Lots to talk about today. We got to see Chowon's ultrasound, and the little baby heartbeat. It's a healthy baby so far, so that's exciting. Also went to a friend's funeral today.

All this got me thinking about the nature of good and evil. I believe that God created all things good, and that good is distinguished as that which reflects the nature of God. So all things which exist, being created by God, exist as reflections of His character.

Before I finish talking about good and evil, I want to give some background about my understanding of the ontological nature of things in general. It's here where (as far as I can tell) I deviate from Bahnsen's argument, because he used platonic objects as means to derive the nature of a thing. I think that the use of platonic objects necessarily puts them epistemologically prior to knowledge of God.

So, first to explain platonic objects as I understand the concept: We're familiar with the discussion about "what makes a table a table?". Tables come in so many shapes and sizes that if we attempt to qualify each one, then we the specification describing tables would be immeasurably long, but if we try to simplify the description of a table too much, then we will find things which are certainly not tables but which still fit the description. Plato suggested that the reason we are able to distinguish multiple very different things as types in a category is because of a perfect exemplification of that thing which exists in our minds: the platonic object. So, we have a perfect exemplification of tables existing in our minds, and that enables us to distinguish between diverse tables and non-tables. This discussion is also referred to as "the one and the many". What is the "one" which describes perfectly the "many"?

I disagree with Plato about that. Here are my thoughts in short: Plato himself was never really able to solve the problem, the flaws in Plato's philosophy are elucidated by other people more knowledgeable than me, adopting platonic objects eventually leads to an irreconcilable worldview, they are incompatible with the epistemological argument, and this is not actually the topic I wanted to get into here.

Now, with that in mind, if someone is to say, for example, "we understand that God is bright because God characterizes [the platonic object] brightness", then we have put other things epistemologically prior to our knowledge of God. The issue here is that it implies that we need other knowledge before we can understand God's revelation to us, and there is no source for that other knowledge. As a rule, "nothing" is incapable of producing "something". Even the world, which we say was created "ex nihilo", came into existence as a result of prior vocalizations by God. So then, a rectified version of Bahnsen's argument places God first. It would be better to say, "brightness exists (and we understand it) because brightness exemplifies a characteristic of God (which God has revealed to us)".

I heard another approach to the topic wherein someone explained that the only reason we are able to conceive of platonic objects is because God perfectly exemplifies the "one and the many" by being simultaneously one God in three persons. However, then we enter into a sort of loop, where we need platonic objects to understand God's "one-in-many" characteristic, but we need God's "one-in-many" characteristic to explain platonic objects. I think the objects are an unnecessary addition; in a world where God is perfectly capable of literally anything at all, God is perfectly capable of revealing knowledge of himself to us, and thereby being himself the perfect exemplification of all created and revealed things.

Here's the potential issue: What about evil? If everything exists because it exemplifies some characteristic of God, then does evil also exemplify a characteristic of God? Does the existence of evil pose a threat to the epistemological argument?

So, as I was thinking about this in the car, I originally planned to issue here my understanding of Augustine's discussions about the ontological nature of evil (which he explains in his excellent work, City of God), but it's been almost 2 years since I read it so I didn't want to make mistakes when I explained his point of view. I cheated and looked for something to refresh my memory on the details, and found instead this other blog that did a better job of explaining it than I was planning to do.

https://www.str.org/articles/augustine-on-evil#.Wy2SyKdKiUk

The above post, I think, reflects a better understanding of Augustine than I have, so I'm going to use it and my memory to complete the post as I hoped to give it.

In short, the above article describes Augustine's position, which (as I remember it) is (here is the short version of the description that I was going to give) that evil is in its own ontological category. It doesn't exist as a thing on its own, but it is rather a description of the tendency in humans to prefer lesser "good" over the supreme "good", where the supreme "good" is to exemplify God's nature.

God's nature is expressed in complex ways. For example, God is three persons in eternal and perfect community, and so expresses Himself by creating beings who enter into community with one another, learning about God by learning about one another. But on the topic of Good and evil, we are allowed to choose the lesser good so that God can again express characteristics of His nature, not the least of which is His love for justice.

I feel like it wouldn't be totally straight-forward of me to forego mentioning that I'm tip-toeing around some hazardous ground in this post. For example, in explaining why the goodness in learning about God is, in itself, an expression of God's nature, which is a community, how then God, eternally and perfectly omniscient, communes with himself without learning about Himself, knowing everything in Jesus while simultaneously limiting His own knowledge about the day and hour of His coming (for example). It is conversation that's likely to cause me to be misunderstood and called a heretic. Likewise, (here is where I need to re-read City of God), how our propensity to choose the lesser good expresses a characteristic of God, rather than simply providing opportunity to express justice. Perhaps it's because of our unbelief, fueled by ignorance, fueled perhaps by inexperience (Isaiah in chapter 6 has such a sanctifying experience); and such ignorance is itself a means to express God's communal nature by enabling us to learn about one another. To be clear, the ground is not hazardous because it breaks the argument; just like if you shoot an arrow into the air and are not sure where it will fall for lack of careful calculations, it is knowable that the answers to these questions falls within a certain range which does not violate my epistemology. The ground is hazardous, however, because the answers should be very carefully worded, and I haven't thought carefully enough about them to give that careful wording. On these particular issues, a slight deviation from the truth more easily may be the first step in a trail of thought leading some incautious reader to heresy.

As a final side-note on Augustine, I want to point out that I think that if we adhere to an Augustinian view of the nature of good and evil, then Anselm's Ontological argument is a tautology. If it is the case that everything which exists is good, and everything good exists (dependent on the notion that a perfectly good God exists and created everything good in order to fully express His own characteristics), then nonexistence is characteristic exclusively of evil things. So, with that in mind, Anselm's premise that a thing which exists is better or more perfect than a thing which does not exist is not entirely unfounded. Therefore, while I agree with the ontological argument, I do not think that it is usable in discussion with atheists, because they don't have the necessary prior agreements with Augustine.

Last thing, and maybe this should have been a post on its own, but I wanted to tack it on here... It's hard not to notice HRC's logo on cars all over the place.

I think that the logo exemplifies a category error commonly made by advocates of equal rights. To be clear, I am fully in favor of equal rights. However, I think that it's important to make a distinction between equal rights and equivalent rights. Therefore, I advocate placing the following symbol side-by-side with the HRC symbol.

There. With these two logos next to each other, we have a more coherent statement. Equal rights; not equivalent rights.

I recognize that some math systems use this symbol for other meanings (symbols are often re-purposed in different systems, which is why we have like 5 sets of symbols for use in discrete algebra). I'm using it here to mean "not equivalent", because that's how I was taught to use this symbol in my discrete math and digital logic classes.

The issue at stake in the gay rights movement is that they lack equivalent validation for their assertions about morality. It is not that they lack equal rights. A single man, straight or gay, may marry any single woman who agrees to it. Every man has that right equally.

"First of all, we would ask why their gods took no steps to improve the morals of their worshipers."

Chowon is pregnant! She's about 7 weeks in, and we've got our first appointment with the OBGYN this week. Pretty exciting!!

The new job is going well; I'm slowly getting more and more involved in my occupational duties. We got another car, so now Chowon has a way to get around. Financially, this means we have some more debt for the car loan, and this casts an ugly shadow on our thoughts of becoming land owners in the near future, but a year or two more to pay off this car is a small price to pay for the freedom that it means for Chowon, especially with the impending baby. Also, there's a chance that we can find a 2-bedroom condo with a significantly lower mortgage than our current rent, which would make things a lot easier.

Also, I like the idea behind the website, minds.com. I'm thinking of copying some of the non-personal, apologetic content of my blog there in the next few months, to spread the arguments in favor of Christianity and to promote and increase minds.com in one motion.

Speaking of which... this is an argument for Christianity that I heard a pretty long time ago, and it's stuck with me. It's a physical evidence-based argument, which is not usually my style, because I think that our interpretations of physical evidence are largely derived from our notions about how our senses are to be interpreted, and our thoughts about the origins of our faculties. Plus, I find that most non-Christians have criterion for physical evidence which literally could not be met even by a miracle, (because the miracle would just be explained away as a hitherto unobserved natural phenomena). But if I'm fair, even my typical argument is in the same way hindered by the unbeliever's prior misconceptions. Someone says to me, "let me see it and then I'll believe it", and my response is basically, "first you have to believe it and then you'll see it". In short, the only actually useful or viable method for defending and advocating Christianity is to simply deliver the gospel (1 Cor 1:18-31).

Anyway, here's the argument:

I'm not aware of any serious atheist scholars who deny that the OT was written in its entirety hundreds of years prior to Christ. Furthermore, a great majority of atheist textual critics I've listened to (and I've listened to quite a few) basically agree with the Biblical descriptions of Jesus's life and the crucifixion, although they may quibble about some of the details.

The OT's descriptions of Jesus are so uncannily accurate, that it evidences itself to have been written by someone who knew about Jesus's life in detail. Since they were written well prior to Jesus, it is the case that the one inspiring those texts knew the future in detail. Most of the events were witnessed by Roman soldiers as well as by non-Christian Jews, and several of the behaviors predicted were those of Romans and Jews, a matter of historical fact rather than a disputable account of Jesus's personal behaviors. I'll give just a couple of examples here, but there are lots more which I'll not dive into for the sake of time:

Daniel 9 describes the timing of Jesus's birth, ministry, death, and the destruction of the temple, in terms of the number of years between each event and the decree to go out and rebuild Solomon's temple in Jerusalem.

Psalm 22, quoted by Jesus while on the cross, describes the crucifixion in poetic, but nonetheless unmistakable terms. "They mock me saying, 'He trusts in the lord; let him deliver him"(v7,8), "I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like was; it is melted within my breast." (v14), "My tongue sticks to my jaws" (v15), "They have pierced my hands and feet"(v16), "they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots"(v18). It talks about how the author dies, "you lay me in the dust of death"(v15), but then finishes with a description of how the author will go to the temple and perform his vows (v25), which could only happen after death if he were resurrected.

There's so many more, though! Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel foretell the political scenario surrounding Jesus's life, his rejection by the Jews, the location of his birth, his travel to Egypt and Nazareth, and the wars following his death. It's laid out so perfectly that, reading it with our knowledge of the new testament, it is really quite amazing, and I think that no other person could fulfill all these things.

The original argument came in the form of a series of quotes without references, followed byt he question, "who am I talking about?", and the quotes being so clearly about the crucifixion would prompt the hearer to say "Jesus", only afterward to receive a list of references to the quotes and find that they were all OT..... I don't particularly like giving people lists.


Now, to close out, I want to give one more little Bible-thing that I'm excited about, but which will really only be of value to Christians: The necessity of the virgin birth, and the importance of the two lineages in Matthew and Luke.

So Jesus had to come through the line of David (2 Sam 7:12-14). And, in keeping with the way things were, Jesus had to be a son of one of the kings in the royal line of David (Solomon was king after David, Solomon's son was king after Solomon, his son was king after him, and so on. Uncles and cousins aren't put on the throne). However, we read in Jeremiah 36:30 that Jehoiakim, a son of the royal line of David, will have no offspring to carry on the throne of David. Jehoiakim was indeed the last king before the Babylonian exile, and he was the last "true" king of independent Israel from the line of David. So, we have a problem. Jesus has to be from David's blood, of the royal line, but the royal line is cursed. How does God give Israel a messiah?

The answer: virgin birth. Jesus is born of Mary, descended from David by blood but not of the royal line (Luke's account); then Jesus is adopted into the house of Joseph, a descendant of Jehoiakim (Matthew's account).

Neither Luke nor Matthew directly say whose lineage they record, Mary's or Joseph's; both say "son of Joseph" or "Joseph, father of". Our two clues here are: first that Luke investigated the matter thoroughly (Luke 1:1-4), and he knew what Mary was thinking at certain times (Luke 2:19, 2:51), indicating that he interviewed her as part of his investigation. Second, and I'm not a Greek scholar so I say this second hand, but the wording used for "son of" in Luke's genealogy can in certain contexts be interpreted as "son-in-law of", leaving open the interpretation "son-in-law of Heli" in verse 23. However, I'm convinced that the clues above are unnecessary for the believer to draw this conclusion, because I know of no other way that Jesus can be the messiah, given the curse on Jehoiakim and its impact on the gift to David.

A non-Christian person might propose the third alternative that perhaps the promise to David was retracted, as it was to Saul. Indeed, many of God's promises are given conditional clauses, ("...but if you disobey, then..."). But this is not the case with God's promise to David. On the contrary, God's promise to David is supplemented with statements such as in Psalm 132:11, that God "will not retract his oath" to David.

Likewise, God's promise to His elect are supplemented by statements such as what we read in John 6:37-39, that Jesus will not lose any of those who God has given him, but raise them up on the last day. Believers, we have that assurance of our salvation from the same God who fulfilled his promises in Jesus, that we will not be lost, but we will be raised up on the last day.

"He whose forgotten dust for centuries has lain beneath this stone..."

This is the band I'm listening to these days:

(couldn't decide between the two songs)

Today I wanted to put down two particular arguments against Islam. My understanding of Islam is not as strong as I wish it were, but I've had a few conversations with Muslims where I listened and asked questions without arguing back, and a few where I argued, and I'm nonetheless presently satisfied with these arguments. I do want to point out, though, that I'm open to hearing out Islamic responses to these arguments; I just haven't heard any yet.

First argument: Justice

Allah forgives people who admit that Islam is right, and who practice it. It's a works-based religion, but nobody is perfect, so Allah issues forgiveness based on your best effort. There's an Islamic story I heard a while ago. I'm retelling it from memory. It's about a murderer who wanted forgiveness, so he asked someone for help. The help he received was unsatisfactory, so he killed that man, and proceeded to ask someone else for help. The second man pointed him in the direction of a town where there lived someone who would teach him about Islam. The murderer died on the way to the town. An angel and a demon appeared to make their case before Allah, desiring that the man be sent to heaven or hell respectively. After some argument, Allah decided that if the man made it at least half-way to the town, then he would be forgiven.

Muslims don't believe in the crucifixion, and they don't believe in the deity of Christ. So they have no perfect sacrifice to take away the sins of the world. The issue here from a Christian perspective is that Allah forgives without doing justice. For lack of a sacrifice, the judicial process is capricious, and ultimately doesn't live up to the judicial standards reflected in Allah's statements about himself and about his law.


Next argument: The Prophet and the Book

Muhammad taught quite clearly that Jesus was a prophet of God, and Muhammad said about an unnamed authoritative book about Jesus' teachings, "judge [the validity of Muhammad's teachings] by what is written in the book". It's my understanding that the majority of Muslim scholars believe that book to have been John, with the next group believing that it is any one of the NT books, and the next group believing that it is not a book that made it into the Bible. In any case, nearly every Muslim I've spoken to believed that the books written by the apostles accurately described the teachings of Jesus in the day when they were written, but that those texts were corrupted by evil men sometime after Muhammad lived. I say "nearly" because one of them told me that  the books were penned by men and were therefore inherently flawed and couldn't be trusted on any account (the irony being that Muhammad himself was illiterate and asked other men to write his words down for him. Muslims say that the book was protected by God, which is exactly what Christians say. Here's where I emphasize the importance of even scales).

In any case, it is apparent that Muhammad, who lived from about 570-630AD, had access to a book about Jesus which he believed to be accurate in its description of Jesus's teachings. As it happens, St. Augustine, who lived around 350-430AD seems to have believed that the canon of the Bible was closed, and included all the books we have today (afaict). It's very unlikely that Muhammad had a book about Jesus which was unknown to Christians at that time. Furthermore, since we have literally hundreds of copies of the Bible which were penned prior to Muhammad's birth, we are able to look at those and see that the contents of the Bible were not corrupted after Muhammad's statements.

If the book Muhammad spoke about was John, then the case is closed. John makes the gospel quite clear, deifying Jesus while calling Jesus the Son of God, describing the Crucifixion, resurrection, and its role in salvation with no uncertain terms, depicting Jesus advocating the Old Testament as being an authoritative account of the Law of God, and describing its fulfillment in Jesus. These are things that Islam does not agree with, so to judge Islam by what is written in John leaves Islam decidedly invalid.

Muhammad advocated (at least the textual) Christianity of his day, and that Christianity is so thoroughly documented that a careful investigation leaves no mistakes to be made about what they believed; it is the same as what Christians believe today (and, if there is any confusion about what Christians believe today, it is unanimously different from what Muslims believe, or else there wouldn't be two names "Christian" and "Muslim").

The point I'm making here is that Muhammad does not seem to have known what the teachings of Jesus were, so by calling Jesus a prophet of God and then speaking against Jesus's teachings, Muhammad invalidates himself.


That's it!

Again, to be clear, I don't bear any hostility towards Muslims, and I'm open to listening to the Islamic rebuttal to this, but I wanted to put this out there, first because I said I would in a previous post, and second because I think it's a good argument.

"Come home quickly"

The wedding went well, and I went on a road trip with Chowon's family, which was cool. I'm very impressed by Chowon's mom's faith, and by her dad's knowledge of historical Korean figures and their philosophies. Chowon was a great help during this whole trip. We head back home tomorrow.

I put a lot of mental energy in my spare time towards trying to refute my own worldview, and so I woke up this morning with a question on my mind that I hadn't considered carefully enough, and spent an hour or so meditating to decide on a response. The question was "Is it possible to discern what is absolutely true", or better stated, "Is it possible to know absolute truth and to simultaneously know that it is absolutely true.", having, I think, thoroughly established that it is possible to know absolute truth.

I put my answer into my phone's notepad right after my Bible study and shower. Now that I've got a stable internet connection, I'll paste what I wrote into my blog....

------------------

Self defeating questions... I've blogged about this before, but I think this is a catchy way to approach the topic, and the horse isn't dead yet.

"Is it possible for me to ask a question?"
"Is it possible that this is a question?"
"Is it possible to make a rational judgment?"
"Is it possible to know absolute truth?"
"Do I exist?"

For each of the above, the only answer that fits in with an internally consistent reality is "yes". If you answer "no", or "I don't know", then the question (and, I think, logic itself) breaks down, because you've demonstrated a positive answer just by answering at all.

Now, with that information as a backdrop, I'd like to pose the more complicated question,

"Is it possible to know absolute truth and to simultaneously know that it is absolutely true?"

The way to answer this question is to use the prior questions as examples. If it is absolutely true that, "Is this a question?", is a question with the answer, "yes", then it is an example of absolute truth which we know to be absolutely true, and we know that we know it.

The above questions and answers also depend on certain assumptions which have not been addressed yet as part of this post, most relevant of which is, "The truth is internally consistent", with the converse, "lies are known by their inconsistency". This is the assumption for which a basis or foundation cannot be reached by deduction, because the only way to deduce is to use faculties which depend on these assumptions. (You can't use logic to prove that logic is valid.) However, it is possible to provide a foundation for those assumptions without committing any breach of rationality.

"Now do it."

That's the challenge to atheists.

Now, I'd like to illustrate the method here by providing an example. Let's say we have a closed system, and in it there is a hammer, bound to a machine which swings hammers downward, and the hammer is covered in egg, and some broken shell pieces and egg guts are lying around the impact area. The basis is the hammer covered in egg, the conclusion is that the hammer crushed the egg. Since the set of things comprising truth is internally consistent, it is also valid to say "The basis is the hammer crushing the egg, the conclusion is the hammer covered in egg". I made this a closed system because I wanted to make an example with a simple and obvious cause/effect relationship. For example, if we say, "the hammer didn't crush the egg, the egg was just opened above the hammer", then we require more stuff to be added to our closed system: something to open the egg above the hammer and spread guts around. It doesn't exist in our system.

The point is that the truth works both ways, because all parts of it intermingle with one another. We can start with the hammer crushing the egg and work backwards to the evidence. That's why the scientific method works, isn't it? We form a hypothesis and then examine and test it to determine if it conforms to reality. We can start with atheism and work backwards to see if it allows for the reality that we know to be true. When we find that it doesn't allow for us to know things like truth, we discern that we must start elsewhere.

Christianity provides that internally consistent reality which is found nowhere else.

"An example of the common method for drawing grapes, but using bold and quick brush strokes."

I'm in Korea! It's so good to be nearby Chowon again after the long trips I've recently taken. I'm preparing for my sister-in-law's wedding now, and for the next week I'm in-between jobs. Exciting times.

I'm blogging on my phone, so please excuse typos for now. I'll come back through and make corrections later.

Also, I had an opportunity to employ the epistemological argument in a conversation recently with someone whose philosophy stagnated after apprehending the thought that it's impossible to know anything about God, but that at least God's existence enables us to know about other things. So his issue was not that he couldn't see a way to know truth, but rather that he couldn't see a way to know truth about God.

Unfortunately, he was convinced enough that there was no possibility for a solution that he had a hard time hearing me attempt to propose a solution. It's an attitude that I should carefully avoid in myself when I talk to other worldviews. I'll be sure to listen next time an atheist attempts to give a cogent response to solipsism.

On one hand he said that he completely agreed with me, and even repeated back to me the part about God's initial revelation being independent from our perceptive or interpretive faculties. On the other hand he asked, "how can we know that the self revelation of God isn't a hallucination", which made me think that we weren't understanding one another. The question regrettably added an emotional charge to my thoughts, because earlier in the conversation we were talking in an unrelated fashion about hallucinations and I revealed my own history with (something similar to, but not definitely diagnosed as) hypnogogia. As a result, I totally forgot the potential answers to that question in the moment, and simply turned the conversation to an earlier, unresolved point.

In any case, I think it's worthwhile to address the specific issue here from the two most obvious angles that come to me:

First, the hallucination hypothesis is nullified by our earlier point that the revelation depends not on our interpretive faculties.

Second, the rules for truth apply to hallucinators in the same way that they apply to mentally healthy individuals. That is, the truth is perfectly internally consistent and includes in it the full set of information about all things comprising reality, and it is the only set of information with that quality. Therefore, a thorough enough investigation of any idea or argument which is untrue will eventually find an internal inconsistency in the way that it operates as a full system or worldview. All that to say, it is possible to distinguish between hallucinations and reality.

The conversation ended with both of us relatively unchanged in opinion, but expressing a desire to continue again later. I think it was a successful conversation, though, because during it he expressed that he thought Christianity was just the same as Islam only it lacked the Quran, which gave me the opportunity to explain how Christians have a different view of justice than Muslims, especially in terms of the means of our salvation. So I got to share the gospel briefly, and in the end that's more important and powerful than any argument I could produce, because now he has enough information for his salvation, and so the Holy Spirit can work on his heart.

Sometime later I'd like to explain my understanding of the arguments against Islam. Maybe in my next blog......

Also, I've spent a lot of time with Chowon's dad during this trip. I have to watch my Ps and Qs a bit, because he's a very traditional guy, but I think things are going well. It's easiest if Chowon translates.

Well, that's it for tonight's update. I'll post again later, after the wedding, maybe.

"People who love dogs are generally very nice."

Tonight I want to restate my version of the epistemological argument in as few careful words as I can. First, a quick personal update: I got a new job in Chandler, but I'm finishing out a project for my current/previous employer. I start with my new company on April 9th. Details about that when I more clearly understand what's ok for me to write online. That's it for updates.

I'm going to write as if responding to a hypothetical person who says, "I am atheist because I only wish to have verifiably true beliefs. The scientific method is a reliable (maybe the most reliable; maybe the only) means of verification. God's existence is an unfalsifiable and hitherto untestable hypothesis, so I am unable to apply the scientific method to it, therefore I have no reason or motivation to believe in God."

Now, the argument:

We're having this discussion because we hope to discern what is true. The scientific method is intended as a means for discerning truth. So in order to apply the scientific method to verify something as true, we depend on two assumptions:

1. Truth exists
2. Truth is discernable (we can know truth)

Without those two assumptions, any discussions about what is true or false are meaningless, so they are prerequisites for a reasonable application of the scientific method. I want to take those assumptions seriously, and so we can't just grant them without grounding them in some justification within the worldview. That is to say, any worldview which may be called "true" must allow for people to know truth, so they can know that the worldview is true and call it "true". 

For the sake of argument, let's agree that there are only two options: either God exists or He doesn't

Let's first examine "God doesn't exist". (Every godless worldview I've encountered which posited the scientific method has also included Darwinian macro-evolution in its belief set, so I'm joining that belief to this option.)

If we are the product of unguided processes, and our brains are just matter in motion, then our thoughts and perceptions are also the result of the same chemical fizz. Our actions are simply the results of our chemicals acting on their environment. I don't think it's a large leap from here to say "we cannot trust that we are interpreting our senses correctly, or that they are providing us with accurate information about our environment." I'm trying to be brief here, but basically what I'm driving at is "the problem with hard solipsism", which I see as a challenge specifically to the atheist worldview (I'll dive into an application of the arguments in solipsism to the Christian worldview in a bit).

A critical inspection of Darwinian atheism leaves us fully dependent on our own fallible faculties for perception and reason in order to deduce truth. Since our faculties are broken, there is no reliable basis to suppose that we are capable of knowing the truth about anything, let alone whether there is such a thing as a reality containing truths. Darwinian atheism fails the worldview test proposed earlier because it does not provide any basis for us to make our two assumptions, which are necessary prerequisites for the scientific method.

Now, the other option, "God exists". (I'm going to argue specifically for the Christian worldview. See my notes at the bottom for info about why Christianity is the only viable religion; the discussion is not immediately applicable to my argument).

I'm going to make my statements about the Christian worldview's answers to these questions by referencing and building on Biblical quotes so that it is clear that my argument reflects actual doctrine taught within Christianity (seldom as it may be).

The Bible teaches that every person knows about God, but they suppress the truth by means of unrighteousness (Romans 1:18-20). That doesn't mean that every person believes in God, and it doesn't mean that every person consciously suppresses the truth; but just that the knowledge of God is in the heart of every person. Christians understand that the way that God reveals Himself to us is by general revelation, which exists in all of nature. In particular, God revealed his own existence to us in a way which does not depend on our fallible senses and faculties, by creating us in His image (Genesis 1:27). Now, as we've already seen, the knowledge of truth must not be dependent on our fallible faculties, and the truth is not something which is confined to the internal parts of the individual consciousness; truth is not arbitrary. That is to say, all reason is dependent on an external source of truth. The Bible places the knowledge of God as the foundation and starting point for all knowledge and understanding (Proverbs 1:7, 9:10).

So, Christianity solves the problems inherent in atheism by providing an external, infallible source of information which reveals itself to us in a way that does not depend on our fallible senses: God. As a result, the "problem of solipsism" does not apply to Christianity, because solipsistic reasoning proceeds from the notion that our fallible faculties are our only source of information.

So, Christianity passes the test proposed at the beginning of this blog.

The end.

---------------------------------------------------------

The next question I often hear is "well, why not any other religion?". The short answer is that if you think carefully about what qualities would be necessary in an external source of truth (must be honest, must be infallible, must be capable of imbuing knowledge infallibly, etc), you will find yourself ruling out large groups of other religions in every step, and eventually you will land with a basic unnamed description of the Christian God. I speculated about this point quite a bit in previous blogs.

Here are some references to my older blogs:

On the qualities of God by which he provides the preconditions necessary for intelligibility, and the possibility of using "Logic" itself as an ultimate foundation instead of God:

April 15, 2017
April 16, 2017
April 19, 2017
July 5, 2017

Some thought experiments toward quickly exposing the failures of Atheism as a component in any worldview:

April 12, 2017

A post completing and containing references to all other parts of a "series", wherein I wrote my thoughts leading up to these conclusions as I was processing them for the first time:

December 20, 2014

I've been pretty stressed recently. I haven't had time to blog about it. Even now, I'm laying in bed, blogging on my phone. Maybe sometime in the near future I'll write out this story, because it's an interesting one, I think. I expect that the near future will yield a sharp reduction in my stress, as the last several months have been a jagged incline.

For now, I wrote this poem...

-------
All I am is words,
words spoken by God
without malice
-------

I guess it's called "design", because God decreed everything about us in eternity past, and then spoke to create all things.


"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure"