7 Truths from a Christian Worldview PART 2
by Dan Tsouloufis
I will now present my case for the existence of God, by outlining seven fundamental truth claims which are foundational to maintaining a coherent and logically consistent worldview.
Seven Fundamental Truths of Theistic Philosophy from a Judeo-Christian Worldview (Part 2 of 3)
Number one: Matter and energy did not come from nothing; something must have caused them to be. Every event that comes to be must have a cause, since there cannot be an infinite regression of causes. The ultimate first cause of the physical universe must have come from outside of and transcend the physical universe. Thus, the first cause of the universe must have originated from an uncaused, self-existent, immaterial or spiritual being, which we believe is God.
Number two: Knowledge is only possible when there is a coherent foundation to reality. This acknowledgement of a coherent, rational order of the universe is a necessary foundation for acquiring knowledge, discerning truth, and doing science. Whether one accepts or denies this basic premise, it would be impossible to practice science (or mathematics or physics) in a random, disorderly universe. The only rational explanation is that there must be a self-existent and intelligent Designer of the universe. Thus, we accept the proposition that God is the ultimate foundation of reality, order, and rationality.
Number three: Truth is that which corresponds to objective reality. For instance: 2 + 2 = 4. This is always absolute, and does not depend on our sense perception or our emotions for its veracity. It is not merely a personal judgment or an opinion. Therefore, it is proof of absolute truth. Moreover, it is also proof of an inherent order in nature guided by an intelligent principle or being, which we believe is God. Parenthetically, one can never claim that there are no absolutes, because that is a logical contradiction. My reply would be simple: “Are you absolutely sure there are no absolutes?” And of course you would not be able to say “yes” without contradicting yourself, thus rendering your claim false to begin with.
Number four: Truth can never be relative. That would be another logical contradiction. Note, I’m referring to truth here in its highest sense, of that which corresponds to reality. For example, you might contend that Statement A is a true statement even if I believe it to be categorically false. In this case, either one of us is right or both of us are wrong. We cannot both be right at the same time in the same instance. However, if you believe that truth is relative, then you would say that Statement A is true for you, and my Statement is true for me. My reply again would be simple: “I believe Statement A is completely false, is my Statement true?” You would be forced to say “yes,” thus rendering the relativity of truth an illusion. Moreover, you have lost the ability to make any moral judgments, since all moral judgments are deemed equal.
Number five: Ethics must be objective, not subjective, for the well-being of society. Moral judgments are only meaningful, and rational, if they transcend the subjective self. Unless there is a basis upon which they are firmly rooted and grounded, any moral judgments and claims are, in reality, unjustifiable and merely arbitrary. If moral judgments are based solely on one’s own standard (the subjective self) then one cannot lay just claim against another regarding the propriety of their standard, which is their own. Ethics and morals are thus relegated to one’s mere personal preferences and feelings, however fickle and unreasonable those may be. This autonomous view of ethics is both irrational and potentially dangerous, because some actions and behaviors are inherently right and some are inherently wrong. The well-being of a civilized society depends on that basic premise. But if we deny the objective moral reference point from which the justification of that premise derives (the transcendent God) then ethics and morals are ultimately meaningless and arbitrary.
Number six: Modern science, with all its power and prestige, cannot address the most fundamental questions that we ask, such as: “Why are we here?” and “What is the purpose of our existence?” These are questions that derive from the human heart, and scientific analysis of the universe cannot give us the answer. Science is not equipped to answer such questions. As the eminent philosopher John Lennox observed, “It would be a serious logical error in methodology to look only within the ingredients of the universe (its material, structures and processes) to find out what its purpose is and why we are here. The ultimate answer, if there is one, will have to come from outside the universe.”
Number seven: You cannot get things like thought, consciousness, and self-awareness from purely material stuff like atoms and particles. Moreover, one’s own awareness of the material universe is not itself part of the universe, since, as C.S. Lewis argued, the knowledge of a thing cannot be one of the thing’s parts. Thus, one’s knowledge and awareness must be transcendent to the material thing, an addition from without. Philosophically, this argues for a metaphysical, immaterial reality that transcends the material world. In ordinary language, we call this the “soul” or “spirit” of a man. Thus, we accept the proposition that God is the ultimate foundation of the human soul.