PROOF OF GOD FROM EXISTENCE
The critique of the traditional proof of God from existence, often associated with the ontological argument, is done by emphasizing the limitations of human reason in comprehending the divine and the necessity of grounding theology in revelation and history rather than abstract metaphysics.
1. **Inadequacy of Abstract Reasoning**: Proofs of God based on existence, such as the ontological argument, which reasons from the concept of a perfect being to the necessity of God's existence, are overly abstract and detached from the lived realities of human existence. Such arguments rely too heavily on human rationality and do not adequately account for the complexity of human experience, particularly the experiences of suffering, evil, and historical change.
2. **God as Revealed in History**: The knowledge of God should come from God's self-revelation in history, particularly through the events of Jesus Christ's life, death, and resurrection, rather than through abstract reasoning or metaphysical arguments. God's existence and nature are best understood through the narrative of redemption and the hope of future transformation, not through logical deductions from the concept of being.
3. **The Centrality of the Cross**: Any theological reflection must begin with the cross of Christ, where God is revealed in a paradoxical way—as a God who suffers and identifies with human weakness. This perspective challenges the ontological argument’s focus on God's perfection and necessary existence, suggesting that such an approach overlooks the radical nature of God's engagement with the world.
4. **Critique of Ontological Necessity**: The idea of God's existence is a logical necessity. The God of Christian faith is not a being whose existence can be deduced from logical premises, but a God who freely engages with creation and whose existence is known through faith, hope, and love, rather than through necessity.
5. **Eschatological Perspective**: Theology is deeply eschatological, meaning it is oriented towards the future fulfillment of God's promises. He argues that understanding God involves looking forward to what God will do in the future, rather than relying on static philosophical arguments about God's existence in the present.
In summary, the proof of God from existence s best critiqued by arguing that it is overly reliant on human reason, abstract metaphysics, and fails to account for the concrete, historical, and eschatological dimensions of God's revelation in Christ. Theology should be rooted in the narrative of God’s action in history, particularly in the cross and resurrection, rather than in the logical deduction of God's existence from the concept of being.
1. **Inadequacy of Abstract Reasoning**: Proofs of God based on existence, such as the ontological argument, which reasons from the concept of a perfect being to the necessity of God's existence, are overly abstract and detached from the lived realities of human existence. Such arguments rely too heavily on human rationality and do not adequately account for the complexity of human experience, particularly the experiences of suffering, evil, and historical change.
2. **God as Revealed in History**: The knowledge of God should come from God's self-revelation in history, particularly through the events of Jesus Christ's life, death, and resurrection, rather than through abstract reasoning or metaphysical arguments. God's existence and nature are best understood through the narrative of redemption and the hope of future transformation, not through logical deductions from the concept of being.
3. **The Centrality of the Cross**: Any theological reflection must begin with the cross of Christ, where God is revealed in a paradoxical way—as a God who suffers and identifies with human weakness. This perspective challenges the ontological argument’s focus on God's perfection and necessary existence, suggesting that such an approach overlooks the radical nature of God's engagement with the world.
4. **Critique of Ontological Necessity**: The idea of God's existence is a logical necessity. The God of Christian faith is not a being whose existence can be deduced from logical premises, but a God who freely engages with creation and whose existence is known through faith, hope, and love, rather than through necessity.
5. **Eschatological Perspective**: Theology is deeply eschatological, meaning it is oriented towards the future fulfillment of God's promises. He argues that understanding God involves looking forward to what God will do in the future, rather than relying on static philosophical arguments about God's existence in the present.
In summary, the proof of God from existence s best critiqued by arguing that it is overly reliant on human reason, abstract metaphysics, and fails to account for the concrete, historical, and eschatological dimensions of God's revelation in Christ. Theology should be rooted in the narrative of God’s action in history, particularly in the cross and resurrection, rather than in the logical deduction of God's existence from the concept of being.
