A simple, logical argument for the existence of God and Satan.

Do right and wrong (true and false) exist and if so, where do they originate?

We can be certain they do, and that they originate outside the mind of man as attributes of all assertions that man can make. We know that truth exists simply because to argue the contrary is self contradictory. You cannot argue that it is true that truth does not exist without looking like a fool. Similarly, you cannot insist you are right while arguing against the notion of right and wrong.

Every assertion has an opposite and of the two choices both cannot be right. For example, If I say to you that marbles are square, I have made an assertion. While it does not necessarily have to be true that marbles are square, it must be true that either marbles are square or they are not. Only one can be true.

Have you ever been in a discussion with someone which lead to the startling assertion, what is right to you isn’t necessarily right to me?  The argument, although seemingly plausible at first glance, falls on it’s face with the slightest scrutiny. To say “what is right for you doesn’t have to be right for me” is the same as saying “there is no such thing as true and false”. Upon such a foundation, any logical argument crumbles, for the issuer of the sentiment will insist on it’s truthfulness, an assertion that is self contradictory.

Because man is finite in his wisdom, the means by which man arrives at truth is always subjective.  Man does not make a thing true or false by his assertions but rather his assertions, when right, proclaim the truth that existed prior to it being recognized in man’s thoughts. Therefore all truth as proclaimed by man cannot, on the merit of man be considered truth. It can only ever be said absolutely that man’s truth is either truth or it is not. We know that has to be true, so we know that truth exists but it is not by man’s doing. So where does truth originate.

John 14:6
“I (Jesus) am the way and the truth and the life.”

1 Kings 17:24
“Now I know that you are a man of God and that the word of the LORD from your mouth is the truth.”

Psalm 52:3
You love evil rather than good, falsehood rather than speaking the truth.

We see the explanation for truth from the Bible is quite simple. The origin of truth is God himself. The words of God are truth. Anything contrary to God is false, wrong and evil. If the words of God are truth, then God can never speak something which contradicts what he has spoken. To do so would be false and one cannot be both true and false. So where does evil and falsehood originate?

John 8:44
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

All that is false originates from the father of lies, the antithesis of God, Satan.

The best that man can do in seeking truth is to utilize his subjective mind to determine for himself what is of God and what is of Satan. So for those who say, I don’t believe in God and Satan, the question should be posed, where then do you suggest truth and untruth originate.


3 thoughts on “A simple, logical argument for the existence of God and Satan.

  1. “The notion that truth is relative is known as moral relativism.” – I think you may want to rephrase this. You’re using truth in the metaphysical sense in the first half of this statement but then using it to describe a moral belief in the second half which leads to a blurring of the lines between postmodernism/nihilism and moral relativism. Postmodernism or nihilism (note, I am not saying the two views are the same, rather I am claiming that they fall into the same category of belief systems) assert that there is no objective metaphysical truth while moral relativism asserts that there is no objective moral value or truth. Moral relativists can accept that there are objective truths such as “red is not blue” while postmodernists would be the group more likely to deny such a claim.

  2. I appreciate your input. I did revise that particular statement to something I hope avoids the tangles in terminology that you’ve pointed out. I have to admit, I know very little about the classifications of thought you mentioned. When I used the term Moral Relativism, I hoped that I was using it correctly although I realized that, if correct at all, I was using it in it’s broadest sense. I think you made it clear that I was not.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s