Top 10 List!

Possible Worlds has recently passed the 60,000 view-mark. In honor of this, I’ll just be linking to the top 10 posts of all-time, from least to most popular, along with a summary and link of each one. Enjoy!

10. Dealing with Opposition to Apologetics

This article offers objections to the practice of apologetics and biblical, philosophical, and practical responses to these objections. Have you ever heard such objections as, “you can’t argue anyone into the kingdom?” If so, this might be the article for you.

9. The “Is-Ought” Problem and God’s Morality

The objection is that Christians derive an “ought” from an “is” when they describe God’s morality. Through examination of divine command theory, this article suggests such an objection misunderstands what it means for there to be an objective moral obligation or duty. A strict delineation between objective moral values and duties is highlighted.

8. Answering Atheist Objections

A more general post, this deals with two popular-level objections one is likely to encounter on the Internet. Special attention is given to the idea of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

7. The Logical Problem of Evil

The logical problem of evil asserts that it is logically impossible that God exists and that evil exists. Such a bold claim must be defended, and its plausibility is attacked by demonstrating there does not seem to be any logical inconsistency in positing these two statements.

6. Debate Tactics

This article teaches believers how to recognize “dirty tricks” of debate when they come upon it. It provides helpful examples and tips for working around these tricks.

5. Leibniz’s Cosmological Argument

Focusing on the argument from contingency, this post looks at the plausibility of each of the premises, and finds that one is at least justified in thinking they are all true. But in that case, it follows that one is justified in thinking God exists!

4. The Modal Ontological Argument

Perhaps the most difficult argument in natural theology to understand, the modal ontological argument is, at the very least, wildly entertaining to think about. Essentially, it incontrovertibly establishes the fact that God’s existence is either necessary or impossible. In other words, if it’s even possible that God exists, then he does! This is the newest post on this list.

3. Penn is “Telling” you There is no God

In this brief article, we take a look at Penn Jillette of the magician duo Penn and Teller. He makes some interesting claims about his atheism and reasons for it. This proved quite popular; much more so than I would have thought.

2. Review of Craig vs. Krauss Debate

By far, the two William Lane Craig debates I covered are the most popular. In fact, this particular debate, searched for on Google as “review of Craig Krauss debate” (without quotations) places this article as #1 in search rankings! I covered each aspect of the debate, interacting with ideas on both sides and objections to the ideas, all the way through to the Q&A portion.

1. Review of Craig vs. Harris Debate

This article is ahead of any other article at Possible Worlds by nearly 2,000 views. It too is #1 on Google underneath its search. This generated some interesting discussion on whether or not objective morality can be grounded on atheism or naturalism. Sam Harris is apparently a much more popular speaker!

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

All posts, and the blog Possible Worlds, are the sole intellectual property of Randy Everist. One may reprint part or all of this post so long as: a) full attribution is given (Randy Everist, Possible Worlds), b) all use is non-commercial, and c) one is in compliance with the Creative Commons license at the bottom on the main page of this blog.

Compatibilist Middle Knowledge

Compatibilism is the view that free will is not inconsistent with causal determinism. This post will not attempt to answer if compatibilism is correct. Rather, it will examine whether compatibilism is consistent with middle knowledge. Recently, I have noticed a growing trend among professors and theologians to embrace both of these truths. Are they compatible? For a discussion of what middle knowledge is, click on any word in this sentence.

One should recall that an essential feature of compatibilism is causal determinism. Yet middle knowledge, by definition, is the logical moment between natural and free knowledge. Everything in the content of God’s free knowledge is present there because of God’s will. Everything present in the content of God’s natural knowledge is there because it is necessary.[1] Middle knowledge describes those truths that, like truths in free knowledge, are contingent; middle knowledge describes those truths that, like natural knowledge, are not up to the choosing of God. This is because those counterfactuals are construed to be logically prior to God’s creative decision to act. These counterfactuals, known to God, would allow God to choose any number of the quadrillions upon quadrillions of possible worlds.

But precisely because of this, compatibilism and middle knowledge do not work together. Since the truths of middle knowledge come logically before God's determining of the actual world, human free choices belonging to a middle knowledge just aren’t determined causally. Now perhaps the compatibilist would wish to argue that these truths are true on God’s free knowledge; but then it would not be middle knowledge after all.

Compatibilism seems to result in the truths of middle knowledge belonging either to necessary or free knowledge. If God causes them, then they belong to free, and if they are true necessarily (and not due to divine will), then they belong to natural knowledge. In short, there is no such thing as compatibilist middle knowledge.

---

                [1] Of course, a case may be made that the necessary truths in reality are based in God’s nature.

All posts, and the blog Possible Worlds, are the sole intellectual property of Randy Everist. One may reprint part or all of this post so long as: a) full attribution is given (Randy Everist, Possible Worlds), b) all use is non-commercial, and c) one is in compliance with the Creative Commons license at the bottom on the main page of this blog.

Vanderbilt and Discrimination against Christians

The recent Vanderbilt furor has inspired me to spread the word. The Christian student groups on campus are being forced to accept non-Christian members, and cannot refrain from placing non-Christians in places of leadership. Essentially, this has given radical atheists and those hostile to Christianity free reign to try to disrupt the groups. I can't say it any better than Dr. Steve Lemke at SBC Today. I will provide all three links to the relevant, excellent articles here, here, and here. Lemke exposes the misinformation, entailments, and current protests and responses. It comes highly recommended.

UPDATE: The newest article from Lemke is up, as a summary of the situation so far and what can be done.

Testing the Ontological Argument

I was speaking with a friend last night who was not very familiar with the modal ontological argument, and I decided to try something. I wanted to see how the argument would go over if I explained, in detail, each premise, to someone who was not already familiar with it. While there was undoubtedly some bumps in the road, I nevertheless felt that my particular view of it was vindicated: unless someone can show incoherency in the concept of a maximally-great being (MGB), then one is justified in affirming he exists. The following is an outline of our conversation, with occasional comments.

1. Possibly, MGB exists.

1a. An MGB is one who possesses all great-making properties.

1b. A great-making property is one that is better to have than to lack, for any being.

1c. The great-making property must be taken in a maximal way (i.e., knowledge of all propositions, or omniscience).

1d. One can affirm this possibility if he has at least one great-making property taken in a maximal way that it seems at least possibly exemplified, or if there is no incoherence in such a concept.

One who isn't already familiar with the argument, as my friend was not last night, will probably accept all of the above.

2. If possibly, MGB exists, then MGB exists in at least one possible world.
2a. A possible world is a maximal description of the way reality could be, encompassing all propositions or their negations in a consistent way.
2b. Anything that is possible, then, exists in a possible world.

Again, this should be uncontroversial for the hearer.

3. If MGB exists in a possible world, then MGB exists in all possible worlds.
3a. If any P is a great-making property, then MGB possesses it (from 1a).
3b. Necessary existence is a great-making property.
3c. Therefore, MGB possesses it.
3d. Necessary existence entails existence across all possible worlds.

4. If MGB exists in all possible worlds, then MGB exists in the actual world.
4a. The actual world is a possible world, else it would be impossible.

5. Therefore, the MGB exists in the actual world.
5a. Whatever is actual exists in reality.

6. Therefore, the MGB exists.

All posts, and the blog Possible Worlds, are the sole intellectual property of Randy Everist. One may reprint part or all of this post so long as: a) full attribution is given (Randy Everist, Possible Worlds), b) all use is non-commercial, and c) one is in compliance with the Creative Commons license at the bottom on the main page of this blog.

Taking Passages Seriously

I have come to the point where I desire, above all else, to take biblical passages seriously. This does not necessarily mean we take all passages to be literal in every word they use, but that they do convey a truth that we are expected to obey (or at least understand if there is no commandment). Many, if not most, Christians would say they take the Bible seriously, but sometimes if we do not understand a particular phrase or passage of the Bible, we tend to explain it away as something lesser than what its context indicates.

For example, take 1 John 3:13-15: “Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you. We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.” (italics mine)

I have heard these verses explained as follows: “This means if you don’t have a general love and concern for the welfare of your Christian brothers and sisters, then you have reason to question your salvation.” With that, it is assumed we have proclaimed God’s Word on the matter. In reality, no such ambiguity takes place in the Scripture here. But notice that is not what is said. Most of the entire book of 1 John is concerned with how we can tell the truth of the matter, not how we can question some matters or others. John plainly states those who have no love for the brethren do not have eternal life.

Now there are two extremes to be avoided here. The first extreme is for the ever-nervous believer. He or she thinks, “I was rude a few times to a few believers recently. Does this mean I am unsaved?” The answer is obviously not. In this chapter, John is speaking of a general attitude; the usual actions of a person (cf. 1 John 3:10. Do believers really always do righteous and never sin? Or is it that this sin is not counted against them because they are in Christ, as evidenced by their righteous works that they do in fact perform?) are in view.

The second extreme is the “comforted believer.” He or she thinks because they have acted nicely toward a believer before, then this is evidence of his love for the brethren, and thus he has nothing to worry about. This is not so either; even lost people can perform some good actions. The point is that we ought not comfort people who are not really believers at all. It would be doing them an eternal disservice to do so. If they don’t have love for the Christian brothers and sisters, they don’t just have a reason to question their salvation. Rather, they are not saved at all.

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

All posts, and the blog Possible Worlds, are the sole intellectual property of Randy Everist. One may reprint part or all of this post so long as: a) full attribution is given (Randy Everist, Possible Worlds), b) all use is non-commercial, and c) one is in compliance with the Creative Commons license at the bottom on the main page of this blog.