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.
All Along the Watchtower 
Amen.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Reblogged this on Annie.
LikeLike
Our God, God of all men,
God of Heaven and earth, sea and rivers,
God of sun and moon, of all the stars,
God of high mountains and of lowly valleys,
God over heaven, and in heaven, and under heaven.
He has a dwelling
in heaven and earth and sea
and in all things that are in them.
He inspires all things,
He quickens all things,
He is over all things,
He supports all things.
He makes the light of the sun to shine,
He surrounds the moon and stars,
and He has made wells in the arid earth,
placed dry islands in the sea
and stars for the service
of the greater luminaries.
He has a Son
co-eternal with Himself, like to Himself;
not junior is Son to Father,
nor Father senior to the Son.
And the Holy Spirit breathes in them;
not separate are Father and Son and Holy Spirit.
St Patrick’s Creed
LikeLiked by 4 people
Thank you for sharing that, Malcolm. That is a beautiful creed, and reminiscent of some lines in Augustine’s De Trinitate. I’m not overly fond of Augustine, but on he’s great in this area.
LikeLike
I’m not too sure about the target populace for Psalm 14:1.
Is it actual the God denying atheist or is it the wayward believer (Which is what I suspect it is)?
I am not at home with my resources to look into this further. But from memory I thought that the words “there is” appear in the text in italics – indicating that they are not in the original text but have been added by translators to give the text the meaning they assume it carries.
If we just accept the original words and delete the additions we see it appears to be a rebuke to one who acknowledges the existence of God but says NO to Him. This really is foolish.
“The fool has said in his heart, “There is No God.” They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none who does good” (NKJ).
It also enables me not to consider all atheists fools! While some confronting atheist on-line seem to do so, on the basis of such texts. This is not the way (I think) to make a defence of the Gospel, it fails to win a hearing and just annoys. I am finding on-line the need to oppose a fair bit presented by Christians in their debate with atheists. This has resulted in some meaningful communication with atheists on these sites.
My on-line search found that the NKJ retains the italics for “there is”, so I am inclined to think my memory is not failing yet.
LikeLiked by 2 people
This is a difficult one; “there is” is not in the Massoretic Text, but it is implied by the word for no “ein”, which means “there is not” – the verb to be (“hayah”) is not needed here, it is implied by ein, so the translation is correct. Note: ein does not mean “No” as in “I said ‘No'”. To communicate that concept, you would need to use a verb of refusal in the Hebrew. The LXX also supports my reading of the text: “ouk estin theos” – “god is not”, “there is no God”.
In principle I agree with your point, following Peter’s precept about giving our defence and the Gospel itself in grace, but there is also something to be said for confrontation, which speakers like Ravi Zacharias employ. For that reason, I don’t believe in a hard and fast rule on this one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for that information Nicholas. I had thought that in David’s time the text was less likely to be addressing atheism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, the jury is still out on that one. But recent scholarship from Cambridge suggests that it was real in the Greco-Roman world. I think the atheist of Psalm 14 is essentially saying, “I will pretend that there is no God. He doesn’t see my actions, so He can’t judge me.” I do take your point though, like you, I always speak in civility, honesty, and compassion with atheists. They are human beings with dignity. My concern is more amongst ourselves that we think about strategies for our defence.
LikeLiked by 1 person