Axiomatic Argument with Explanation
“Actions speak louder than words.” The best indicator of a person’s beliefs are his or her actions, despite any claims to the contrary. For instance, if someone refuses to let his children associate with anyone of another ethnic group, and always discriminates against such people and treats them as inferior, but yet claims that he is not racist, what would we conclude about such a person? We would believe that he is racist, and that he is a liar as well.
The following statements are universally held axioms; all humans must operate under these assumptions in order to simply function and interact with other human beings in the real world. Note that none of these statements can actually be proven absolutely true, yet our daily actions demonstrate that we believe them to be true.
Some of the statements can be shown to have theistic implications. While all of the axioms are compatible with a belief in God, some of the axioms are only compatible with monotheism; i.e., they are irreconcilable with alternatives to belief in God.
Some of the statements are self-evident principles. That is, they cannot be denied without assuming that they are true in the process of the denial. For instance, the statement, “truth exists” is self-evident, because any attempt to deny it would have to include statements that the person believes to be true.
Some of the statements have both theistic implications and are self-evident.
We, and the world around us, really exist.
This is self-evident because in order to argue against it you would have to assume that someone has made a statement with which you disagree. If you are arguing against these words, you are presupposing the existence of both you and some world around you.
This real world around us is coherent.
This is self-evident because in order to argue against it you must believe that the world makes sense enough for one to develop an argument, Nobody tries to prove or disprove anything by using incoherent arguments such as, “Fing biddle hop ardo pickle wiz ugee.” Thus, any argument that one uses in an attempt to prove, disprove, advocate or deny anything must assume that its own reasoning is coherent. It is self-refuting to use arguments that assume a world that makes sense in order to prove that the world is incoherent, that it does not make sense.
Objective truth exists.
This is self-evident because in order to deny it you would have to say things that you believe are true.
Combining assumption #2, that reality makes sense, with #3, that true statements can be made (that is, statements which accurately describe reality), we arrive at the conclusion that truth makes sense. That is why when someone says, “Nonsense,” they mean, “That’s not true.”
Every effect has an adequate cause.
At present, I see no way to show that this is self-evident. Neither is it provable, but we all assume it to be true. If you hear a deafening crash in the next room, and you ask what it was, you would disbelieve the person who answers, “Nothing; the sound just happened.” Every effect requires a cause. Neither would you accept the explanation, “Oh, a tiny feather landed gently on a pillow.” Every effect requires an adequate cause. This assumption cannot be be proven; it is simply how we expect a coherent universe to function.
Reason is a valid means of arriving at reliable conclusions.
This is self-evident because every argument against it would necessarily take a logical form (e.g. “Because x, therefore y.”) To use logic in order to prove that logic isn’t valid is self-refuting.
Reason (logic) is a system of thought which seeks to determine what is most probably true. For this reason, probability arguments are a proper tool in logical thinking. That which is overwhelmingly probable is most probably true.
This assumption has theistic implications. The monotheist holds, as a part of this beliefs, that a reasonable God created an intelligible universe, and created our minds to understand such a universe. Thus, the theist assumes that there is a fit, even a planned fit, of human minds to the universe. On the other hand, the naturalist believes that human minds are unplanned things which came about without the physical universe’s knowledge — after all, the universe itself, in this view, is merely another unplanned event. So, the naturalist has no justification for assuming that human minds were designed to understand the universe. Furthermore, the pantheist believing that all life (or even all forms of existence) are equally expressions of a non-personal Divine Force, has no reason to assume that human minds can understand reality by use of reason, any more than the mind of a dog, or of a potato, could. Thus, if the naturalists or pantheists assume that human minds can understand reality by use of reason, they make such an assumption not because of their respective beliefs, but rather despite their beliefs. And all functioning humans do use this assumption in order to function. In fact, as previously noted, they would be assuming reason to be valid even by the very act of arguing against its validity.
Consciousness is real.
This is self-evident because to argue against it, you would have to assume that you are disagreeing with a conscious mind. All such arguments are self-refuting. It’s like taking someone to the zoo to show them a live camel, in order to prove that no camels exist. It doesn’t matter how sophisticated the argument is; if the conclusion disagrees with its own starting assumption(s), something is wrong with the argument.
This assumption, as well, suggests theistic implications, since neither chemical reactions (per naturalism) nor non-conscious, impersonal forces (per pantheism) are plausible sources for producing conscious minds.
Humans are more than mere “matter in motion,” and thus human life has intrinsic worth.
This assumption has theistic implications because there is no way to go from the premise, “Humans oozed out of pond scum by unplanned chemical reactions,” and arrive by pure, rigid logic at the conclusion, “Therefore, human life has intrinsic, objective value.” Thus naturalism affords no basis for this assumption. As for pantheism, if all beings are manifestations of the Divine, then human life is worth neither more nor less than cockroaches, mosquitos, amoebae, carrots or yogurt culture.
The Christian view states that humans were created in God’s image, and that God came to earth in human form to give his life to save us. In this view, therefore, human life has intrinsic, objective worth. Indeed, one human life is of more value than all the wealth in the world, according to Mark 8:36. Again, we cannot prove the value of human life. However, it is an assumption we all use in order to function, and it is necessary for any moral system.
Objective meaning exists.
This is self-evident because no meaningful argument against it is possible.
It also has theistic implications. The Christian view is that humans were created by God, in the image of God, for a loving relationship with God. This view can, in principle, provide ultimate meaning to life.
The naturalist view of humans is that we are incidental by-products of chemical reactions who have emerged only fairly recently on a tiny rock that is lost somewhere in a mindless universe, and who are ultimately doomed to perish forever by extinction within a relatively short time without anyone knowing or caring. I know of no way to extract meaning from this description.
The pantheist view is that all forms of life (or existence) are manifestations of the impersonal Divine Force who will ultimately be dissolved back into the Divine, thus no longer existing as individual entities. When humans, according to this view, have been subsumed into the Divine with everything else, we will no longer be personal, thinking beings. The goal, or at least the ultimate destiny, therefore, is to lose your mind, regardless of what we do. I know of no way to extract meaning from this view, either.
Objective values and moral obligations are real and binding (and we praise or criticize other accordingly).
This is self-evident because every argument against it assumes obligations. In fact, every argument for or against anything assumes that we are obligated to be rational, to be courteous enough to listen, to have intellectual integrity, to follow the evidence where it leads, to speak the truth, and so forth. To assume obligations in order to argue against obligations is self-refuting.
Moral obligations and values strongly indicate theism, since neither naturalism nor pantheism can provide a basis for the concepts that any objective moral system requires. These are:
A proper authority to impose obligations
Free will
The value of human life
If human life were worthless, it wouldn’t matter what you do to it.
Purpose to life
A ship can only go the “wrong” way if it is supposed to go to some particular destination, and a watch is only “good” if it fulfills the purpose for which watches are intended. Likewise, a person is only “right” or “wrong” inasmuch as he fulfills or fails to fulfill his purpose.
Objective meaning
Morality can only exist as a meaningful concept; if all such concepts are meaningless, then morality is also meaningless.
Human free will is real, and we hold others responsible for their deeds, words, beliefs, attitudes, etc.
This is self-evident because any attempt to refute it would appeal to a person to freely change his mind. Nobody who denies free will advocates using shock treatment, drug therapy, beatings, prison terms, or brainwashing techniques to get other people to relinquish their beliefs in free will. And the reason is that such people distinguish between persuasion and coercion. This distinction is only possible if you believe in free will.
Free will is incompatible with naturalism because if humans are nothing but matter, then all of our thoughts, opinions, and decisions are merely the result of chemical reactions. Since chemical reactions don’t make free choices, naturalism can provide no basis for the concept of free will.
In pantheism, there is only one Divine Reality, and we are believed to be all a part of it. but I can not be free to rebel against God if I am God. To have free will, I must be an individual distinct from God.
The monotheistic view is that humans are creations of God; and since humans are created, and God is eternal, thus uncreated, humans are fundamentally distinct from God. He created us with free will, so we are free to love God or reject him. There are many nuances to this view, but theism can in principle justify free will.
Life has an objective purpose.
This is self-evident because any denial of it presupposes some purpose for attempting to deny it. What point could there be in arguing that life has no point?
This assumption implies theism because the purpose of anything refers to the intent of the one responsible for it. If we were created by God, it is possible — indeed, probable — that we were created for some purpose; and this is what theism holds to be the case. If we are an incidental byproduct of a mindless universe, our life can have no objective purpose.
Love is real, important, good, and (at least to some degree) obligatory.
Love is what everyone ultimately seeks. It is the most common theme of songs and stories. In Christianity, we have the highest form of God’s love towards his created beings, coming to earth to give his life for us (1 John 4).
In naturalism, love loses objective existence. All such emotions would be no more than chemico-physical responses, like a burp or hiccup. Likewise, love finds no place in pantheism. There is no love without sacrifice of self for another, and commitment to another. Pantheism has no other. If only one soul exists throughout all eternity, then there is no one to love, unless the Divine is simply one enormously selfish soul, eternally in love with itself. Of course, there is no love without mind, either, and the impersonal Divine Force of pantheism is supposed to be without mind.
Beauty is real.
For the monotheist, all true beauty is from God: creation, music, colors, children, kindness, etc. In naturalism, there is no “true beauty.” There is only what each person likes as a consequence of that person’s physical makeup, which is all thrown together without plan.
Something exists which will make us truly happy.
The Christian believes all desires are desires for God; some are simply misdirected or corrupted. But all humans are understood, in this view, to be designed in such a way that our deepest needs can only be met by God’s love.
Without a basis for meaning or purpose for life or love, I don’t know how either naturalism or pantheism can provide an answer for our longing for ultimate, true happiness.
Significant amounts of meaningful information are ultimately traceable to some thinking, personal being; i.e. λογος indicates mind.
This is self-evident because to argue against it presupposes a mind behind these words. With whom are you arguing?
Information — that is, a meaningful message encoded by means of symbols — always indicates mind. When we receive a bill in the mail, we don’t say, “Oh, how interesting it is that the ink molecules came together on an unplanned, dried piece of wood paste in such a way as to convey a message over millions of years.” No, we simply realize that Verizon wants their money. Using the exact same assumptions, the information encoded in DNA in the world indicates a Designer’s mind. To deny this is to employ an arbitrary double-standard.
There is no reason to question the assumptions that every sane human must operate under in order to function, and there is no reason to accept any statement as true which runs counter to these axioms. To deny the very axioms that we must use in order to function in the real world is to argue against sanity itself.
However, once we accept that these axioms are undeniable and true, we must consent that the implications to which they lead are also true. And since most of these universal assumptions have monotheistic implications, it follows that human normative function and interaction presupposes the reality of God.
by a pilgrim
