- Philosophy, Section Summary

In this section we learned:

We can know there is truth because contrary arguments are self-defeating.

Truth is what is real, because the definition of insanity is the loss of touch with reality.

We do not only know things scientifically because a person cannot prove through repeatable testing that we can only know things scientifically.

We can know that truth is absolute not relative because contrary arguments are self-defeating.

We can know we exist (I exist), as one must exist to ponder one’s possible nonexistence.

We can know the universe is real because real entities (us) can only exist within something real rather than something only imagined.

If we can know anything about the real world, even if all we know is that it is unknowable, then we have proved that we can in fact know something about the real world.

All philosophical and religious beliefs cannot be right (true) because philosophical and religious beliefs contradict each other and two contradictory claims cannot both be true.

What does the Bible say?
We expect people to tell the truth not only on a witness stand, but expect truth from each other. The Bible says, “‘These are things you shall do: Speak each man the truth to his neighbor; Give judgment in your gates for truth, justice, and peace; Let none of you think evil in your heart against your neighbor; And do not love a false oath. For all these are things that I hate,’ says the LORD.” - Zechariah 8:16-17

Philosophy may be defined as the study of and search after wisdom. Not only are the certain books within the Scriptures considered books of wisdom, but the Bible itself is an introduction to and revelation from our creator, the source of all wisdom. Therefore I’ll close this section with the well known admonition, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom” Proverbs 9:10

Up next
Origins

- Aren’t all philosophies and religions ultimately right?

Nowadays, some people think there are multiple ultimate realities. It demands we answer:

- Aren’t all philosophies and religions ultimately right?

Our first question… “What do you mean by that?” (Mean face)
Our second question… “How did you come to that conclusion?” (Magnifying glass)
Our action… Listen and ask follow-up questions. (Big ears)
Let me propose using Bill Faye’s questions from my first chapter as two ultimate questions. First, “If you died right now, where would you go, heaven or hell?” Second, “If what you believed were not true, would you want to know it?”

We’ve already shown that if statements contradict each other that both may be false, but if one is true the other must be false. Different spiritual belief systems teach differently about what happens to us after we die. If there are contradictory beliefs, one may be true, but the others must be false.

What are those beliefs? Some atheists believe in nothingness after death; but the Judeo-Christian scriptures teach we continue to exist after death. Some hedonists believe in separation from God, but a long party in hell; but the scriptures teach that hell is a place of torment. Some believers in reincarnation think that we keep coming back until we get it right; but the Judeo-Christian scriptures teach that once a person dies, their spirit continues in either separation from God (hell) or fellowship with God (heaven). Catholic traditions teach purgatory as a place where Catholics may go after death to pay for their sins; but the scriptures clearly teach that Jesus paid our debt and that anything we might do is like dressing in filthy rags. These are contradictory beliefs.

Is there nothingness after death or something after death? Are we appointed to live and die once or do we live and die more than once? Is Hell a party or not a party? Was Christ’s death sufficient or insufficient?

Rather than considering arguments for or against any one particular view, let’s logically consider that the different religions do in fact hold – not just different views – but contrary views. The views contradict each other concerning the ultimate question of what happens to us after we die.
The logical argument (syllogism) is:

Contradictory claims cannot all be true.
Philosophical and Religious beliefs contradict each other.
Therefore, not all philosophical and religious beliefs can be true.

Aren’t all philosophies and religions ultimately right?
All philosophical and religious beliefs cannot be right (true) because philosophical and religious beliefs contradict each other and two contradictory claims cannot both be true.

- Can we know anything about the real world?

So what? Even though we and the universe are real, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) felt that only the phenomena of the mind could be known, not the noumena, which was his term for the real world.[1] Trying to work this out, the person may think:

- Can we know anything about the real world?

We ask the other person, “What do you mean by that?”
Then ask for their evidence, “How did you come to that conclusion?”
Listen and ask follow-up questions. (Remember the mean face with covered ears and the magnifying glass.)
A follow-up might be: If the real world is unknowable, then don’t we now know something about the real world?

Norman Geisler argues “First, if Kant claims that he can’t know anything about the real world (the thing in itself) then how does he know the real world is there? And second, his view is self-defeating because he claims that you can’t know anything about the real world while asserting that he knows that the real world is unknowable!”
Yes, I know this:

Kant knew something about the real world (it was unknowable).
We can know what Kant knew.
Therefore, we can know something about the real world.

Can we know anything about the real world?
If we can know anything about the real world, even if all we know is that it is unknowable, then we have proved that we can in fact know something about the real world.

[1] Italics in original: Page 61, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek

- Is the universe real?

I’ve heard people wonder:

- Is the universe real?

What do we find out? “What do you mean by that?”
Then ask for evidence, “How did you come to that conclusion?”
Listen and ask follow-up questions. (Remember the mean face with covered ears and the magnifying glass.)
Ask: If the universe can be either real or illusionary, how is it that a real person exists within an illusion?

What is the truth? Does the universe exist? Let’s look at it logically.

Something that seems to exist but doesn’t really exist is called an illusion. Illusions may be either “false illusions” or “real illusions”. We just determined that we exist when we addressed the question “Do I exist?” We exist and we do so within our universe, also called "the cosmos". Since real entities exist within the cosmos, then the cosmos cannot be a real illusion because the entity is within and part of the cosmos while perceiving it. Therefore, “the cosmos is an illusion” is illogical and the opposite is in this case true: the universe does exist.

My suggested syllogism is:

Real entities can only exist within something that is real.
Our universe contains real entities.
Therefore, our universe is real.

Is the universe real?
We can know the universe is real because real entities (us) can only exist within something real rather than something only imagined.

- Do I exist?

Another philosophical question a person may honestly ask is:

- Do I exist?

“Who said that?” Okay, that’s the rhetorical question if we want to be funny.
Seriously though, do we exist? Of course, but let’s review.
We first ask… “What do you mean by that?”
We then ask… “How did you come to that conclusion?”
We continue to listen and ask follow-up questions. (Remember the mean face with covered ears and the magnifying glass.)
If the person claims they do not exist, ask “How does someone who does not exist question their existence?”

If you even suspect you don’t exist, you can know you do exist because you must exist to ask the question. If you didn’t exist, you couldn’t question your existence. To know you do not exist requires you to exist to know this as fact. Therefore, existence is necessary to question non-existence. (My head hurts.)

René Descartes (1596-1650), in his Discourse on Method (1637) summed up the answer to whether or not we exist when he concluded, "I think, therefore I am" (Original French, "Je pense, donc je suis"; Latin, "Cogito, ergo sum"; English "I am thinking, therefore I exist").

We can reach the same conclusion through deduction. A deductive argument if formed by reasoning from the general to the specific. The tool we can use is the syllogism which is constructed with a general proposition (called the major premise), a more specific proposition (called the minor premise), followed by the conclusion. A syllogism that would support Descartes’ conclusion might look something like this:

Pondering the self’s existence is done only by existing beings. (major premise)
I ponder my existence. (minor premise)
Therefore, I exist. (conclusion)

We could say the same thing a little differently:

Pondering the self’s existence is done only by real beings.
I ponder my existence.
Therefore, I am real (am a real being).

Let me make a quick note here: Fictional characters may be said to ponder their existence, however it is not the fictional character that ponders but their non-fictional human creator. For instance, Popeye said, “I yam that I yam, and that’s all that I yam.” But the cartoon character Popeye only existed in the mind of his creator and readers.

Do I exist?
We can know we exist (I exist), as one must exist to ponder one’s possible nonexistence.

- Isn’t that true for you but not for me?

It is not uncommon for people to think that all religious beliefs can be true at the same time in the same respect. People are thought to be “too hard” if they think there is only one way that is true.

The “modern” moral relativism of Edward Westermarck (1862-1939) and G.E. Moore (1873 – 1958) has firm foundations in the ancient Anekantavada (Many sidedness) principle of Mahavira (c. 599 – 527 BC) which is a Jainism teaching. This assumes not only that “reality is perceived differently from different points of view” but also “that no single point of view is completely true”. Also believed is the assertion by Protagoras (c. 481 – 420 BC) that “man is the measure of all things”. As today’s philosophers and social scientists continue to question whether any absolute and objective standards exist pertaining to values, it’s not uncommon in our society to hear:

- Isn’t that true for you but not for me?

What is our first question? We ask, “What do you mean by that?” Let them clarify their own views. Once they have clarified their own claim, what is our second question? We ask, “How did you come to that conclusion?” This asks for their evidence. What do we do then? Listen. Listen to the reasons they provide. (Remember the mean face with covered ears and the magnifying glass.) And what else can we do? Ask follow-up questions. If they are saying all truth is relative, our questions to them may be, “Is that only true for you and not for me?”

In a video produced by Focus on the Family, a Universalist minister was asked about truth. Standing in a church with stained glass windows, she pointed at the windows and said that truth could be understood as something like light from the sun shining on us through the different stained-glass windows. As people sit inside the church each person, depending on their perspective, might see the light differently. In short, she felt that truth was relative to the individual. In relation to our question, she would have us believe that truth may be true for one and not for another.

What she didn’t mention was the source of light on the other side of those stained glass windows. Unfortunately for those in her church building, the stained glass windows were changing the light source so they were not seeing true light but were seeing filtered light. The filtered light represented truth that was true for each individual. In this case, filtered light is used to represent subjective truth, that is, something that is true based on the perception of each subject. However, what her congregation was not seeing was the unfiltered light. The colored glass was a filter between the people and the light source. In this analogy, the source light, the light on the other side of those windows, would represent objective truth. Something is an objective truth because it is true independent of our sense experience.

Another example of the difference between subjective and objective truth might be understood using fire or heat and human skin. We can tell a child over and over again to keep their hand out of a fire or away from something that is hot because touching it will get them burned. They may tell us that our belief about fire and skin is true for us, but not for them. Yet when they reach out and put their hand in the fire or touch a hot pot, they’ll find out pretty quick that we were providing an objective truth.

We can of course think of exceptions by changing the temperature and by changing the person. For instance, the skin of a well seasoned chef who has been handling hot pots over many years would have developed a tolerance for a certain amount of heat. In other words, someone could argue that the burning of skin is relative to the individual. However, there is an absolute point we could heat a pan to that would burn through even the toughest skin. These two conditions are known as objective or absolute truth and subjective or relative truth.

Some hold that all truth is relative. The overall worldview, that is, this way of thinking, is called relativism. It’s founded on the belief that truth is derived from the subject or truth is relative to a situation. You see and hear this view expressed in every part of our society as an attempt to justify a person’s or society’s actions due to circumstances. But, relativism just doesn’t pass the common sense test. As Francis Beckwith and Gregory Koukl pointed out in their book Relativism; Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air, if you think about it, relativism has seven fatal flaws:

• A relativist can never claim another is wrong. This is because the other person can just ask, “Isn’t my belief ‘true for me’?”




• A relativist can never complain about evil. Whenever a person does something, isn’t the person just following what they think is morally right?




• A relativist can never place blame or accept praise because placing blame mean “it was wrong” and praise means “it was right”. Neither right nor wrong is supposed to be true for the relativist.




• A relativist can never make charges of unfairness or injustice. Each requires a moral answer to what is “fair” and “just”. Without a moral compass, neither is supposed to be true for the relativist.




• A relativist can never improve your morality. The question, “What is moral?” cannot be logically defined by relativists who holds that morals are relative to the individual.




• A relativist can never hold a meaningful moral discussion. This is the same as the last issue. The question, “What is moral?” cannot be logically defined by relativists and still hold that morals are relative to the individual.




• A relativist can never promote the obligation of tolerance because to tolerate something would indicate an objectionable action. Nothing should be objectionable to the relativists.

Let’s do a little mental aikido with the belief that “no single point of view is completely true”. If “no single point of view is completely true” is true, then can this point of view cannot be completely true? And if this point of view cannot be completely true, then it is true that, “a single point of view could be completely true”. Finally, if a point of view could be completely true, then the original view that “no single point of view is completely true” must be false. This is another argument that is self-defeating!

We admit that people may be different in their ability to think, may have individual physical capabilities, et cetera. But even though we think of truth as relative to the person (the subject) that particular truth is absolute. The wine connoisseur’s ability to taste certain elements in a vintage will be more refined than someone who has damaged taste buds (subjective truth), but the fact is, the wine does have certain elements in the wine which may be detected by a human (objective truth).

Can something be true for you but not for me?
We can know that truth is absolute not relative because contrary arguments are self-defeating.

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." – John 14:6

- Don’t we only know things scientifically?

I was teaching my reasons for hope to some high school students and I asked them if they ever heard people at school saying we can only know things through science or that we could only know things scientifically. They all had heard people say something similar.

The idea that we can only know things by physical perception isn’t new. In the 1700’s David Hume (1711-1776) believed that truth was a meaningful idea and was either true by definition or must be based on sense experience. By sense experience we’re talking about what can be heard, seen, tasted, touched, or smelled. About 200 years later, A.J. Ayer (1910-1989) used these ideas as the basis for his “principle of empirical verifiability” which claims that a proposition can be meaningful only if it’s true by definition or if it is empirically verifiable (known by physical perception). This is why you might hear the same argument nowadays, but phrased something like, “if you can’t test it scientifically, it can’t be true.”



Therefore, people grounded in reality or someone who is familiar with the works of David Hume or A.J. Ayers might wonder:



- Don’t we only know things scientifically?



But don't assume that is where they are coming from; find out what they mean by that question. Let them clarify their own views. Determine how they came to that conclusion. Listen to their answers. (Remember the mean face with covered ears and the magnifying glass.) Ask: “How do you prove the idea scientifically that we can only know things scientifically?" (Hint: They can’t.)

To understand what someone is supposed to mean when they talk about testing something scientifically, we might want to first briefly review the scientific method, also known as Hypothetical Scientific Reasoning. The scientific method is a series of steps used to predict future events. While specific steps vary, in general, the basic steps are:

1) Observe and describe a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2) Formulate a hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
3) Use the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4) Properly perform repeatable experimental tests of the predictions.
5) If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, the hypothesis must be rejected or modified. (It is said in science that theories can never be proven; theories can be only disproved.)
6) If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law.

In other words, we watch the world around us, try to explain why things happen, use that explanation to predict something else happening, and then try the same thing over and over. If the explanation doesn’t hold up we can throw it out or modify it, but if the explanation does hold up we can regard it as a theory or law.

The only problem is that the scientific method is only good for those tests and results which we can physically perceive. Some believe we can only know what is real when we can physically perceive “it”.

Let’s explore this thought of empirical verifiability. As a college student, Norman Geisler was given 20 minutes to discuss the principle of empirical verifiability. In his book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, Mr. Geisler says his report consisted of just these words,

“The principle of empirical verifiability states that there are only two kinds of meaningful propositions: 1) those that are true by definition and 2) those that are empirically verifiable. Since the principle of empirical verifiability itself is neither true by definition nor empirically verifiable, it cannot be meaningful.” [1]

He sat down.



The principle of empirical verifiability is just another argument that defeats itself.

Do we only know things scientifically?
We do not only know things scientifically because a person cannot prove through repeatable testing that we can only know things scientifically.

[1] Extracted from pages 57-59, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek

- How can we know that anything is true?

After accepting the self-evident truths, we come to what I think is the most basic question. While truth is typically assumed by children, if we talk it to death perhaps we learn to question everything, including truth. So some ask:

- How can we know that anything is true?

When this is asked, the person has most likely been taught “we cannot know truth” or “there is no such thing as truth”. Instead of challenging the idea, I recommend that you ask them a follow-up question like I did with my son’s sex question. You might ask, “What do you mean?” Listen to their answer, and then find out, “How did you come to that conclusion?” Again, listen. (Remember the mean face with covered ears and the magnifying glass.) If a different question or claim surfaces, move on to that question. Otherwise, understand that the statement form of this question is, “We cannot know truth.” In this case we might first ask them, “Is that true?”

Let’s talk about the claim that “we cannot know that anything is true”.

If it is true that “I cannot know anything is true”, then I can know something is true. What I know is true is that I cannot know anything is true. Oops! Do you see the problem? The argument “I cannot know truth” is self-defeating.

In his writings The Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) put it this way,

“The existence of truth is self-evident. For whoever denies the existence of truth [is saying] that truth does not exist: and, if truth does not exist, then the proposition ‘Truth does not exist’ is true: … [But] if there is anything true, there must be truth.”

So if someone claims that truth does not exist, then they are saying something is true. And if anything is true, then truth exists. In other words I could ask, “Is it true that truth does not exist?” If that is true, then truth exists. If that is not true, then the truth is that something is not true, and again, truth is proven to exist.

Of course all this doesn’t take a lot of talk to turn someone around. For instance: I was visiting with another friend’s son. Ryan had just completed his second year at college when he made the statement, “We can’t know that anything is true.” I immediately asked him, “Is that true?” He paused, looked directly in my eyes, and started to smile as it apparently dawned on him that he couldn’t answer my question without admitting that his own statement was false. He wagged his finger at me and said, “Ah, that’s good.” As I shook my head we both laughed.

With three words, one question, Ryan was faced with the fact that the question of truth’s existence can only be answered in one of two ways. Either: I can know truth; Or, I cannot know truth. Each is a truth claim. But according to the law of non-contradiction, both cannot be true at the same time in the same respect. Since the statements contradict each other, both could be false, but if one is true, the other must be false.

How can we know that anything is true?

We can know there is truth because contrary arguments are self-defeating.

Let me mention that one might hear the Pontius Pilate question, “What is truth?” A lot of people have a hard time defining truth. If they have that problem, ask the person to think about insanity. I heard Tom Dooley on The Journey radio program put it this way,

“If your car broke down in the country and at the nearest farmhouse you encountered two men, one who insisted he was Napoleon and the other who said, ‘You’re not Napoleon, you’re Caesar Augustus. I should know, because I’m God and I made you.’ At that point you would likely be right to conclude you had just come across the local insane asylum.”

How do we define insanity? Insanity is the loss of touch with reality. The insane person believes a lie. We want them to believe the truth because the truth is what is real. So if someone asks the Pontius Pilate question, “What is truth?” We know the answer is, “Truth is what is real, because the definition of insanity is the loss of touch with reality.”

Section 3: PHILOSOPHY

Philosophy may be defined as the study of and search after wisdom. I used to think philosophy was only to be understood by a few (esoteric) and therefore unimportant and minor when considered next to everyday life. But then I found out that philosophy is the use of clear and sensible (rational) investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, and conduct. To me, this means that philosophy is not something I would study instead of everyday life; the study of philosophy is the study of everyday life.

In this section we will 1) Raise the questions people ask about truth, being, knowledge, and conduct. 2) Discuss the philosophical questions that arise in the Christian life; 3) Provide reasons which ground Christian thought concerning these questions; and, 4) we will answer the questions raised.

- Self-Evident Truth, Section Summary

A summary of the self-evident truths were covered in the Quick Review on the last page of the previous chapter. But let me repeat them if you’re skipping around.
On the front cover are pictures of a map of the United States of America and six cups of coins. These pictures remind us:
The Founding Fathers of the United States of America wrote a Declaration of Independence in which they refer to “self-evident truth”.
Sex is the German word that is translated to “six” in English; it is used as a reminder that if we don’t know what language a person is speaking, we may not know the definition of the word they are using. This is important because: We understand each other’s words based on our common language.
A cup can have something in it or not have something in it. Even a child can recognize the contradiction that a cup is not both “empty” and “not empty” at the same time in the same respect. Even the child realizes that: Contradictions can’t be true.
Thinking of coins helps me remember the importance of mathematics and leads me to suggest as a self-evident truth: Correctly applying mathematical principles can lead to correct answers.

As we conclude this section, allow me to briefly introduce the format of the rest of this book. My friend and I didn’t need to go through each of the following questions in detail. Most people don’t. However, I think it is important to address each of these questions within this book because, as I hope you will see, one answer provides a foundation for the next answer. But what I want to talk about now is how we communicate with each other. Let me stress a few things.
What each of us can do, even without the specialized knowledge of each field, is to know how to think critically about announced conclusions. In the July/August 2009 issue of Stand to Reason newsletter “Solid Ground,” Greg Koukl made a point to outline a plan with three critical thinking steps for an ambassador of Christ. In the article he said:

“…good ambassadors do not immediately react with scorn, derision, and abuse. Ridicule is not an argument. Instead, they separate the wheat from the chaff by calmly applying a three-step plan that is the core of all critical thinking.
“First, get a clear fix on the facts themselves. Next, note the inferences and implications others have drawn from the facts. Finally, do your own assessment. Check to see if there is a good fit between the inferences drawn and the facts that they are allegedly based on.”

Comparing the facts to the conclusions requires us to first identify the facts. In many cases we are presented with someone’s conclusions, but we are not given the facts that support the person’s conclusions. Sometimes, a person’s conclusion is expressed as a statement of fact, and other times, the conclusion is assumed because of the question. To pull the above steps out of Koukl’s text, the three-step plan of the critical thinker is:
1. Identify the facts.
2. Note inferences and implications.
3. Do your own assessment.
We can accomplish this by asking a person what they mean and asking how they came to their conclusions. In other words, to answer a question we want to first understand the question. So let us challenge ourselves to only attempt to answer a person when we understand their question. To best understand a person’s question it is good to know how the person reached their conclusion.
Finally, if you’ve asked a question, you should listen to the response. So be sure to listen. Two questions and an action are required.
Again, there are two questions you might ask people when they express a question similar to those I provide in the rest of the book: What Mean? How Concluded? We Listen - First, allow a person to clarify their thoughts and help us understand them better. Be friendly and be ready to really listen to their answers, we might ask, “What do you mean by that?” Have you seen the yellow smiley face? To help you remember to ask what the person “means”, think of the same face but with a frown instead of a smile. Think of this yellow frowning face as a “mean” face to represent the question, “What do you ‘mean’ by that?” To remember to listen, and though they will likely cover their ears, think of the frowning face covering its ears. (We instead listen and are friendly.)
- Second, to help us understand how the person came to their belief, we should ask, “How did you come to that conclusion?” We want to hear their reason or evidence. The character Sherlock Holmes looked for evidence with a big magnifying glass. To remind you to ask for the person’s evidence (“How did you come to that conclusion?”) think of a big magnifying glass over the mean face with the covered ears.
A set of lessons that discuss these questions in detail is called “Tactics in Defending the Faith” by Greg Koukl. Established in Koukl’s lessons are these questions and others that will help a person properly analyze a truth claim. Since this is my recommended method, it is the way the remaining portions of this book are constructed. Therefore, you should find the following basic format in the upcoming pages. As I previously mentioned, 1 Peter 3:15 calls us to “…be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” Therefore, I’ll present these facts based on how someone might form a related question and how a Christian might “give an answer”.
The basic format calls on you to:

1. Identify the source of non-Christian thought. Much has been written that is contrary to the scriptures and we should at least be familiar with some of the thoughts.
2. Recognize the question that may be asked or the truth claim made.
3. Find out what the person means by the question or statement. (Listen!)
4. Find out how the person came to their conclusion (their reason or evidence).
5. Ask follow-up questions leading the person to the truth.
6. Provide the truth that is based on reason and evidence.

With our self-evident truths in mind, let’s review questions of philosophy, origins, God, Holy Scripture, and religion.

- Coins?

“And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.” – Genesis 1:5

When my children were young, their mom and I regularly gave them a few coins before we would go to the store so they might get something they wanted. Over time, we used this habit to teach them how to select one thing over another, how different denominations of coins related to each other, and to learn the value of money as compared to the things they wanted. But before they knew the value of the coins, they recognized that the number of coins was important.
As we would get ready to go to the store, they would hold out their little open hands expectantly. You could watch the eyes dart from between each other’s palms as they prepared to quickly compare their treasure. I had their undivided attention. They laughed at my little attempts at humor; their eyes sparkled as I dropped a coin in one hand and then the other.
Eventually it was time for a lesson; I gave five nickels to one and to the other I gave one quarter. As it became clear that I was done with my giving, a little pair of eyes caught mine and the corners of a mouth started to drop; the eyes seemed to ask, “Why only one coin? She has more.” The other little face seemed just as sad, “But his coin is bigger than all my coins.”
As I attempted to explain to my children the difference in value between nickels and quarters, it was like the world slowed down to a crawl. I could have sworn the temperature in the room dropped four degrees. Their little faces lost all emotion; I was met with blank stares. But, with a little patience, it didn’t take long for them to understand. We had entered a new phase in their education.

My children recognized when one had fewer coins than their sibling. They hadn’t likely applied the very simple mathematical principle of arithmetic by counting coins. Instead, they were unhappy because one pile looked bigger than the other. But that comparison brought on a lesson, and after the lesson they understood that different coins were assigned different values. Later, they advanced to counting coins and to adding the different values of coins. They learned to divide so they could determine how many of something they could get with their money. They learned multiplication allowing them to quickly calculate how much they had if they had a certain number of coins. Their mathematical education was continuous. They learned to apply mathematical principles which help them in life.
But what’s this got to do with self-evident truth? Thinking of coins helps me remember the importance of mathematics. It leads me to suggest as one of my three self-evident or universally recognized truths:
Correctly applying mathematical principles can lead to correct answers.

My friend and I discussed this briefly. He had always been good at math and agreed that there were rules that had to be followed, and if a person did so, they should come up with the right answer.

There is one argument I’ve heard against this truth; it attacks a person’s fundamental understanding of mathematics. Expressed in the form of a question, the argument begins: How do you know one plus one equals two? This is usually followed by the claimed possibility that: Perhaps 1 plus 1 equals 3; some can even go on to cite some formula as proof.
So how do we know that 1+1=2? Believe it or not, the answer is not found in mathematics. The answer is found by using our first self-evident truth. Do you remember my story about sex? It turned out my young son was asking for the English translation of the German word sex which is six in English. This served as our memory aid to remember that: Words have definitions.
Knowing that words have definitions, we can look at the definition of the word “two” which may be defined as: a cardinal number, the result of adding 1 plus 1. In other words, one plus one equals two because it is enshrined in the very definition of the words themselves. The word two is so basic, that you find it used in other word definitions. Words like pair and couple are harder to define if we don’t use the word two. And two is a cardinal number, the result of adding 1 plus 1.
So how do we know that 1+1=2? We know it because that is the definition. (Besides, there is usually an error in the mathematical formula when someone gets another answer.)

This truth is important because later in this book there are two mathematical disciplines introduced; a person should be familiar with these disciplines when considering the truthfulness of Christianity. The two disciplines are probability and statistics.
For now, let’s apply this to Christianity by looking at the question of the beginning of the universe. Do you think mathematics proves an old earth? Shall we see?

Billions vs. Thousands
After Charles Darwin’s theory was accepted, it was thought that the universe had existed forever and the imagined process of natural selection (evolution) was not limited by time. It seemed logical to conclude, and many did, that our evolution was a foregone conclusion given the foundational belief of seemingly infinite time. However, with Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity, that supposedly firm foundation was shown to be weaker than many thought. People were able to calculate the amount of time since the beginning of space, time, energy, and matter. Once people realized that the evolution of everything had to happen within the calculated period, evolution was restricted to that window of time.
While it wasn’t great for the evolutionist who thought unlimited time was necessary, neither was it great for those who believed in a young earth based on the biblical creation account or biblical genealogical history. Initially, mathematicians had calculated the beginning of the universe to about 13.7 billion years (now they are calculating it at over 15 billion years); but credible theologians calculated the biblical timeline as only accounting for about 6,000 years, and part of that were the six days of creation recorded in the first chapter of the book of Genesis. Even stretching it out, Christians could only get to maybe ten thousand years. But 10,000 years is a long way from billions of years. Which is true?
While the 13.7 to 15 billion years were the figures that some evolutionist could work with, Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 clearly taught that “in six days the LORD made heaven and earth”. And with rabbinical and evangelical teachers concluding that the Hebrew word used in scripture for a “day” represented a 24-hour period, there was a paradox (an apparent contradiction) between evolutionist’s theory and the Judeo-Christian creation account. Were the evolutionists interpreting the mathematics correctly? Were the theologians interpreting the Bible correctly?
In this case, I trusted both mathematics and the Bible as true. This had to be a paradox and not a contradiction. I knew there had to be an answer that would solve this problem, and I got the answer one day from a radio program.

Chuck Missler was reviewing Isaiah, chapters 40 through 43. In a sidebar he began with an introduction of a friend of his, Doctor Gerald L. Schroeder, an experienced nuclear physicist, who wrote a book called Genesis and the Big Bang. In a letter to Mr. Missler, Doctor Schroeder shared something interesting, but I’ll let Mr. Missler tell it. Oh, he refers to Doctor Schroeder as “Gerry”:

“We talk about six days [of creation]. Did God create the world in six days, right? And yet we measure astronomically and know that the universe is roughly 13 billion years old by some other accounting. And of course in the Genesis study we did point out that by using Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity, time dilates in accordance with mass and acceleration. That means that when you talk time, whether it’s six days on the earth or somewhere else, you have to deal with gravity and time; and time is neither linear nor absolute.
“Gerry went and did the equations recently. He took the mass of the universe, which we now know; he took the mass of the earth. He put an observer on the surface of the earth and plugged that into Einstein’s General Theory, took the mass of the universe and imagined [an observer] on the perimeter of the universe, [then] put that into Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, and the 13 billion years at the perimeter of the universe by Einstein’s General Theory equates to guess how long on the earth? Six days. [Isn’t] that kind of fun?
“The foolishness of God puts to naught the wisdom of men.”

Just in case you missed that, or started to read it and felt like the room was spinning, let me summarize. In short, Dr. Schroeder contends that the results of Einstein’s calculations must be based on the observer. When the observer is at the perimeter of the universe we get the figure of over 13 billion years, now 15 billion years. But, when the observer is on the surface of the Earth, we get the figure of six days. This still holds true even when the calculations made from the perimeter of the universe exceeds 15 billion years. This was later updated by Dr. Schroeder on his website. (See his article on the Age of the Universe)
Now when I hear about conclusions that contradict clear Biblical meaning – to say the least – I am skeptical as to the validity of the interpretation of data.

Conclusion
Coins are a wonderful learning device for children. Ultimately, we can use coins and take a child from understanding less about numbers and counting to understand more about numbers and counting. This can lead to an education in multiplication, division, and more.
Therefore, thinking of coins, helps me remember the importance of mathematics and leads me to suggest as a self-evident truth: Correctly applying mathematical principles can lead to correct answers. In other words, I can trust mathematics.

What does the Bible say?
Does the Bible support mathematics? Of course it does, and right from the very first chapter! The first chapter of the first book introduces us to numbering when it tells us about the first six days of creation in which God creates the first day (verse 5) , a second day (verse 8), a third day (verse 13), the fourth day (verse 19), the fifth day (verse 23), and the sixth day (verse 31). Division was introduced as God separated light from darkness (verse 4), the waters from the waters (verse 5), and the day from night (verse 14). Sets were introduced as days, years, water creatures, fowl, and cattle. The concept of measuring was introduced by measuring time with a day defined as an evening and a morning. And multiplication was introduced when God told the creatures in the water and fowl (verse 22) to multiply or increase.
A person may find other mathematical concepts throughout the scriptures. Here is something to look for: I’m told the building of Noah’s ark introduces a reader to the concept of algebra. I haven’t looked for this yet, so I’ll leave it to you to find this and leave it to you to possibly find the introduction of other mathematical concepts.
I’ll close with a verse I’ve already mentioned, “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.” – Genesis 1:5

Quick Review
On the front cover are pictures of a map of the United States of America and six cups of coins. These pictures remind us:
The Founding Fathers of the United States of America wrote a Declaration of Independence in which they refer to “self-evident truth”.
Sex is the German word that is translated to “six” in English; it is used as a reminder that if we don’t know what language a person is speaking, we may not know the definition of the word they are using. This is important because: We understand each other’s words based on our common language.
A cup can have something in it or not have something in it. Even a child can recognize the contradiction that a cup is not both “empty” and “not empty” at the same time in the same respect. Even the child realizes that: Contradictions can’t be true.
Thinking of coins helps me remember the importance of mathematics and leads me to suggest as a self-evident truth: Correctly applying mathematical principles can lead to correct answers.

Up next
After the section summary, we will proceed to answers concerning certain philosophical questions.

- Cups with Something?

“And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.” – Genesis 5:5.

My family job that evening was to bring home some food. To have a little fun with my kids, I emptied one of the food sacks but puffed it out to make it look like it was full. As everyone opened a bag, one of my daughters opened the puffed up sack and proclaimed, “This one’s empty.”
With a straight face I denied it, “No, there’s food in there, you just didn’t see it.”
She gave me a double-take then looked back in the sack. She then held the sack opened so I could see inside, “Really dad, it’s empty.”
I looked at the sack seriously, knelt down, and reached my hand down under the sack cupping the bottom. Now at eye level, my face was close to the top and I looked in as she held the top of the sack opened. I met her eyes, smiled, and said, “Maybe you have to reach in and pull out your food.”
My young daughter looked at me seriously and shook her head, “No,” then nodding her head, “it’s empty.” But with one hand she reached inside the sack.
As her arm plunged in, I simultaneously pushed the bottom of the sack up to her hand, shook the sack a little, and made a noise. She yelped and jerked her hand out of the sack. We all laughed.
Of course, after we ate she brought me an empty bag wanting me to stick my hand inside.

The first claim was, “The sack is empty.” And though not said specifically, the second claim was, “The sack is not empty.” The child recognized the contradiction and was willing to prove it by sight and touch. Let me propose that this recognition of contradictions is the start of our ability to reason. Thinking of a sack, and knowing that even children recognize when a sack is “empty” and “not empty” helps me remember my next self-evident truth:
Contradictions can’t be true.

A contradiction is a set of statements, propositions, or phrases where opposite claims are each said to be true. I say a contradiction is a “set” because you need two opposite statements to have a contradiction (for example: “empty” vs. “not empty”). The contradiction must be in the form of statements, propositions, or phrases because both claims can’t be real. Both claims may be false, but only one of two opposite claims can be true, or real. The claims must be true opposites so we can properly compare the two claims.
The idea that “Contradictions can’t be true” is based on the Philosophical Law of Non-Contradiction. This law might be simply summarized as: One of two opposite claims must be false. This is considered the negative expression of logic, another one of the laws of reason attributed to Socrates.

Let’s go back to my conversation with my friend. It had gone well so far and now it was time to talk about reason, the use of rational, logical, and analytical thought.
I began, “Okay, you’ve made statements concerning what you believed. We accepted self-evident truth and the first self-evident truth was that words have meaning and that we understand words based on our common language. Now for the second self-evident truth; may I ask you a question?”
My friend nodded his head once.
Nodding to his drinking cup, I said, “Do you think your cup is empty or not empty?”
His eyebrows dipped and he glanced at his cup, “The cup is mostly full, so I’d have to choose ‘not empty’.”
“You say ‘not empty’, so what would you think if I were to say the cup is ‘empty’?”
He looked at me and said, “Why would you contradict me on something so obvious?”
I then asked him, “You think contradictory statements like ‘it is empty’ and ‘it is not empty’ can’t both be true?”
He grinned, “Well, you give me a little bit, I’ll drink it all gone, and then it will be empty”
“Fair enough,” I said, “Just so we understand each other, let me clarify. What you’re saying is that contradictions can’t be true at the same time in the same respect. Is that right?”
“Right,” he agreed, “I still have a drink now so it isn’t empty, but once I drink it all, it will be empty; ‘empty’ and ‘not empty’ are not the same. If you changed it up to say it was empty of drink but full of air, that wouldn’t be the same respect.”
“That’s a good example.” I responded.
We agreed that contradictions can’t be true at the same time and in the same respect. He understood contradictions and agreed it was something basic our society relied on.

Conclusion
Even young children can recognize a contradiction. Tell a child you’ll give them a treat, then withhold the treat and deny ever saying such a thing, and the child’s own actions will tell you they recognized the contradiction. They may not be able to tell you that you’ve “contradicted yourself”, but you’ll immediately lose the child’s trust because they intuitively know it was wrong.
I previously mentioned that the cover has a map of the U.S.A. and “six cups of coins”. I already explained why the map of the U.S.A. and explained why “six”, now for the “cups”. We understand it is a contradiction to say any container is empty and not empty at the same time in the same respect. Kids are not fooled; even kids are able to recognize a contradiction. So, let every cup remind you of what should be self-evident: Contradictions can’t be true.

What does the Bible say?
Does the Bible support the idea that contradictions can’t be true? Oh yes!
In the book of Genesis, chapter 2, verse 17 through chapter 3, verse 3 (also written as “Gen 2:17-3:3”), we learn that God told Adam to not eat of the tree of good and evil or he “would die”. Eve proved she understood that part of the command when she answered the serpent’s question concerning what she was allowed to eat. After her answer, the serpent contradicted God when the serpent told Eve she would “not surely die” if she ate from the tree of good and evil.
So, was God right or was the serpent right? Did Adam and Eve die or not die? All anyone would have to do is to bring Adam and Eve into the public view to prove they are in fact still alive. No, that can’t be done because they are dead. They’ve been dead so long that people think their existence was nothing but a myth. The serpent was wrong. God was right.
My concluding verse is a reminder of this recorded contradiction; Adam died, contrary to what the serpent said, but according to the promise of the Eternal God, “And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.” – Genesis 5:5.

Quick Review
On the front cover are pictures of a map of the United States of America and six cups of coins. These pictures remind us:
The Founding Fathers of the United States of America wrote a Declaration of Independence in which they refer to “self-evident truth”.
Sex is the German word that is translated to “six” in English; it is used as a reminder that if we don’t know what language a person is speaking, we may not know the definition of the word they are using. This is important because: We understand each other’s words based on our common language.
A cup can have something in it or not have something in it. Even a child can recognize the contradiction that a container is not both “empty” and “not empty” at the same time in the same respect. Even the child realizes that: Contradictions can’t be true.

Up next
What is coins good for?

- Six or Sex?

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” – John 1:1

Our family lived in Germany when my son was in Kindergarten. I always thought it appropriate that he attended kindergarten in Germany since the English language adopted the word from her German influence. Though kindergarten lessons taught my son a lot of things, but I wasn’t ready for the day he came to me with a serious look on his face, and oh so innocently asked, “Dad, what is sex?”
My mind went wild! A frenzy of thoughts: He’s so young, just a kindergartner. What can I say that won’t scar him for life? Why would he ask such a thing? How did the whole bird’s and bee’s thing work? I got a little grip on reality (a small grip I’ll admit), and asked him simply, and in a calm voice – okay, my voice may have cracked – I said gently, “Why do you ask son?”
His little eyebrows furrowed, my heart started to pound, “Well Ryan,” his friend of the same age across the street (Oh, what had Ryan done now?) He continued, “Ryan said that sex is seven, but I thought sex was six.”
German, the boy was asking about the German word sex. My heart started to go back to its normal speed, and as calmly as I could, I said, “Yes, you’re right, the German word for six is sex, seven is seben.” I hadn’t quite finished when he turned and began his dash to Ryan’s apartment building; he was a boy with a mission.

My young son learned English and was learning some German; both are languages. A language is a set of sounds or symbols and the rules of use as established by a society. Commonly, we call the sounds we make with our mouths the spoken word; written symbols (like the alphabet or hieroglyphics) we call the written word; and, the set of rules to put it together in proper order is called grammar (and include punctuation). Less commonly, certain hand and arm gestures, and their rules for use, are called sign-language. The purpose of a society’s common language is to allow people to communicate with each other. Just these facts about languages lead me to one conclusion:
We understand each other’s words based on our common language.

Of course I could be wrong, so let’s apply a little common sense. What if someone disagrees with my proposed self-evident truth? We would expect them to somehow let us know that they disagree. But if they tell us or show us that they disagree, they must be expecting us to understand the meaning of their words, looks, or gestures. Their expectation of our understanding proves the point. If they intend for us to understand the word, look, or gesture they’ve just used to express their disagreement, then I must think they expect us to understand their definition of that word, look, or gesture.
Think of it this way: Suppose someone sitting in their home, alone, reading this book disagrees with me. How can they let me know they disagree? I guess they could vigorously shake their head. Unfortunately, if I can’t see them, that gesture wouldn’t matter. They could write me a letter, send a friend, try to contact me in a myriad of ways; but it doesn’t matter. The fact is that the person who disagrees with me, and attempts to communicate to me their disagreement – no matter what form it takes or how delivered – has expected me to understand their message.
It doesn’t matter whether the language is spoken, written, in sign-language, or in a language that I don’t understand; they have attempted to communicate. If they have made that attempt to communicate, I have to ask myself, what makes them think I can understand their opinion? On what do they base their word definitions, word usage, body language, et cetera?
When someone argues that we can’t understand word meaning, but they use words to make their argument, the person is mentally spinning in circles. For us to understand each other, a language (with word definitions) must be common between us. But if we establish common definitions of our words so a disagreement can be understood, then the basic point is proven.
Some intellectuals get to a point of analyzing the words of an author to a point that what is clear through common understanding becomes less and less clear with their analysis. This is done to the point that some intellectuals deny a written text or even that any language contains any meaning whatsoever. Unfortunately for them, if we can’t trust any language then we shouldn’t trust what they are saying either; their rules have to work both ways.

Some of you who have studied logic may recognize my contention that, “We understand each other’s words based on our common language.” In the world of Philosophy, a similar idea is called the Law of Identity. In essence, that law simply states that: Something is what it is. The Law of Identity is the positive expression of logic and one of the laws of reason discussed by Socrates.
There are other important points about language. We must recognize that our understanding of words is based on the context of the sentence, paragraph, and overall message in which the words are contained. For communications that were not given in our own language, we must additionally recognize the importance of the original language, time, and culture.

But let’s get back to the conversation I was originally telling you about between my friend and me. We were talking over lunch. I had listened to him explain his spiritual beliefs, and he had agreed that he would like to know the truth – if he were wrong. We had tried to begin with bible verses, but he didn’t believe the Bible was anything more than a book of stories and he didn’t think God existed to give us the Bible.
I really felt it was time to establish a foundation for our conversation. I started by acknowledging that I thought I understood where he was coming from. That is, I thought I understood what he said. I then explained that I wanted to start with what I thought was very basic, he agreed, but I knew he didn’t know what I was about to say.
Remembering the U.S. map and the original colonies brought to my mind the Declaration of Independence and the fact that there was such a thing as “self-evident truth”. We reviewed that second sentence in the Declaration and he understood I wanted to address what was self-evident.
I restarted and asked, “Would you agree we’ve been having a good conversation so far, in that we seem to have understood each other?”
He smiled, and said with a little laugh, “Yea, I think so.”
“That’s where I want to go next,” I said. “We’ve been using not just words, but a common language; this is the basis of what I believe to be a self-evident truth.” I summarized what I believed was self-evident: We understand each other’s words based on our common language.
He thought about this a bit and agreed that the thought just made sense. We talked a bit further about word definitions, the importance of understanding something when it was originally written in another language, how our understanding may change as we realize the author’s or speaker’s original time and culture, and how we best understand things in context. He felt we were on common ground so far.

Conclusion
I was watching a show where people were asked about “truth”. One woman was sitting at a blue picnic table and said, “Someone could say this table is red; they would be right because that would be their truth.” But she’s wrong; here’s why. If we’re speaking English to each other, the colors blue and red are defined to be certain hues (a hue is how an object reflects light). A person can spew forth all kinds of insensible gibberish, but if they want to be understood, they have to stick to established definitions.
Perhaps you don’t think I’m right. Think of it this way: If a park had three picnic tables, one blue, one yellow, and one red, and she told me to meet her at the blue picnic table, I would be thought color-blind or ignorant if I instead went to either the yellow table or the red table. The English words red and blue have certain definitions to prevent confusion. Someone may argue that anyone can say anything, but that doesn’t mean anyone will understand the person who doesn’t use a language as it is defined for the time.

I previously mentioned that the cover has a map of the U.S.A. and “six cups of coins”. I already explained why the map of the U.S.A., but now let me explain why “six”: In the chapter introduction, a word definition was important because I needed to answer my young son’s question of, “What is sex?” To answer his question correctly, I had to know what he was talking about. In that case, I had to know that he had mixed a German word into an English sentence. The definition of the German word he was asking about was different than the definition of the English word that sounded the same. The German word sex is translated into English as “six”. Therefore, let the “six” cups of silver remind you of this little story and what should be self-evident: We understand each other’s words based on our common language.

What does the Bible say?
Does the Bible support the concept that words have meaning? Of course it does, the Bible itself is a library of words, each word with a meaning. We understand these words based on the context of the sentence, paragraph, storyline, and overall scriptures. And we understand these words based on the original language, time, and culture.
Even people who don’t believe the Bible recognize the Bible has words and recognize that those words have meaning. Some people don’t like what the Bible says, but that just recognizes that the people do in fact think the words in the Bible have meaning.
I’ll leave this section with one verse, from the New Testament book of John, chapter 1, verse 1, which reads, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
This is a great verse because it allows us to realize that God gave us words because God is the word. We have to realize that without God we wouldn’t have even this first truth that we’re calling “self-evident”. It was God who spoke creation into existence.

Quick Review
On the front cover are pictures of a map of the United States of America and six cups of coins. These pictures remind us:
The Founding Fathers of the United States of America wrote a Declaration of Independence in which they refer to “self-evident truth”.
Sex is the German word that translates to “six” in English; it is used as a reminder that if we don’t know what language a person is speaking, we may not know the definition of the word they are using. This is important because: We understand each other’s words based on our common language.

Up Next
Find out why the cups.

Section 2: SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH

The truth expressed in a “self-evident truth” is supposed to be recognized without explanation. Self-evident truth is supposed to be true for all peoples in all circumstances. Other words used to describe a self-evident truth are, “axiom” and “universally recognized truth”.

In this section I want to discuss what I claim are three self-evident truths. I think these truths form the basis for intellectual discovery. We will begin by exploring three self-evident truths as represented on my cover by six cups of coins. Intrigued? Read on.