Wednesday, February 22, 2012

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!


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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!


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.


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.


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.


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.

Friday, February 17, 2012

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.

Thursday, February 16, 2012

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.

Monday, February 13, 2012

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 . 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.

Friday, February 10, 2012

Begging the Question

The charge of question-begging comes up in relation to Christian arguments for God’s existence and the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Most of the time, this charge is unfounded. This post will attempt to explain what question-begging is in relation to arguments.

A typical example concerns the cosmological argument. The charge of question-begging arises when the objector states that the reason “whatever begins to exist had a cause” is asserted because one believes “God exists and is the first cause of the universe.” It is important to note this objection is not too common, but it exists nonetheless.

As it has been said, “arguments don’t beg the question; people do.” What makes an argument question-begging is if the only (or the major) reason for asserting a premise is that one believes the conclusion. When we apply that to the cosmological argument, it’s painfully apparent one may affirm the causal premise without believing there is a first cause.

Some people make the mistake of objecting further, “But if you believe the first and second premises, that means the conclusion is true. So you should not do that unless you already believe the conclusion is true!” First, this is only a complaint against a valid deductive argument. All deductive arguments contain the conclusion in the major premise; otherwise you could not obtain a conclusion in a valid manner! Second, the major and minor premises of a valid deductive argument entail the conclusion, so that if one rejects one or more of the premises he would otherwise accept simply because he does not already believe the conclusion--that would be question-begging against the argument. Next, the major reason one would accept the premises of the cosmological arguments are typically completely different than the conclusion!

Finally, it should be noted that question-begging works both ways. Just as one can beg the question in favor of an argument, so can one beg the question against an argument. If one’s only (or the major) reason for rejecting a premise (or withholding belief in a premise) is a desire to avoid the conclusion, then she is guilty of begging the question. Many times the charge of question-begging is accurate, but many times it is a failure to understand what constitutes begging the question!
--------------------------------------------------
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.

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Evolution and Objective Morality

This is a quick post concerning evolution and objective morality. From time to time, it is alleged that evolution is responsible for the formation of our shared belief in objective moral values, and hence objective moral values are false. They are merely constructs of adaptation for survival. So, does evolution falsify objective morality? I don’t think so.

First, as is regularly pointed out, this is just an example of the genetic fallacy. That is to say it is fallacious to infer because of how a belief originated it is therefore false. A classic example would be the proponent of socialism scolding the proponent of democracy thus: “You only think democracy is the best form of government because you were raised in one!” One would, and hardly should, think democracy is therefore false. So it is with evolution. Even if evolution is responsible for our shared belief in objective morality, we have no grounds to conclude it is false.

Second, some may suggest while evolution does not entail objective morality’s falsehood, it makes it less likely to be true. The argument would be that evolution’s accounting for belief in objective moral values is consistent with those values being false. But this is hardly demonstrative, or even suggestive, of that belief being false. After all, the same reasoning gets us just any belief to be in the same situation. We don’t think, for example, laws of logic are probably false because evolution accounts for our belief in them.

One final interesting side note: there is at least one way of escape here. The objector may bite the bullet and admit that it is the case that every belief, on naturalistic evolution, is consistent with that belief being false and hence we have a defeater for every belief. In that case, either evolution did not happen, and the best naturalistic account of the current state of things evaporates, or evolution was guided by a transcendent source, guaranteeing at least some true beliefs. In either case, we have a defeater for naturalistic evolution. But if we have a defeater for naturalistic evolution, it follows the objection against objective moral values loses all force.
---------------------
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.

Saturday, February 4, 2012

Do Atheists Know God Exists?

The Bible claims all men (atheists and skeptics included) have a knowledge of God. Romans 1:20-21 states, “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.”

Many atheists find such a claim both wrong and offensive. This is because it generally seems, both to skeptics and Christians alike, that there are only two choices for response when an atheist claims he doesn’t really know God exists. First, we can accuse him of being dishonest. Second, we can accuse him of being deluded. Neither seems particularly appealing. Is there a way to harmonize the biblical record without being firmly committed to one of these options? I think there is.

I believe the answer lies both in intuitive knowledge and the idea of awareness. Intuition is knowledge gained independently of a process. It is simply “in born,” as it were. This passage seems to teach we have some kind of sensus divinitas within; we know God exists.[1] This knowledge does not require conscious awareness of that fact. Here are some clear, everyday examples of knowledge not requiring conscious awareness: ever described something as being “on the tip of your tongue”? Or what about saying, “Oh! I know his name, I just can’t remember it!” You do in fact know his name but you are not currently aware due to forgetfulness.

These examples of forgetfulness are not the only ones of knowledge without awareness. I know my breathing is regular and my individual breaths to be quite frequent and high in number throughout a day. However, when I am sleeping, I am completely unaware of these and other bodily functions that I do in fact know about. Even when I am awake, there are facts of which I have knowledge but of which I am not always aware, like: the 16th amendment of the U.S. Constitution concerns income tax, my mother’s favorite thing is strawberries, South Africa has another country within its borders, etc. It’s quite apparent one can know something and yet not be aware of it.

So how does this apply to the atheist? Well, I do not think he is necessarily being dishonest or deluded, at least not in the senses these terms immediately imply. We see in life as well as the Bible that character is formed by choices and experiences (cf. Exodus ). These do not causally determine our choices, but they are influencers of these choices. A result of these choices (not to worship God for who he is) is a suppression of knowledge (cf. Romans )—in other words, they have knowledge of which they are not aware. “But Randy,” one may protest, “doesn’t this mean they are deluding themselves, or just lying to themselves?” Not quite. Instead, I think this rather has to do both with the will of the individual and the consequences of choosing to suppress the knowledge. Now an atheist may find this just as offensive, but I think it’s a better alternative to “lying” or “delusional.”


                [1] Interestingly, this may have application to my discussion on what happens to those people who have never heard of Jesus Christ. See the article by clicking on this sentence.
------------------------------------------------------------
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.