Can we get an argument for the existence of God, from the existence of apologetics? What would such an argument be like? It would begin with a definition of God and an exploration of the nature of apologetics. It would then use those two things, somehow, to argue for the existence of God from the existence of apologetics. The argument we can make from apologetics, in broad strokes, would have to go something like this: There are an awful lot of people who are trying to convince me that God exists, therefore God does in fact exist. That's not good enough, but it has some superificial appearance of plausibility that inclines me to keep digging. It's not good enough because the argument needs to get around the appearance of non sequitur and the fallacy of argument from numbers by means of an analysis of God and apologetics. This analysis is the heart of the argument, then.

What is God? We can turn to some historical definitions for pointers, if not for the final definition. They cannot provide us with the final definition because the purpose of our definition here is to clarify the idea of God that gave rise to the seed of the idea of an argument from apologetics. God has been defined as the being greater than which none can be conceived, and, perhaps as a corrolary, as an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent lawgiver. Neither of those really capture the heart of God, IMO, since we can imagine God being God without any of those qualities. I say, however, that we cannot imagine God being God if I could not throw myself at him completely in worship. Indeed, it may be a certain primitive desire for something to throw oneself at completely that gives rise to the idea of God in so many cultures. The definition of God, then, is a being that can be worshipped completely.

What is a being that can be worshipped completely? Well, we worship something completely when we give it our whole mind - all our beliefs and all out desires. We subordinate our beliefs to it in faith, and our desires to it in the self-discipline of obedience to its law. What sort of being could inspire that sort of worship? Surely he is the greatest conceivable being, since only that quality inspires in us the requisite awe to worship him completely. As thinkers have pointed out, this implies that he is an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, etc. being, since the absence of any of those traits would imply some sort of deficiency. So the idea of a being that can be worshipped completely contains a lot of Christian concepts in it. Notice that a being that can be worshipped completely would have to be a being that can be worshipped completely. This implies that he would have to make himself known to someone by some act of intervention, so that that person could worship him. Else he could not be worshipped. This completes our discussion of what God is.

What is apologetics? In apologetics, among other things, one person prepares an argument for the existence of God and presents it to another person in an attempt to make that person think as he does. Apologetics is therefore an inherently atheistic excercise. A being that can be worshipped completely requires us to subordinate all of our beliefs to him, but a belief that is supported by argument gives the person who holds it a certain autonomy. A person whose belief in God is supported by argument does not really believe in God, since he has not subordinated all his beliefs to faith in God, and so must not believe that there is really a being he must worship completely. Therefore, he is an atheist... crud. I should probably stop before I put my foot in my mouth any more than I already have.

In deepest humiliation,

Dan Handsome,

The Discovery Institute.