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"

Watched this video recently. It's called, "Why Elon Musk thinks we're living in a simulation"

I've been working on this blog for a few days in my downtime. I'll probably edit it some more in the near future to clarify my points.

I'll be honest, I've got very little respect for the notion, but as a Christian I think I have an obligation to take worldview propositions seriously. So, I'm going to give this theory my best shot at a glance. Consider this an early arrival to what may eventually become a legitimate philosophical battleground.

It's an interesting video, though. There are other articles attempting to propose "statistical odds" that we're living in a simulation, which articles I had an especially hard time taking seriously, because my experience tells me that statistical probabilities for unprovable propositions about metaphysics tend to reduce to lists of opinions about what possible outcomes have what probabilistic weight.

That said, the video I first mentioned proposed the best summary of the argument that I've found so far. Here it is:

"There are three possibilities:
1. Humans go extinct before we're able to run a simulation this big.
2. Humans don't run simulations because it's wrong or boring
3. We're living in a simulation.
Elon Musk thinks that there's only a tiny chance that we're in scenario one or two."

The video then cites another fellow who proposes that the simulation theory "suggests naturalistic analogies to certain traditional religious conceptions." I have a sort of problem with the common distinction between natural and supernatural; God clearly acts according to His own nature... This is definitely a topic for another day, but basically I disagree with the idea that the simulation theory is more "naturalistic" than Christianity. Nonetheless, that notion becomes relevant to a later point I'm going to make.

Now, let's examine the argument at hand. It's pretty solid, right? I mean, it's got more than two options, so I guess it can't technically be classified as a "false dichotomy". I looked through my book on logical fallacies and didn't see any mention of a "false trichotomy", so it must be ok.

I've formulated two counter arguments to Elon's position. Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong; these are prototype arguments.

Argument 1:
If we're in a simulation, then there is a computing mechanism hosting the simulation. I'll call it "the matrix" for fun.

Every computing mechanism has limited computing power. It might be incredibly huge, but it's limited nonetheless. The video proposes an army of self-replicating computing robots to make a big enough simulation; it's still limited.

Should we produce a simulation, its computing power will necessarily be smaller than the computing power of the matrix, because the matrix must process both us and our nested simulation. Eventually, nested simulations must end in a place where the bandwidth is so limited that it cannot produce intelligences capable of making their own simulations. Not to mention, I'm pretty sure that the laws of physics necessitate against an infinite chain of simulations with equal simulating power, which seems to be what is being hinted at here.

Therefore, a fourth and fifth option must be proposed in the above list:

4. We are the unsimulated simulators, and we won't necessarily all die off the way that he says.
5. We're at the bottom of the chain; too stupid to make a simulation that can reasonably be called sentient, really.

So, summarily,  the logical steps taken in the video are insufficient to lead us to assume that we are not the first "unsimulated" simulators. In fact, none of the 5 options seem to hold much more weight than the others so that we could make any such assumption, one way or the other.

Argument 2:
This one is a bit less concrete, but I want to bring it up as, perhaps, the beginnings of a demonstration that Christianity is fundamentally superior to simulation theory.

In order for us to conclude that we are in a simulation, we must employ our knowledge of logic and probability. So, in order for us to assert that our conclusions are true and valid, the logical and probabilistic rules must be valid. Therefore, the proposed worldview must include some foundation allowing for us to know that our logical and probabilistic rules are valid.

In past blogs I've spent a lot of time and text attempting to distill a set of preconditions necessary for intelligibility in a worldview. Maybe I'll reiterate it later, but for now I want to focus on three that apply particularly to the argument against simulation theory:

1. The beings who programmed our simulation have communicated knowledge of the logical and probabilistic laws to us in a way that enables us to know that these laws are valid. I.e. the method of communication must not be contingent on humanity's fallible interpretive faculties.

2. The beings who programmed our simulation have similarly infallible knowledge of the applicable logical and probabilistic laws in order to communicate them.

3. The beings who programmed our simulation must be trustworthy.

Now, in order for us to know these things about our programmers, we would have to know about the existence of our programmers. We can't use the logical rules alone as the initial method to attain this knowledge, or else we're using logic to prove its own validity prior to being certain that logic is a valid means of proving things. Our knowledge of the programmers and of their revelation must serve as the ultimate foundation for the worldview, or else there must be another viable ultimate beneath them which satisfies the above conditions among others. Without further explanation from proponents of simulation theory explaining their ultimate source of truth, I figure the knowledge of the programmers is the only apparently viable candidate.

(I also wrote a few consecutive blogs detailing at length why logic itself cannot function as an ultimate foundation. I'll go find them later and link them at the bottom of this blog if I get some time.)

That said, given that simulation theory is a recent development which follows our understanding of computing and simulation, and given my premise that a true worldview must be able to account for logic and intelligibility, the people before us who also utilized logic must also have known about the programmers. Now, to be clear, I do not mean that the consciously knew about the programmers; the only way I've been able to work this out (happens to be the Biblical view, and) requires that everyone who has ever been capable of utilizing logic also knew about the ultimate source, though they may suppress the knowledge, whether consciously or subconsciously, knowingly or unknowingly, because it is knowledge that precedes the knowledge of logic.

Now, recall that the statement was made to the effect that simulation theory enables naturalistic analogies with traditional religious conceptions. I subscribe (with some differences) to Bavinck's argument from human history and the history of religions toward the validity and superiority of Christianity's claims to truth. I won't go into detail about Bavinck's arguments here. Go read Bavinck. I'm going to use his arguments as a premise for my conclusion. I'm also partially representing a fuller argument by Bahnsen to the effect that someone (Christians) must know the truth about the ultimate source of knowledge; I would like to utilize his arguments as a premise as well.

So, granting without describing a bunch of steps that Bavinck and Bahnsen have aptly taken before me, (let's accept, even for the sake of argument, that) Christianity is the superior religion in history leading up to simulation theory, and it proposes accurate information about the interactions between man and the programmer(s). (One point of importance here is that if we pick apart Christianity and say "I agree with this but not that", simply on the grounds that "this but not that" supports the worldview that we're trying to affirm, then we've committed an egregious intellectual failure; there should be better grounds than preference for the partial acceptance of a set of connected ideas).

If simulation theory is to account for the religious experiences of Biblical characters, then God's statements to the effect that he has ALL power both in our universe and in the heavenly realm where He exists, and that He has always existed and will always continue to exist, even eternally prior to our existence, would be lies. Following the above logic from the video, which allows no option wherein we are the unsimulated simulators; I see, within the specific reasoning method employed by the video, no possibility to say that our programmers are unsimulated either, and much less by way of secular naturalism to suppose that they are eternally self-existent, or are infinite sources of energy.

If our simulators are liars, then they don't satisfy condition 3 for intelligible ultimacy, and the worldview fails. If they are not liars and we simply misunderstood them terribly, then I think they don't satisfy condition 1 and the worldview fails.

That's it. I'm really interested to read arguments against this, so that I can refine or even change my perspective on the matter. Maybe I'll try to shorten it down a bit to make a YouTube video in order to spark some commentary.

"But on the real I think I need another witness"

I wrote a non-rhyming poem during a break today. I haven't thought of a name for it yet. Maybe "Downtime".

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

The vacuum in my mind
Is a symptom
Of the stillness in my hands
Catalyzing an internal conflict

Maybe this is how it will be
if I get what I'm asking for
Maybe I can't have contentment
because my desires are in conflict with my lot

God, take wrong desire from me!
What I want is not sinful
But it seems so far from righteous

God, open the door to peace
God, light the way to balance

I close my eyes and see a dove soaked in his brother's blood
I see cedar and hyssop brushed across an all-too-easy life
scarlet binding stress and sorrow together into great beauty
a series of short red stitches between two sides of eternity

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

Everyone seems to have an opinion about what I would really enjoy. It's got me pretty confused about what I want for my future.

I'm so spoiled, and I hate it! I feel so stressed, but this is nothing compared with the hardships endured by Christ's followers before me, and they suffered for better causes! What will I do when life really becomes difficult? What will I do in the face of real hardship? But is real hardship the only way to escape being spoiled? How can I be sanctified from this pettiness?

Realism demands optimism given my current circumstances.

It proves to me that I can only endure the things which God enables me to endure. My strength is completely derivative, and it betters me to keep that in mind.

"It was a lucky find."

Back from Christmas break! It was really good to see the family. I hope Chowon enjoyed her time overall. She came with me to Reno this time, and it's such a joy to see her when I get done with work. I'm praying for her patience with me while I get this done.

I'm blogging on my lunch break. Work today hasn't been overly difficult, and I've been keeping a solid, good attitude outwardly, I think, but I'm feeling very stressed.

I listened to the radio on the way to work today because I forgot to bring my aux cable again and the rental doesn't have bluetooth. I found a Christian station with a talk show running which was discussing various world events, the middle east in particular. I thought it would be nice to listen to a Christian perspective, seeing as I often hear the nonChristian perspective on things happening there.

They proposed predictable right-wing solutions to whatever things they mentioned, and included off-hand the common fear inherited by Christians that history could repeat itself with widespread antiChristian persecution. However, one aspect of the show stood out to me in particular (my turn to be predictable):

They singled out the Muslim state as a bad thing. I agree, it's terrible and it exemplifies the judicial inadequacies of Islamic law. However, when they summarized their objections to the Islamic system, they seemed to emphasize that it is an authoritarian theocracy.

It made me want to ask them... "who is your king?" And when they say "nobody. I'm American." I want to ask, "who sits on the throne of David as ruler over covenant Israel (that's Christians), wielding all authority in heaven and on earth?"

My point is, if we are going to object to the Islamic state, as Christians, then our objection should not simply be that they are wrong to follow the commands of their god, but rather that they are wrong about who God is. They are not following the commands of the living God. Something in me doubts that all Isis simply loves and enjoys what violent things they do, and I'm almost inclined to commend them for their commitment to their convictions.

This leads me to my second point: the Christian radio show didn't include the gospel as part of their strategy to end Isis. Their strategy was entirely political. I'm sure they would not object to missionary work, and I well know the argument that we don't need to be constantly including the gospel in all our public presentations, and I don't necessarily disagree with that... But is there any better thing to do than tell the gospel all the time?

To be fair, I say that, but I don't do it. I aspire to overcome my social scruples in order to be more consistent in presenting the gospel to literally all creatures with which I come into contact. (Mark 16:15 bring the point of reference there).

Anyway, I think that political strategies rooted in an unbiblical political system can not yield perfect results, but sharing the gospel leads invariably to victory and is the best strategy in the ultimate sense.

So, to that end, reader, know that Jesus Christ, the son of God, died to take the penalty due to us for our sins, and He rose again on the third day to demonstrate that he is Lord over all things including death. His forgiveness is a gift to you if you only repent of your sins and believe that Jesus is Lord. Whoever believes in him will not die, but have everlasting life.

"We make more than our share of mistakes."