The Definition Of God

Citizens of western society, when discussing the issue of God's existence, seem to have assumed a certain type of deity to be the one that exists, if there is a God at all.  Within the context of their conversations, people seem to mean by the word "God" a personal "male" deity very much resembling the one worshipped by the planet's three primary monotheistic religions.

This represents a problem.

Americans are often assuming an inherited definition of God largely without inquiring whether or not the culturally preconceived idea of God is the most rational one to search for.  The Kalam cosmological argument would only prove the existence of one "uncaused cause", not multiple ones, and thus applying Occam's Razor shaves off polytheism as a likely reality.  But proving that a deity or first cause exists tells us nothing about certain features this being possesses.  Is the deity what we would refer to as "male" or "female", a god or goddess?  Androgynous?  Does it have limited or full foreknowledge?  Does it have a concern with personally connecting with or fulfilling our lives?  Is it still in a current active relationship with events in the universe or on the earth?

Clearly the answers to each of those questions dramatically alters the way we would refer to and understand the type of deity that exists.  Still, the concept of a monotheistic god with attributes shared by the gods of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam seems to be what someone is generally speaking about when they mention the word "God".

As always, people must use caution in defining terms and assuming something when searching for truth.

The Self-Evidence Of Logic

Even if we doubted everything around us--our sense perceptions of the external world, the existence of God, the existence of objective right and wrong--there are some truths we cannot avoid.  The very act of attempting to escape from them only proves that these truths exist and are binding.  We call these axioms; their nature is such that the reason we cannot escape them is because they are self-evident and self-verifying.

Some examples of axioms include:


1).  Truth exists.

2).  I can know something.

3).  Words can convey truth.


The moment anyone denies these three things they have already proven them.  No matter how much effort some people invest into trying to reject or dismiss these three facts, their questioning only confirms them.  It is impossible for there to be no such thing as truth, for one who disposes of the idea of truth really believes it is true that there is no truth--that the way things are is that there is no way things are.  Similarly, it is impossible to know nothing, because anyone who claims to know "nothing" has to know the fact that he or she is unaware of objective reality and thus claims to know something [1], meaning that at least one truth is knowable.  And lastly, anyone who argues that words cannot convey truth must use words to promote their idea to others, an idea which, if correct, is true.  Any alternative to these three claims will be unable to escape their veracity and omnipresence.

There exists a small minority of people who will question even the legitimacy of logic itself, a futile and self-condemning quest.  I want to explain why logic is self-evident in a manner identical to the two axioms I presented above.

If logic is not necessarily true and therefore any conclusion reached by logic is unreliable (note that one must still use what is called deductive reasoning to even connect the premise that logic is faulty to the following conclusion), then the conclusion that logic is unreliable is uncertain because an argument using logic was necessary to reach it, and thus I have no reason to even consider the argument correct or plausible in any way.  Any argument against reason must inevitably utilize the principles of reason in order to attack it; any assault on the veracity or reliability of logic must inescapably use logic in order to conclude that logic is faulty.  No one can question or criticize the use of premises to form conclusions (deductive reasoning) without asserting premises which allegedly lead to the conclusion that concepts such as deductive reasoning are invalid or untrustworthy.  If someone tries to dethrone the self-evident nature of reason, he or she believes there is reason to disregard it, thus contradicting himself or herself at the most foundational level.  Anyone who denies the three laws of logic will by necessity have to use those very three laws in their alleged refutation of them.  In contrast to logical facts, and to my great personal distress, scientific truths, theological truths, and moral truths are not self-evident, as only logical principles and axioms can possess this quality.  I wish the reality of this point was different, but it is absurd to deny it.

Logic, deductive reasoning (use of premises to form a conclusion), and the existence of reason are entirely self-evident.  It is futile, irrational, and inconsistent to deny or dismiss them.  These axiomatic and self-verifying principles form the cornerstone of all coherent ideas and epistemology, immutable and invulnerable guardians of truth and knowledge.  It is through logic that the skeptic can begin to comprehend the transcendent by finding self-evident and self-verifying truths.  The one who doubts everything about his or her perception of truth is forced to rely on these principles in the endeavor, demonstrating that the core of reality is not merely knowable--there is no legitimate way to not know it.


[1].  Skeptics possess awareness that they know some things in addition to the fact that they are aware of their own existence.  The existence of the mind of the self is another inescapable axiomatic truth.  No one can doubt their own existence without by necessity existing in order to even doubt it, as Descartes realized, immortalizing his revelation with his renowned phrase "Cogito ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am").

In Favor Of Purgatory

I have very recently realized purgatory is not some indefensible concept but is a very supportable notion which boasts the authority of reason.  It seems that Protestants find this position more offensive than other Christians do, denouncing it as a Catholic invention.  Now, I am certainly not a Catholic, but, at the same time, neither would I be quick to categorize myself among the groups of various Christians.  In this post I want to introduce my own syllogistic argument for purgatory and clarify several ramifications for this concept.

I have not yet studied traditional arguments for purgatory, but I will offer a syllogism I designed (I expect that mine is very similar to what others have formulated) which uses deductive reasoning to demonstrate that if the premises I present are true then the conclusion that purgatory exists is undeniable.


1. Sanctification is necessary before entrance into heaven.
2. Full sanctification does not occur on earth before death [1].
3. Therefore sanctification must be completed after death but before heaven.


The only way to refute this conclusion is to prove one or both of the premises to be incorrect, since the conclusion follows logically from the premises.  Premise 1 agrees with general Protestant theology, so anyone who disputes my conclusion has to falsify something before the conclusion of my syllogism.

Protestants often mistake the idea of purgatory's sanctifying effect for an idea which denies that salvation is grounded in Christ alone.  Someone who is aware of the differences between justification and sanctification [2], though, should not succumb to this error.  Purgatory does not contradict the doctrine that justification only occurs because of Christ alone, yet that has not prevented people from assuming that it denies or challenges this.  The concept of purgatory has to do with sanctification, the process of becoming holy and more like God, and does not have anything to do with justification, the act of God making humans right with him in a salvific sense.

The objection that purgatory is not mentioned in Scripture is a meaningless one, because in the Bible the word "Trinity" is never even slightly alluded to, yet Protestants are quick to affirm the Trinity (something which could never be supported by deductive reasoning like purgatory can be).  The Bible never mentions that gender inequality in workplace wages is wrong, but the legislation of Mosaic Law would by extension condemn all double-standards involving gender.  Scripture is not the sole revealer of truth; it is absurd and self-refuting to believe otherwise, and there exists an extraordinary amount of ground which Scripture does not even comment on.  The fact that the Bible never seems to mention purgatory--to my knowledge--does not threaten my argument at all.  Besides, it is unjustifiably generous to the baseless Protestant stance on this matter to believe that the Bible never references purgatory, because it is impossible to prove that certain ambiguous passages are not teaching the notion.

Ironically, I suspect that, at the same time that they rightly disregard any tradition which contradicts the Bible or core Christianity, many Protestants reject the idea of purgatory out of respect for Protestant tradition.  Remember that whenever dealing with matters of truth, no one's feelings, preferences, customs, opinions, or guesses have any value.  Evangelical tradition concerning hell, Mosaic Law, and epistemology is deeply flawed, and reason blatantly denies the arguments of evangelicals against purgatory in the same way that it vomits out some of their conclusions about hell and morality.  In fact, purgatory likely exists by logical necessity.

I will continue to contemplate this matter in the coming weeks, grateful that reason can liberate from the bonds of tradition and ignorance.


[1].  There is an untraditional group of Christians called perfectionists which believes that a person can become fully perfect in this life.  I cannot currently verify or refute their claims, but I can prove that perfectionism is not incorrect just because it seems impossible or because people don't think one can shed all sins before death.  However, there are MANY beliefs which I once rejected that I now know are are true, some of which I have mentioned on my blog (annihilationism, Christian naturism, and rationalism are all things I have viciously hated at earlier points in my life).  It is of course possible that perfectionism is correct, since there is nothing self-refuting about the concept.  Note that the mere possibility that perfection is attainable between the moment of justification and death does not mean that everyone will achieve this status while living.  So even if perfectionism is true, purgatory would still hypothetically be necessary for people who did not become perfect before they died.

[2].  http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/definitions-part-2.html

Healthy And Irrational Skepticism

I have no patience for people who use skepticism as a way to escape responsibility to the truth.  I have reluctantly resorted to skepticism on many matters out of great concern for truth and out of a desire to make no assumptions, mistakes, or errors in my judgments about reality, God, ethics, epistemology, and many other subjects.  As I have grown older, I have also encountered those who use skepticism to just deflect away any claim without truly considering it.

The difference between the two manifestations of skepticism is explicit and overt.  For instance, I doubt many moral claims because of the fallacious reasoning used to justify them, while others might doubt or deny moral claims because they don't want to have to submit to any moral obligations.  I doubt if science is ultimately useful for discovering ultimate truths because science is not self-affirming like logic is and because it cannot prove anything, whereas other religious people might doubt science simply because they feel that their "faith" is threatened by words like "empirical evidence".  I doubt many things on a regular basis and could easily join the ranks of the best doubters.

Yes, I am someone who is highly skeptical of almost any truth claim and someone who has doubted every premise and idea I have encountered in the past few years, but I strongly despise extreme skeptics.  I openly admit this to others without hesitation, despite the fact that I have thus far been a committed Christian, yet I still loathe skeptics who try to avoid confrontations with truth.  Some people use a charade of skepticism to dismiss what they themselves believe or suspect to be true.  A vast difference exists between me and these pseudo-philosophers.  For instance, it is rational for me to doubt if my conscience is reliable or if Christianity is true, and nothing about this expresses a disrespect for truth.  But it would be the zenith of irrationality for me to be unsure if I exist or to be uncertain if logic exists.  I understand and acknowledge that it would be asinine for me to doubt the existence of my mind since I would be unable to doubt my existence did it not exist for me to use in order to contemplate the issue.  That is the difference between a total skeptic and a legitimate skeptic like myself: I do not doubt what is self-evident as an axiom or what is undeniably obvious to me (the existence of my mind).  In fact, complete skepticism is damningly self-refuting, as someone who claims to not know anything is really claiming to know something.  I have on several occasions come very near to total epistemological skepticism, but even acknowledging axiomatic truths separates me from those who pretend they can never know anything at all.

Skepticism, the liberating disease, is a mandatory requirement for any rational person.  It is liberating because it emancipates us from poor arguments and false conclusions, yet a disease in that it must infect how we view everything in order for us to truly comprehend what we can know for sure.  But legitimate uses of skepticism will never result in absurd contradictions like doubting the precious few foundations of knowledge everyone knows.

Definitions (Part 4)

Political Systems

Politics--procedures related to obtaining leadership influence in a land and governing it

Government--body which overlooks and rules a group of people or a nation

Aristocracy--governmental system presided over by the higher class

Democracy--governmental system where the majority selects officials

Oligarchy--governmental system managed by a select group of individuals

Monarchy--governmental system presided over by a monarch (royalty, like a king or queen)

Theocracy--governmental system where God is viewed as ruling a nation, which is also governed by people operating on God's behalf

Republic--governmental system where the majority votes on officials who occupy their offices for a limited time

Timocracy--governmental system where only those who possess property can participate in leadership

Plutocracy--governmental system ruled by the wealthy

Dictatorship--governmental system presided over by a lone dictator who wields total or near-total power

Autocracy--governmental system led by a single person (an autocrat)

Corporatism--governmental system managed by powerful companies


Criminal Law

Crime--act punished by a governmental authority

Fine--amount of money taken from an offender and given to the state

Damages--amount of money given to a victim of crime as compensation

Servitude--period of time during which an offender serves someone as punishment for a crime

Corporal punishment--physical punishment of an offender's body, such as flogging

Capital punishment--execution of a criminal for a capital crime

Robbery--use of violence or force to steal from someone

Murder--extinguishing of a human life in unlawful circumstances (other than proportional self-defense, just capital punishment, just warfare, or manslaughter)

Manslaughter--unintentional taking of a human life

Rape--non-consensual sex with a person

Bestiality--sex with an animal

Incest--sex with a parent, sibling, or other close family member (other than one's spouse)

Negligence--harming or killing someone through non-active means due to lack of awareness or concern

Assault--physical attack on someone

Battery--infliction of physical injuries on someone during an assault

Kidnapping--non-consensually taking of a human being

Human trafficking--involuntary selling of people for profit or exploitation

Perjury--intentionally bringing a false charge against someone to indict them

Defamation--promotion of false information about someone which damages their reputation

Slander--verbal defamation of someone

Libel--written defamation of someone

The Intellectual Bankruptcy Of The American Church

The American church as a whole has failed intellectual people by consistently excluding them from its target audience.  It has done little to alleviate the despair that those who seek proof or evidence must confront when they begin to question their Christian ideals and the veracity of the Bible.  If anyone is willing to actually engage these people in conversation, all the doubters usually hear about is why they should just believe despite doubts and lack of evidence [1] or that there is no evidence and thus searching for it is futile.  Right now, even after the enormous quantity of time I have spent educating myself about philosophy, apologetics, and Christian theology, I can relate to the terrified doubter described above far more than I can relate to the relaxed apologist who is perfectly willing to concede that 100% certainty on many matters is unattainable.

As someone who has been what appears to be the one person (or one of the very few) in my present congregation who truly cares about apologetics, reason, and the intellect, I have often found myself distressed by the sense of solitude an apologist will discover in the church at large--and even more disturbed by the response average churchgoers will offer to those who doubt.  Fallacy-filled cliche answers do not address true intellectual questions, and though verbal encouragement may comfort the feelings of the doubter, since the doubter is usually rejecting emotional grounds for belief in an idea in exchange for the pursuit of rational certainty or proof, emotional support does little to diminish the terror of an existential crisis.  The insistence that "faith" (a vague and controversial term as it is) is the answer and benevolent but superficial words of sentimental comfort have failed to prevent thousands of Christians from abandoning Christianity at the college age or when they are confronted with those who challenge their often-assumed beliefs.

At best, the occasional attempts by churches to appease the few intellectuals among them usually amount to painful misuses of logic which only frustrate lovers of reason even further.  I have gone from being deeply irate with the shallowness and inconsistency of general popular theology in common church services to believing that the average church at the present time has little to nothing to offer a true seeker of truth.  Whether or not the Bible has anything to offer a truth-seeker is an entirely separate issue, just as whether or not Christianity is true has nothing to do with the Bible.  But I now experience revulsion at the thought of the ignorant fitheists who are viewed as representing Christianity in the current American culture.

Do Christians not see that one can have faith in ANYTHING?  That someone can have faith that Islam and its associated morality are true, that prison rape is justice, that Christianity is incorrect, that life has no meaning, that logic is an unnecessary obstacle to life and is therefore unnecessary?  Do they not realize that faith in one idea of history and theology is no more objectively compelling than faith in another view of history and theology and that one unverified belief is not superior to another?  Do they not understand that truth is far too valuable a thing [2] to be approached through helpless guesses and implausible assumptions?  Do they not comprehend the pain of someone who wants answers or do they not empathize with those people enough?

As I wrote in the first paragraph, I myself am in a period of severe doubt about many matters despite my intimate familiarity with a great deal of different philosophies and Christian apologetics and theology in particular.  If this is what has become of a dedicated Christian who sought knowledge with true devotion to truth and reason, then what will become of the unequipped and the ignorant?  Churches have indeed largely failed and neglected those among their congregations and cities who long for certainty and something verifiable and intrinsically meaningful to love and place their hope in.  This does not surprise me; if churches can't even understand what the Bible teaches about matters both trivial and significant, they certainly can't understand philosophy, science, and reason.  The American church needs to change or become rightly obsolete.


[1].  By this I mean that there is usually a lack of evidence that has been presented to the doubter.  Obviously this blog is dedicated to the fact that there is great evidence for Christianity that intelligent people can grapple with.

[2].  A true rationalist will start from nothing, seeking truth with the knowledge that truth may turn out to possess no meaning, that it just is but has no actual value because nothing does.  I am not assuming that truth is valuable in this post but merely making a point.

The Hypocrisy Of (Many) Moral Objectivists

As I have spoken with moral and aesthetic objectivists throughout the past handful of years, I have noticed a bizarre hypocrisy which is both subtle and obvious.  Ethical objectivists will usually claim that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", implying that nothing is objectively beautiful, or that a variety of matters are simply "personal taste" which do not correspond to some higher objective reality; however, the moment one offers the same claim about ethics they will object and demonstrate that the conclusion never follows from the premises and that true relativism is an impossible absurdity.  This inconsistency is infernally annoying on many levels.  All at once, moral objectivists prove that disagreement or subjective ideas about morality do not prove that no intrinsically-correct ethical standard exists while advocating aesthetic relativism or relativism in other areas due to disputes about the nature of those concepts.

Observing other people has illuminated a fascinating truth.  Intriguingly, an objectivist must live like a relativist and a relativist must live like an objectivist.  This paradox is one few acknowledge, but it is inescapable.  An objectivist must admit his or her inability to know many (or any) of the objective criterion which reveal truths about certain things and must resign himself or herself to the fact that the best humans can often do is to attempt to seek objective truths using subjective perceptions [1].  Likewise, relativists must inevitably act as if their subjective perceptions are objectively true in order to even engage in normal human life if they want to honor what they call their "opinions".  In a fascinating and unavoidable paradox, relativists and objectivists must at times live differently than how their own worldviews alone would lead them to behave.

This post is not the first time I have targeted inconsistent use of objectivism [2], and I probably will write about this irrationality further in the future.  I just wanted to explain in an abbreviated fashion the hypocrisy I have detected.  Hypocrisy can be difficult to avoid, however, for the very nature of reality almost forbids us from abstaining from it entirely.


[1].  Objectivism's veracity does not mean we are capable of knowing what makes something objectively good, evil, beautiful, funny, and so on.  Ironically, moral objectivists--who understand that objective moral facts can exist independent of and irrespective of human disagreement about them and unawareness of them--will often call things like beauty, aesthetics, funniness, boredom, and sexiness matters of subjective opinion or preference for which there are no objective truths.  In other words, they say that nothing is objectively beautiful, funny, boring, and sexy as they claim the opposite about ethics.  Amusingly, they are succumbing to the exact same arguments used to promote ethical relativism but are applying them to other matters.  Moral objectivists often live in blatant hypocrisy.

[2].  http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-objectivity-of-entertainment-quality.html

The Scope Of Mosaic Law

In recent weeks I have enjoyed learning about specific legal names for various criminal activities and, of course, I have also paired particular versions of crimes with the respective verses in Old Testament Law that address them and wanted to post some of the results.  I think few people appreciate or understand the simultaneous broadness and specificity of Mosaic Law in that it uses general principles, case laws, and universal commands to cover an extraordinary amount of ethical and legal ground.  To demonstrate this, I have arranged several lists of similarly-grouped crimes along with references to verses in Mosaic Law which deal with them.  As with other lists, such as my definition tables, the content is subject to possible expansion and change.

Obviously, some of these crimes will overlap with categories outside of the one they are placed in.  For instance, rape would be both a sexual and violent crime, child sacrifice involves aspects of both religious and violent crimes, and several things listed below (such as Exodus 21:15, 17, and Deuteronomy 21:18-21) could constitute their own separate category outside of where they are placed.


Property crimes [1]
1. Larceny (Exodus 22:1, 4)
2. Burglary (Exodus 22:2-3)
3. Embezzlement (Exodus 22:7-15)
4. Theft with inability to repay (Exodus 22:3)
5. Destruction/consumption of another's field/vineyard (Exodus 22:5)
6. Arson (Exodus 22:6)

Violent crimes--including sexual assaults and CAPs (crimes against persons)
1. Premeditated murder (Exodus 21:12, 14)
2. Manslaughter (Exodus 21:13)
3. Criminal negligence resulting in loss of life (Exodus 21:28-30)
4. Assault and battery resulting in minor injuries and/or illness (Exodus 21:18-19)
5. Assault on a pregnant woman resulting in miscarriage (Exodus 21:22)
6. Assault and battery resulting in permanent injuries (Exodus 21:23-27, Leviticus 24:19-21)
7. Striking or assault on one's parent (Exodus 21:15)
8. Female sexual assault on a man's reproductive organs (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)
9. Rape (Deuteronomy 22:25-27)
10. Kidnapping with intent to sell (Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 24:7)
11. Kidnapping without intent to sell/possession of kidnapping victim (Exodus 21:16)
12. Kidnapping for ransom (Exodus 21:16)
13. Human trafficking/ slave trading (Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 24:7)
14. Involuntary servitude (Deuteronomy 24:7)

Sexual crimes
1. Adultery (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22)
2. Sex with an engaged person (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)
3. Bestiality (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 20:15-16)
4. Prostitution by a priest's daughter (Leviticus 21:9)
5. Marrying a woman and her mother (Leviticus 20:14)

Religious crimes
1. Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16)
2. Child sacrifice (Leviticus 20:2-5)

Speech crimes
1. Perjury (Deuteronomy 19:16-21)
2. False accusation against a wife [2] (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)
3. Cursing one's parent (Exodus 21:17, Leviticus 20:9)

Miscellaneous
1. Contempt of court (Deuteronomy 17:8-13)
2. Negligence leading to loss of animal life (Exodus 22:33)
3. Sex between unengaged singles [3] (Exodus 22:16-17)
4. Sorcery (Exodus 22:18, Leviticus 20:27)
5. Extreme incorrigible disobedience to parents (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)


[1].  Though many in modern times refer to property crimes in general as theft, theft is a rather large category that includes many different types of property crimes.  There are more forms of theft than listed below.
1. Larceny is ordinary theft of property.
2. Burglary is entry into a home or building in order to steal.
3. Embezzlement is misuse of money entrusted to oneself.
4. Arson is destruction of property by burning.

[2].  Perjury was punished with the same penalty that would have been inflicted on the falsely accused.  However, in Deuteronomy 22 a false accusation against a wife's virginity prior to marriage receives only a fine and perhaps an additional flogging (scholars are undecided about the second component of the punishment).  The reason the two penalties differ, seemingly a blatant contradiction, is because the act of perjury is premeditated and malicious while the offense in the second case is not.  If someone planned to accuse a spouse of lying about his or her virginity in order to illicitly have them executed, the offender would be killed.

Also, this law did not punish premarital sex with death but criminalized lying to one's spouse about virginity before marriage and falsely accusing a spouse of lying about the matter.

[3].  The reason I did not group this with sexual crimes is that, as I have explained elsewhere, this action is not intrinsically wrong and was certainly not treated as a crime, though a specific outcome was legally preferred.  See http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/on-exodus-2216-17.html.