The title, by itself, has claimed almost what i am going to blog about.
On the fateful night of 11 June 2005, Saturday, that supposed to be a regular date has turned out to be a ground for the formulation of a proposition of an ultimate classical apologetic against all non-theism. As i was presenting the hypothesis of the existence of God to a fellow existential 'marxistial' atheist at a coffee shop in the midst of Orchard Road, the contraction of this supreme apologetic proposition came.
All this while I was facing the difficulty of bringing the arguments from general revelations to special arguments; in order to reach the particularism of the divine Existence. I had always ended up with an unmoved Mover or an uncaused Cause. Therefore there are times when i would prefer Presuppositional Apologetics rather than Classical ones, as tried to polemize because it seems that the Presuppositional stance is directed to special revelation instantly. But the weakness of it is that most defeaters find it difficult to play with the presuppositional rules. It is difficult for defeaters to presuppose the opposite and in a way, this is not a fair play. Though we can't get a total unbias stand but Presuppositional Apologetics involved a degree of bias that is too high for most skeptics. They can't cope with it. And that evening was the time for this agony to be ended.
The formulation of what i called Supreme Systematic Apologetics is a combination of Systematic Theology and Classical Apologetics. I think there might have been a handful of apologists that have thought of this, but i have yet came across any of their books, therefore it is important for me to draft it down for my own reference.
Systematic Theology + Classical Apologetics = Supreme Systematic Apologetics
ST + CA = SSA
Classical Apologetics which was championed by Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Anselm, Al-Ghazali, and contemporaries scholars such as William Lane Craig, J.P Moreland, Alvin Plantinga, Norman Geisler and Stephen Meyer & his team at Discovery Institute has established itself firmly by integrating Natural Theology with divine revelation. But this school has been considered weak by presuppositional apologist Cornelius Van Til. One of his reason was that, to its best, Classical Apologetics can only point to that someone/something behind this whole existence, which in this case, is still far away from upholding Christian Theism. He has a point and must not be taken for granted.
The Supreme Systematic Apologetics might sounds a little out of place for "Apologetic", as part, means 'systematic argumentative discourse in defense'. So, why a redundant "Supreme Systematic Apologetic"? Might as well be "Supreme Apologetics".
Simply because SSA is more systematically precise than regular Classical Apologetic and Presuppositional Apologetic. It is something like a "--" sentence (negation on a negated sentence).
SSA has been arranged into 7 different stages. Each stages represent by an argument that play its role in reducing and negating worldviews. It acts as to get the best out of Natural Theology through Systematic Theology. It uses the latter to extract with more precision in categorizing areas within Natural Theology that are revealing the nature of the divine Being.
- This argues for the need of a cause in everything that has a begining in its horizontal nature and a need of a sustaining cause in its vertical nature.
- This argues for the unfathomable intelligence that the Cause possess through observing it effects that is Nature.
- This argues for a moral law Giver that care about Right and Wrong.
- This Being must also be good in nature.
- This argument distinguish the natures of Good and Evil.
- Atheism is completely crippled if arguments reached this stage.
- This argues for the ground for truth, the nature of knowledge and its limit and validity.
- This argument reveal the reasonableness that the existing divine Being possess.
- This argues for the necessity of this Being and its simplicity, perfection and singularity.
- Pantheism, finiste godism, polytheism, and panentheism are all completely crippled at this stage.
- This argues for the ability of the divine Being to satisfy its creation's hollowness.
- Though this is the least strong argument among the previous ones, for it can be disbelieved easier, but it it difficult to be eradicate.
- Even atheist such as Betrand Russell admited this in his letter to Lady Otto.
- Agnosticism can be disproved at this stage.
- Until here, the leftover worldview would be Monotheism (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam). Thus this stage argues within itself. It is an argument that can only be done based on comparing each of the different Monotheistic revelations within itself.
- Each of these revelations have to deal with Origin, Morality, Meaning, and Destiny. It has to be consistent within itself and the 4 categories.
Norman Geisler, BECA, Systematic Theology vol.1
Lee Strobel, Case for Faith, Case for Creator
JP Moreland & William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundation for Christian Worldview
C.S Lewis, Mere Christianity