Apologetics
The Necessary Axioms Argument
I finished the second chapter in Dr. Norman Geisler's book, Christian Apologetics, yesterday. Part of the chapter talked about Dr. Donald Clark and how he argued that certain axioms are necessary for knowledge to be attained, and although I disagree with the axioms that Dr. Clark asserted, due to the fact that you must imply divine revelation to assume said axioms, I am not saying that I disagree with the idea of divine revelation, but rather that I believe that the proposal of divine intervention itself requires certain undeniable axioms to be accepted from a purely rational standpoint. I do agree therefore, at the very least, that certain undeniable axioms are indeed a necessity for the basis of human knowledge.
I would argue that, to attain any form of knowledge whatsoever, that axioms are without a doubt absolutely necessary, because, even at the most basic level of thought, we have to at bare minimum presuppose that we have the ability to think, and therefore speak and write, truth. To take it even a step further, we would also have to presuppose that even truth, and indeed logic as well, are actually and plausibly real, otherwise every thought, and therefore every word, would indefinitely enter into the realm of complete voidity and worthlessness, not to mention there would be no basis to prove rational thought from irrational thought, which, even to do so we would have to first again presuppose that rationality does indeed exist. So, since certain axioms are absolutely and undeniably necessary for even the most basic level of knowledge to be attainable, and therefore must exist a priori necessarily, who then, aside from an omniscient Being, would be able to argue indefinitely against the existence of certain innate knowledge, such as the moral law that lies within every human, or the innate knowledge that there is a creator (talked about in Romans 1.), due to the fact that at the very least, the existence of truth and logic cannot be denied, since they undeniably exists necessarily by their very definitions involving the concept of human knowledge, which in and of themselves are a form of undeniable innate foreknowledge proving the existence of innate knowledge. We, as humans, can neither reduce these necessarily existing concepts further than they are at their most basic level of definition, or deny their existence and maintain any form of rationality whatsoever.
Now, many people would argue that truth is merely a concept that we have supposedly become aware of due to our a posterior, or our experiences, and therefore we cannot use these experiences to argue for the basis of knowledge. Well, in response to that, I would say, “Have you ever met anyone who has never had an experience?” The answer is quite obviously no. Experience itself is completely and ultimately inevitable in all humans. But, many would deny experience as a reality and say it is merely an imaginary “thing” that we cannot rely on or accept as being actually real. Well, to that I would respond, “Ok, so experience is not a reality. What would you rather name the concept known as “experience” then?” If you do not want to call what we humans normally call “experience” and “perception”, then you must without question decide on another name for them, because they do indeed exist and there is no rational way to deny their existence. You see, just because someone denies the reality of something such as the experience perception, does not in any way mean that it does not exist, because what we are indeed calling experience happens to every single human being from the time of birth, at least to our perception in the world outside of the womb, until the time of death, and therefore must exist in what we call reality. We cannot rationally deny the existence of something that is completely inevitable. Think about it, even at the very first stages of life on Earth outside of the womb, one cannot in good conscience, and sound mind, deny that the birthing process does indeed take place (to do so would indeed be denying your very own existence, to which I would bring up Rene Descartes’ “Cogito ergo sum”), and from that process which is indeed taking place, we come to the realization that a baby has just been born.
But, even still, many would argue that reality itself is merely based on perception and is not actually real. Again, my response would be, “Then what new name would you like to give what we call “reality”?” I will therefore present a proposition.
And again some would argue that life as we live it is merely a dream, or an imaginary concept. Well, if you are simply saying that you would rather call “real life” a “dream,” in terms of semantics, then I would say “Ok.” Nevertheless, you would first have to convince the vast majority of earth’s population to change the meaning of the words “real life” and “dream,” sense words are generally defined as how they are most widely used in present times. But, even so, you would still not have in any way refuted the existence of what we call “real life,” but rather you would have simply changed the name of it, further proving my point that it does indeed exist. If, however you are indeed comparing what we generally call “real life” and “dream,” and are stating that they are the same thing, I would say, “Give me proof.” When someone what we call a dream, it does not ever in any way directly affect what we call “ real life” or actual reality. For example, if someone has a dream where they can jump 100 feet in the air, or where their body can fly by itself, when they wake up, it does not mean that this person is now capable of these things in the actual world, or “real life.” Or, as another example, if someone has a dream in which, when they fall asleep they are in Arizona, during the dream they are in Texas the entire time until they wake up, they are still going to be asleep in Arizona, in the same general area as when the fell asleep, unless someone or something in “real life” did something to change their geographical position. And, since there is no evidence that a dream can in any way directly affect real life, we must assume, based on the unwavering and completely one sided evidence available to us, that real life and a dream are indeed two separate things.
If anyone, anywhere, at any point in time, can give me even the simplest of a single example involving a single human thought, word, action, or expression taking place outside of what is commonly labeled “reality,” and having nothing at all in any way to do with, or being linked to, what we call “reality,” from a standpoint that is even the slightest bit intelligent, then I will undoubtedly desist and renounce any truth to my entire argument. However, until someone can give said example, which will clearly never happen, we must both realize and assert, regardless of what we “call” these different concepts, namely reality, experience, and everything that goes along with them, such as logic, truth, and rationality, that these things do indeed exist and therefore cannot in good conscience and of a rational and sound mind be denied, for we cannot rationally, and therefore should not ever, uphold an idea when there is absolutely no legitimate basis of proof for said idea, such as “Reality does not exist.” For even in stating that “Reality does not exist” you are proving that you exist, and if anyone or anything exists at all, then it does indeed exist in what we call “reality.” For we have no proof of any other “non reality,” and clearly one can decipher the overwhelming philosophical implications of the first part of this sentence.
Also, if we cannot prove that anything at all takes place outside of our “reality,” then we cannot argue that our perceptions in and of our reality cannot account for the basis of our knowledge which is attained in our reality.
Written by: Trevor Ray Slone
March 9, 2010
Please feel free to check out my book "Poetry and Wisdom About Life, Love, and What Really Matters,"
which is for sale as of April 8,2010.
Just go to my website at trevorslone.com for details on how to purchase my book, or to learn more about me.
PLEASE ENCOURAGE AUTHOR BELOW LEAVE COMMENT ON ARTICLE
Reader Count & Comments
Date
The opinions expressed by authors do not necessarily reflect the opinion of FaithWriters.com. This is especially true with articles that
deal with personal healthcare and prophecy. We encourage the reader to make their own decision in consultation with God, His Word, and others as needed.
This article has been read 812 times < Previous | Next >
Read more articles by Trevor Slone or search for other articles by topic below.
This article has been read 812 times < Previous | Next >
Search for articles on: (e.g. creation; holiness etc.)
Read more by clicking on a link:Free Reprints
Main Site Articles
Most Read Articles
Highly Acclaimed Challenge Articles.
New Release Christian Books for Free for a Simple Review.
NEW - Surprise Me With an Article - Click here for a random URL
God is Not Against You - He Came on an All Out Rescue Mission to Save You
...in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them... 2 Cor 5:19
Therefore, my friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Acts 13:38
LEARN & TRUST JESUS HERE
FaithWriters offers Christian reading material for Christian readers. We offer Christian articles, Christian fiction, Christian non-fiction, Christian Bible studies, Christian poems, Christian articles for sale, free use Christian articles, Christian living articles, New Covenant Christian Bible Studies, Christian magazine articles and new Christian articles. We write for Jesus about God, the Bible, salvation, prayer and the word of God.