While snowboarding in Japan I wore orange tinted goggles which coloured everything orange. But after a while I’d adjust to them and totally forget that I was wearing them. Worldviews are just like this. Everyone has a worldview, but most of us are unaware of it and how this set of beliefs colours how we see the world. Even if you think you don’t have these beliefs, isn’t that a belief in itself?
The question is not whether or not you have a worldview but whether or not your worldview is the right one. However, all non-biblical worldviews are self-refuting. They break laws of logic such as the law of non-contradiction which says that it is impossible for something to be 'A' and 'not A' at the same time and in the same way.
The biblical worldview is internally consistent and accounts for universal laws, such as the laws of logic, laws of nature, and laws of morality. These laws exist because they are a reflection of the character and mind of God. In contrast, other worldviews cannot account for these laws adequately. For example, if the evolutionary worldview is true and we just evolved by chance random processes, there would be no basis for any universal laws to exist. How would you even know that your brain had evolved the correct thinking processes in order to actually know anything?
Many Westerners these days hold to an atheistic or agnostic worldview that is based on empiricism. This says that true knowledge can only be known by the scientific method. However, this view is self-refuting because it cannot be scientifically tested itself. You can't put an abstract belief into a test-tube to see if it is true. (I shared this with a very intellectual atheist recently and he said, “Oh, I hadn’t thought of that.”)
Agnostic literally means 'Don't know'. But a good question here to the agnostic would be - do you know that you don't know about God? Many agnostics may not even be aware that they have an empirical mind-set and simply say 'I believe in what I can see.' But can that belief be seen? Of course it can't because beliefs are abstract concepts.
We all know instinctively that God exists, and to argue otherwise is like someone trying to argue that air doesn’t exist – and at the same time breathing! Atheists have no good explanation for why laws of logic exist – but have to use them in order to try to argue against the Bible – so they are actually stealing constantly from the biblical worldview without realising it!
Buddhism, attractive to many who are anxious to rid themselves of biblical morality, refutes itself by the teaching you should strive to have no desires, but this is a desire within itself. This is clearly not a desirable state to be in.
Likewise, Hinduism is self-refuting because it says it is not possible to know knowledge, but that is knowledge within itself. The belief that everything is just an illusion is an illusion itself. Many Westerners have unknowingly embraced this ‘knowledge’. They say, ‘there is no absolute truth’. But is this absolutely true?
Islam refutes itself because Allah is so transcendent and unknowable that nothing in human experience is comparable to him. But laws of logic are part of human experience. So where do they come from if they are not a reflection of the mind of God? In order, to refute the biblical worldview they have to use the biblical worldview which alone accounts for the laws of logic.
The Qur'an says that the Bible came from Allah (Surah 6:114) and that God's words cannot be changed (Surah 6:34, 6:115), but because of the many contradictions between the Qur'an and the Bible Muslims believe that the Bible has been changed. But the Bible could not have been changed because we have copies of the Bible that were written before the Qur'an and they are the same as the Bible we have today. Thus in trying to refute the Bible Islam refutes itself.
The biblical worldview is the only self-consistent worldview that does not refute itself. It explains why we have laws of logic, laws of nature, and laws of morality – they are a reflection of the creator God revealed to us in the Bible.
You might have read all of this and still be thinking you don’t accept it as true for you because ‘truth is just relative’. However, this is an absolute truth statement, so this too is self-refuting. Restated it is saying that 'there is no absolute truth.' But is that relatively true or absolutely true?
If only the skeptics would be skeptical about their skepticism!
All of this confirms that what the Bible teaches is true. When people reject the one true biblical worldview and adopt man-made ones the result is that their beliefs end up becoming absurd, irrational, and self-refuting.
One of the primary principles of logic is the law of non-contradiction meaning no statement (proposition, assertion, etc.) can be both true and not true at the same time. Simple right? The law of non-contradiction reflects a logical thought process. This is easy to demonstrate as follows:
We cannot imagine a square circle because it's a contradiction; our minds either flip to a square, or to a circle!
We refer to this non contradictory thought process as a law because it is universal and unchanging. We somehow instinctively know that contradictions are always illogical. For example, you can’t be reading this book and not reading it simultaneously. If a person were to call a contradiction “logical” as the result of a brain mutation (i.e., a change in brain matter), we'd conclude they're nuts!
To claim a "logical contradiction" is equivalent to claiming that a car could be in the garage and not in the garage at the same time and in the same way. So we can see from this that logic remains unchanged even when brain matter changes… that logic transcends the physical brain!
Ironically, critics of Christianity argue that there are contradictions in the Bible but even though they are appealing to the law of non-contradiction they don’t have any good reasons as to why the law of non-contradiction actually exists. Even if they said “I can account for the laws of logic – they are observed to be true and accepted by the majority of people as being true” it is still begging the question as to why they exist. If they are just decided on by majority opinion then what is to stop the majority of people from another group or culture saying that they don’t accept the law of non-contradiction?
Why it’s an argument.
Unchanging logical thought processes rules out the theory of Darwinian evolution is true? In the Darwinian theory our thought processes are the result of changing brain matter. If brain matter produces thought processes and brain matter changes, then thought processes obviously change as well. Yet this is simply not the case with unchanging logical thought processes that we see in human experience.
So which is right? The answer is a simple matter of trusting your own mind over the claims of evolution. Again, a contradiction will never be logical. We simply "know that we know" this is true. There is a big contradiction with placing logic as evolved in the grand evolutionary story. So is there a better explanation out there for the existence of unchanging logic?
There is! The universe and matter is continually changing. However, things like absolute truth and laws of logic are universal, immaterial, and unchanging, so are transcendent beyond our minds and beyond our existence. Likewise God is universal, immaterial, and unchanging – the transcendent God of all Creation.
In a nutshell.
Logic means that things have order. Order cannot come from chaos. It is unchanging so it cannot evolved. The best possible answer for the existence of logic is that God exists.
This is the most basic of the basics. What is knowledge and how can we truly know anything? This is called the study of epistemology and it’s something that we often take for granted. Everyone just accepts that they can think, they can discern the world around them and they can tell the general difference between the truth and a lie. But is it all that easy? Why should there be something that is so ingrained within us which gives us this ability? How could such a mechanism have ‘evolved’ and how does it allow us to arrive at knowledge?
Stephen Hawking has claimed (nonsensically) that philosophy is dead. But epistemology is the most basic of philosophical concepts and without it, it impossible to conceive that our thoughts can be trusted. Just as the claim that believing in religion ‘just because’ is irrational, so too is believing that you can arrive at any truth ‘just because’.
Why it’s an argument.
How does this tie into believing in God? As it’s such a basic tenet of life that we don’t even have a grasp on, it gives rise to the notion of there being a spiritual component to life. Knowledge being merely derived by the senses does not explain how we can trust our senses. We take for granted intrinsically that we can and that there is a deeper component to knowledge… yet then no one can seem to pinpoint what that deeper component is.
Intelligence comes into play, if we are created by an intelligent force our ability to comprehend knowledge should be taken for granted. Yet if we were created by random processes nothing in this world should be intelligible at all! As Albert Einstein said, it’s “a miracle” that “the world of our sense experience is comprehensible”. He noted that science couldn’t even be attempted without that “miracle” and “the setting up of a real external world would be senseless without this comprehensibility”.
Senseless! This is the amazing thing, that the world isn’t senseless at all. How do we get knowledge from non-knowledge? God is the author of knowledge, it comes from his very nature (Proverbs 1:7, Colossians 2:3). The Christian worldview gives us rational justification for using our minds and senses in determining truth. If you have a different worldview you’re left scratching your head to why there should be knowledge at all. In a chance universe, there is no reason to expect our senses to be trustworthy or for there to be laws at all – so using logic is out.
A lot of the non-theistic bases for epistemology talk about ‘intuition’ as a truth basis, which in turn begs the question of why we should be able to trust our intuition if it’s just a result of random processes. If epistemology just ‘evolved’ then only pragmatism becomes our test for truth - it works so then it’s true. But wait, isn’t that circular reasoning?
God gives us a reason for the universes' comprehensibility and for knowledge. It’s not something we should take for granted but something that we should study about to understand.
In a nutshell.
You can’t even begin to answer the first epistemological questions without presupposing God exists – therefore God must exist.