In Part 1 I defined my position and argument on the existence of the Christian God. In this part I will demonstrate the foolishness of unbelief from an ongoing discussion I have been engaged in with an unbeliever.
Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes. Proverbs 26:5
The following is a review of an encounter with an unbeliever I had a month or so ago about the existence of God and how we know what we know (epistemology). We have been engaged in written debates over the last few months and decided to have a face to face discussion. Our first few written exchanges were mainly trying to understand each others worldview. This unbeliever worldview states that one can ONLY know something if one FIRST experiences it (through the five senses). Interestingly, his worldview also states that one can never know ANYTHING absolutely for sure, 100% (not even ones own self-existence) because he presupposes that the “logic” he uses is a man made construct (and not from God) and anything that is man made has the potential to be fallible. It also states that the most important goal in life is the need for everyone to be tolerant with everyone else’s worldviews because he claims that one can’t be absolutely sure about their own beliefs. Therefore, since there is a possibility for one to be “wrong” about their worldview (no absolutes), one should not be dogmatic about implementing their beliefs on others (such as Christians voting in favor of laws that reflect their worldview that might inhibit another person or persons competing worldview’s actions or beliefs). Finally, his worldview states that there are no absolute moral standards (morality is subjective and thus relative) and in order for one to be successful in this life, one should live in such a way to avoid as much pain as possible. In a nut shell, this unbeliever is a naturalistic pragmatic agnostic. It is interesting to note that at the beginning of our debate he affirmed that there is only one absolute truth that he could know for certain, his own self-existence (“I think, therefore I am”). I quickly pointed out to him that he had to use logic to come to that conclusion (using the word “therefore” is part of a logical construction) and that if he believed that his “logic” was a man made construct and thus could be fallible, then his “logical” conclusion of his absolute knowledge that he exists could be fallible as well. He eventually agreed and now questions his own self-existence and cannot believe in any absolutes whatsoever. Of course in doing so, he uses logic to come to the conclusion that it is impossible to use “logic” to come to any sure conclusion about anything at all.
It is important to note that this person is not just any old person I use as an example of answering a fool according to his folly. I have known this person for a very long time and have discussed many topics in philosophy and theology with him in the past. There was a time when I once regard his arguments and ideas to a very high standard, but sadly this is no longer the case. As you read, remember my apologetic of my Christian worldview, “If the unbeliever were correct in his presuppositions, then nothing whatever could be understood or known.” (Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen Always Ready pg 69)
Everything in the following email is the same with the exception of His responses to my questions and what I noted in Bold. His complete response follows my email. (Note his in depth responses to my objections to his worldview)
(Unbeliever response to this email: “I am actually encouraged by this email, it appears you are starting understand my position”)
(Unbeliever),
It will be a week tomorrow since we have last spoken and I have not yet received your questions about logic that you said that you were going to send me. I was going to try to answer them myself in this message, but I don’t remember exactly what they were. I wanted to take the time and review our interaction and tie up any loose ends there might have been. I want to start off by asking you questions that I hope you will attempt to answer in your next message to me (they will be underlined). The second half is some questions that you had asked me that I want you to be clear on from my worldview.
My first question is how do you, in your worldview, define experience and/or observation? Would I be correct in asserting that it is information that is perceived and encountered through one’s five senses (see, taste, touch, smell, and hear)? If the five senses are not how you define “experience”, how do you determine what is and what is not material since you don’t believe that non material things exist?
(Unbeliever responded: Yes, I would define experience via the senses.)
You have asserted in our last conversation that one can only have knowledge through their experience and/or observation. (If one could have knowledge outside of experience, then there are things that are immaterial that we receive knowledge from, which would damage your worldview of naturalism- the belief that only material things seem to exist). In your last written response you stated, “I don't know how to acquire knowledge outside of observation or experience” and also stated, “…it does not appear possible to know anything ABSOLUTLY, 100%, and undeniable.” In your world view, is it possible for a person to have a false experience and/or observation?
The way I see it is only three answers can be given:
- If it is not possible, are you saying that you can know something absolutely? Also, how did you come to the conclusion that it is not possible? Your answer certainly cannot come from your experience or observation, because if it did, that would be a circular argument; a logical fallacy. If your answer does not come from your experience or observation, then that would contradict the very foundation of your worldview of knowledge by experience.
- If it is possible for someone to have a false experience, then how do you distinguish between the false experiences and the true ones without using your experiences? You cannot use your experiences to distinguish from your false and true experiences because that would be begging the question, a logical fallacy.
- If your answer is simply that you don’t know, then how do you know that you are not having false experiences and observations to come to the conclusion that a person can only have knowledge through one’s experience and observation?
(Unbeliever responded: Yes, I believe that my experience can be false. It has been in the past or at least I think it has ;-)
This leads me to my next question. What happens in your worldview when your logic (internal experience?) contradicts your experience? I’ll give you an example from our last interaction. We started our conversation with your world view contradiction of “freedom of the mind” (which you believe the mind is material) and everything that is material world moves in a predictable and law like faction (no room for freedom). Your response was quite shocking. You stated that it is indeed contradictory and that you don’t have an answer, yet you “know” that we do have freedom because of your experiences. You proceeded to ask me if it is really necessary to have a WHY and an answer for everything and then tried to deflect your predicament by asking me what I would do if I had a logical problem in my worldview (I’ll deal with that later). So it would seem from this that when your logic contradicts your experience, your experience prevails. However, later in the conversation, I pointed out that when you see something that has
(Unbeliever responded: When logic contradicts my experience, I try to default to logic, however, that is easier said than done.)
You had asserted in our last conversation and in your written replies, “All we seem to have are probabilities and likeliness of things being true.” (Remember that probability is a mathematical (logical) measurement of the likelihood of something happening, such as 1 out of a 6 chance of a person rolling a 2 on a dice). You used probably over and over again in your argumentation to determine the likelihood of something being true. In one of your replies you stated, “…there does not seem to be evidence showing a high probability of the Christian god existing.” I find this quite fascinating because you even admitted that even if God did indeed exist, there would be no way for us to know He does exist. Your reason for this goes back to your worldview (presupposition) that we can only know something if we first experience it. How do you measure the probably of something that you have not yet experienced? Have you experienced God in order to “know” that He does not have a high probability for existing? How do you know the probability (a mathematical measurement) that the future will be like the past if you have not yet experienced the future (my argument of the uniformity of nature)? Better yet, have you “experienced” (knowing through the five senses; empirical) probability itself in order to know the probability of probability existing? If you haven’t experienced probability (and you cannot), how do you know it exists in order for you to use it in your argumentation to know that other things exist? With all of this in mind, how would one understand your statement, “I believe in the probability of absolutes, however, I do not know how to sufficiently prove something as being absolute.” Seeing how you have never “experienced” absoluteness… well, you get the point.
(Unbeliever responded: I do not know how to measure the probability of something I have not experienced personally, however, by experience, have learned to incorporate other people's probabilities into my decision making process.)
To be honest, I don’t know how you would even begin to answer any of these questions because you’ve already stated you can’t know anything for sure (no absolutes). That is why every time you opened your mouth and made a statement about anything, I interrupted you as asked you if you knew what you were saying was absolutely true, and of course you didn’t. How can I ever trust or believe anything you say, if you can’t really trust it or know it for sure yourself? This is why I said over and over and over again that when one removes God from the foundation of their thinking, one can’t know or make sense out of anything (Proverbs 9:10). Therefore, whenever someone challenges you about your worldview or philosophy, in order for you to be consistent with your own worldview, the best you can ever hope to offer in response is keep your mouth closed and not to say anything at all.
For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 1 Corinthians 1:19-20
I will use the rest of this review of our last conversation to cover some of the questions that you asked me of my worldview that I may or may not have answered clearly.
- Do we really need a WHY and an answer (reason) for everything?
This question was asked of me when I asked you how we can have “freedom of the mind” (or brain that is material) and know that everything that is material moves in a predictable and law like fashion. You were unable to even begin to reason out an answer. “Most people” would call that a flawed position to adhere to. Therefore if you want to be consistent and be your own favorite person (as your website says), then you should stand for something that you are “willing to let that something be challenged and change if reason begs to differ with (your) something.” So to answer the question, if one wants to, “genuinely seek to know ‘truth’,” and have an intellectual discussion of life’s meaning, then Yes, we need to at least attempt to reason for everything.
- How would you respond to what seems like a logical contradiction in your Christian worldview? For example, Jesus being both God and man at the same time.
First and foremost, in order for one to claim that something is contradictory or illogical, one must have a foundation (worldview) for all of their reasoning. In my worldview I presuppose that there is an eternal, omnipotent, personal God who has created and sustains all things and that all knowledge and wisdom is hidden within Him (Col 2:2-3). Therefore man is utterly dependent on God for any knowledge and wisdom. Man receives this knowledge by natural revelation (Rom 1:18-20) and special revelation (Scripture). Because of this dependence, God has chosen, out of His infinite wisdom, to reveal certain things to us, and withhold other things (a mystery). “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever...” (Deu 29:29). An example of one of the things that God has kept hidden from us that seems logically contradictory is how He created this material universe out of nothing. Since God has said that He has created all thing by His Word (Col 1:16) and I was not there as a witness of the creation, I must submit to the authority of His Word and believe that this is true. Therefore, in the answer to how I would respond to a seemingly logical contradiction in my worldview, I would simply respond that God has not yet made it known or revealed it to us. As for Jesus being both God and man, even though I am not able to explain the mechanics of how this is possible (a mystery), it would still make logical sense. Since God is all powerful and the creator of His creation, why would it not follow that He would be able to enter into His creation?
- How do you know that God can’t lie? If God were to lie, how would you know that He did?
The Scriptures clearly state, “It is impossible for God to lie” (Num 23:19; Heb 6:18). Why do the Scriptures state this? Because God is by the nature the Truth (John 14:6). In other words, He is the very standard of all that is Truth. Can the standard of Truth itself ever be a lie? No, it is impossible because then there would no standard of Truth in order to determine Truth. Therefore, whatever God says and does is by definition the Truth. So, in my worldview I can call on someone to be logical because in doing so, they think the way God thinks, in a non contradictory (lying) fashion.
(Insert: It would be wise to give some context of following question seeing how he has taken what I have said and has missed used it on his own website. This question he raises is his “silver bullet” to silence his opponents. Because he believes that he can’t know anything for sure (no absolutes), then no one else can know anything for sure either. In his “reasoning”, since no one can’t know anything for sure, we should “therefore” tolerate everyone’s worldviews and actions. Well, as you see, I didn’t “bite the bullet”. As I have already pointed out, if we were to take this position to its logical conclusion, then there would be no reason to for him to debate at all because he can’t even be sure if using logic itself is effective or sufficient to discover any type of truth whatsoever. Remember, it is my worldview that gives the preconditions for logic, reason, and intelligible thinking; his worldview, of course, cannot. Because he can’t even be sure that he exists, one must wonder why he would even begin rely on any of his experiences in order to come to any sort of “logical” conclusion on anything.)
- Is it possible that you could be wrong in your presuppositions and/or worldview?
NO! Now I know that for some that might seems arrogant or closed minded, but it is the truth. Just because you don’t believe in absolutes doesn’t mean I can’t believe in them. Besides, how do you know absolutely that I can’t know absolutely that I’m correct in my presuppositions? Going back to the question, my reason for my answer is simple. If in fact my worldview was to be “wrong”, than it would be impossible for me to determine if it is right or wrong. [One cannot claim to be wrong unless they can claim or at least know of a means for them to be right] Therefore my evidence that I cannot be wrong (in an absolute sense) is that I would need an absolute standard to judge [objectively] in order to determine if something is absolutely right or wrong, and that standard would have to be my worldview (showing I was right in the first place). [Why is that? Because the only way for me (or anyone) to determine if they are right or wrong objectively is to have a worldview that has and can account for an abstract, universal, and absolute entity (the laws of logic).] I’ve already demonstrated above what happens when someone removes the absolute standard (God) from their thinking. So, for a person who seeking after Truth, they have only two choices in order to discover truth. They could either presuppose that there is no God and hence forfeit any right to claim an absolute standard for reasoning and logic, the very tools that would lead to the Truth (which would be self-defeating), or they could presuppose God in their thinking so that they are able to debate and rationalize in order to discover and determine the Truth. Therefore, when one wants to debate and use logic in order to deny the existence of God, they must first presuppose the existence of God in order to deny Him.
- Was our interaction and time spent together worth anything to you?
At first I didn’t think so, but now after further reflection, I think it was very beneficial. It was beneficial in the sense that it helped me refine certain truths within my faith. Also, you have further strengthened and reinforced my faith in my Lord by proving the Scripture true, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’ (Psalms 14:1a). For that, I am truly grateful.
As always, I look forward to hearing your response.
Eric…
“The proof of the existence of God is that without Him, it is impossible to prove anything.” -Dr. Greg Bahnsen
---------
Unbeliever’s Response:
You called me a fool! LOL! That's awesome.
Sorry I have not gotten back to you, laziness mostly.
I am actually encouraged by this email, it appears you are starting understand my position.
First and foremost, by definition, I can not prove with 100% certainty anything I say. Therefore, I can be wrong at any point in any of my arguments.
Yes, I would define experience via the senses. Have you had an experience that does not employ one of the senses?
Yes, I believe that my experience can be false. It has been in the past or at least I think it has ;-)
When logic contradicts my experience, I try to default to logic, however, that is easier said than done.
I do not know how to measure the probability of something I have not experienced personally, however, by experience, have learned to incorporate other people's probabilities into my decision making process.
Well, I wish I were comfortable with presupposing a narrative as "truth"
in order to prove everything from it and then any evidence contrary or missing from it, simply state that the answer will come one day. That would be sweet! Not sure why, but I can't do it any more. It is so funny how you have become the real life version of the even steven religious debaters.
Since you can not be wrong in your world view, it does not seem prudent to argue with you.
I do have a few questions:
1) Define logic
2) Prove its origin
3) How can we be certain we are being logical?
4) What are the principles of logic?
5) Where are the principles of logic defined?
6) How do we know if the definition of the principles is correct?
If I presuppose a God, show you his simple text that says, The Christian god is not real, I am the true god, I'll explain later. How could you prove that the God I was worshiping was not the true god?
Thanks again for calling me a fool. I think you are an arrogant jerk when it comes to the search for truth.
-------------------------------
Because this blog is long enough already, I’ll let my readers have the pleasure in responding to his responses and objections. If one would want to know how I would respond to them, I would be willing to do so if one was to ask me nicely in the comments. However, before I close, here are the very brief answers I would give to his six questions.
1) God’s thoughts or the means by which God thinks.
2) From the impossibility of the contrary (indirect proof) as already demonstrated in the above email and in Part 1
3) Because we have been made in the image of the one that is the very standard of Truth and logic itself- God.
4) I have already provided a list to him. I can provide it to any who may want it.
5) In the perfect mind of God. He has been gracious enough to reveal them unto all men.
6) Please refer to answers 3 and 5
No comments:
Post a Comment