How do we know the Christian God? The question of existence, tied to the Scriptures
Introduction
This problem is from epistemology, how do we know?
The application is religious,
how do we know the Bible is inerrant and infallible?
Chapter 1: The pervasiveness of scripture's self-attestation of truth and authority
A common argument from conservative presbyterians is that the Bible is self-attesting, that is it says that it is infallible, reliable. This argument falls on its face because of the "liar's paradox", where if the liar says that he is telling the truth, then he is actually lying. The only way out is to have some sort of evidence.
However, the argument can be brought back to its feet again via the following steps:
1) Realize that the self-attesting method uses the idea of "proof-texting", where a verse is picked to prove something about other verses, in this case the whole Bible. So Jesus says in many places that the scriptures (the Old Testament) is of God, therefore reliable.
2) In the traditional approach, Jesus's reliability and that of the Bible are linked. If you believe in Jesus, you must believe in the Bible. This is an argument in the form of a dilemma.
3) Instead of the traditional approach, say that the teaching of the reliability of scriptures is "pervasive" throughout scripture (thanks to James Scott, in OPC denominational magazine, New Horizons, 2012). By realizing that all the writers of scripture, including Jesus (as a source, since he technically didn't write) all operate from the paradigm that the scriptures are reliable, and as a group, they depend on God for inspiration (as in "tell me what to say, oh God" or "how should I react to the idolatry of Israel", ...), the dilemma is made larger. Either accept the whole context of the people of God, who (some of whom) are the source of the scriptures, via the inspiration of God, or doubt one piece, in which case the doubter does not identify with the people of God.
This method is a sort of reductio ad absurdum. By making the problem much worse, we make it better (dialectic, i.e. dialogue). Now instead of a few verses being used to make sweeping generalizations about the rest of scripture, we actually have a worldview that without a paradigm shift is either correct in toto or "deeply" wrong.
This is the situation for most people, today, I think, appreciating the Biblical writers and their view, but conflicted, feeling like they are outside looking in.
Chapter 2: A true believer: VanTil
See
Why I Believe in God, by Cornelius Van Til.
In the first paragraph, Van Til explains both
1) he was raised as a Christian ("
God is Himself the environment by which my early life was directed and my later life made intelligible to myself.")
2) argument for or against God is possible because of God's existence.
Thus Van Til is a "true believer" in the sense of enthusiasm, and not being conflicted. See the quote "
Arguing about God's existence, I hold, is like arguing about air. You may affirm that air exists, and I that it does not. But as we debate the point, we are both breathing air all the time."
