God's existence is absolutely certain because there is an uncaused cause by logical necessity [1]. What is not absolutely certain because it is not necessarily true by default, in light of itself like axioms or in light of any other necessary truth, is that Yahweh is synonymous with that uncaused cause and that the moral system of Christianity is correct. However, it could not be the case that a thing which follows from something else is false, for then it would follow logically from the untruth of this axiom that logic is erroneous, which would require logic still being true in order for it to be false. The Bible does not directly focus on these sorts of truths which are independent of all spiritual, religious, and scientific matters, all of which are contingent on being consistent with logical axioms to even be possible.
Its tenets are indeed logically possible, though. It is possible for God to be loving even if the real uncaused cause is not. It is possible for there to be a future resurrection, even if there will not actually be one in reality. It is possible for theft or blasphemy to be immoral, but it could also be true that there is no such thing as morality or that what is good is very different in some ways from Biblical ethics. However, since conscience is a meaningless, irrelevant, subjective thing of no intrinsic metaphysical or epistemological connection with the existence and particulars of morality, and since cultural norms are mere sociological trends that have nothing to do with whether good and evil exist, the Biblical emphasis on Yahweh's moral nature addresses things people could not know left to themselves. I do not mean that Christianity is guaranteed to be true, even with all the evidence in its favor. If Christianity is true, one still cannot just know from introspection and conscience what is evil or obligatory and what to do if one has sinned.
The Bible might be a book that happens to be philosophically correct on things like the existence of an uncaused cause even if other parts are false. Nonetheless, in focusing on moral revelation, soteriology, and eschatology, it most directly, repeatedly mentions things that people would not be able to know of given human limitations. No one needs the Bible or any kind of literary, conversational, or sensory prompting of any kind to realize the inherent truth of logical axioms that all other things already depend on, though many people do not recognize this and might even deny these truths when pressed. It is not self-evident/self-necessary or necessitated by other logical truths that God loves humanity, that a demonic being called Satan opposes God, that there is eternal life for the righteous in an afterlife following resurrection, or other such things. Reason is true in itself.
Although the Bible would have to be consistent with it to be possibly true or true in actuality, it would not have to mention what is and could be literally the only self-necessary set of truths. Not even the self-evidence of one's own conscious existence, which would have to be true in order to be denied since one has to be conscious to disbelieve in one's own mental existence, is true apart from logical axioms. My existence (only that of my consciousness) is self-evident, yes, but it depends on their preceding, inherent metaphysical and epistemological truth like everything else would have to. The Bible does not need to state these things to be logically possible or to even be true beyond merely having potential to have been true. There is evidence for its truth, which would entail the truth of its moral, soteriological, and eschatological doctrines, and these are things that, though possible, would not be obvious to humans as probable apart from some sort of revelation and evidence for its veracity.
No comments:
Post a Comment