I. From Truth:
P3. Hence, if truth thus exists, then truth is absolute.[6]
P4. Likewise, if truth
is the object and necessary condition of knowledge, and truth is absolute, then
knowledge depends on the absolute.
P5. Truth indeed is the
object and necessary condition of knowledge; and it is absolute.
C1. Thus, knowledge
depends on the absolute.
C2. Therefore, if knowledge is possible, then knowledge depends on the
absolute.
II. From Belief:
P1. Furthermore, if
knowledge is possible, then it depends on a knowing subject who holds some
belief.[7]
P2. In addition, if
belief depends on a knowing subject, then such a one’s act of believing
presupposes the involvement of the collective complex of intellect, emotion,
and volition, which together constitute the personal.
P3. Moreover, knowledge
is communicable.
C1. Hence, if knowledge is possible, then knowledge is communicable and
thus depends on the personal.
III. From
Justification:
P1. What's more, if the
possibility of knowledge depends on a personal knower, then it likewise depends
on the knower’s mental activity—it depends on mind.[8]
P2. If the human mind,
either individually or collectively, is the sufficient grounds for the integration
of knowledge, then the human mind would also have to be absolute (i.e.,
invariable and eternal, see I:P2, 6); however, it is not the case that the
human mind is thus.
P3. It is not the case,
therefore, that the human mind, either individually or collectively, is the
sufficient grounds for the integration and communication of knowledge.[9]
P4. Hence, if knowledge
is possible, then by transcendental necessity there exists an absolute and
personal being whose mind alone is the sufficient grounds for the integration
of knowledge and can communicate knowledge.[10]
P5. Only the mind of the
triune God of Christian theism, which alone is both absolute and personal,
provides the transcendentally necessary and sufficient grounds for the
integration and communication of knowledge.
P6. Therefore, if
knowledge is possible, then by transcendental necessity the triune God of
Christian theism exists as the transcendental integration point of all knowledge
and communicates knowledge to humans.
P7. It is the case that
knowledge is possible for humans.
C1. Therefore, the
triune God of Christian theism must exist and communicate knowledge necessarily. Hence, all knowledge and knowing is dependent
of the triune God of Christian theism.
C2. Thus, the denial of
God’s necessary existence is to annihilate the possibility of knowing anything
at all; not least, that God’s existence can be known to be even the slightest
degree doubtful.
[1]
Herein knowledge is to be understood in the traditional constitution of having
three necessary conditions or properties, which are (1) belief that is (2) true,
and the truth thereof having (3) justification,
reason, or warrant. The three of these
together—a true, justified belief—are thus the sufficient condition of
knowledge. Furthermore, the term truth
is to be taken in the sense of the correspondence
theory of knowledge. Truth is a real relation or correspondence between a signifier and
that which it signifies, between a proposition and some fact, state of affairs,
or event to which it refers.
[2]
The statement “truth does not exist” is an “I” categorical statement of the
traditional square of opposition, making it to be an absolute negative
statement. Denying the existence of
truth’s absolutivity is merely the contrary of its absolute affirmation; both
statements, whereby, being absolute and declared to be true. That is to say,
the proposition “truth exists” cannot be denied, for if one were right in
asserting that “it is not the case that truth exists,” then one would be wrong,
as that statement itself would be true, and absolutely so. Hence, to deny the existence of truth is
self-defeating—self-contradictory; it is false by declaration.
[3]
Like the logical laws that govern them, propositions, which are the vehicles of
truth, are immaterial entities. One
cannot grab, freeze, or stub his or her toe on truth. In addition, truth is not dependant on
particular statements or sentences. The
sentences “Kevin is Fanny’s husband” and “Fanny is married to Kevin” both
express the same truth, the same proposition.
[4] If
a proposition is ever true, it has always been and always will be true. For instance, certain statements that are
“tenseless,” that is are closed by a particular temporal reference like “at
6:00 pm...” rather than a tensed verb like “now” or “was,” denote a fact or
state of affairs that is always true. So,
“At 8:00 am on January 26, 2009 it is
(tenseless) snowing in Big Island,
VA.” is a closed statement having
a meaning that is true always; its truth is unchanging—invariable.
[5]
The eternality of truth is related closely to the invariability of truth in fn.
4 and the existence of truth in fn. 2.
Since truth never changes, it’s invariable (fn. 4) and one cannot deny
the existence of truth without affirming it (fn. 2), so too, a statement
denying the eternality of truth would presuppose truth’s existence and if the
statement was true it would always be so, thus eternally so. Hence, denying truth’s eternality is to
affirm it. Therefore, it’s
self-defeating to deny the eternality of truth.
[6]
The eternality and invariability of truth constitutes its absolutivity. Furthermore, truth is independent of any
relative or particular knower or thing known.
The laws of logic, for example, are true without reference to any particular
object. So, knowledge does not judge
truth rather truth is the transcendent standard by which all knowledge is
judged as such (see fn. 1). Therefore,
truth is absolute.
[7]
Again, “belief” is one of the three necessary conditions of knowledge.
[8]
Granted, there are a number of materialist, physicalist or anti-metaphysicians
who have attempted to either flatly deny the existence of “mind” as an
immaterial reality of human nature or have strenuously sought to explain it in
materialistic, functional categories.
This presentation, let alone footnote, is not the venue to attempt a
rebuttal to these claims. Many
philosophers have elsewhere undermined these hypothesises and shown them to be
most untenable, Thus, I refer the reader to them. Nevertheless, given the validity of the
foregoing argument and conclusions, an immaterial mind seems self-evidently
necessary for the residency of immaterial truth, which has been seen to exist
as a real entity. And the reduction of
mind and reason to mere physical functions of the brain alone (i.e., chemical
events) is to annihilate any possibility of knowledge at all, since it would make
“reason” and “truth” to have no more axiological force than other bodily
functions.
[9]
There is among “spirituality” and para-psychology in the West today the
increasing hope, even foundational hope in the collective human
consciousness. Perhaps premise III: P4 would be meet with a challenge from the
likes of them or a similar camp. And in
today’s pluralistic landscape of worldview, such a challenge must be taken
seriously and addressed as such, however absurd it may seem—but again, not
here. The notion that a disintegrated
collection of mutable and fractured parts can comprise an absolute, unchanging,
eternal whole is simply nonsensical. So,
an attempt to argue that it could would be mere morosophy.
[10]
The first conclusion of section III,
P5, undoubtedly will be met by the strongest contradiction from the unbelieving
opponent. Psychologically speaking, this
is exactly what should be expected. The
unbeliever’s problem with his or her professing belief in the true God is much
more a moral issue than an intellectual one. (I would argue that the concepts
of intellect, emotions, and volition, which are often seen in very sharp
distinction from one another in the modern West, are nearly conflated into a
unity that is seen as the whole person; one domain never acting apart from the
others, in Scripture.) Intellectually
speaking, this statement squarely faces and unequivocally challenges the
unbeliever’s intellectual autonomy.
Thinking themselves to be utterly independent in reference to his or her
ability to rightly reason and sit in intellectual judgment over the question of
God’s existence, the unbeliever is immediately (and psychologically) confronted
with the necessary conclusion that such a presumption would be categorically impossible. It is this goad, then, at which he or she
will kick the hardest. There is no other
answer, however. Either, it is the
triune God who speaks with absolute authority in Christ and the Scriptures or
it is nothing, literally, nothing.
No comments:
Post a Comment