Why do we look to natural science to prove a supernatural origins? Doing so plays directly into the hands of the naturalist. To be clear, I believe nature and natural science testify to not only God's existence, but his eternal power and divine nature as well. However when we appeal to nature to "prove" the existence of God or the validity of his Word, we have given naturalism and empirical science authority over special revelation, and thus assumed a naturalistic metaphysic and empirical empistemology. That is, we are answering the agnostic according to agnostic philosophy, we are answering a fool according to his folly. Rather, we should seek to expose why naturalism and empiricism fail to account for knowledge, and call unbelievers to repentance for rejecting God's revelation and thus becoming futile in their thoughts and darkened in their hearts instead of focusing on "convincing" then of what they are without excuse for failing to acknowledge already. |