All things descend from the great I AM. In Him we live and move and have our being. So it was, so it is, so it ever shall be, world without end. He transcends our existence, but we do not transcend His. He contains the universe, but it does not contain Him. He is existence itself, just as He is reason itself, the eternal Logos. Beyond Him no thing can exist, but He calls the things that are not as though they were, and so they are.

The world cannot meaningfully deny His existence for its existence depends on Him. The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” How shall we answer the fool? According to his foolishness? What can one speak to chaos but order?

We are commanded to present a defence: through our works and through our words. When we live as Christ would have us, we command the praises of God from the lips of His enemies. They were made to acknowledge the Good, and nothing is good apart from God, who is Goodness itself. When we speak in accordance with heavenly wisdom and  grace, then we refute the arguments of darkness: there is nothing that the light cannot expose; but the darkness has no power over the Light.

One cannot use logic to refute logic. The anarchic tendencies we see today have no means to escape God. If they would depart into the outer darkness, they will do so by His leave. Those who would insist that the universe is eternal or that it is composed of an eternal substance cannot claim empiricism as their support. Such a priori claims are the antithesis of a posteriori observations, and if they are inductive inferences, then they lack certainty. What is tendentiously asserted may be tendentiously denied.

Our universe had a beginning. On this physics and the Bible are in agreement. But how shall we understand why it began at all? The beginning, from an empirical perspective, is ex nihilo. How then can empiricism give an account of this state? It cannot. A posteriori arguments are insufficient for such a realm of understanding; we must approach the matter, insofar as we are able, from an a priori perspective.

However, while Kant makes the claim that we cannot experience God through (sensory) experience, this a priori assumption can be challenged. On the a priori reading of sensory existence as dependent upon and existing “within” God, God is known a posteriori – i.e. through experience – every time we have sensory experiences. The distinction is between human experience as contingent upon God and experience as a guide to God’s other qualities, His nature.

From the orderliness of nature – which principle cannot be derived purely from nature itself, but rather relies upon innate a priori concepts and knowledge – I can infer the wisdom, power, goodness, and purpose of God. That which is not in accordance with order requires explanation (the imperfection of my own observation and/or understanding;  the power and free will of other agents working against the will of God).

The disjunction between our own powers and intellect and the power and wisdom of God should draw praise from our innermost being. Humankind is without excuse before God: no one with reason can meaningfully deny His existence or His goodness, whether metaphysical or moral. No one can assert that the Thrones, Dominions, and Powers gathered in rebellion against the I AM can succeed. They have no victory in themselves – all “triumphs” they might revel in are contingent upon the free will afforded to them and other agents by God. They are free to depart from the Good, but how then shall they qualify their achievement? St John the Revelator had a word for it: DEATH.

The choice is before us – a choice that is only meaningful through the Logos: LIFE or DEATH. To be within the Logos is to live; to depart from Him is death. Every time  we acknowledge the splendour of life, we return glory to Him who is most glorious. We are contingent beings. Yes, we have great minds, but they are as nothing before the Logos Himself.