Calling on Bloggers

I have inviting anyone who is a Christian, and a Van Tillian Presuppositionalist who would like to contribute to this blog by publishing posts on presuppostional apologetics, general apologetics, and philosophy. Please e-mail me at: ptrckhsu@yahoo.com.

Calling on Bloggers

I have inviting anyone who is a Christian and a Van Tillian Presuppositionalist who would like to contribute to this blog by publishing posts on presuppostional apologetics, general apologetics, theology, and philosophy. Please e-mail me at: ptrckhsu@yahoo.com with a testimony, a statement of faith that reflects your beliefs, and a writing sample addressing an objection to the Christian faith.

The Apologetic of Darth Dawkins

Darth Dawkins is a presuppositional apologist who has been debating atheists in various online venues such as Discord, Youtube, and Clubhouse for over 10 years. He has interacted with many well-known academic atheists including Graham Oppy, Lawrence Krauss, Massimo Pigliucci, Stephen Law, and Alex Malpass. Darth Dawkins has established himself as a prolific and accomplished debater and is well-known among the atheist community. This post addresses his distinctive approach to debating atheists on the existence of God.

Definition of God

God is a mind, eternal and ultimate. Ultimate means that which is eternal and the ground of why anything exists. He is the source of possibility of whatever can be or cannot be. God is that which is self-contained, non-dependent, and the basis of why anything has come into existence and exists that is not God. God possesses all great-making properties without which there couldn’t be the securing of all intelligibility. God has revealed He has thoughts and qualities. All other gods of human history are not ultimate. God is the concrete universal. Concrete means that God is real as opposed to an abstraction. It means there is one thing. Everything is universally derived and depends upon God because He is the concrete unifier.

Definition Atheism, Agnosticism and Theism

Defined by Darth

Darth clarifies the position of the unbeliever on the existence of God by asking whether they believe in the existence of God (theism), deny the existence of God (atheism) or withhold judgment about God’s existence (agnosticism). He typically asks, “Are you taking a position on the existence or non-existent of God?” or “Are you committed to the belief that God exists?” This step in his approach is crucial because their answer determines how he responds. In Darth’s view, there are only three possible answers they could provide:

• Theism – The belief in the existence of God
• Atheism – The denial of the existence of all God concepts
  – Global and Local Atheism
  • Global atheism – there is no God whatsoever regardless of the kind of god
  • Local atheism – The denial of some God concepts.
• Agnosticism – Withholding judgment about the existence of God. It is neither affirming nor denying the existence of God.

Defined by Unbeliever

The answers the unbelievers provide vary. They might affirm theism, atheism and agnosticism according to Darth’s definitions or they might have different definitions and variations of the positions. Let’s examine some common alternatives:

Atheist – lack of belief in gods, it is not a disbelief or denial of gods

Agnostic Atheism/Weak Atheist/Hard Agnostic – Atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of God and agnostic because they claim the existence of God is unknowable or currently unknown. Atheism is about what you believe. Agnosticism is about what you know.

Soft Agnostic – does not know whether there is a God

Darth’s Reply: You are claiming that you are not taking a position on God, but you are contradicting your claim because you are committed to your claim of independence of facts from God which necessarily commits you to the non-existence of God. You are logically committed to the denial of God in spite of your claim that you are not taking a position on God. You deny the existence of God. Then how is it that God doesn’t exist?

The objective is to show that there are ultimately only two positions: the affirmation of the existence of God or the direct or indirect denial of the existence of God. There ultimately is no genuine agnostic position, which he shows reduces to atheism.

The Atheist’s Burden of Proof

How did you determine that there is no Creator God? What is your rational justification that no God exists? God does not exist because…

Atheist Responses:

1. Because it hasn’t been proven. I am not convinced. Because I don’t have a reason to believe in it.
   • Rebuttal: This is the argument from the ignorance fallacy (argumentum ad ignorantiam). A proposition is invoked to the truth because its opposite or negation has not been shown to be true. That not-X is to be considered true because you are unconvinced of X. The not-God worldview (not-X) is true because the God worldview (X) has not been shown to be true. Would you accept my reasoning that the God worldview is true because the not-God worldview has not been defended to my satisfaction? No.
   • The only things that exist are things that we are convinced of? There are some things that we know do exist that we are not convinced of.
2. There is no evidence
   • Rebuttal: How did you determine all the facts that you are acquainted with do not necessitate referencing God?
3. There is not enough evidence
   • Rebuttal: It is not coherent to say somethings are evidence for God while some things are not. Either everything is evidence for God or not. If one fact necessitates referencing God as Eternal Creator, then they all do. If one fact doesn’t necessitate referencing God, then they all don’t.
4. Which God?
   • Rebuttal: This is bait and switch. The atheist is moving from global atheism to local atheism. When asked “How is it that no God exist?” this question encompasses global atheism. If I ask you if there is no ice cream in the bowl, I’m not asking you to tell me what flavor is not in the bowl.
5. God hasn’t revealed Himself to me and He would know what it would take me to believe.
   • Rebuttal: What they are saying is all of the facts that they are acquainted with do not necessitate referencing the necessity of God. If yes, then can you tell me how to determined that?
   • Rebuttal: The statement is a non-sequitur. Is it internally logically consistent that a personal God who created the world chooses not to engage in revelation?
6. I have no reason
   • Rebuttal: Why hold to a position that is irrational?
7. I believe in Big Bang and Evolution
   • Rebuttal: This is a non-sequitur. It doesn’t follow that there is no God.
8. We made up the attributes of God
   • Rebuttal: This is the genetic fallacy.

What this means is you believe facts are to be categorized as existing independent from God until shown otherwise. If one believes that facts depend upon God, then they are implicitly affirming God. Conversely, if you believe facts exist with independence from God you are implicitly denying God.

How God’s Existence is Known

We only reason that God does exist because he has taken the initiative to reveal Himself

God and Facts

In order for facts to be facts they need to start in the mind of God, they are then implemented in His plan of creation and history. We always start with the revelation of God. Facts require metaphysical context and God is the ultimate reference point. If we take one fact at all and we were to concur that the fact was indicative of God, that would mean that all facts do. We couldn’t say within the God world that some facts revealed God but others do not. The core of a fact, what makes a fact a fact, is that God made it that way. This would be true of any other fact.

Without God being the concrete universal from which all things are tied and derive their context, all of the so-called facts are no facts at all. They’re just unconnected and unrelated. What we just have is the autonomous mind of man coming along starting with certain beliefs that he can never ground. Then he tries to do an inductive survey and then throws a mental grid over it trying to explain what things are. He doesn’t know any interpretation of facts either individually or collectively could turn out to be false tomorrow.

We show God exists if and only if He takes the initiative to reveal Himself through creation. We can show that God exists by virtue of the fact that facts couldn’t be facts without God, since there are facts, therefore they reveal God. If they don’t reveal God they wouldn’t be facts. If the unbeliever wants to reject that, they must tell us how there can be facts where they don’t have God as the ultimate reference point. They can’t. Everything would be shrouded in mystery so everything they claim to be facts will be uninstantiated as facts. The unbeliever adopts autonomy. It is that they do not regard their minds to be derivate and revelatory of God Himself. The mind of man just is. The mind of man through his daily experiences can collect beliefs and thereby develop a system through induction, deduction, and abduction by which to interpret new facts. If we don’t annihilate the atheist reasoning when we present all facts reveal God, the atheist will just fall back in his unbelief. But he cannot fall back on his unbelief because it’s without basis. He will either have to give a rationale for why God doesn’t exist or He is going to have to admit that his atheism is arbitrary.

The Transcendental Argument

Darth Question: Do you believe all the facts that you are acquainted with derive and depend upon God or not? Do you positively believe that facts necessitate deriving and depending upon the necessity of God? Do you believe that God is the necessary precondition of all facts that are not God?

The rational justification to believe in God is because He has revealed Himself in and through creation and through the course of history revealed sovereignty and providentially in the Bible and person of Jesus Christ. When they don’t accept this they are making a counter-claim. That they don’t need the God of Christianity who has revealed Himself to give an account for how anything is intelligible. They cannot answer this. There is nothing identifiable or defensible for why anything is. They have no defense that God doesn’t exist. Either they believe all facts derive and depend upon God or they do not. The law of excluded middle says something is either A or not-A. There is no middle ground. Either God is the necessary precondition of all facts or not. If you do not believe all facts depend upon God, this is called the independence of facts from God.

Unbeliever Responses:

1. All facts do not derive and depend upon God

Rebuttal: This necessarily and logically commits them to the non-existence of God. God cannot logically co-exist in a world where one fact doesn’t depend upon Him. The two propositions: 1) God is the creator and sustainer and all facts derive and depend on Him and 2) All facts do not derive and depend upon God are contradictory. Contrary to the atheist claim that they only lack belief but don’t deny God, they do deny God by believing the counter-claim that all facts do not depend upon the mind and plan God.

2. All facts do derive and depend upon God

Darth Question: How did you determine all facts do not derive and depend upon God?

Applications of the Transcendental Argument

The Uniformity of Nature / Continuity and Discontinuity

When the unbeliever says they can interpret everything naturally, they are going to have to include within that the conceptual scheme of what is fundamental and absolute that will then institute and secure what regularities there are. In order for the unbeliever to believe anything, it’s going to require some level of continuity or regularity of nature to believe the future will be like the past. In order to speak intelligibility of the uniformity of nature (UON), the UON would itself have to be absolute or something else must be absolute that imposes perpetuity of the uniformity of nature. The unbeliever cannot give a rational justification for what is either absolute or ultimate that would secure the UON which will be an underlying basis for there to be intelligibility. If they don’t know what the absolute contextual layer is, they cannot have a rational justification for the UON, because whatever continuity there was in the past would abruptly stop. Without identifying what is fundamental and the basis and source of continuity/regularity of nature, then their belief and expectation of the regularity of nature are unjustified. Either the continuity is ethereal or there is an absolute and ultimate that imposes it. Without the mind and plan of God keeping the continuity in perpetuity, there’s no rational basis to expect the consistencies of the past will continue at any time.

Self-Consciousness Presupposes God

Even the fact of our own self-consciousness revealed God being that our self-consciousness in order for it to be rational and intelligible will have to be created and sustained by the Mind of God, or else our self-consciousness would have no explanation for what or why it is. It makes no difference for them to explain what consciousness is cause I would ask what imposes that. What imposes those parameters of what makes consciousness is what it is. We start with our proximate starting point – our self-consciousness. Our ultimate starting point would be the mind of God. Our self-consciousness will either be indicative or revelatory of God or not. We only have two options. If it is not, then what is it that instantiates what our consciousness is and how does it have intelligibility? Is there a connectedness between our thoughts? What makes it so?

The Fundamental and Ultimate

When the unbeliever rejects God as Creator, we always have to keep in mind what they are not believing. They are not being God is ultimate, absolute and the one who institutes and secures creation. They are not believing God is the one who secures the principle of continuity and discontinuity. They are not understanding that God is the concrete universal where everything is tied, related, deriving and depending upon Him. Therefore their worldview is just an array of particulars and events that have no rhyme or reason as to why they are. When they appeal to laws of nature they cannot justify it.

You need to prove that which you are invoking as absolute and ultimate or fundamental. You need to prove that, but when they start talking about continuity and the uniformity of nature and the causal principle, then what is it that imposes that. You could never identify what is fundamental and ultimate and the source of all possibility so you have no metaphysical context for facts. If you say there is not an Ultimate, then there is no ground for truth, reason, or intelligibility. In the absence of God revealing Himself, we have no basis for invoking Him as ultimate.

Atheists have an open system. They don’t have a closed system where they have an identifiable defensible absolute – an ultimate from which all things derive and depend. That ultimate or absolute would be the ultimate reference point. It would be the source of all possibility. In biblical theology this is called the “principium ascendia” -the ground of all being. In order to explain to the unbeliever why their position is incoherent, they need to understand what they are not believing. Once they understand what they are not believing, we can juxtapose that with what they do believe. What they do believe doesn’t have coherence because there is no ultimate frame of reference.

Darth’s Question: How did you determine what is fundamental and ultimate to all contingent and temporal states is not God? How did you determine what is ultimate is not personal? What is it that is ultimate and fundamental?

Ultimate is that which is eternal, unconditionally non-dependent and the source and basis of all possibility and impossibility.

Atheist Responses:

1. Depends on which God you are talking about.
   • Rebuttal: Bait and switch. The atheist is moving from global atheism to local atheism.
2. I have no rational grounds.
   • Then why can’t I argue that God exists because He exists? You hold to the independence of facts from God, so you can hold to the existence of God without a rational basis too. Why request reason for the existence of God, when you hold to the independence of facts from God on irrational grounds? Your criteria to believe or not believe must be on rational grounds. Do you have rational grounds as to why you believe it is not necessary to reference God? If not, then you have no grounds to request reason for God’s existence.
3. I don’t know whether anything is ultimate.
   • Rebuttal: Then you cannot hold to the position that there is no god which would be defined as that which is ultimate. You would be undecided about the existence of God. If you do not know whether anything is ultimate, then you cannot be in a position to say that there is no God because God is in the category of what is ultimate so you need to decide which position you hold to. Either you hold to the position “I do not believe or know that anything is or is not ultimate” or you are going to have to hold to the position that “there is no God as what is ultimate.” You cannot hold both positions.

Possibility and Impossibility

Darth’s Question: What makes anything possible and impossible? What is it that is fundamentally ultimate that imposes and secures what is possible and impossible? Is anything impossible? If you can’t explain that then you have no rational grounds for the intelligibility of anything.

The Problem of the One and the Many

Darth’s Question: Is reality a concrete one/particular or an abstract set of concrete particulars? Is there something that is singular that is dictating all states of affairs and what the facts are or is it a plurality of things? What is your justification for that which is ultimate and it will have to be singular? What is the singular that which is ultimate?

Let’s say I have 100 blue marbles. I could use a single term to abstractly unify the 100 particular blue. What if I were to take super glue and glue them all together, the super glue would be joining all the things together. The super glue is concrete and not abstract, so it is concretely unifying all of the particulars. Abstract one means the oneness would subsist of two or more concrete particulars. If there are two or more things that are not concretely unified, then neither one of them isolated from the other, can be ultimate. Only that which is singular and possesses absolute unity can be ultimate. If there are two more things they will exist in independence from each other and therefore neither one of them are ultimate. They know that they cannot identify with the rational justification that there is either a singular ultimate or that there is a plurality of things. If there is a plurality of things, then they cannot be categorized as ultimate because only a singular could be.

Only in the Christian worldview where we have a concrete singularity, the being, and essence of the unified God, who subsists as three co-equal, co-eternal persons, who are eternally unified as one being. He institutes the world, and the world operates according to his mind and plan, so there can consequently be intelligibility. God is in the category of a concrete universal, all things are derived from God universally. But the unifying of all of the particulars universally is not abstract – it is concrete. By definition, God is in his own category. If you were to conclude that God is real, then God by definition would have to be ultimate. Being ultimate means that God is the source and basis of why anything exists.

Summary of Sye Ten Bruggencate’s Argument

I have written here a brief summary of Sye Ten Bruggencate’s use of the Transcendental Argument. He commonly utilizes “knowledge” in his application of the Transcendental Argument.

Sye begins his apologetic by stating “The proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn’t know anything”, which is grounded upon verses such as Proverbs 1:7 and Colossians 2:3. To claim to know something is to believe it because it is true with good reasons for it.

Sye clarifies his argument by stating that it is not that the unbeliever in reality doesn’t know anything; he does know things. The problem is that if his worldview were true, he couldn’t know anything. The reason why the unbeliever does know things is that he is suppressing the truth of God’s existence in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18-21). God is the necessary precondition for knowledge. Sye explains this by asking whether it is impossible for God to exist. If the unbeliever were intellectually honest, he’d have to say no. Sye proceeds by asking whether God, who is all-powerful and all-knowing, can reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain? The unbeliever would have to concede that this is possible and therefore our Christian epistemology is established. We know things the exact same way unbelievers do, through our senses, memory, and reasoning, but we have a God who provides justification for their reliability and unbelievers do not.

To demonstrate that the unbeliever cannot know anything if his worldview were true, he asks, “What is one thing you know and how do you know it?” Whatever the unbeliever states that he knows, he will appeal to his senses and/or reasoning as the means through which he obtained that knowledge. However, Sye will argue that if the unbeliever does not know whether his senses and/or reasoning are valid, then he could be wrong about everything he claims to know. If he could be wrong about everything he claims to know, then he knows nothing. One of the examples he uses to demonstrate this is supposing that you see the speed limit sign outside and it says 30mph, but you could be wrong about that. Is it correct to say that you know it is 30mph if you could be wrong? No. So likewise, if the unbeliever does not know whether his senses and/or reasoning are valid then he cannot claim to know anything. The debate ends here. The unbeliever might try to offer justification for how he knows that they are valid by appealing to repeated testing or other people for confirmation. The problem is though that he is using his senses and reasoning in that process, which begs the question. He is ultimately using his senses and reasoning to justify his senses and reasoning. The unbeliever ends up stuck in a vicious circle with no way of providing justification for the validity of his senses and reasoning; hence, he could be wrong about everything he claims to know. If he could be wrong about everything he claims to know, then if his worldview were true, he knows nothing.

The reason why unbelievers cannot give an account for how they know anything is because they are not saved. Jesus Christ did not die just to save souls for eternity, he died to save reasoning now. When you demonstrate to the unbeliever that without God he cannot know anything, you are pointing out their sin for denying the God they know exists. The only answer for their predicament is salvation in Jesus Christ.

Sye Ten Bruggencate’s Apologetic

This is a summary of Sye Ten Bruggencate’s approach to presuppositional apologetics, which I’ve based upon his numerous interviews, talks and debates available at (http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/multimedia.php).

Preliminary Considerations

Evidentialism and Presuppositions
Sye Ten Bruggencate suggests that the best way to explain presuppositional apologetics is by explaining what it is not. It is not the traditional evidential approach of apologetics of giving evidence in a neutral fashion to defend the faith. He critiques this approach by offering an illustration of a court proceeding. In court, evidence is given to the judge and the jury. So when an unbeliever comes up to us and says that he doesn’t believe in God and we give them evidence, we are saying that they are the judge and the jury and that God is on trial. Instead of going with this evidential approach, Sye doesn’t believe the unbeliever when he states that he doesn’t believe in God, because the Bible says in Romans 1:18-21 that everyone knows that God exists. When unbelievers say that they do not know whether God exists, they are committing blasphemy, because blasphemy is not only taking God’s name in vain, it is taking God’s word in vain. Evidence is a wonderful gift from God, but it shouldn’t be used to put God on trial.  Both believers and unbelievers get the same evidence, but they interpret the evidence differently according to what they already believe. These are our presuppositions–our pre-beliefs. It makes no sense to debate about the evidence when believers and unbelievers interpret the evidence differently and come to different conclusions. The story about the man who thought he was dead is a popular illustration of this point. There was a man who thought he was dead and his family was very concerned about him. They did everything they could to convince the man that he was not dead, but nothing worked. They decided to take him to a medical doctor to convince him he wasn’t dead. The medical doctor asked the man, “Do dead men bleed?” The man answered, “Of course not, dead men don’t bleed.” So the doctor took out a pin and pricked the man in the finger and he started bleeding. The man yelped and grabbed his finger and said, “Well what do you know? Dead men do bleed!”

Sye often asks, “If I were to give you sufficient evidence that God exists, would you worship Him?” Most unbelievers would say no, but some unbelievers might say they would worship Him. Sye humorously says that they probably would because a god that requires believers to give evidence to unbelievers is not the God of the Bible. Would it make sense for the Creator of the universe to have to provide evidence before His creatures bow down to Him?

Ultimate Authority

We must appeal to our ultimate authority to prove our ultimate authority because if we appeal to something higher than our ultimate authority to prove it, then it is no longer our ultimate authority. If there is something that we can use to prove God, then God would no longer be our ultimate authority. The question is, “Can God reveal somethings to us such that we can know them for certain?” Of course. This is a virtuous circle. Then we look at the unbelievers worldview and see that it reduces to a vicious circle because he is saying I reason that my reason is valid and senses that my senses are valid. They have no escape from that circle. Vicious circle destroys reason as opposed to virtuous circle which saves reason.

Foundation of Reasoning
The foundation for our reasoning is God. An unbeliever might say that he is no longer a Christian because some things didn’t make sense to Him. So apparently the unbeliever is the authority of his reasoning now, but when he was a ”Christian”, God was the authority. How did the unbeliever reason from God being the authority to the position that He is not? That is impossible, which goes to show that God was never the Lord of their reasoning–they always were (1 John 2:19). As Christians, when there are things in the Bible that don’t make sense to us we “lean not on our own understanding.” Likewise, in order for unbelievers to come to the knowledge of the truth despite unanswered questions, they need to repent of their sins against God. Repentance comes before knowledge of the truth.

Two Worldviews

There are only two worldviews, Christian Theism or Non-Christian Theism, which can take the form of Atheism, Islam, Deism, Hinduism, Mormonism, etc. Sye likes to use the terms, God Worldview or Not-God Worldview. Since there is only One God, the Triune God, all the other worldviews are Not-God Worldviews, even the worldviews that profess other deities. If you start with Not-God Worldview and not-God Worldview, then you will end up in philosophical absurdity.

The Argument
Sye begins his apologetic by stating “The proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn’t know anything”, which is grounded upon verses such as Proverbs 1:7 and Colossians 2:3. To claim to know something is to believe it because it is true with good reasons for it.

Sye clarifies his argument by stating that it is not that the unbeliever in reality doesn’t know anything; he does know things. The problem is that if his worldview were true, he couldn’t know anything. The reason why the unbeliever does know things is that he is suppressing the truth of God’s existence in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18-21), which is their only justification for knowledge. God is the necessary precondition for knowledge. Sye explains this by asking whether it is impossible for God to exist. If the unbeliever were intellectually honest, he’d have to say no. Sye proceeds by asking whether God, who is all-powerful and all-knowing, can reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain? The unbeliever would have to concede that this is possible and therefore our Christian epistemology is established. We know things the exact same way unbelievers do, through our senses, memory, and reasoning, but we have a God who provides justification for their reliability and unbelievers do not.

To demonstrate that the unbeliever cannot know anything if his worldview were true, he asks, “What is one thing you know and how do you know it?” Whatever the unbeliever states that he knows, he will appeal to his senses and/or reasoning as the means through which he obtained that knowledge. However, Sye will argue that if the unbeliever does not know whether his senses and/or reasoning are valid, then he could be wrong about everything he claims to know. If he could be wrong about everything he claims to know, then he knows nothing. One of the examples he uses to demonstrate this is suppose that you see the speed limit sign outside and it says 30mph, but you could be wrong about that. Is it correct to say that you know it is 30mph if you could be wrong? No. So likewise, if the unbeliever does not know whether his senses and/or reasoning are valid then he cannot claim to know anything. To illustrate the point another way, he says to the unbeliever, “Are there people in the universe with invalid reasoning? Of course. Could those people come to know that they are such people? No. They would need valid reasoning to know that they have invalid reasoning. How do you know that you are not one of those people?” The debate ends here. The unbeliever might try to offer justification for how he knows that they are valid by appealing to repeated testing or other people for confirmation. The problem is though that he is using his senses and reasoning in that process, which begs the question. He is ultimately using his senses and reasoning to justify his senses and reasoning. The unbeliever ends up stuck in a vicious circle with no way of providing justification for the validity of his senses and reasoning; hence, he could be wrong about everything he claims to know. If he could be wrong about everything he claims to know, then if his worldview were true, he knows nothing.

To stress the unbeliever’s problem even further, he argues that on the unbeliever’s own worldview, if the unbeliever does not know everything, he cannot know anything. The unbeliever must either know everything, which he cannot, or receive revelation from God who does.

He offers two illustrations to prove his point:

Knowledge in the Universe Illustration: He asks the unbeliever, “Out of all the knowledge there is in the universe, how much knowledge do you have?” Sye suggests that the unbeliever has 1% of the knowledge in the universe. Then he asks, “Is it possible that something in the 99% of the knowledge that he does not have could disprove the knowledge that he claims to have?” So doesn’t it follow that unless you know everything, you can’t know anything?

Infinite Regress of Justification for Knowledge Illustration: How does an unbeliever know A (any belief) is true? He’ll respond because of B. How does the unbeliever know B is true. He’ll respond because of C. How does he know C is true. He’ll respond because of D. This series of justifications will go on for infinity and therefore he cannot have knowledge of A. The only way to stop this infinite regression of justification for knowledge is to have infinite knowledge or have revelation from someone who does have infinite knowledge.

Truth is a component of knowledge, which unbelievers are also not able to account for. They are not able to know anything to be true. Sye asks, “What is truth in your worldview without God?” Almost always will the unbeliever gives a correspondence theory of truth, which means truth is that which corresponds to reality. He proceeds by asking the unbeliever how he knows what is real and the unbeliever will appeal to his senses and reasoning. Sye then asks how the unbeliever knows that his senses and reasoning are valid. If the unbeliever does not know whether his senses and reasoning are valid, then he cannot know anything to be true.

Apologetics and the Gospel
If you have to ask the question, “How do you transition from defending the faith to presenting the Gospel, then you are too far from the Gospel. The reason why unbelievers cannot give an account of how they know anything is that they are not saved. Jesus Christ did not die just to save souls for eternity, he died to save reasoning now. When you demonstrate to the unbeliever that without God he cannot know anything, you are pointing out their sin for denying the God they know exists. The only answer to their predicament is salvation in Jesus Christ.

Exploration and Refutation of Epistemological Relativism

            Many recent statistics have shown how there is an increasing number of people, especially young people, who reject absolute truth. There are even a growing number of professing Christians who also deny absolute truth. These statistics are alarming, but it is suspect whether the average person even knows what the term “absolute truth” means. There are many terms that tend to be used in conversation without being clearly defined. Perhaps if they were, then maybe the statistics would look different. Why is the nature truth such an important matter to get right? Because ideas have consequences and false ideas, especially in regard to the truth about Christianity, have eternal consequences. Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). Apart from faith in Christ there is no salvation (Acts 4:12). People are led astray into believing that it doesn’t matter what religion you hold to because it is true if you believe it to be. This is far from the truth and leads people away from Christ who is the only way to heaven. This false idea that is raised against the knowledge of God (2 Corinthians 10:5) needs to be destroyed. This post will first explain the meaning of terms related to the concept of truth. Secondly, the view that rejects absolute truth known as “epistemological relativism” will be refuted. 

Truth 

            Truth is when a proposition matches up with reality. Truth is telling it as it really is. Truth is what is.^[1] In technical terms, truth is when a truth-bearer stands in an appropriate correspondence relation to a truth-maker.^[2] A truth-bearer is a proposition. A proposition is the content of a sentence/statement or thought/belief that is either true or false.^[3]For example, “I am hungry” and “Estoy hambriento” are two sentences in different languages that express the same proposition. Truth-makers are what make propositions true. Truth-makers are facts. A fact is the way the world actually is or the state of affairs^[4]. Some examples of truth-makers are: grass is green, the earth is a sphere, and the 1+1=2. The state of affairs in the world “makes” the proposition of a statement true only if the state of affairs actually is the way the proposition states it to be. For example, if I actually were hungry, this would make the proposition “I am hungry” true. However, if I actually were not hungry, this would make the proposition “I am hungry” false. Suppose Bob were to say, “Patrick is hungry” without actually knowing whether or not I was. It would still be the case that I was hungry if I actually was hungry. Reality makes a proposition true or false, and not beliefs. A correspondence relation is a two-placed relation between two things^[5]. In the case of truth, it is when a proposition matches, conforms to, or corresponds with the state of affairs.

Absolute Truth

            Absolute truth also known as “objective truth” means true independent of what people think. It depends upon the nature of the object. People’s beliefs do not change whether something is actually true or not. For example, it is objectively true that the earth is round, even if people believe otherwise. It matches the way that things actually are and is grounded in the external world. Philosopher, J.P. Moreland states according to absolute truth, “people discover the truth, they do not create it, and a claim is made true or false in some way or another by reality itself, totally independent of whether the claim is accepted by everyone.”^[6] Absolute truths apply to all people, at all times and places. It is true for all people no matter their religion, subculture, nationality, beliefs, and opinions. It is true at all times, no matter how far you go into the past or into the future – an absolute truth remains the same. It is true no matter the place in which it is stated, whether it be anywhere on land, the sea, or the sky. It is also important to note that absolute truth conforms to the First Principles of Logic, which are also absolute truths^[7]. The Law of Identity says that a proposition is identical to itself and different from other things. The Law of Non-Contradiction says that a proposition cannot be both true and false at the same time and sense. The Law of Excluded Middle says that a proposition is either true or false and it cannot be both. We can use these tools to acquire knowledge of additional truths about the world. 

Relative Truth 

            The claim that truth is relative can mean either of two things. Firstly, that truth is relative to time and space^[8]. Whether or not a proposition is true depends upon the time and situation in which it was said. There was something that was true in the past, but not true now. There was something true in a particular state of affairs, but not true in the current state of affairs. For example, the relativist might claim “Obama is the president of the United States” is a relative truth because it was true from the year 2009 to 2017, but it isn’t true now. Secondly, truth is relative to persons. This is the most common way in which the term is used. Relative truth used in this sense is also known as “subjective truth.” Whether or not something is true depends upon the beliefs of persons or cultures^[9]. Something can be true for one person or culture but not for another person or culture. For example, “Chocolate ice cream is the best flavor.” This claim is only true or false depending upon whoever accepts or rejects it. An example of subjective truth pertaining to culture is “it is polite to kiss someone on the cheek when you greet them.” In one culture it might be considered polite, but in another, it is considered impolite. More examples can be given of relative truths that appear to be valid, but some believe that all truths are relative. This view is irrational but very pervasive in our culture, which I will spend the remainder of the post defining and refuting. 

Epistemological Relativism 

            There are those who claim that all truths are relative to the beliefs of individual persons and there are no absolute truths. This view is known as “epistemological relativism” also called “cognitive relativism” or “objective relativism.” Apologist and Founder of Reason for Truth, Steven Garofalo, defines epistemological relativism as the following, “Epistemological Relativism proclaims there are no absolutes in human knowledge – that all knowledge in relation to truth is relative to things such as time, space, culture, society of history.”^[10] Whether or not anything is true depends upon the belief of the person making the claim. Something can be true for one person but false for another. It is not just that people have different beliefs about what is true or false. Rather, whether something is true or false depends upon individual perspectives and there is no correct perspective to judge others as false. For example, they may claim that Christianity might be true for one person but false for another person. Those who hold to this view claim that truth can vary for different people at the same time. 

Refutation of Epistemological Relativism 

1. Self-Defeating Nature
   • A self-defeating statement is a statement that does not meet its own standard and is therefore false^[11]. To expose a self-defeating statement, you only need to apply the claim to itself. For example, the statement, “There is no such thing as truth” is itself a truth statement, and therefore the statement is false. 
   • Relativists claim:
     • “All truth is relative to the beliefs of the person making the claim” – The relativist contradicts himself by making an absolute claim that is true independent of human opinion and applies to all people, times, and places. The apologist can expose this contradiction by asking whether that statement is absolutely true. If all truth is relative, then so would the very statement “all truth is relative to the beliefs of the person making the claim.” This claim would only be true for him and not me. But why is he trying to persuade me of that view of truth as if it applied to all people? If relativism were true, then there is no basis in claiming that one’s view is true and others are false. 
     • “There is no such thing as absolute truths” – They claim there are no truths that are true at all times, places, and for all persons. However, this very statement is making an absolute truth claim. The apologist can ask, “Is it absolutely true that there are no absolute truths?” If yes, then the relativist just contradicted himself. If not, then he is just sharing his own opinion and has no reason to convince me it is true. If the relativist modifies his claim to be “there are no absolute truths except for the statement that there are no absolute truths”, then is that also an absolute truth? If so, then there are now at least two absolute truths – the original statement and the new statement. The question can be pressed again and again and each new statement becomes another affirmation of absolute truth.   
2. Ask them for clarification
   • When you say, “That’s true for you but not for me,” do you mean to say that some people believe some things to be true, whereas others believe them to be false? Or are you saying, whether or not something actually is true or false depends on what individual people believe? Reformed Theological Seminary Professor, James Anderson, recognizes this difference when he writes, “Actually, the phrase ‘true for me’ is ambiguous. It might simply mean ‘what I personally believe,’ in which case it would make sense to say, ‘That’s true for me but not for you.’ However, that wouldn’t be relativism. It would just be a recognition of the obvious fact that people have different beliefs.”^[12] Relativism asserts something is made true by the act of believing it. There is a difference between truth being relative and belief being relative. One person might believe that George Washington was the first president of the United States and another person might deny that. Regardless, of what either of them believes, it is true that George Washington was the first president of the United States. The beliefs are relative to the two respective individuals, but the truth remains the same. 
3. Sincerely believing something is true or false doesn’t make it true or false.
   • There are many who claim that it doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you are sincere. The claim being made is that if you sincerely believe something is true then it is true. However, what if someone were to sincerely believe that it is true that “if you sincerely believe something is true then it is true” is a false statement? Would that statement then become false or will it remain true? The statement is either true or false and it cannot be both at the same time. It is making an absolute and objective claim, which applies to all people, at all times and places irrespective of whether they agree with that statement.  
   • People are free to believe what they want to believe. However, their beliefs have no impact upon whether something is true or not. I can believe that Elvis Presley is still alive, but that doesn’t change the truth that he is dead. Likewise, someone can believe that Christianity is false, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is the absolute truth. In the past most people may have thought that the earth was flat, but as we gained more knowledge we learned otherwise. The earth did not turn from flat to round, rather our belief about its form changed. 
4. Relativity of Truth Implies Relativity of Reality
   • When a person states that 1+1=2, what they are claiming is that it actually is the case that 1+1=2 is opposed to any other number. But what if a relativist says that 1+1=2, but another relativist says that 1+1 does not equal 2? The relativist stating the affirmative would mean “It is true that 1+1=2, but that truth is only relative to me but not for you.” The relativist stating the negative would mean “It is false that 1+1=2, but that falsity is only relative to me but not for you.” This would entail that 1+1 could be both equal to 2 and not 2 at the same time depending upon the perspective of the relativist, which is a contradiction. A contradictory state of affairs is impossible in the real world because it violates the Law of Non-Contradiction and the Law of Excluded Middle. Christianity is a religion that makes objective claims about reality. It declares that the Triune God exists, humanity is a fallen race, there is a heaven and a hell, Jesus Christ lived, was crucified, and resurrected in space-time history Israel 2000 years ago and Jesus will return and judge humanity. Christianity cannot be both true and not true at the same time. Either Christianity is true or it isn’t. If it is true, it is of infinite importance. 
5. The basis of relativism is absolute
   • Many hold to relativism because they observe that people do have many different beliefs about what is true. There are many different religions and worldviews, therefore, according to them, it must be the case there is no such thing as absolute truth^[13]. However, the claim, “people have different beliefs” is itself a truth that is true irrespective of human opinion and applies to all people, at all times and in all places. The relativist also believes that what logically follows from the diversity of beliefs is that truth is relative. But this supposed logical entailment is also a claim of absolute truth. The relativist is claiming it logically follows even if there are those who disagree with the logic. 
6. No justification for limiting relativism on truth to religion and morality
   • There are some relativists who don’t believe that all truth is relative. They believe other fields such as mathematics, science, and history provide absolute truth, but not so with religion and morality^[14]. For example, they might believe George Washington was the first president of the United States, the Law of Gravity is true, and 1+1=2 are absolute truths. However, what basis does that have for not believing religion and morality are also matters of absolute truth? It may be the case that there are more disagreements about morals and religions, but it doesn’t follow that therefore the truth in those areas is relative. Religions make claims about how the world really is and historical claims about what happened in space-time history. Either the Triune God exists or He doesn’t. Either Jesus Christ really was the crucified and resurrected Son of God who walked the earth 2000 years ago or he didn’t. If this central claim of Christianity is true, then it is true for all people and all times no matter what they believe. 
7. Relativists live inconsistently with their professed belief
   • Relativists live as if truth were absolute and not relative. Their actions betray their profession. When they take multiple-choice exams in class, they assume that there is only one right answer. When they stop at a red light along with the other cars, they assume that it actually is red not just for them but also for the other cars. When they pay their bills, they assume that their balance is understood as the same amount between them and their billing company. 

---

^[1] [1] Steven Garofalo, Equipped: Basic Training in Apologetics for Evangelism, (Charlotte, NC: TriedStone Publishing Company, 2018), 27.

^[2]  J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 139.

^[3] J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 136.

^[4] [4] J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 136.

^[5] [5] J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 139.

^[6] J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 132. 

^[7] Steven Garofalo, Equipped: Basic Training in Apologetics for Evangelism, (Charlotte, NC: TriedStone Publishing Company, 2018), 27.

^[8] Norman L. Geisler, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2013), 268. 

^[9] J. Warner Wallace, Objective Truth Is One Thing, But Objective Moral Truth Is Another, Cold Case Christianity, Wednesday, February 4, 2015. https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/objective-truth-is-one-thing-but-objective-moral-truth-is-another/

^[10] Steven Garofalo, Equipped: Basic Training in Apologetics for Evangelism, (Charlotte, NC: TriedStone Publishing Company, 2018), 26. 

^[11] Norman L .Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004), 39. 

^[12]  James N. Anderson, Why Should I Believe Christianity?, (Geanies House, Fearn, Tain, Ross-shire, IV20 1TW, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications Ltd., 2016), 18.  

^[13] Paul Copan, Can Something Be True For You and Not For Me?,  Apologetics Resource Center, Wednesday, October 29, 2014. https://arcapologetics.org/objections/can-something-true/

^[14] Paul Copan, Can Something Be True For You and Not For Me?,  Apologetics Resource Center, Wednesday, (October 29, 2014) at https://arcapologetics.org/objections/can-something-true/

Pluralism

“He holds that reality consists of many individuals, – it is hard to say how many – which could never be regarded as members of one and the same being. The pluralist views the monistic arguments as formal and a priori. The is interested in the concrete facts of experience. The monist is a rationalist, the pluralist an empiricist. The pluralist, therefore, regards every fact, every thing, every person, as having its own inalienable being.”

(Brightman, Introduction to Philosophy, 218)

Monism / Singularism

“The belief that the world is one individual being, of which all persons and things, universals and values, are parts is called monism…

If one is a monist, or singularist, in this (quantitative) sense, one is expressing an opinion only about the number of individuals in the world, not about the kind of individual this may be. A singularist must hold that reality is one; he may regard it as one vast energy, one complicated material thing or machine, one person, or one unknown and unknowable mystery. As singularist, however, he is interested alone in maintaining the unity of being; he does not yet raise the question of its quality.”

(Brightman, Introduction to Philosophy, 216)

Naturalism and Consciousness

One of the most astounding phenomena is the origin of consciousness. We are aware of our thoughts, memories, feelings, and the external world. But how did consciousness arise in the first place? This question has perplexed secular philosophers and scientists for years as they struggle to come up with an explanation. This post will begin by explaining preliminary terms and concepts in the mind/body problem of philosophy and then proceed to critique the naturalistic account of consciousness given their physicalist view of the nature of mind and body.

Three Key Concepts

Substances

• A substance is a particular, individual thing. Examples of substances include an acorn, a dog, a person, or a rock. Substances are not able to be in more than one place at the same time since they are particular existing things. This computer I’m typing on is a substance – it is on my table and it cannot be elsewhere at the same time. Substances have a few characteristics[1]. The first is that it is a continuant – it is able to gain new properties and lose old ones but still remain the same thing in the process of change. A particular leaf is able to change from green to red, to yellow to brown yet still maintain the same identity before and after the change. The second characteristic of a substance is that it is a fundamental basic existent. This means they are not in or had by other things. A particular bird is not in or had by something more basic than the bird. However, the bird has properties in it such as feathery, red, and lightweight. The third characteristic of a substance is that it is a unity of parts, properties, and capacities. The bird consists of properties already listed. It consists of parts like two legs, wings, a beak, bones, and feathers. The bird also consists of the capacity to fly and chirp although it may not be currently doing it. The last characteristic is that the bird has causal powers. It is able to effect changes in the world. The bird is able to catch prey and interact with other birds.

Properties

• A property is a characteristic, attribute, or an existent reality. Examples of properties include hardness, brownness, painfulness, and triangularity. They have a number of important features[2]. The first feature is that properties are universal – they can be in more than one place at the same time. A rock, a building, or a book can have the property of hardness all at the same time. The second feature is that properties cannot change. When a leaf changes from green to red, the leaf changes by losing one property and gaining another. However, the property of greenness doesn’t change into redness – it simply came and went. The third feature is that properties can also be in or had by other things that are more basic than them. For example, redness is had by an apple. Redness does not exist all by itself. When discussing properties, it is important to ask, “What is it that has that property?”

Events

• Events are temporary states that occur in the world. Examples of events are flashes of lightning, dropping a ball, having a thought or a dog barking. J.P. Moreland defines an event as “the coming or going of a property in a substance at a particular time, or the continued possession of a property by a substance throughout a time.”[3]An event could be the growing taller of a teenager or an apple rotting. The central feature of an event is the property that is involved in the event. The two cases just mentioned would be the height and freshness of the apple.

Physicalism

Naturalism holds to a physicalist view of the nature of the mind and body. According to physicalism, a human being is nothing more than a physical entity. The only things that exist are physical substances, properties, and events. Philosopher, Peter Meyer, writes, “Physicalism is the philosophical claim that only what is physical is real, where physical means: To be found or inferred by measurement and reason as existing in the world observable by the outer senses (mainly sight, hearing and touch).”[4] In terms of human beings, the physical substance is the material body, especially as it pertains to the brain and central nervous system. The brain has physical properties such as weight, volume, size, electrical activity, and chemical composition. There are physical events that occur in the brain such as the firing of neurons and other electrical and chemical events. We are nothing more than physical brains, capable of physical events, encapsulated in a material body, characterized by physical properties.

What is Consciousness?

Consciousness is all that you experience both in the internal world of your mind and the external world. It is being aware of your own thoughts, feelings, and pain and experiencing your physical surroundings. Consciousness involves the first-person point of view where “I” can only be used to describe the various phenomena experienced. There are five states of consciousness that exist[5]. The first is a sensation – it is a state of awareness of something within or without. An example of a sensation within is awareness of pain or feeling. A sensation of something outside of you could be a color or a sound. Emotions are also types of sensations. Sensations cannot be true or false, but they can be accurate or inaccurate. Someone can have an inaccurate awareness of color due to color blindness. The second state of consciousness is thought. It is a mental content that can be expressed in a sentence. For example, if someone has a thought that he should walk his dog, the sentence would be “I should go walk my dog.” Thoughts are able to entail other thoughts. For example, “All dogs are mammals” entails “this dog is a mammal.” If the first is true, then so must be the second. Thoughts are things that can be true or false and rational or irrational. The third state of consciousness is belief. It is a person’s view of how things are and they can be held to differing degrees. They can be held between 51 and 100 percent certainty. Beliefs are not the same thing as thoughts because you can have thoughts that you don’t believe in and you can have beliefs that you aren’t thinking about. I can have the thought of aliens invading the Earth without believing it. I can have the belief that Washington, DC is the nation’s capital without actively thinking about it. The fourth state of consciousness is a desire, which is a felt inclination or impulse to do, have or experience certain things. The last state of consciousness is desire. It is a choice, act of the will, or determination to act for the sake of some end. I can desire to eat ice cream and avoid eating poison.

What is consciousness according to physicalism? There are two classes of physicalist theories: reductive physicalism and nonreductive physicalism. There are many different theories that fit under the two classes such as eliminative materialism, philosophical behaviorism, type-identity physicalism, token-identity physicalism, functionalism, and supervenient physicalism. The most common theory is type-identity physicalism, which is a form of reductive physicalism. For any mental state, (being in pain, awareness of red, the thought that 1+1=2) one person can be in the “same type of state on different occasions and many people can be in the same type of state at the same time.”[6] Reductive physicalism asserts that mental states are reducible to physical states. It holds to individual ontological reduction where one object is composed of or taken to be entirely composed of parts of a reducing entity.[7] For example, a basketball might be composed entirely of rubber. Type-identity physicalism asserts that mental properties/events are identical to physical properties/events. J.P. Moreland states that type-identity physicalism claims that “each type of mental state (e.g., a pain type state or a type of state in which one is thinking that 2+2=4) is identical to (the very same thing as) a certain brain type state, say a certain pattern of neurons firing…types of mental states are identical to types of physical stuff or “hardware” in the brain and central nervous system.”[8] Are the states of consciousness physical or not? Is the event of thinking, being in pain, or deciding to do something, physical in nature or immaterial in nature? This question is crucial to decide whether or not physicalism is tenable because it maintains that there are only physical substances, properties, and events in existence. If these five events described are not physical in nature, then physicalism is false.

Leibniz’s Law/ Indiscernibility of Identicals

To answer this question, we must first know Leibniz’s Law also known as “Indiscernibility of Identicals” and sometimes called the “Law of Identity”. The law states that if x is identical to y, then whatever is true of x is true of y, and vice versa. If there is one thing true or possibly true of x but not true or possibly true of y, then they are not the same thing, even if one of the two depends on the other to function.[9] Suppose that there are two people trying to figure out whether they had the same math professor. Person A knows the professor’s name as Professor Brown. Person B does not know the professor’s name but is able to describe him. If Person A and Person B are talking about the same professor, then the characteristics that both persons describe about the professor need to be the same. However, if there are any characteristics that do not match up, then they are not describing the same professor. For example, if Person A describes Professor Brown as being 6 feet 1 inch tall, African American, bearded and always wearing a watch, but Person B described him as being 5 feet 1 inch tall and Asian, then they are obviously not the same person. Founder and President of Reason for Truth, Steven Garofalo notes that the law of identity “states that a thing must be identical to itself or it would not, in fact, be itself.”[10] If a thing has an identity, then it must also have its own unique set of characteristics. He applies this to religions and points out that if the various religions “look different by their identity, their beliefs, and proclamations, then they do not share the same identity.”[11]

Leibniz’s Law Applied as a Critique to Physicalism

How does Leibniz’s Law apply to a critique of physicalism? If it is true, then whatever is true of the brain and its properties and states is true of the mind and its properties and states. However, if we can find one thing that is true of consciousness that isn’t true of the brain, then physicalism has been refuted and dualism is established. J.P. Moreland discusses mental states that are not physical states since they have characteristics that are not owned by physical states[12]:

• Mental states have a quality of “what it is like” to have a mental state such as being in pain or pleasure. It has a qualitative feel and experience. It does not make sense to say that there’s a “what it is like” to be an electron or to be negatively charged.
• Mental states have a directedness or intentionality towards an object. A thought can be about something or anger can be directed toward a person. A physical thing like a rock or a building is not about something.
• Mental states are internal, private, and immediate to the person having them. Only they have immediate access to their mental states. No one else is able to know what the mental states are unless the individual discloses them. However, multiple people are able to know about physical things since they are accessible to an investigation by many people.
• First-person subjects own mental states. Only individual persons have particular mental states that are not shared by others.
• Mental states lack features that characterize physical objects such as spatially extended, location, consisting of parts. Mental states cannot be described using physical language. Thoughts don’t consist of physical dimensions or physical location and they aren’t made of simpler building blocks. Some mental states such as beliefs have the property of being true or false that is not possessed by physical states. A biochemical reaction in the brain is not true or false.

Sources

J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003).

J.P. Moreland, The Soul, (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2010), 32.

Steven Garofalo, All Roads Don’t Lead to Heaven: Discovering God in the New Age, (Charlotte, NC: TriedStone Publishing Company, 2016).

Peter Meyer, Physicalism: A False View of the World, Reality Sandwich, Wednesday, January 4, 2012. https://realitysandwich.com/131913/physicalism_false_view_world/

[1] J.P. Moreland, The Soul, (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2010), 22.

[2] J.P. Moreland, The Soul, (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2010), 23.

[3] J.P. Moreland, The Soul, (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2010), 24.

[4] Peter Meyer, Physicalism: A False View of the World, Reality Sandwich, Wednesday, January 4, 2012. https://realitysandwich.com/131913/physicalism_false_view_world/

[5] J.P. Moreland, The Soul, (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2010), 77.

[6] J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 248.

[7] J.P. Moreland, The Soul, (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2010), 98.

[8] J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 251.

[9] J.P. Moreland, The Soul, (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2010), 32.

[10] Steven Garofalo, All Roads Don’t Lead to Heaven: Discovering God in the New Age, (Charlotte, NC: TriedStone Publishing Company, 2016), xxv.

[11] Steven Garofalo, All Roads Don’t Lead to Heaven: Discovering God in the New Age, (Charlotte, NC: TriedStone Publishing Company, 2016), xxv.

[12] J.P. Moreland, The Soul, (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2010), 79.

No Facts Known Without Reference to God

It will be observed that even to say that there are some facts that can be known without reference to God, is already the very opposite of the Christian position. It is not necessary to say that all facts can be known without reference to God in order to have a fiat denial of the Christian position. The contention of Christianity is exactly that there is not one fact that can be known without God. Hence if anyone avers that there is even one fact that can be known without God, he reasons like a non-Christian. It follows then that such a person in effect rejects the whole of the Christian position, the final conclusions as well as the starting point. And that means that such a person has at the outset taken for granted that there is no God in whom alone “facts” can be known. In other words, such a person has taken for granted that God is at least not such a “fact” that he is related to every other “fact” so that no other fact can be understood without reference to the “fact” of God.

Which method fits with a certain system of thought depends upon the idea of knowledge a system has. For the Christian system, knowledge consists in understanding the relation of any fact to God as revealed in Scripture. I know a fact truly to the extent that I understand the exact relation such a fact sustains to the plan of God. It is the plan of God that gives any fact meaning in terms of the plan of God. The whole meaning of any fact is exhausted by its position in and relation to the plan of God. This implies that every fact is related to every other fact. God’s plan is a unit. And it is this unity of the plan of God, founded as it is in the very being of God, that gives the unity that we look for between all the finite facts. If one should maintain that one fact can be fully understood without reference to all other facts, he is as much antitheistic as when he should maintain that one fact can be understood without reference to God.

( Van Til, Survey of Christian Epistemology)