an accident! 宇宙是一種計劃或意外!

Most people have an innate repugnance to the notion of chance because it contradicts the way we ordinarily explain things.大多數人有一種天生的厭惡,以概念的機會,因為它違背了我們通常解釋的東西。 Chance is not an explanation but an abandonment of explanation.機會不是一個解釋,但一個被遺棄的解釋。 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.當科學家解釋即時事件,他操縱就假設這是一個經常性的宇宙那裡一切的發生是由於有秩序地遊行的原因和影響, 然而當自然說到形而上學,以原產地的整個宇宙,他沒有放棄原則,有足夠的理由和假設的原因,一切是不可想像的causelessness ,有機會,還是命運。

Suppose you were standing facing a target and you saw an arrow fired from behind you hit the bull's eye.假設你常委會面臨的一個目標,你看到了箭發射,從你後面的隔靴搔癢。 Then you saw nine more arrows fired in rapid succession all hitting the same bull's eye.然後你看到了九個箭發射,在快速繼承全部命中,同時公牛的眼睛。 The aim is so accurate that each arrow splits the previous arrow as it hits.其目的是使準確的說,每一個箭頭分裂前箭頭,因為它命中目標。 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?現在是一個箭頭拍攝到空氣中,是受很多情況剛好相反,不和諧的過程中,重力,氣壓,風力, 當十箭達到牛氣沖天的一隻眼睛,這是否不排除這種可能性僅僅是機會嗎? Would you not say that this was the result of an expert archer? 你會不會說這是由於一個專家阿徹? Is this parable not analogous to our universe? 這則寓言不是類似於我們的宇宙?

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.這是反對該方案的設計論點,即使有效,但並不證明有造物主,而只是一個建築師,即使在當時,只有一名建築師智能足以產生已知的宇宙中,並不一定是一個無所不知。 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.這一反對意見是正確的, 我們絕不能試圖證明以上證據,將允許,我們將不會得到百分之百的雅威的聖經,從任何證據的自然神學,但這個宇宙中的我們是如此廣闊和美好的,我們可以放心總括來說,它的設計者,將是值得我們崇拜與虔誠。

Many object that the theory of evolution takes most of the wind out of the design argument.許多反對進化論大多數的風力出設計的說法。 Evolution shows that the marvelous design in living organisms came about by slow adaptation to the environment, not by intelligent creation.演變表明,該精彩的設計在活的生物體來的緩慢適應環境,而不是由智能創造。 This is a false claim.這是一個錯誤的說法。 Even if admitted, evolution only introduces a longer time frame into the question of design.即使承認,演化不僅介紹了較長的時間內融入設計問題。 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?證明手錶來自一個完全自動化的工廠,沒有人的干預不會使我們放棄利益,在設計師的,因為如果我們還以為手錶十分精彩,有什麼要我們認為一家工廠生產的手錶呢? Would it not suggest a designer just as forcefully? Religious people have been overly frightened by the theory of evolution.會不會建議一個設計師就像有力? 宗教界人士已過於害怕進化論。

Even the great critics of natural theology, Hume and Kant, betrayed an admiration for the teleological argument.甚至是偉大的批評自然神學,休謨和康德,背叛了一種欽佩,為teleological論據。 Hume granted it a certain limited validity.休謨又給了若干有限度的有效性。 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."康德甚至進一步說: "這證明,將永遠值得受到尊重,這是最古老,最清晰和最符合人類理性… … 。我們已無話可說了對合理性和實用性這條路線的說法,但想,與此相反,以表揚和鼓勵它" 。

The Moral Argument道德爭論

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. 這是最近期的有神論的證明。第一大哲學家用它是康德,他們認為傳統的證明有缺陷。 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.康德認為,上帝存在和靈魂不會被事宜的信仰,也不是一般的投機性的理由,而且,他聲稱,只限於轟動。

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,道德律命令我們尋求summum bonum (最高善) ,完美的幸福作為一個合乎邏輯的結果。 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."但問題出在,當我們沉思令人不快的事實,即"有沒有絲毫的理由,在道德法律進行必要的Connexion公司之間的道德和相稱的幸福在一個被認為屬於整個世界,因為它的一部分" 。 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.唯一的公設,因此,這將使意識,人的道德經驗是: "存在著一個事業的所有性質,有別於自然本身" ,也就是說,上帝一定會妥善懸賞道德,努力在另一個世界。 In a godless universe man's deepest experience would be a cruel enigma.在一個無神論的宇宙人的最深切的體驗將是一個殘酷的謎。

In his Rumor of Angels, Peter Berger gives an interesting negative version of the moral argument, which he calls "the argument from damnation."在他的謠言的天使,彼得伯傑給出了一個有趣的負版的道德論點,即他所謂的"的說法,從damnation " 。 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.我們apodictic道德譴責這種不道德的男人,因為阿道夫艾希曼,似乎超越口味和習俗;看來,要求譴責超自然的層面。

Some deeds are not only evil but monstrously evil; they appear immune to any kind of moral relativizing.一些事蹟,是不是只有邪惡,但monstrously邪惡,他們似乎獨善其身,任何一種道德相對化。 In making such high voltage moral judgments, as when we condemn slavery and genocide, we point to a transcendent realm of moral absolutes.在這樣高壓的道德判斷,因為當我們譴責奴隸制和種族屠殺,我們點到超然境界的道德absolutes 。 Otherwise, all our moralizing is pointless and groundless.否則,我們所有的道德說教是無謂的和毫無根據的。 A "preaching relativist" is one of the most comical of self contradictions. "說教相對" ,是其中一個最滑稽的自我矛盾。

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. 最現代的思想家,他們使用的道德爭論繼續康德的論點,即上帝是一個必要的假設來解釋道德體驗。康德認為道德律可以設立理由,但他所謂的上帝,以保證獎勵的美德。 Modern thinkers do not use God so much for the reward as for providing a ground for the moral law in the first place.近代思想家不要使用上帝這麼多,為獎勵,作為提供理由,使道德律在首位。

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.道德爭論始於一個簡單的事實,道德的經驗。 壓力,做一個人的工作地點都可以感受到強烈的壓力實證對象。 Who or what is causing this pressure? It is not enough to say that we are conditioned by society to feel those pressures. 誰或者是什麼造成了這種壓力?是不夠的人說,我們受社會感受到這些壓力。 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.一些最偉大的道德家,在歷史上曾獲得名利地位,正是由於他們批評了道德的弱點,他們的集團,部落,階級,種族或民族。 If social subjectivism is the explanation of moral motivation, then we have no right to criticize slavery or genocide or anything!如果社會是主觀主義的解釋,道德動機,那麼我們就沒有權利批評奴役或種族滅絕或東西!

Evolutionists attack the moral argument by insisting that all morality is merely a long development from animal instincts.進化論者攻擊的道德爭論,堅持一切道德僅僅是一個長期發展,從動物本能。 Men gradually work out their ethical systems by living together in social communities.男人工作,逐步走出自己的道德體系,由共同生活在社會群體。 But this objection is a two edged sword: if it kills morality, it also kills reason and the scientific method.但這一反對的是一個雙刃劍:如果它造成道德外,還殺死的原因和科學方法。 The evolutionist believes that the human intellect developed from the physical brain of the primates, yet he assumes that the intellect is trustworthy.該演化認為,人類智力的發展,從有形腦的靈長類動物,但他假設智力,是可以信賴的。 If the mind is entitled to trust, though evolved from the lower forms, why not the moral nature also?如果心是享有信託,雖然主要矛盾,從較低的形式,為什麼不道義性質也?

Many people will go part way and accept moral objectivism, but they want to stop with a transcendent realm of impersonal moral absolutes.很多人會去一部分,並接受道德客觀主義,但他們要阻止一個超然境界的人性道德absolutes 。 They deny that one must believe in a Person, Mind, or Lawgiver.他們否認說,人們必須相信,在一個人,心,或lawgiver 。 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?這似乎是還原, 它是很難想像,一個"客觀的頭腦"怎麼可能的事,使我們覺得有義務善待,幫助的,真實的,熱愛? We should press on, all the way to a Person, God, the Lawgiver.我們要對所有的路,一人,神, lawgiver 。 Only then is the moral experience adequately explained.只有這樣,是道義上的經驗,充分解釋。

The Question of Validity效力問題

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,都是這些有神論的證明嗎?這個問題,提出了問題,在一些領域:邏輯,形而上學,物理學和理論知識。 Some thinkers like Aquinas feel that the proofs reach the level of demonstration.一些思想家一樣,阿奎那認為證據達到一級,示威的自由。 Others like Hume say that we should just suspend judgment and remain skeptics.其他像休謨說,我們應該只是暫緩判決,並繼續持懷疑態度。 Still others like Pascal and Kant reject the traditional proofs but offer instead practical grounds or reasons for accepting God's existence.還有一些像Pascal和康德否定傳統證據,但提供的,而是實際的理由或理由,以接受上帝的存在。 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.帕斯卡爾的著名打賭是呼籲以務實的,它是有道理的,鑑於對永恆的後果,投注上帝存在的。

Paul seems to demand a high view of the theistic proofs when he says that the unbelievers are "without excuse."保羅似乎要求高鑑於對有神論的證據時,他說,那些信的是"沒有藉口" 。 "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). "什麼,可以知道上帝是顯而易見的,因為上帝已顯示它給他們。自從創立世界無形之性質,即他的永恆力量和神看,已經清楚地察覺到,在事情已經取得了" (羅馬書1:19 -2 0) 。

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. 保羅並不一定是肯定的論據是演繹性,分析性,或示範,如果有人拒絕一個命題的概率較高,我們還可以說他的指責是"沒有藉口" 的論點,在他們的累積效應,使一個很強烈的案件為上帝存在,但它們卻沒有邏輯上的必然還是理性的必然,如果我們將它定義為證明可能發生的基礎上產生的實證經驗和受到的考驗,合理的判斷, 那麼我們可以說的論據,證明上帝存在的。

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,那麼,我們所處理的是事實主張,我們真正想要的時候,我們所要求的證明一個事實命題,是不是顯示了其邏輯上的不可能,但有一定程度的證據表明,將排除合理懷疑。東西,可所以很可能認為它排除合理懷疑的,沒有被演繹或分析或實證或邏輯上的必然。 We feel that the theistic proofs, excluding the ontological argument, fall into this category.我們認為,有神論的證據,但不包括本體論的說法,都屬於這一類。

Natural theology, however, can never establish the existence of the biblical God. 自然神學,但是,絕不能建立的存在,聖經神。 These proofs may make one a deist, but only revelation will make one a Christian. 這些證據可以增加一名戴斯特,但只有啟示,使一個基督徒。 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. 因此經營啟示總是輪流與神不同雅威,父親對我們的主耶穌基督,一是可以證實,這很容易通過比較雅威與神靈的亞里士多德,斯賓諾莎,伏爾泰和托馬斯paine 。

AJ Hoover胡佛的AJ
(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary) ( Elwell宣布了福音字典)

Bibliography 參考書目
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? j baillie ,我們的知識的上帝; d burrill ,宇宙論的論點;生長激素克拉克,是一個基督教的看法男人和事物;紅色克拉克:宇宙計劃或意外? 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?個HH農民,對信仰的上帝與r黑茲爾頓,就證明上帝; j hick ,上帝存在; d希克斯,哲學基礎的有神論;的AJ胡佛情況基督教有神論; s jaki ,道路的科學和如何向上帝;傑姆joad ,上帝與邪惡; j旦,途徑上帝下午馬斯科爾,公開性被100 mavrodes ,理性的信仰上帝;普蘭丁格,版,本體論的論點;鋼筋sproul ,如果有一個上帝,為什麼有無神論者? AE Taylor, Does God Exist?美國運通泰勒,沒有上帝存在嗎?

The Existence of God上帝存在

Catholic Information 天主教資訊

The topic will be treated as follows:該課題將被視為如下:

I. As Known Through Natural Reason一,眾所周知,通過自然原因

A. The Problem Stated答:這個問題說明

1. 1 。 Formal Anti-Theism正式反有神論

2. 2 。 Types of Theism各類有神論

B. Theistic Proofs乙有神論的證明

1. 1 。 A Posteriori Argument事後說法

(a) The general causality argument (一)一般因果關係的說法

(b) The argument from design (二)的說法,從設計

(c) The argument from conscience (三)論點,從良心

(d) The argument from universal consent (四)的說法,從普遍同意

2. 2 。 A Priori, or Ontological, Argument先驗的,或者本體論,爭論

II.二。 As Known Through Faith如眾所知,透過信仰

A. Sacred Scriptures答:神聖經文

B. Church Councils乙教會議會

C. The Knowability of God三,可知上帝




1. 1 。 Formal Anti-Theism正式反有神論

Had the Theist merely to face a blank Atheistic denial of God's existence, his task would he comparatively a light one.有者只是要面對一個空白無神論否定上帝的存在,他的任務,他會比較輕。 Formal dogmatic Atheism is self-refuting, and has never de facto won the reasoned assent of any considerable number of men.正式的教條式的無神論是不言反駁,也從未在事實上贏得了理智贊同任何相當數量的男性。 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,但它很容易,可掌握一項十分受歡迎的想像力,就永遠滿足心中的一位哲學家。 But there are several varieties of what may be described as virtual Atheism which cannot be dismissed so summarily.但有好幾個品種,有什麼可被稱為虛擬無神論不能被解僱,使簡易程序。

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.還有就是不可知論,例如,斯賓塞,它雖然承認理性的必要性假定絕對或無條件的背後相對和有條件的物體就我們所知,聲稱絕對要完全不可知,可實際上不可知,大約有其中,沒有被承認的矛盾,我們可以始發什麼都沒有,除了也許有它的存在,以及有其他類型的不可知論。 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:再有就是泛神論在一個幾乎是無限的形式多種多樣,所有這些來說,他們可能會在邏輯上減少到3個以下類型:

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);這樣單純的物質生活,其中,使此事的唯一現實,解釋現實生活中的力學,化學,降低抽象思維,以水平是一個有機的過程中否認有更高的終極的道德價值,以十誡比牛頓定律的引力場,以及最後,找出上帝與宇宙,從而解釋(見唯物主義一元論) ;

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純粹的理想,其中,選擇相反替代,將銘記唯一的現實,轉換為物質宇宙變成一個想法,並找出上帝這個包羅一切的主意或想法,設想為大智演變成通過分期或詞句的正和實現自我意識,在靈魂的男人;

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.合併後的物質-理想化,它試圖引導中間課程,並在不犧牲下定決心,此事或將此事記,會隱瞞現有的宇宙,而神是確定的,因為某種形式的"兩面"的單一實體。

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,甚至一開始他的任務者必須證明,對不可知論者,即知識的上帝所達到的,合理的推論-不過不足和不完善的,它可以是-是真實和有效的,因為到目前為止,因為它有雲:至於其他任何一塊知識,我們擁有;反對pantheists認為上帝的原因,是一種跨柴米油鹽個人獨特的神都從此事,並從有限的人的頭腦-這既不是我們自己,也不是我們地球胎面後,進入憲法他的福祉。

2. 2 。 Types of Theism各類有神論

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,從合格的意見,在正式反有神論的,它是發現,其中theists自己的某些分歧存在傾向問題複雜化,增加難度,說明它簡單和清楚。 Some of these differences are brief and clear.部分這些差異是簡單而明確的。

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.一些差別,只不過是正式的和偶然的,不影響實質內容的有神論的論斷,但其他人的大量重要,因為,例如,我們是否可以有效查明真相的上帝的存在是由同種理性的推理(例如,從效力原因) ,因為我們聘請其他部門的知識,又或者,為了證明我們的信念,在這個真理,我們決不能,而不是靠一些先驗的原則或公理,上司先行,以辯證推理;或眼前利益直覺;或對一些道德,情操,情感,或æsthetic本能或知覺,這是自願而非智力。

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.康德否認在名為"純粹理性"的推理的有效性古典有神論的證據,而在名字的"實踐理性" ,他假設上帝的存在,作為一個株連的道德律,康德的方法已遵循或模仿許多theists -有些人完全同意他在拒絕古典的論點;由他人,這些人,而不至目前為止,相信在a pologetical權宜之計試圖說服而不是說服男子被t heists。 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.溫和的反應對太拘泥於數學知識分子笛卡爾,是值得歡迎的,但康德反應過激行為,其已受傷的原因有神論,並有助於事業向前推進反有神論的哲學。 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.斯賓塞,是人所共知的,借來他的大部分論據,不可知論由Hamilton和mansel ,曾推廣了康德的批評,在英格蘭,而在試圖改善對康德的整复驗,他的德國弟子(費希特,謝林,黑格爾)漂入泛神論。 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.康德也有助於編寫方式,為總貶低人類理性與宗教的真理,它構成了一個負面的傳統,而提出上訴,該系統在積極方面,以共同同意和傳統,為人類的作為行政或檢驗真理的唯一標準,更尤其是對宗教的真理-它的權威作為標準,並追查,最終以積極的神聖啟示-是,像康德的庇護所,在實際的理由,只是一個不合邏輯的,企圖逃避追捕,從不可知論。

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,雖然ontologism -這樣的馬勒伯朗士(四1 7時1 5分) -是年紀比康德,其復甦在十九世紀(g i oberti,羅斯米尼,和其他人)一直激勵著在一定程度上受到康德的影響。 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.這一制度堅持認為,我們有一些自然立即覺悟,但暗淡於第一,或一些有良知的上帝-不確實,我們看到他在他的本質面對面,但我們知道他在他的關係,對動物的,由同一行為的認知-根據羅斯米尼,當我們成為自覺的被一般-因此,只要真相,他的存在是作為一個基準的哲學是抽象的概念。

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:最後,哲學的現代性-這點,最近這種轟動-是一個有點複雜混合泳這些不同的系統和傾向,其主要特點是一個系統,分別是:

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.消極,深入開展智力不可知論,並採取積極,有斷言的是一個即時的常識或經驗的上帝上蒼在生命的靈魂-一個經驗,因為這是第一只在潛意識的,但,當r equsite道德處分權都在場,成為一個對象的自覺把握。

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:現在,所有這些不同類型的有神論,在目前為止,因為他們是反對古典及傳統型,有可能淪為一個或另一個以下兩個命題:

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;我們很自然地立即意識或直覺的上帝的存在,因此可以免除任何試圖證明這個真理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.說,雖然我們不知道這個真理,直觀,並不能證明它inferentially這樣一種方式,以滿足投機,因此,我們可以,不過,一定要認真相信這對其他較嚴格的智力理由。

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.但上訴的經驗,更遑論其他的反對意見,是足以負第一命題-和第二個,其中,因為歷史已經作出了明確的,是不合邏輯的妥協與不可知論,是最好的駁斥,由一個簡單的聲明的有神論的證明。 It is not the proofs that are found to be fallacious but the criticism which rejects them.這是不是證明被發現謬誤,但這種批評拒絕他們。 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.這是事實,當然-沒有者予以否認-這是為了適當的智力讚賞有神論證明道德的處分規定,而且道德意識,æ s thetic學院,也不論其他權力或能力,是屬於人的精神世界的性質,構成或供應,使許多數據所依據的關於推理論證。 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.不過,這是很大的不同,認為我們所擁有的任何教授或權力,保證了我們的上帝的存在,這是獨立的,和優越的,智力的法律規範,我們贊同真理,在一般-即在宗教領域,我們可以超越這些法律沒有承認我們的信仰上帝,將不合理的。 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.這也是事實只有光禿禿的智力贊同向真理的上帝的存在-而這種贊同可以想像的是-屬於非常遠遠低於所宗教贊同,應予;什麼內容顯示宗教對毫無價值的信仰蒙昧無知的,由慈善機構有其對應的自然宗教,並認為實際有神論,如果它假裝要足夠,一定要上訴,而不僅僅涉及智力,但對心臟和人類良知和有能力贏得總效忠理性的生物。 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.但在這裡我們再次見面的誇張和混亂,對部分人士theists誰會代替智力贊同的東西並不排斥,但假定它是只需要補充。 The truth and pertinency of these observations will be made clear by the following summary of the classical arguments for God's existence.真相與相關性的,這些意見將作出明確的,由下列簡要的經典論據,因為上帝的存在。


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.論據為上帝的存在以不同方式劃分,並有權按不同的作家,但大家都同意,在承認區分先驗的,或演繹,並在事後,或歸納推理在這方面。 And while all admit the validity and sufficiency of the latter method, opinion is divided in regard to the former.雖然都承認的有效性和充足的後一種辦法,意見不一對於前者。 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.有人認為,一個有效的先驗證明(通常稱為本體) ,可;他人否認這一點完全,而有些則保持態度的妥協和中立性。 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.這種差異,應該得到遵守,只適用於該問題的證明上帝的實際存在,他的自我存在,被承認,有必要聘請一名或先驗演繹推理,以得出一個認識他的本質和屬性,因為這是不可能發展的論點,他的存在,如果沒有某種工作的概念,其本質,是要在一定程度上預測演繹階段結合起來,把先驗與後驗方法。 But no strictly a priori conclusion need be more than hypothetically assumed at this stage.但是,沒有嚴格的先驗結論需要多於假設,並不能取信於這個階段。

1. 1 。 A Posteriori Argument事後說法

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:聖托馬斯(總結theologica : 2:3 ;續根特,一,十三)後,他的許多作家,在學術上提前五年以下論據,以證明上帝存在的:

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.議案,即通過從權力之舉,因為它發生在宇宙中,隱含著先按兵不動,提出( primum movens動) ,他是上帝;否則,我們應該設一個無窮級數的走勢中,這是不可想像的。 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.出於同樣的原因,高效率的原因,因為我們看到他們在這個世界上,意味著存在的第一個原因是uncaused ,即擁有本身就是足夠的理由來維持它的生存;這是上帝。 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.事實隊伍的人存在,即人,他們根本不存在被確認為可能的,意味著存在的必要,誰是上帝。

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.畢業完善實際存在的,宇宙是可以理解的,只有通過比較同一個絕對的標準,那也是實際的,即是一個無限完美正在如神。 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.奇妙的命令或證據的智能設計,是宇宙的展品則意味著存在著一個supramundane設計師,他們是沒有任何其他比上帝本人。

To these many Theists add other arguments:這些很多theists添加其他的論點:

the common consent of mankind (usually described by Catholic writers as the moral argument),共同同意的人類(通常所形容的天主教作家,因為道德的說法) ,

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從內部證人的良知,以至高無上的道德律,因此,存在著一個最高lawgiver (這可能是所謂的倫理爭論,或

from the existence and perception of beauty in the universe (the aesthetical argument).從生存和觀感美麗的宇宙(美學論點) 。

One might go on, indeed, almost indefinitely multiplying and distinguishing arguments; but to do so would only lead to confusion.有人可能會繼續下去,而事實上,幾乎無限期地成倍增加,並區分論點,但這樣做只會導致混亂。

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.各種論點提到-和同樣的,是真實的其他可能加入-是不是在現實中的獨特和獨立的論據,但只有這麼多的部分報表的是同一個一般性的說法,這也許是最好的形容為宇宙。 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.這個論點假定原則的有效性的因果關係或足夠的理由,並在其最全面的形式,數量,以這樣的:這是不可能按規律辦事的人的思維作出任何最終合理解釋的現象的外部經驗和內部意識-換言之,以匯總數據,其中實際宇宙作為一個整體用品(這是公認的目的哲學) -除非獲得承認存在著一個可自給自足,不言自明的原因或理由正在和活動中,這是所有這些現象可能是最終所指的情形。

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.因此,這是主要的問題,方法和作為權宜之計什麼特別點之一,也可以選擇從千頭萬緒可用來說明,並執行一般事後的說法。 For our purpose it will suffice to state as briefly as possible為了我們的目的,這將足以國家能盡量簡短

the general argument proving the self-existence of a First Cause,一般的說法,證明自我存在的第一個原因,

the special arguments proving the existence of an intelligent Designer and of a Supreme Moral Ruler, and特別論據證明存在一種智能設計師和一個最高道德的統治者,並

the confirmatory argument from the general Consent of mankind.該驗證的說法,從一般同意人類。

(a) The general causality argument (一)一般因果關係的說法

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.我們必須首先假設目標的確定性和有效性的原則,因果關係,或有足夠的理由-一個假設後,其中的價值,物理科學與人類知識的一般基礎。 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.質疑其目的確定性,像康德,並代表它僅僅作為精神先驗的,或藏只有主觀有效性,將敞開大門向主觀主義和普遍持懷疑態度。 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.這是無法證明的原則,因果關係,只是因為這是無法證明的原則矛盾,但它並不難看出,如果是前者否認後者也可能被剝奪,並在整個過程中的人類推理宣布謬誤。 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.該原則指出,無論存在或發生必須有足夠的理由為它的存在或發生無論是在本身或在別的;換句話說,無論是不存在的絕對必要的-不論是不是自己存在-不能存在無相稱,造成外部其自身的情況;如果將這一原則是有效的時候,所僱用的科學家來解釋的現象,物理學,它必須同樣有效時,所僱用的哲學家為最終解釋宇宙作為一個整體。 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,我們觀察到,有些事情是效果,即他們賴以生存的其他東西,而這些又對他人的,但不過到目前為止,回到我們可以將這個系列的影響和依賴的原因,我們必須,如果人類的原因是很滿意,來最終以事業本身並不是一個效果,換句話說,以一個uncaused事業或自我存在正,是地面和事業的各個方面都在。 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.和這一結論,因此,正如所言,這實際上是承認不可知論者和pantheists ,所有這些人都不得不講一個永恆的東西背後的驚人宇宙中,無論這是否是"未知" ,或者說是"絕對的" ,或"無意識" ,或"事情"本身,還是"自我" ,或者說是"好主意" ,或"會" ,這些都使許多代用品,為uncaused事業或自我存在的福祉有神論。 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.什麼反theists拒絕承認是不存在的第一個原因,在一個不確定感,但存在著一種智能和自由的事業第一,個人的上帝,有別於物質宇宙和人類思想。 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.但同樣的原因,迫使我們假定第一個事業上的所有規定,這項事業應該是一個自由和智能化。 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.精神世界的智慧和自由意志必須承認,由理智哲學家被視為真正作為世界上的事;男子知道他有一個精神文明的性質和表現的精神作為明確和肯定,因為他知道他已經把目光投向看到和耳朵聽到同和現象的人的精神世界的性質,只能解釋某種方式-由歸因於靈性,即情報和自由意志,以第一個原因,也就是說,認識到個人的上帝。 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.為事業,在任何情況下必須相稱的影響,即必須含有或多或少在自己的完善每一個被認為是體現在效果。

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.該中肯的這個論點就更加明顯了,如果戶口考慮到這樣一個事實是:人類物種,其原產地在一個比較後期,在歷史上實際的宇宙。 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.曾經有一段時間,既不是名男子,也沒有任何其他的生物居住的這個星球上的我們;沒有迫切的一點,對於生命的起源,從本身是無生命的事或演變男子的屍體從低有機類型,它可保持絕對的信心沒有任何的解釋,人類起源的靈魂,可以開出的進化路線,並追索權,必須要創造能力的一種精神或個人第一個原因。 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.另外,它還可能敦促,作為一個推論,從物理理論被普遍接受的,由目前的每天科學家認為,實際舉辦的物質宇宙中產生了一定的開始時間。 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.如果它真的實現的目標物理演化趨向是均勻分佈的熱量和其他形式的能源,它會按照明確表示,現有的程序尚未進行,從永恆;否則,將目標已達成不久前。 And if the process had a beginning, how did it originate?如果過程中有一個開端,它是如何起源? 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.如果原始質量是惰性和統一,是不可能設想如何議案和分化的人介紹,除了從沒有,而如果這些是舉行可coeval與物質的,宇宙的進程,這是當然hypothesi是顳葉,將是永恆的,除非它被理所當然地認為,事件本身產生了一定的開始時間。

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.但該說法,嚴格來說,是決定性的,即使它被理所當然地認為,世界上可能存在的永恆,在某種意義上,也就是認為,不管多遠回到一個可去,沒有任何一點的時間才能達成,在其中創造福祉是不是已經存在。 In this sense Aristotle held matter to be eternal and St. Thomas, while denying the fact, admitted the possibility of its being so.在這個意義上亞里士多德舉行事情是永恆的和聖托馬斯,而不可否認的事實,只承認可能其如此。 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.但這種相對的永恆,不過是在現實中,比無限或無限期的時間期限,是完全不同的,從永恆的屬性,我們向上帝。 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.因此不得不承認,世界上可能是永恆的,在這個意義上意味著,沒有否認這個本質上的有限和隊伍的性質,其存在。 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.與此相反,它有助於強調了這個真理,為同一關係,依靠自我存在的原因,是隱含在應急任何一個單一的就是隱含更不用說在存在一種無窮級數等人,假設這樣一個系列可能的。 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.也能維持與pantheists認為世界,不論是物質或心態或兩者的優點,內裝有自己充足的理由,其自身的存在。 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.自現有的世界會存在絕對的必要性和結果將是無限,在每一種完美的,但從無到有,是我們更加肯定比說,世界正如我們所知,在其總體性以及在其零件,不僅實現了有限度的完美的。 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.它僅僅是一種矛盾的條款,但許多人試圖掩蓋和隱瞞矛盾曖昧和混亂使用的語言,向上游無窮的事或人的頭腦,其中一個或另一個或雙方必須舉行由pantheist將是無限的。 In other words the distinction between the finite and the infinite must be abolished and the principle of contradiction denied.在其他字之間的區別,有限和無限的,必須予以取消和原則的矛盾,無可否認的。 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.這個批評適用於每一個品種的泛神論嚴格,所以所謂的,而原油,唯物主義泛神論牽涉到這麼多的額外越來越明顯謬說,幾乎沒有任何值得哲學家的名字會被發現,以保持它在我們的一天。 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).在另一方面,至於理想化泛神論,它有著相當的時尚,在我們的一天,這是必須遵守此擺在首位,在許多情況下,這是一個趨勢,而不是一個正式的學說認為,它實際上是在事情莫過於混亂和扭曲形式的有神論,尤其是基於後一種誇大的和片面的看法是神聖的內在性(見下文三) 。 And this confusion works to the advantage of Pantheism by enabling it to make a specious appeal to the very arguments which justify Theism.與這種混亂工程,以優勢的泛神論,使其作出似是而非的呼籲非常論點自圓其說有神論。 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.實際上,整個實力的pantheistic地位,對無神論在於它所擁有的共同點與有神論;同時,在另一方面,它的短處作為一個世界的理論變得顯而易見的,因此很快,因為它偏離或相矛盾有神論。 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.而有神論,舉例來說,保障措施,如小學的真理,因為現實的人的個性,自由和道義上的責任,泛神論是不得不犧牲這一切,否認存在邪惡的,無論是身體還是道德,摧毀理性的基礎上的宗教,並為幌子下,使男子他自己的上帝,想搶他的幾乎所有他的平原,普通常識的信念和他的所有最高獎勵良好的行為。 The philosophy which leads to such results cannot but be radically unsound.哲學才導致這樣的結果,不能不從根本上的不健全。

(b) The argument from design (二)的說法,從設計

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.特別論據的基礎上,存在著秩序或設計中的宇宙(也稱為teleological論據)證明,立即存在一個supramundane心目中的龐大的情報,並最終上帝存在的。 This argument is capable of being developed at great length, but it must be stated here very briefly.這個論點是能夠被開發了很長時間,但必須加以說明,在這裡非常簡略。 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.它一直是熱門的說法,無論是哲學家和符合民意,辯護士的有神論;雖然,在先前的過激的熱情支持或反對darwinianism ,卻常常被斷言或者承認進化假說已推翻teleological說法,現在是認識到,很正好相反,並認為鐵證如山的設計,是宇宙的展品是不是更少,但更令人印象深刻的時候,從進化的觀點。 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.首先特別的例子,適應可能呼籲在無數-眼睛,舉例來說,作為一個機關的視線,是一個突出的體現,智能的目的-而不是更少但更重要的時候,被看作是產品的一個漸進的過程,而不是眼前的是手工的造物主。 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.有沒有辦法在這種情況下,與假設一個指揮情報,並表示,盲人有機會,和荒謬的假設眼睛源自突然由一個單盲的機會,增強了1000倍,暗示它可能是產品的一個漸進的一系列此類機會。 "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. "自然選擇" , "優勝劣汰" ,以及類似的條款只是形容某些階段,在假定的進化過程中,沒有幫助,至少說明,並且隨著反對目的論,他們是毫無意義多於失明的機會。 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.眼睛只是其中一個原因,無數的例子適應,特別是兩端可辨,在每個部分,宇宙中,無機以及有機;原子以及為細胞有助於提供的證據。 Nor is the argument weakened by our inability in many cases to explain the particular purpose of certain structures or organisms.也不是這種做法削弱了,我們無法在許多情況下,以解釋特定用途的某些結構或有機體。 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.對於自然的認識是有限又難以作出衡量性質的整個設計,而對我們的無知的一些特定用途,我們都有權保持推定說,如果情報是隨時隨地明顯的,這是顯性無處不在。 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,在我們尋求特定的實例設計,我們決不能忽視證據,是由和諧統一的天性作為一個整體。 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.宇宙的,因為我們知道這是一個宇宙,有很大的複雜系統的相關性和相互依存的部分,每個主題,以特別法和所有共同主題,以一個共同的規律或結合法律的結果,使追求的,特別是結束了有助於在一個絕妙的辦法,以實現一個共同的目的;簡直是不可想像的,這宇宙的統一應該是產品的機會,或發生意外。 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.如果它反對說,還有另外一個方面,以圖片,即宇宙中比比皆是,在不完善-m aladjustments,失敗,看似p urposeless廢物-答复是,不遠處的尋求。 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.但這並非是堅持認為世界上現有的,是最好的,它不僅是對假設的,其正,使不完善提到的將被排除在外。 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.承認,不誇大其現實-承認,那就是,存在的物理邪惡-仍是一個大平衡的基礎上的一面秩序與和諧,並要交代交代,因此不僅需要一個智能介意,但一說是好的和仁慈的,雖然到目前為止,因為這個特殊的說法,這可能是心態可以想像有限。 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.為了證明無窮的,世界的設計師,這是必要的依傍一般的說法已經解釋,並就演繹論點,可在下面加以說明,其中至無限遠推斷,從自我的存在。 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.最後,透過直接回答這個問題所提出的異議,就被觀察到,體會到充分的證據,為設計,我們必須,除了特殊情況的適應和對宇宙的統一有瞄頭,在世界上的今天,考慮到歷史的連續性,在整個大自然無限期年齡,在過去和無限期的年齡來。 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.我們這樣做沒有,也不可能理解,充分發揮大自然的設計,因為它不是一個靜態的宇宙,我們要研究而是一個宇宙,正逐步展現自己邁向實現其最終目的的指導下,碩士介意。 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.並為實現這一目的,不完善,以及為完善-明顯的邪惡與不和諧,以及明顯的良好秩序-可能有助於方式,使我們可以,但模糊的辨別。 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.以及均衡的哲學家,他們意識到自己的局限性,在存在性質的設計師,不但聲稱每一個細節說,設計師的目的,應該在目前被平原到他的劣勢情報,將內容,以等待最終解決的謎題,其中來世許諾提供。

(c) The argument from conscience (三)論點,從良心

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.以紐曼和其他人的說法,從良心,或道德責任感,似乎最有說服力關係密切的所有論據為上帝的存在,而它僅容許康德的絕對價值。 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,這是不是一個獨立的論調,雖然缺乏正確的理解,它強調的一點,在總體上是一個事後證明這是蓄意上訴,特別是武力許多頭腦。 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.這並不是說良心,因為這樣的,包含一個直接啟示或直覺上帝的作為作者的道德律,但是,以人的道德責任感作為一種現象來加以解釋,並沒有最終的解釋,可以考慮除假設存在著一個上司lawgiver名男子是必然服從。 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.正如說法,從設計帶出了突出的屬性情報,所以說法從科學帶出屬性的聖德在第一事業和自我存在個人被我們與他們最終必須找出設計師及lawgiver 。

(d) The argument from universal consent (四)的說法,從普遍同意

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.該驗證的論點同意的基礎上,人類可以簡要說明如下:人類作為一個整體在任何時候,到處都相信並繼續認為,在上存在某些優勢正在或人對人的物質世界和人本身都是依賴,而這其實是不能佔,除非承認這個信念,是真還是假,至少含有胚芽的真理。 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.它是承認的,當然是多神教,二元論,泛神論,和其他形式的錯誤和迷信交織,並毀容這種普遍的信仰,人類的,但這並沒有破壞力量的論據,我們考慮之列。 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.在至少生髮真理,即在承認某種神是共同的一切形式的宗教,因此可以聲稱在其支持普遍同意人類。 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?以及如何能同意這個解釋,除非是作為結果的認知,由心中男人的存在證據的神嗎? 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.這是過大的一個主題簽訂後,這裡-討論各理論已被提前到戶口在其他一些方式的起源和普遍性的宗教,但它可以安全地說,從抽象的啟示,其中需要先不討論這個階段,而沒有別的理論,將經得起任何風浪的考驗批評。 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.並假設這是最好的解釋,哲學所能提供的,它可能會被認為這徵得告訴人類最終有利於有神論。 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.它是明確的,從歷史上說,宗教是被墮落的,並已在許多事例中墮落而不是進步;即使它已無法證明得出結論說,神是原始的歷史,宗教,卻是一個很好的協議,積極證據adducible為支持這一論點。 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.如果這是真正的讀歷史,它是可以容許的解釋普遍性的宗教作為見證暗含著原始真相,但很多模糊,它可能已經成為在許多情況下,絕不能完全抹煞。 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.不過,即使歷史上的宗教是看作為一個創紀錄的逐漸發展的一個應該在平心而論,按照一個公認的原則,以尋求其真正的意義和重要性,而不是在最低的,但在最高點的發展;它不能被否認有神論,在嚴格意義上講是最終的形式,其中宗教,自然傾向於承擔的風險。 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 emhasize more strongly the consent of normal humanity.如果有,而且今天無神論哲學家反對的人的共同信仰的人類,這些都是相對數和他們的異議只是為了emhasize更強烈徵得正常人類。 Their existence is an abnormality to be accounted for as such things usually are.它們的存在是一個異常被歸類為這類事情通常是。 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.可能是聲稱自己的名義,單獨地或集體地,即在能力,教育,性格,或終身監禁,他們的Excel無限數目較多的培養男子,他們堅持的信念,就什麼種族大一直認為,那確實是它可能被接納他們反對將有點令人生畏。 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,沒有這樣的要求,可以取得;反之,如果一個比較要求,將很容易判斷出,絕大多數的情況下讓對方。 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.或再次,如果確有其事,這方面的工作進展的知識已經揭示了任何新的和嚴重的困難,是對宗教的,有,特別是考慮到現代時尚的不可知論,予以某種原因恐慌,以穩健的傳統信仰。 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).但到目前為止,這是由既然如此,在教授的話說赫胥黎-一個意外的證人- "不是一個孤立的問題,提出了自己的哲學者,在現今社會已不存在,從時間,哲學家開始思考出合乎邏輯的理由和邏輯後果有神論" (生活和信件的甲烷。達爾文由達爾文樓第一,第二,第203頁) 。 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.大致相同的論點,因為今天已應用於受聘於舊時代的懷疑無神論者在努力推翻人的信仰所存在的神的,而且事實上這個信念,頂住了多次攻擊,在這麼多的不同年齡,在過去是最好的保證其永久不變,在未來的。 It is too firmly implanted in the depths of man's soul for little surface storms to uproot it.這是過於牢固植入深處的人的靈魂,為小面風浪,以根除恐怖主義。

2. 2 。 A Priori, or Ontological, Argument先驗的,或者本體論,爭論

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.這個論點進行推論上帝存在的,從構思,因為他的神通廣大,這是目前人類智慧的,但如前所述,有神論的哲學家不同意,以合乎邏輯的有效性,這種推論。 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.正如聖anselm ,這樣的論點背道而馳,因此:上帝觀作為無限手段。最大的,可以想到的,但除非實際存在的以外心是包括在這個想法,上帝不會予以最大可以想像正由於被認為存在,無論是在思想作為對象的思想,外記或客觀上,將大於被認為存在於心只,因此上帝存在,不僅在他心中的,但外面的。

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.笛卡兒國的說法,在略有不同的方法如下:無論是在一個明確和獨特的構思,一個東西,必須推測的那個東西,但一個明確的和獨特的構思一個絕對完美的被包含的概念實際存在,因此既然我們有想法的一個絕對完美的被這樣一個正在就必須真正把存在的。

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.更遑論第三種形式的聲明,將萊布尼茨提出論據是:上帝是最少有可能因為這個概念的,因為他的神通廣大,意味著沒有矛盾,但如果他是有可能的,他必須存在,因為這個概念涉及到他的存在。 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.在聖anselm自己的一天這種說法遭到了反對,由gaunilo ,他們保持著作為一個reductio戲了,它有效的,可以證明的手段,它實際存在某處的一個理想的島嶼遠遠超越了在財富與快樂的晴朗島該有福了。 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.但這種批評,但聰明,它可能看起來顯然是不健全的,因為它忽略了一個事實,其論點是,並不打算適用於有限的理想,而只是向嚴格無限的;如果它是承認我們擁有一個真正的想法無限,與這一構想不是自相矛盾,它似乎並不可能找不到任何瑕疵,我的論點。 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.實際存在的,當然包括在任何真實的概念無限,而人也承認,他有一個概念是一個無限的福祉不能否認他設想,它作為實際存在的。 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.但困難是,對於這一事件的初步入學,如果挑戰-因為它實際上是在質疑不可知論-要求是合理的,由經常性到事後的說法,即以推理的方式,因果關係,從應急自決-生存和再透過扣減至無限遠。 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,絕大部份的哲學家在學術上已拒絕了本體的論點提出,由聖anselm和笛卡爾,也沒有提出萊布尼茨是否逃生困難已經說明。


("THE GOD OF REVELATION") ( "上帝的啟示" )

A. Sacred Scriptures答:神聖經文

Neither in the Old or New Testament do we find any elaborate argumentation devoted to proving that God exists.無論是在舊的或新約聖經,我們找不到任何詳細的論證致力於證明上帝存在。 This truth is rather taken for granted, as being something, for example, that only the fool will deny in his heart [Ps.這是真理,而不是視為理所當然的,作為東西,舉例說,只有傻瓜會否認,在他的心[聚苯乙烯。 xiii (xiv), 1; lii (liii), 1]; and argumentation, when resorted to, is directed chiefly against polytheism and idolatry.十三( 14 ) , 1 ;第五十二( liii ) , 1 〕 ;論證,不得已時,是針對主要是對多神教和偶像崇拜。 But in several passages we have a cursory appeal to some phase of the general cosmological argument: vg Ps.但在若干通道,我們有一個粗粗地吸引某些階段的一般宇宙論點: vg的PS 。 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( 19 ) , 1 , xciii ( xciv ) , 5 sqq ,是,四十一, 26 sqq 。 ;二馬赫,七, 28 ,等等,而且在某些少數其他國家-美國威斯康星州十三, 1 -9 ;光碟。來說,我和18,20 -論點是,在哲學上的方式,和男子,他們的理由是正確的舉行將不可原諒未能承認並敬拜一個真神,作者和統治者的宇宙。

These two latter texts merit more than passing attention.這兩個文本,後者的優點多過關注。 Wis., xiii, 1-9 reads:威斯康辛州十三, 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.但所有男人都是徒勞的人是沒有知識的上帝:誰對這些好東西都見過,不明白他說的是,無論是出席該項工程已確認誰是工人:但想像要么火災,或風或迅速空中或圓的星星,或大,排水性,還是太陽和月亮,成為神說,統治世界。 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.其美容,如果他們,正在高興,帶他們到被神:讓他們知道有多少主,他們是更美麗,比他們:為第一作者的美容取得了所有這些事情。 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.或如果他們佩服他們的權力和影響,讓他們了解他們,他說,他們是mightier比他們:由偉大的美貌,以及有關的造化,造物者,他們可以看出,以便向眾所周知,從而。 But yet as to these they are less to be blamed.然而,以這些他們較少受到指責。 For they perhaps err, seeking God, and desirous to find him.因為他們或許也會犯錯,求上帝,並希望找到他。 For being conversant among his works, they search: and they are persuaded that the things are good which are seen.被熟識他的作品,他們搜尋:他們是說服這東西是好的,哪些是拭目以待。 But then again they are not to be pardoned.但是,然後再在他們不應該被赦免。 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?因為如果他們能夠知道這麼多,以作出判斷的世界:他們怎麼不更容易找出主有?

Here it is clearly taught這裡很明顯,這是教

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;這驚人或特遣隊世界-事情是看到-需要一個事業有別於和大於本身或其任何元素;

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.這引起誰是上帝不是不可知,但已知與確定性不僅存在,而且擁有在自己,在一個更高的學位,無論美容,強度,或其他完善,實現了他的作品,認為這個結論是可以實現的,由正確地行使人權的理由,而不提超自然的啟示,那哲學家,因此,他們能夠解釋世界的哲學,是不可原諒的,為他們的愚昧的真神,他們的失敗,這是隱含的,而不是由於缺乏善意的,比對無行為能力的人的頭腦。

Substantially the same doctrine is laid down more briefly by St. Paul in Romans 1:18-20:實質上是相同的教義,是訂定更簡單,由聖保羅在羅馬書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.為上帝所憎惡的是揭示了從天上反對一切ungodliness和不公正的,這些男子表示,扣留真相上帝的不公平:因為這是被稱為神的是體現在他們。 For God hath manifested it unto them.上帝祂所體現,它賜給他們。 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.為無形的東西,他的,從建立世界各地,他們清楚地看到,被理解的事情是,他的永恆力量,也與神:所以說,他們是不可寬恕的。

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.這是值得觀察的異教徒,其中聖保羅發言時,是不是責備他們的無知,超自然的啟示和鑲嵌法,但未能保存或腐蝕著這個知識的神和人的責任,他的本性應該教導他們。 Indeed it is not pure ignorance as such they are blamed for, but that wilful shirking of truth which renders ignorance culpable.事實上,這不是純粹的無知,因此他們是難辭其咎,但故意推卸的真相,使無知的罪責。 Even under the corruptions of paganism St. Paul recognized the indestructible permanency of germinal religious truth (cf. Romans 2:14-15).即使按照反腐倡廉工作的paganism聖保祿承認堅不可摧永久性的生髮宗教真理(參見羅馬書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.很顯然,從這些段落不可知論和泛神論是譴責啟示,而有效期一般證明上帝的存在鑑於上述證實。 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.它也清楚地表明極端形式的傳統,這將認為,沒有一定的知識,上帝的存在和性質,是可以實現的,由人類理性而不借助超自然的啟示,就是譴責。

B. Church Councils乙教會議會

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.什麼作者的智慧和聖保羅後,他們的父親和神學家就不斷地教導,已莊嚴地界定梵蒂岡理事會。 In the first place, as against Agnosticism and Traditionalism, the council teaches (cap. ii, De revelat.)擺在首位,作為反對不可知論和傳統,安理會任教(第二,德雷韋拉) 。

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,第一個原因(原理性) ,以及去年年底的一切事物,可以從創造的東西,知道肯定是由自然光的人的原因( denz. , 1785歲,沒有。 1634 )

and in the corresponding canon (can. i, De revelat.) it anathematizes anyone who would say並在相應的佳能( can.我,德雷韋拉) 。 anathematizes它的人會說

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).表示,一的真神,我們的創造者和主,也不能透過事情是,被稱為具有確定性,由自然光的人的原因( denz. , 1806歲,沒有。 1653 ) 。

As against Agnosticism this definition needs no explanation.對不可知論這個定義,無須解釋。 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.作為對傳統主義,它是被觀察到的定義是只是針對極端形式的這一理論,作為舉行lamennais和其他根據該條-以人性的,因為這是-不會,不能,有任何真正的或某些知識的上帝,在男子中,如果有不被至少一個原始的超自然的啟示-換言之,自然,宗教等,是不可能的事。 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.然而,卻沒有提及,以較溫和的形式的傳統主義佔據著社會的傳統教育是必要的,為發展人的理性權力,並因此否認的,比如,一個個體,切斷從人類社會由他的起步階段,並完全留給自己,能達到一定的認識上帝,或任何嚴格的理性知識都沒有。 That is a psychological problem on which the council has nothing to say.這是一個心理問題,其中安理會已無話可說了。 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.也不否認的是,即使在案件骨頭socialis某種程度的教育和文化,可能需要在命令說,他5月,由獨立的推理,得出一個認識上帝,但它只是申明廣泛的原則,即通過適當利用其自然的推理能力,應用到的現象,宇宙中,男人可以知道上帝與確定性。 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).在未來的地方,對泛神論,理事會(第一,德迪奧)教導我們,神" ,因為他是一個奇異,一共有簡單incommutable精神實質,必須向真正做到從本質上講[重等essentia )有別於世界上最快樂的,在和自己,和ineffably以上,並超越了所有的東西,實際的或可能的,除了自己" (登青格, 1782歲,沒有。 1631 ) ,而且在相應的大砲(二至四,德迪奧)詛咒是突出對任何人會說: "這沒有什麼存在,但事情" ,或者"該物質或本質上的上帝和所有的東西,是同一個"或"有限的東西,無論是有形的和精神的,或者至少是精神,有出自神的物質;或者說,神的本質體現,或演變本身成為一切事物;或神是普遍性或無限期的,其中所確定本身就構成了宇宙中的事物分為屬,種和個人" (登青格, 1802-4 ;舊沒有。 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.這些定義是誣陷等,以掩護和排除每一個類型的pantheistic理論,沒有人會否認他們是在和諧與聖經教導。 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.該學說的創造,例如,比沒有更清楚的教導或更頻密強調,在神聖的經文,是從根本上反對泛神論-創造作為神聖的作家了解,它作為自願行為的一個自由的代理人,使動物變成被列虛無。

C. The Knowability of God三,可知上帝

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.它會觀察的是,無論是聖經的文本,我們所引述的,也沒有conciliar法令說,上帝的存在可以證明或證明,他們只是申明,它可以確切了解。 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.現在一個國家,如果有一個願望,堅持區別什麼是可知的,什麼是顯而易見的,但在目前這方面區別不大,真正的進口。 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.它從未有人聲稱,上帝的存在可以證明在數學方面,作為一個命題,在幾何證明成立,並最theists拒絕一切形式的本體論或演繹證明。 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.但是,如果任期內證明或示威可能,因為它往往是,適用於在事後或歸納推理,即通過知識,這不是天生的或直觀的,是後天所行使的,因此,就不能公平地予以否認天主教教學幾乎聲稱,上帝的存在可以證明。 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.某些知識的上帝是宣稱可以實現" ,由輕的理由" ,即對推理系,如從或通過"的事情,是取得了" ;這顯然意味著一個推理過程中,如在其他連接男子不該不該把這個稱為一個證明。

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,它是公平的結論是,梵蒂岡會後,神聖的經文,實際上已經譴責了疑慮,拒絕事後證明。 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.但它不直接處理ontologism ,雖然某些主張的ontologists已經被譴責為不安全( tuto傳統非波塞)通過了一項法令的神聖辦公室( 1861年9月18日) ,其中主張的羅斯米尼隨後譴責( 1887年12月14日)有幾位重申ontologist原則。 This condemnation by the Holy Office is quite sufficient to discredit Ontologism, regarding which it is enough to say here這種譴責是由羅馬教廷辦公室是相當足夠抹黑ontologism ,關於它足以在這裡說

that, as already observed, experience contradicts the assumption that the human mind has naturally or necessarily an immediate consciousness or intuition of the Divine,說,正如已經觀察到,經驗相矛盾的假設,即人的心態自然或必然立即意識或直覺的神聖,

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.這種理論掩蓋了,而且往往要取消,兩者的差別是,對其中聖保祿堅持( 1哥林多13時12分)之間,我們的俗世知識的神( "透過玻璃,在一個黑暗的地" )與願景他的其中有福了,在天堂享受( "面對面" ) ,而且似乎不可調和與天主教教義,其定義是由理事會的維埃納省,地表示,對於有能力的,面對面或直觀的視覺神,人的智力需求被賦予了特殊的超自然輕,管腔gloriae和最後說,無論如何,就因為它是清楚理解,理論危險地接近泛神論。

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.在該法令" lamentabili " ( 1907年7月3日) ,並通諭" pascendi " ( 1907年9月7日) ,發出的教宗比約十,天主教會的立場是再一次重申和神學不可知論譴責。 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.它關係到我們的主題,這個法令的教會權威,只是重述教學聖保祿和梵蒂岡會,並重新確認的原則,即一直一直堅持認為,上帝要自然可知,如果信心他和他的啟示是,必須是合理的;如果一個具體的例子,需要說明,在邏輯上的必要性,實質基督教消失到空氣稀薄一旦不可知論原則通過,其中只有將矛頭指向在現代化的發展。 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).理性有神論,是一個必要的邏輯基礎,揭示了宗教和自然知識的上帝和自然宗教,其中天主教教學持有成為可能,不一定是結果的寬限期,即在一個超自然的援助給予直接由天主自己,如下從譴責克萊門特第十一其中的命題quesnel ( prop. 41 ) ,其中有相反的斷言(登青格, 1391從古至今,沒有。 1256 ) 。

Publication information Written by PJ Toner.出版信息寫PJ -碳粉。 Transcribed by Tomas Hancil.轉錄由Tomas漢奇爾。 The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VI.天主教百科全書,第六卷。 Published 1909. 1909年出版。 New York: Robert Appleton Company.紐約:羅伯特Appleton還公司。 Nihil Obstat, September 1, 1909. nihil obstat , 1909年9月1日。 Remy Lafort, Censor.人頭馬lafort ,檢查員。 Imprimatur. imprimatur 。 +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York +約翰米farley ,大主教紐約

Arguments for the Existence of God論據為上帝存在

Personal Thoughts By the Editor of BELIEVE 個人的想法,由總編輯,相信

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.一般相信,不包含任何對我的想法或意見,因為相信她是打算等,以目前只有最好的學術當局對宗教科目。 However, after 14 years if this presentation ending here, including nine years on the Internet, I see it as potentially useful to include my own thoughts here.但是,經過14年來,如果這個發布會結束在這裡,其中有9年的互聯網,我把它看作是潛在有用的,包括我自己的思考,在這裡。 A reader needs to evaluate whether there is any value or not.一位讀者的需求,以評估是否有任何價值或不是。

First, Logical Reverse Reasoning首先,反向邏輯推理

A person is certainly free to decide whether the Bible has any value or not.一個人,當然可以自行決定是否聖經有沒有價值或沒有。 A central issue in that matter is usually regarding whether God "inspired" the Bible's human authors.一個中心問題,在這件事通常是關於上帝是否"啟發"聖經的人的作家。 Consider the possibilities.考慮各種可能性。

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.如果一個人不相信上帝的靈感聖經或上帝甚至沒有實際存在的,那麼,這本書似乎已經非常有限的價值,它當然不會值得被關注的中心信念。

On the other hand, if one accepts the idea that God participated in inspiring the Bible, it becomes an important Book.在另一方面,如果人們的思想,上帝參加了鼓舞人心的聖經,它成為一個重要的書。 Technically, there would still be three possibilities to consider.在技術上,仍然會有三種可能性要考慮。

  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.如果上帝的靈感聖經,它是所有的,絕對和準確真實(在其原來的語言和原始手稿) ,並準確的,那麼,我們應該認真注意每一個細節。 Traditionally, this has always been the case for both Christians and Jews.傳統上,這一直是為這兩基督徒和猶太人。

  2. If God inspired the Bible, but He is Evil, then it is likely to nearly all be untrue.如果上帝的靈感聖經,但他是邪惡的,那麼它很可能幾乎所有不攻自破。 However, no accepted concept of God would see that as possible of Him.但是,沒有接受神的觀念會看到這一點,盡可能的他。

  3. If God inspired the Bible, but it contains both Truths and untruths, and it contains 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.如果上帝的靈感聖經,但它包含了兩個道理和不實之詞,它包含了不正確或扭曲,這似乎是唯一可能的假設,這些基督徒,他們覺得他們可以自由地選擇部分聖經,他們要絕對服從。 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?如果神,甚至遠程的威力和體諒和同情,因為我們相信他,他會故意包括諸如故障在書中,他為我們提供了一個指導? Or, could He be so sloppy as to unintentionally include such flaws in it?或者,他可以如此草率的,以有意無意包括這種缺陷呢?

For this last matter, it seems impossible that the God we know and Worship would be either intentionally deceptive or incompetent.為了這最後的事,這似乎是不可能的上帝,我們知道和崇拜,將不論是有意的欺騙或不稱職的。 For, if He was, then the consistency and reliability of our Universe would be an unexpected effort of His.原因是,如果他是的話,連貫性和可靠性,我們的宇宙將是一個意想不到的努力,他的。 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.當你走出大門,你的房子,你可能會陷入一個無底洞,而不是走出去,就在人行道上,你知道在那裡。

For these reasons, it seems inappropriate to feel that a person could pick and choose various parts of the Bible to accept and obey.基於這些理由,但似乎並不恰當,認為一個人可以挑選各部分的聖經,以接受和服從。 If you accept ANY of it as being valid and valuable, then you are implicitly accepting that God participated in its creation.如果你接受任何形式的,它被認為有效,而且有價值的,那麼你就含蓄地接受上帝參與其創作風格。 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.如果上帝參加聖經組成的,這似乎表示一定意味著所有的,它本來正是正確和準確的,在它的原文。

These observations do not make such claims regarding any specific modern Bible translation.這些意見沒有作這種要求對於任何具體的現代聖經譯本。 Given that we see the inconsistencies between Versions, we should certainly be somewhat cautious at totally accepting any one of them.既然我們看到不一致的版本之間,我們當然要有所謹慎,在完全接受其中任何一項。 Either use two or more different Bible Versions in your studies, or have a Strongs handy, or both!要么使用兩個或兩個以上不同的聖經版本,在您的研究,或具有規章得心應手,或兩者兼! As long as you can get to an understanding of what the Original texts said and meant, you will have the true meaning!只要你能獲得一種理解的是什麼原文說,意思是,你將擁有真正含義!

I sometimes present this in a different way.有時我什至目前,這個在持不同的看法。

Each person must decide for himself/herself regarding a variety of religious subjects.每個人都必須決定,為他/她對於各種宗教科目。 Churches and religions and "experts" can give opinions, but that is really what they are, opinions.教會和宗教之間的"專家"可以給予意見,但真的是什麼,他們都有不同的看法。

It seems to me that it is reasonable to ask several logical questions in the pursuit of Truth.在我看來,這是合理的要求幾個邏輯問題,在追求真理。

The first is, does God exist? 第一點是,沒有上帝存在嗎?
If your answer is no, then the subject is pretty much closed!如果你的答案是否定的,那麼,主體是相當封閉!

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,或者我覺得是這樣,那麼,跟進問題,似乎是合乎邏輯的:

Does God have Principles, Ethics, Morals, Logic? 沒有上帝,堅持原則,倫理,道德,邏輯呢?
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,那麼,我們都是在一個可怕的情況,如上帝,可以選用不合理,不公平,反复無常。 There are people who believe this.有一些人相信這一點。 But I look at the history of everything that is known.不過,我看,在歷史上的一切,這是眾所周知的。 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.就目前所知,太陽上升在適當時機,每一天,重力一直一貫,沒有建築物或領域或城市剛剛消失或重現illogically 。 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.在此基礎上,而不是大量的證據全部歷史和全部經驗,我忍不住認為,宇宙似乎是一貫的和合乎邏輯的。 That suggests that God does not apply irrational actions or motives.這表明上帝並不適用於非理性的行為或動機。 I take that to suggest that He has at least several positive characteristics.我認為這個建議,他至少有幾項積極的特點。 If we grant Him "several" admirable traits, I am willing to accept that He has additional admirable traits which we cannot confirm or deny.如果我們給他"好幾個"令人欽佩的特質,我很願意接受他有更多的令人欽佩的特質,我們無法證實或否認。

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,他是倫理和道德與邏輯,那麼,跟進問題,似乎是合乎邏輯的:

Did He participate in the composition of the Bible? 他參與組成的聖經?
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,那麼你就需要解釋具體事件的順序列出的成因1 。 It has only been in the past hundred years or so that science has begun to establish just when those several events occurred.它不僅在過去一百年或使科學已開始建立公正時,那些幾個事件發生。 Even skeptics agree that the Bible has said that Light came first, for at least 3500 years!即使懷疑論者同意聖經說,鑑於來到第一,在至少三千五百年! That statement must have seemed odd to many people.該聲明必須有似乎有點奇怪很多人。 Why Light first?為什麼輕第一? Why not Man, to witness everything?為什麼沒有人,一起見證一切呢? Why not the Earth, to stand on?為什麼不地球,站在? But Genesis 1 starts by saying that Light was first.但成因一開始說的是第一次。 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.這只是在過去的100年裡,科學已發現的恆星老年人比任何事情都重要,我們都知道,因此他們的輕型以前存在的任何事情都重要。 Prior to a hundred years ago, how could anyone have known that?前100年前,怎麼可能有人知道嗎? Or even guessed it?或什至猜? 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,如果上帝沒有參與創作成因1 ,怎麼可能有古人類已經知道寫下光來到第一? (more on this theme below) (了解更多關於本主題下文)

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,神是倫理和道德,以及他參與組成的聖經,然後跟進問題,似乎是合乎邏輯的:

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? 這樣的倫理,道德,光榮天主要么故意把不實或誤導的陳述,在他的書中,甚至允許人類作者這樣做嗎?
This represents the INTERESTING part!這是一個有趣的一部分! 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.鑑於這些看似合乎邏輯的問題和結論,看來他將保證(原件)手稿聖經會已正是準確和真實。

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.這似乎意味著,一個絕對的事實,水災發生後,大衛擺歌利亞,摩西接到十誡命,和所有其餘的,正是因為它是在那些原始手稿。

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).現在,它是公認的文士,在抄襲大概有3萬字的文本的聖經,偶然作出小錯誤(這是目前已知的,並已得到糾正,通過一個比較數以千計的早期手稿) 。 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.令人驚訝的是,這(未定)的研究也發現,少數文士曾(在剛開始的數百年後,基督教會) ,甚至增加了一些文字的用意是為澄清聲明,這些修改外,也已在很大程度上得到承認和糾正。

But the point is, all of the central Teachings of the Bible have NOT been altered or mis-copied.但問題是,所有的中央遺訓聖經中並沒有被修改或誤抄了。 That means that, even without ANY (current) scientific documentation, we can confidently say that the Flood of Noah actually occurred.這就是說,即使沒有任何(目前)科學文獻,我們可以自信地說,洪水的諾亞實際發生的。 More than that: If God told us that He took Six Days to create the Universe, that statement MUST be the Truth.多說:如果上帝告訴我們,他花了6天時間,創造了宇宙,這一聲明必須是真理。 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.否則,他不是故意告訴我們一個假的,還是他的一個錯誤,或他允許一個中央誤差存在,在聖經中。

Now, none of this actually PROVES anything.現在,這一切都不是真正證明什麼。 It will always come down to a person's personal choice as to what to believe, a matter of Faith.我們黨就能永遠歸結為一個人的個人選擇,至於如何處理,相信事情的信念。 These questions and discussion are only meant to suggest a way to look at the situation, to think through it.這些提問和討論只是提出一個方法,看看形勢,以為通過。 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.我的結論,這是上帝存在的,他是好的,他指導的組成聖經和他作了肯定,它是一切正確和準確。 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,當許多現代基督徒見看似不合邏輯的故事,在聖經中,特別是當這些事現代科學似乎挑戰,我覺得難過(和不適當)的時候,他們又開始回升,透過聖經的內容,以決定哪些部分,他們不願相信和而他們選擇根本就不相信。 In a word, Hogwash!總的來說,泔水!

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.作為一個曾經是受過教育作為一項嚴肅的科學家(我的大學學位是在核物理) ,我很熟悉的邏輯和價值分析的思路和所有已完成的內部境界的科學。 I have little question regarding that, and accept nearly all of what science has so far figured out.我沒有什麼問題,就表示,並接受幾乎所有的是什麼科學,至今已經想通了。 But at the same time, using the same scientific analytical approach, those questions above lead me to totally believe in the Bible.但在同一時間內,利用同樣的,科學的分析方法,這些問題導致以上,我完全相信,在聖經中。

My Second Line of Reasoning, Regarding Genesis 1我的第二線的推理,關於成因一日

It seems to me, as a scientist, that the Bible contains some solid facts, on which solid scientific conclusions might be based.在我看來,作為一個科學家,即聖經中載有一些固體事實,對其中堅實的科學結論也許是基於。 I specifically refer to Genesis 1.我特別指的成因1 。 A number of specific events are mentioned there, IN A SPECIFIC SEQUENCE.一些具體的事件,是有提到,在一個特定的序列。 I ask that you momentarily ignore the Days references, and simply make a sequential list of the events that you see there.我想請問,你一時忽視天參考,並簡單地作出順序的名單你們組織的活動,看看有。 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.當我還是19歲,我第一次說了我的名單,而我已14鮮明的活動,首先是輕型和第十四被男子。

First, consider the possibility if God did NOT exist.首先,考慮是否有可能,如果上帝並不存在。 That means that some ancient speaker or writer had devised the story of Creation, without ANY help from God.這意味著,一些古老的揚聲器或作家制訂了故事創作,在沒有任何幫助來自上帝。 Such a writer had 14 events to mention, right?這樣的作家也有14事件一提的,對嗎? In principle, he could have selected any of the 14 as the first to mention.在原則上,他也可以選擇任何14個為首次來提。 Then he would have 13 left to select from for his second event.然後,他將有13個左選擇,從為他的第二次活動。 This choice making would continue until he eventually just had one left to choose as the fourteenth.這一選擇使將繼續進行,直到他最終只過一個左選擇作為第十四名。

It turns out that this is a large number of possible choices for his (human-written) storyline!原來,這是一個大數目,可能的選擇,他(人類書面)劇情! In fact, the number of choices is referred to in mathematics as 14 factorial (14!).事實上,眾多選擇是指在數學課程的14階乘( 14 ! ) 。 That seems like an innocent number, but it is actually HUGE!這似乎像一個無辜的號碼,但它實際上是巨大的! It is over 87 billion possible storylines!這個數字已超過870億可能的故事! (87,178,291,200) ( 87178291200 )

Do you see why this is significant?你看,這是為什麼很大嗎? A HUMAN writer would have had to select from over 87 billion possible sequences in writing such a Creation story for Genesis 1.一個人的作家將不得不選擇從超過870億盡可能序列寫出這樣的一個創造故事的成因1 。 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!把它以不同的方式,會有一個機會,在870億一個低學歷古代作家可能已經選擇了正確的實際序列,其中真正發生了! In other words, it is scientifically and statistically IMPOSSIBLE for this to have happened!在換句話說,它是科學和統計學上是不可能做到這一點有發生!

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 older than the Earth, and therefore "first" in creating starlight (and then sunlight).它至今只是在過去百年如科學先進的,足以能夠確定時, (科學計算) ,每年這些事件發生,例如,幾乎所有星級變成要年紀比地球,因此, "首先"在創造星光(然後日光) 。 And that the appearance of man turns out to be the most recent of those 14 events.並出現了人,原來是被最近期的那些14事件。 And the relative timing of the other events mentioned in Genesis 1.和相對時間的其他活動中提到的成因1 。 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).驚人,非常近現代科學已證實,該序列對這些事件的成因1 ,但只(在我看來)一個單一的輕微差異(關於鳥類,其中一個步驟不同,在兩個順序表) 。 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 have known!就我本人而言,這意味著,現代科學已統計證明,成因一日不可能寫任何人,除非上帝直接提供信息這一古老的作家,可以不知道!

I realize that this might seem overwhelming.我知道這可能看起來是壓倒性的。 So I have a simplified version for you to consider.所以,我有一個簡化版本,為你考慮。 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).也就是說,在沒有任何參考書籍,你被賦予的任務是寫故事就開始養魚,樹木和人,大動物和小動物( 5個事件) 。 It turns out that you could create 5!原來,你可以創造5 ! or 120 different sequences or storylines for just those five incidents.或120個不同類型的順序或故事,為那些剛剛5個事件。 Think about it!想一想! Which of those five would YOU discuss first?其中的五個你會討論第一? And then second?然後在第二個?

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.現代科學的,現在知道有沒有免費的氧氣,在早期的氣氛中,使植物和樹木已生存,然後任何其他人的,因為植物和樹木,讓過氧氣到大氣中。 Did YOU know that, as an "ancient writer"?你知道,作為一個"古老的作家" ? No, you could not have!不,你不能! 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)表示,早期的氣氛不可能停止大部分的致命來襲的紫外線和宇宙射線到達地球表面。 So land-based animals would certainly have soon died.所以基於陸地動物,一定會很快死亡。 It was possible for fish to arise and to multiply and fill the seas, because the water protected them from that radiation.它有可能對魚類產生倍增,並填補海洋,因為水保護他們不受輻射。 (The oxygen given off by plants and trees had first gradually gotten dissolved in the water by waves and such). (氧氣給小康,由植物及樹木已先得到逐步溶解於水中,由海浪等) 。

See the reasoning?看推理? IF you were given a lot of scientific evidence, you would have been able to get those five events in the correct sequence.如果你被給予了大量的科學證據,你可能已經能夠得到這五個事件的正確順序。 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!但是,如果你生活在三千五百年前,沒有任何來源的這類信息,你會被對你自己的了,你可能已經選擇了任何一種可能的120個序列的使用在寫作你的故事! Even with just five events to mention, you would have had less than 1% chance of getting the order exactly right!甚至與剛剛五項活動,以提,你會已經不到百分之一機會獲得此命令正確!

I hope it is noted WHY I felt these personal comments needed to be added (after 14 years of struggling about that!) The reasoning presented here is so recent that it was not available to Augustine or Aquinas or Anselm.我希望人們注意到,所以我覺得這些個人評論,需要加以補充(後14年的掙扎那! )的道理在這裡是如此近,這是不符合以奧古斯丁或阿奎那或anselm 。 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!我喜歡想,如果他們不得不接受這樣的,最近的科學發現,他們可能已經提交了這種以科學為基礎的論點,並附上自己的其他辦法! In any case, whether of value or not, these are MY personal "Arguments for the Existence of God"!在任何情況下,無論是價值還是沒有,這是我個人的"論據為上帝存在的" !

Also, see:此外,見:
God 上帝

This subject presentation in the original English language本主題介紹在原來的英文

Send an e-mail question or comment to us: E-mail發送電子郵件的問題或意見給我們:電子郵箱

The main BELIEVE web-page (and the index to subjects) is at主要相信網頁(和索引科目),是在