Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. An Organ of Student Opinion at Victoria College, Wellington, N.Z. Vol. 12, No. 4. May 4th 1949

Dear Swen,

Of course answering you is taking an obvious bait—nay I fear an over obvious one. . . .

To be truthful it is not easy to answer the questions you pose so tortuously especially since the essentials of the problem are ignored. In any such argument it is unusual for either person to concede anything but I shall begin by conceding that the problem is not simple because too many people imagine that it is or should be. It is impossible for anyone to give a full explanation of an infinite problem, for God if He is at all is infinite and our finite minds cannot fully grasp the concept of an Infinite Being.

This is not illogical, although it may be humiliating for Junior Atheists, and yet you would have no shame in admitting that your mind is not as great as that of Einstein. (Yes—I know it may be) When it comes to God, however, you feel differently—that you should fully understand God, be able to explain His works and see no inconsistencies. But why should you? It is inconvenient and dissatisfying but it is also logical that limited minds cannot fully comprehend an Infinite One.

The essence of any arguments about God is not the statement of facts considered inconsistent but a consideration of the proofs of His existence. It is on this basis that I intend to argue with you. I intend to do two things:
1.Comment briefly on your article—which has been done above in part;
2.Postulate two proofs of God's existence.

You must either demolish these proofs or be faced with the illogicality of admitting the proofs and denying them at the same time. The issue is not first what you think God should do and second whether there is a God but just the reverse.