The Problem of Evil (HKCCA Christian Apologetics Conference India 2021)

LIVE TALK: ANSWERING COVID-19 QUESTIONS TO CHRISTIANITY

APOLOGETICS DISCUSSION ON CHRISTIAN RESPONSES TO COVID-19

TOPIC: Intelligent Design VS Irrational Disease?
Join Dr. Mark Boone, Rev. Luther Li,Dr. (Sr.) Mudita Sodder, Dr. Joseph Hiwale, Bro. Keneth Pervaiz, Dr. Domenic Marbaniang, and Dr. J. B. Jeyaraj on a Live Conversation on Covid-19 questions for Christianity that rage across the globe.

Posted by Faith and Philosophy on Friday, August 28, 2020

Moderator: Dr. Domenic Marbaniang
Panelists:
Dr. Mark J. Boone (Hong Kong Baptist University)
Rev. Luther Li (Emmanuel Christian Church)
Dr. (Sr.) Mudita Sodder (RSCJ, Sophia College, Fellowship of Indian Missiologists)
Bishop Dr. Joseph Hiwale (Koinonia College of Theology, Koinonia Church Fellowship)
Bro. Keneth Pervaiz (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary)
Dr. Domenic Marbaniang (Hong Kong Baptist University)
Dr. J. B. Jeyaraj (Jubilee Institute)

QUESTIONS:
1. Did God create malevolent viruses?
2. Should we consider COVID-19 as God's judgment of international sin in the world?
3. What does the Bible say about suffering from natural causes?
4. Are Christians immune to the virus, provided they have "strong faith"?
5. What does God expect of Christians in the midst of such a crisis as the present one?
6. Should Christians regard laws forbidding public worship at churches (though not shutting down supermarkets) as a problem of "obeying God or man"? How do Catholics and Protestants respond to this?
7. In a preface to a book, Pope Francis wrote: "“The presence of the Risen Lord in His Word and through the celebration of the Eucharist will give us the strength we need to resolve the difficulties and challenges that we will face after the coronavirus crisis.” Yes, but if Christ is risen, why do Christians need to go through suffering? Is Christian hope only about the hereafter or the coming world? How do we experience Christ's resurrection power in this life?
8. N.T. Wright has written a book "God and the Pandemic: A Christian Reflection on the Coronavirus and its Aftermath". He explains that when natural disaster hit the early church, they didn't ask theological questions but focused on collecting and sending help to the ones in need. How would you comment on that?
9. There are many ways in which Churches have gone online (Zoom, Google Meet, Livecast, FB streaming, etc). How do explain its theological significance in light of the New Testament?
10. How can a pastor fulfill his pastoring ministry during a lockdown situation?

POST-SCRIPT:
Cremation of bodies by government. What does the Bible say about funeral and resurrection?

Creation-Faith and the Value of the Cosmological Argument

The cosmological argument takes off from the common-sense idea that every effect must have a cause. From a rational point of view, the idea of something being created or effected out of nothing is absurd. Therefore, in many religious cosmologies, God is seen as either the material cause or the formal cause or the final cause of the world. In many cosmogonies, the universe is looked at as created out of something (and not nothing), many times the body of God (the eternal One). The idea of creation out of nothing does not originate in reason, though it may seem sensible to the imagination.

Immanuel Kant had raised an important issue with the cosmological argument that looked to God as the source of the chain of cause-effect phenomena (or the world). He said,

"If the supreme being should itself stand in this chain of conditions, it would be a member of the series, and like the lower members which it precedes, would call for further enquiry as to the still higher ground from which it follows. If, on the other hand, we propose to separate it from the chain, and to conceive it as a purely intelligible being, existing apart from the series of natural causes, by what bridge can reason contrive to pass over to it? For all laws governing the transition from effects to causes, all synthesis and extension of our knowledge, refer to nothing but possible experience, and therefore solely to objects of the sensible world, and apart from them can have no meaning whatsoever." [The Critique of Pure Reason, Trs by NK Smith, 518-19)

While there has been much significant work done on the cosmological argument, the argument itself is not supposed to function as the proof for the existence of God. Of course, attempts to debunk the cosmological argument do not accomplish much than the popular "If God created the world, who created God?" or "If God could be eternal, why can't the universe be eternal?" And, apologists have devised strong arguments as an answer.

Perhaps, the greatest value of the cosmological argument lies in exposing the irrationality of cosmogonies that are bereft of the idea of an uncaused, transcendent cause. For instance, it argues that an infinitely temporal universe would be impossible. It would certainly be too hasty for cosmologists to find evidence in a big bang theory or the similar. The cosmological argument, however, does allow a rational anticipation of the belief in a creation out of nothing.

Ultimately, the idea of creation out of nothing is not a mere common-sense tenet of reason, but is a tenet of faith. And the revelation is particular to the Biblical account of creation. Therefore, we are told:

"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." (Heb 11:3)

The Significance of Miracles

Jesus told the Jews to believe in Him, if not because of His words, then because of His works. The book of Acts records signs and wonders that accompanied preaching. The Bible talks also about lying signs by the devil in the last days. Obviously, as human experience proves (in all anthropological cultures), miracles play an important role in the area of faith and worldview formation.

Despite the Enlightenment euphoria challenging the possibility of miracles, chiefly David Hume's criticism of them, reports of miracles have only increased. Of course, there is the need to investigate the reports.

A notable deed of miracle cannot not be ignored, whether people believe the message or not. The Bible does show the supremacy of the divine deed in cases like Moses' confrontation with the Egyptian magicians, Elijah's confrontation with Baal priests, and Philip's preaching in Samaria where Simon the Magus was baptized.

One important aspect of the Christian Life is prayer. The very reality of prayer affirms the reality of divine intervention. A miracle is nothing but a direct divine act of intervention. While miracles may sometimes be notable and these become talk of the day, we must not miss the acts of God that are regularly experienced in our lives.

Jesus told His disciples that the world stands in greater accountability because of the works He has done. This means that miracles make our lives more accountable to God. In fact, the totality of miracles that have been done till now far exceed the number in the days of Christ. The world has a higher accountability.

It will not be a surprise if miracles meet with skepticism. The Jews didn't accept Christ's miracles as divine. There are those who wish to rationally explain a miracle. But, every human does have a divine encounter with an invitation to either accept or reject the supremacy of God.

In Surprised By Joy, C.S. Lewis doesn't describe his conversion as the result of logical arguments. He talks of having a divine encounter and given the time slice of choice, to decide to believe or reject. Of course, he chose to believe.*

I have seen cases where a young boy brought in a completely vegetable state, turned down by doctors, was healed completely in few hours through prayers. Another guy with a putrefying waist condition, incapable of even standing, was totally healed through prayers alone and came bicycling the next week. Another girl with blood flowing from her forehead was healed when the demon was cast out. Now, one can try to come up with a rational explanation, but it would be a miracle if any natural explanation of a supernatural work can obtain the same results.

But, one must remember, a miracle is not the result of following some laws of miracles or some formula. A miracle is an act of God's sovereign will and grace.

---

* Lewis mentions a number of events that preceded his conversion moment and were instrumental in compelling him to this free choice. His dissatisfaction with the writings of non-theist writers (who seemed "tinny" and shallow) and with the falsity of chronological snobbery (the fallacious view that the most modern view should be the most accurate and updated), along with his reading of Christian writers, especially Chesterton, played an important role in shedding light on the path he was walking on and the path that the Gospel offered. However, in all these, Lewis discerned God's move in his life and recorded the final divine move as a checkmate that drove him to his knees, "the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England", as he called himself.

Quotes

Interview with J. P. Moreland (June 20, 2008)

PR: What is lost when the good news of the Kingdom is shared unaccompanied by the Spirit’s power?

JP: We lose the ministry of Jesus. He taught, proclaimed and demonstrated the Kingdom’s power and we should, too. We also lose the distinctively supernatural aspects of our religion. Finally, we lose intimacy with God because the power and presence of God are often two sides of the same coin in scripture.

PR: In Kingdom Triangle, you give some advice about how churches can encourage growth in the miraculous. Have you seen these ideas work out in churches newly open to the contemporary ministry of the Spirit?

JP: I have seen this. What is important is for each church to locate where they currently reside regarding these issues and be who they are, yet with an eye on growing a bit in this area. Then each church must be willing to take some risks and step out in faith such that God may not show up but if He does it will be obvious. Finally, each church must learn from its failures and continue to go forward.

A Witness To The Goodnews by J. Rodman Williams

In the charismatic movement there are clear evidences that the contemporary endowment of the Spirit is making for more effective witness, both personal and social. It is apparent on many charismatic fronts that there are both a fresh kind of "reality evangelism"- -a joyous, often indirect but highly potent, form of witness about the new life in Christ- -and many vigorous and creative expressions of concern for the manifold disorders in personal and corporate life.

If God Is Love Means The Father Eternally Loves The Son, Does God Is Judge Means He Eternally Judges The Son?

Augustine in the eighth book of On Trinity begins to talk of love as involving three substances: the lover, the loved, and love. Modern apologists like Ravi Zacharias have argued that the statement God is Love could only be true if God is essentially and eternally a Triune being: the Father eternally loves the Son through the Holy Spirit. Thus, it was not that God was all alone (a monad) before the creation and had nothing to love, but being the Triune inter-personal God, He ever existed as Love.

Of course, Augustine also talks about the possibility of loving oneself and sees three things involved in this as well: "when the mind knows itself and loves itself, there remains a trinity: mind, love, knowledge; and this trinity is not confounded together by any commingling". However, in this mono-love, there is only one person, though one may divide the experience into the lover, the loved, and love. Loving oneself is not inter-personal, and therefore possesses no love act of self-giving and submission. Therefore, the concept of the Triune God as Love is considered significant.

One objection raised to this argument goes something like this: If God is love means the Father eternally loves the Son through the Spirit, does God is Judge means the Father eternally judges the Son through the Spirit? And this applies to all statements such as "God is jealous" or "God is a consuming fire". Is the Father eternally jealous or eternally consuming the Son? The objection tries to reduce the argument to ad absurdum.

A few clarifications are necessary. The objection misses the difference between love and the other mentioned predicates. "Jealous" here is an adjective, not a noun. "Consuming fire" is metaphorical for the righteousness of God in His judgment. "Judge" is an office which stands in relation to the created world. The statement "God is Love" is not the same as "God is Loving". When one says that "God is Love", there is an identity of substance and not just participation in or possessing of an attribute. This cannot be predicated of any other being. For instance, one cannot say that Mr. A is Love; we only say Mr. A is loving in nature. To say God is Love is to speak in absolute and infinite terms. The statement "God is Love" points to God as the ground of all morality and personality. Note the following excerpt from a previous post:

There are at least three approaches to understanding Trinity.

The Rational Approach. ... personality finds its best explanation in the personal nature of God, whose existence as three persons (I-YOU-HE Sufficiency) in one Godhead is the ground of personhood.

The Moral Approach. It seeks to find in the doctrine of Trinity a rational ground for the absolute nature of moral virtues, such as love, goodness, and joy. If God didn’t eternally exist in a subject-object relationship, then He would be amoral and morality would not be absolute. The doctrine of Trinity provides a rational ground for any discussion of morality with respect to its absolute nature.... [See Illustrating Trinity]

Love is the summation of morality and personality and morality cannot be dissected of each other. To be a person is to be moral. Therefore, the reality of personality and morality must find an ontological ground in an infinite inter-personal Beginning and End of all things. The Triune Persons cannot be FOUR since inter-personal sufficiency is sufficed by the I-YOU-HE tri-personal Sufficiency), or else infinitude would be reduced to finite polytheism without any essential unity. Thus, the revelation of God as Love is crucial to our understanding of every other contingent reality of moral personhood.

Does the Moral Law Require a Moral Lawgiver?

One popular version of the moral argument for the existence of God has been that the reality or rational necessity of the moral law proves the existence of a moral lawgiver. However, we must admit that there are religious philosophies, especially in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism that do not find a leap from moral law to moral lawgiver necessary at all. In fact, in these, the moral law exists independently to any concept of deity. So, how justified is the argument from law to lawgiver?

I believe that the concept of a moral law and God are inseparable. Perhaps, the name God is better than the term Lawgiver, because the moral law doesn't exist because of an arbitrary command of God (as in divine command theories). Certainly, the moral law doesn't exist apart from God as if He only discovered or knew the principle and gave interpretations to humans in the form of rules and norms. The moral law is not just a set of commandments. It is the law of relationship between persons. Persons have the faculty for self-awareness and self-determination, which takes into account inter-personal relationships. A natural law is a law of relationship between elements or forces of nature. But, the moral law is the law of relationship between moral beings.

To say that the moral law can exist independent of God (Triune Inter-personal Being) is to claim that the moral law is not personal, or if it is personal, it isn't absolute and eternal. Obviously, it couldn't be absolute and eternal if it were restricted to just the flux of this-worldly phenomenon.

Also, this argues against the idea of an impersonal God. If God is impersonal, only impersonal laws would exist. The Eastern views consider personal consciousness as imperfect and impersonal existence as perfect. Thus, in their ultimate argument, the moral law would be very illusory. However, they cannot establish how such an idea could be justified by a "person" whose status of existence is "personal" and not "impersonal".

We know that the moral law exists by the fact that moral beings have concepts of justice and retribution. It is another thing if some call evil as good and good as evil. People usually resort to moral reasoning to settle these differences. However, moral reasoning about what is just and what is unjust would be baseless if there is not a law above the cultural or political "commandments", "traditions", and "customs" of men. Morality would then be highly relative, as some already accept so. But, to say that morality is relative is to make an absolute statement with the normative implication that relative laws ought not to be regarded as either good or evil. The relativist position is self-defeating.

This implies that the moral law does exist eternally and absolutely, not somewhere in the outer space but in the way in which persons are naturally inter-related. This involves the emotional-attitudinal-actional inter-relationship between persons. Such inter-personal relating cannot be the result of impersonal forces-- for if it were, then the idea of personal justice would be ultimately absurd. This effect of moral inter-relations cannot be caused by amoral causes. The cause must be Absolute, Eternal, and Inter-Personal. Therefore, we say that the reality of the moral law invites us to acknowledge the reality of the Triune God.

Was John 7:53-8:11 in the Original Text?

 

This famous well-beloved section, known as the Pericope Adulterae, has been the subject of not only many sermons but also many theses and dissertations. Some of the newer Bible versions try to place a footnote stating that the segment is not present in the more ancient available manuscripts. A number of commentators have tried to avoid commenting on it. Some regard the style and theme to be Johannine and opine that perhaps it was omitted in some early manuscript by a copyist and the error carried on into later manuscripts.  Some think the omission may have been deliberate in order to protect the community from becoming too lenient towards the sin of adultery. [1]

Internal evidence points out to the originality of the verses as inspired by the Holy Spirit. The theme of the light of life revealed in the grace of Jesus Christ (John 8:12) is consistent with the pronouncement in John 1:17, that the law came through Moses but grace and truth through Jesus Christ. Also, the contrast between the condemning light of the Law of Moses and the saving light of the Grace of Jesus is obvious. To those who walk in this light, there is cleansing by the blood of Jesus (1John 1:7).

The passage is certainly there in a number of manuscripts though it fails to appear in a number of others. However, the inductive nature of research cannot draw conclusions on the basis of what is not available yet, i.e. a more ancient manuscript that has this passage intact. There is still this possibility that this passage got missed in a copying process in certain manuscripts but remained intact in others. The verses possess marks of authenticity, were accepted and quoted by the church fathers, are consistent with sound doctrine, and are spiritually edifying.

Notes

---

1. John David Punch, The Pericope Adulterae: Theories of Insertion & Omission, Doctoral Dissertation submitted to Radboud University Nijmegen, 19 April 2010

Is it not cruel for God to kill His Son in place of us?

The doctrine of atonement is a stumbling block for some who feel that it not only exemplifies cruelty but also does away with human responsibility. The issue abounds with various questions and attempts to solution.

Questions:
1. If God knew that man would sin and fall, why did He create man?
2. Why doesn't God, if He exists, intervene and stop evil; why just be Judge but not be Governor with proper police security system that minimises the possibility of transgression?
3. How can the death of one particular man atone for the sins of many particular men?
4. Isn't it not cruel to punish an innocent man for the sins of others so that they go free?

Answers that challenge the Christian doctrine:
1. God does not require sacrifice in order to forgive, He can forgive by sovereign authority.
2. Every man must bear his own guilt so that he has a sense of responsibility and possess a genuine reason to pursue good and turn from evil.

Biblical Responses:
1. God's knowledge of human Fall is historical and not potential at par with His knowledge of the creation of man.
2. God is both Governor and Judge but humans live in a status of wilful rebellion and enmity against His rulership but with a choice to surrender or be judged.
3. The death of Jesus can atone for every man's sins because Jesus is the Source of all creation and Head of all things.
4. God is One and the sacrifice of Christ the One God was voluntary self-giving of Love.

1. God's sovereignty doesn't imply the denial of injustice by arbitrary pardoning, in which case the element of injustice is allowed to subsist rather than removed from the moral world. The crucifixion put an end to all rebellion by allowing the Judge Himself to die to rise again as Author of the new Creation with the power to destroy all things that do not submit to Him. The crucifixion and resurrection portray the victory of God over all chaos wrought by evil and injustice in the moral universe.
2. This is not contradicted by the doctrine of confession, repentance, and new life.

Does Morality Make Sense Without God? or Is God Necessary for Morality?

India is distinctly the birthplace of certain atheistic or agnostic religio-philosophical systems that have upheld morality without any reference to God as the Moral Governor of the universe. The systems of Samkhya, Yoga, Jainism, and Buddhism didn't find the concept of "God" as necessary for the validation of moral principles. Of course, popular religion as practiced by the masses cannot let go off the personal connection with a Deity or a Revered One, whatever be the theological explanation of the same. Yet, in polytheistic, atheistic, and monist traditions, God is not the source or ground of morality.

This seems to pose a pragmatic problem for the Moral Argument which some philosophers, like Kant, have considered to be the only possible argument for the existence of God. The problem, however, only relates to the nature of morality in each system. Most of the Indian systems are karmic in nature, though differing in their cosmological and ontological theories of reality--for instance, Jainism teaches a dualistic pluralism while Advaita propounds a non-dualistic cosmology. Whether these cosmologies can successfully sustain their respective karmic theologies is another issue. Philosophers in each system have tried to debate with those of others for centuries with little or no agreement.

The logical course eventually leads to a questioning of the supposedly cosmological foundations of the moral theory. However, one also needs to answer whether it is the cosmology that undergirds the moral system or is it the moral system that undergirds the cosmology. In other words, which is the first hypothesis: the moral theory or the cosmology?

Obviously, one cannot escape the fundamental nature of faith in the ultimate sense. But, faith can be questioned. One can still analyse where each of these systems is headed to; whether it be dissolution and recreation or the quest for awakening. The moral question, then, cannot succeed in not trying to address the issue of the whole picture, or worldview.

The significance of the theistic moral argument is in doing justice to the very intrinsic nature of morality.

1. Morality is inter-personal; therefore, its ground must be the infinite, inter-personal God.
2. Morality is absolute; therefore, its ground must be the transcendent and immanent, immutable, absolute God.
3. Morality implies rewards and punishment; therefore, justice must be provided by a moral God and not an amoral mechanism, which is deterministic in nature.
4. Morality is intentional; therefore, the Moral Governor must be omniscient.
5. Morality is practical; therefore, the Moral Governor must be omnipotent.
6. Morality is beneficial; therefore, the Moral Governor must be good.
7. Morality appeals to the affective; therefore, God must necessarily be Love.

If The Doctrine of Trinity Is Illogical, Then Everything Else is Illogical

If the doctrine of Trinity is illogical, then by the same logic, everything else is illogical.

Now, there are some who consider it to be an evidently foolish thing to believe in the reality of God as One and yet three persons. They say, 1+1+1=3 in every case, or else mathematics is absurd. But, let me show you by an ancient argument, once again, that mathematics can’t explain reality as it is. I will adapt only one argument from the many that a Greek philosopher of the 5th century BC, Zeno of Elea, used in order to defeat the then philosophers of mathematics, the Pythogoreans. The argument is commonly referred to as The Dichotomy.

A..A_6..A₅  A₄     A₃          A₂                      A₁                                              B

Suppose a runner is standing at point A and must reach point B in order to finish the race. The only way he can reach point B is by reaching the halfway point, say A₁, between A and B, before reaching B. But then the only way he can reach halfway point A₁ is by reaching the halfway point, say A₂, between A and A₁, and so on ad infinitum in order to finish the course. Thus in order for the runner to reach point B, he will have to traverse an infinite number of points in a finite time, which is impossible, because space becomes infinitely divisible and one has to keep on reaching half-ways before reaching any other point, infinitely; thus, reaching nowhere. Therefore, though empirically apparent, logically, motion is absurd.

Well, but if motion is absurd, then the entire universe, all phenomena, is absurd. If so, what is logical after all?

Conclusion: If logic can't logically explain empirical realities such as continuity of identity in change, unity in plurality, and abstracts in concrete, how can it even begin to understand God who is Spirit? Reason is certainly not above faith. But, as far as the limits of reason exist, faith is certainly expected to not be irrational.

The Authenticity of the New Testament

The third important source of knowledge in Indian epistemology is Sabda (Word or Verbal Testimony); the first two are pratyaksha (direct perception, experience) and anumana (inference, reasoning). The role of testimony as source of knowledge is crucial since it affirms the unity of knowledge and the fact that much of what we know has come to us by means of testimonies. Historical knowledge copiously relies on written testimony. Similarly, culinary science, medicine, architecture and a host of sciences conserve and convey knowledge to us. However, not everything conveyed as information is necessarily true. However, by affirming the first two sources of knowledge to be authentic, we also affirm that testimonies of direct perception cannot be considered as unreliable sources of information; for by rejecting the reliability of testimonies, one also rejects the reliability of one’s own experience and his testimony of it.

The authenticity of Christian experience is deeply tied with the testimony of, first, Christ and, then, the Apostles. The Biblical Canon (all the books in the Bible) was sealed with the testimony of the Apostles, the last of all being John. The following facts can be noted:

1. The testimony of the Apostles, who were with Jesus and learnt from Him, was foundational to the New Testament church. What they said and what they endorsed was doctrine. (Acts 2:42; Acts 15; Eph.2:20).
2. The OT was affirmed by Christ and the Apostles as the divine testimony of Christ by the Spirit (John 5:39; 2Pet.1:20,21)
3. The NT was not just the testimony of a single person, received secretly, and closed to verification. On the contrary, the NT was the testimony of the 12 Apostles of Christ, open to cross-verification as well as independent verification. The things asserted happened openly. The testimony about the event on the Mount of Transfiguration was attested by three witnesses (Peter, John, James) as required by the OT Law.
4. Apart from the 12, there is the independent testimony of Apostle Paul (his testimony not only including the vision on the road to Damascus, but also the vision of and, later, healing by Ananias).
5. With regard to Paul’s writings, Apostle Peter attested of these as being Scriptures (2 Pet.3:15-16).
6. The experience of the Apostles on the Mt. of Transfiguration which included the vision of Moses and Elijah and the voice from heaven was, among other experiences, crucial in establishing the irrefutability of the identity of Christ to the Apostles (2Pet.1:17-18).
7. Over 500 people testified of seeing Jesus after His resurrection (1Cor.15:6), thus independently verifying the claims of the Apostles regarding the resurrection of Christ.
8. Paul himself, a persecutor of Christians, had a direct vision of Christ and became a witness of Christ.
9. The NT is an account of the testimony of the Apostles regarding Christ; therefore, it is a proof or testimony book. As to which of the books are authentic and which are not was decided by applying the criteria of the canon by the Church Fathers, which made sure that only books written or attested by the Apostles and read as Scriptures by the local churches, having been referred to as Scriptures by the Church Fathers, could be accepted as the sealed testimony of the Apostles, the Chief Witness being the Holy Spirit.
10. The Five-fold Ministry of the Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Teachers, Pastors, are given “for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Eph.4:12-13), which unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God is given to us in the written testimony of Christ sealed in the witness of the Bible.

Illustrating Trinity

There are at least three approaches to understanding Trinity.

The Rational Approach. It seeks to find in the doctrine of Trinity a rational ground for the absolute nature of Truth. Truth implies absoluteness of knowledge in a subject-object relationship, which would be groundless if God were a monad. Therefore, Trinity proves to be a solid ground for the possibility of knowledge. Similarly, personality finds its best explanation in the personal nature of God, whose existence as three persons (I-YOU-HE Sufficiency) in one Godhead is the ground of personhood.

The Moral Approach. It seeks to find in the doctrine of Trinity a rational ground for the absolute nature of moral virtues, such as love, goodness, and joy. If God didn’t eternally exist in a subject-object relationship, then He would be amoral and morality would not be absolute. The doctrine of Trinity provides a rational ground for any discussion of morality with respect to its absolute nature.

The Empirical Approach. Some have suggested the analogy of the Sun (Sun-Sunlight-Sunheat). Nathan Wood used the now popular 1x1x1=1 analogy with instances from space and time (e.g. Length x Breadth x Height = Space; Past x Present x Future = Time). Still others used more naturalistic analogies; however, these could lead to tri-partiatism or Sabellianism (e.g. these are not acceptable: Water-Steam-Ice; Three parts of humans, etc).

Whatever the method be, there is no arguing the fact that the Trinity is a mystery and attempts to try to explain God could only land one in absurdity. We don’t still understand the mystery of the universe so much, nor of the human mind as it is; how much more difficult to understand the being of God? It would be more disastrous than attempting to explain miracles in order to prove the possibility of miracles. This would be impossible. While we use metaphors like Bread of Life and Rock for God, the metaphors have their limits. To accept the Mystery is a step of faith.

---

Feb 22, 2016
Excerpt from Benjamin B. Warfield, "The Biblical Doctrine of Trinity" (1915)

As the doctrine of the Trinity is indiscoverable by reason, so it is incapable of proof from reason. There are no analogies to it in Nature, not even in the spiritual nature of man, who is made in the image of God. In His trinitarian mode of being, God is unique; and, as there is nothing in the universe like Him in this respect, so there is nothing which can help us to comprehend Him. Many attempts have, nevertheless, been made to construct a rational proof of the Trinity of the Godhead. Among these there are two which are particularly attractive, and have therefore been put forward again and again by speculative thinkers through all the Christian ages. These are derived from the implications, in the one case, of self-consciousness; in the other, of love. Both self-consciousness and love, it is said, demand for their very existence an object over against which the self stands as subject. If we conceive of God as self-conscious and loving, therefore, we cannot help conceiving of Him as embracing in His unity some form of plurality. From this general position both arguments have been elaborated, however, by various thinkers in very varied forms.

The former of them, for example, is developed by a great seventeenth century theologian -- Bartholomew Keckermann (1614) -- as follows: God is self-conscious thought: and God's thought must have a perfect object, existing eternally before it; this object to be perfect must be itself God; and as God is one, this object which is God must be the God that is one. It is essentially the same argument which is popularized in a famous paragraph (73) of Lessing's "The Education of the Human Race." Must not God have an absolutely perfect representation of Himself - that is, a representation in which everything that is in Him is found? And would everything that is in God be found in this representation if His necessary reality were not found in it? If everything, everything without exception, that is in God is to be found in this representation, it cannot, therefore, remain a mere empty image, but must be an actual duplication of God. It is obvious that arguments like this prove too much. If God's representation of Himself, to be perfect, must possess the same kind of reality that He Himself possesses, it does not seem easy to deny that His representations of everything else must possess objective reality. And this would be as much as to say that the eternal objective co-existence of all that God can conceive is given in the very idea of God; and that is open pantheism. The logical flaw lies in including in the perfection of a representation qualities which are not proper to representations, however perfect. A perfect representation must, of course, have all the reality proper to a representation; but objective reality is so little proper to a representation that a representation acquiring it would cease to be a representation. This fatal flaw is not transcended, but only covered up, when the argument is compressed, as it is in most of its modern presentations, in effect to the mere assertion that the condition of self-consciousness is a real distinction between the thinking subject and the thought object, which, in God's case, would be between the subject ego and the object ego. Why, however, we should deny to God the power of self-contemplation enjoyed by every finite spirit, save at the cost of the distinct hypostatizing of the contemplant and the contemplated self, it is hard to understand. Nor is it always clear that what we get is a distinct hypostatization rather than a distinct substantializing of the contemplant and contemplated ego: not two persons in the Godhead so much as two Gods. The discovery of the third hypostasis - the Holy Spirit -remains meanwhile, to all these attempts rationally to construct a Trinity in the Divine Being, a standing puzzle which finds only a very artificial solution.

The case is much the same with the argument derived from the nature of love. Our sympathies go out to that old Valentinian writer - possibly it was Valentinus himself - who reasoned - perhaps he was the first so to reason - that "God is all love," "but love is not love unless there be an object of love." And they go out more richly still to Augustine, when, seeking a basis, not for a theory of emanations, but for the doctrine of the Trinity, he analyzes this love which God is into the triple implication of "the lover," "the loved" and "the love itself," and sees in this trinary of love an analogue of the Triune God. It requires, however, only that the argument thus broadly suggested should be developed into its details for its artificiality to become apparent. Richard of St. Victor works it out as follows: It belongs to the nature of amor that it should turn to another as caritas. This other, in God's case, cannot be the world; since such love of the world would be inordinate. It can only be a person; and a person who is God's equal in eternity, power and wisdom. Since, however, there cannot be two Divine substances, these two Divine persons must form one and the same substance. The best love cannot, however, con-fine itself to these two persons; it must become condilectio by the desire that a third should be equally loved as they love one another. Thus love, when perfectly conceived, leads necessarily to the Trinity, and since God is all He can be, this Trinity must be real. Modern writers (Sartorius, Schoberlein, J. Muller, Liebner, most lately R. H. Griutzmacher) do not seem to have essentially improved upon such a statement as this. And after all is said, it does not appear clear that God's own all-perfect Being could not supply a satisfying object of His all-perfect love. To say that in its very nature love is self-communicative, and therefore implies an object other than self, seems an abuse of figurative language.

Perhaps the ontological proof of the Trinity is nowhere more attractively put than by Jonathan Edwards. The peculiarity of his presentation of it lies in an attempt to add plausibility to it by a doctrine of the nature of spiritual ideas or ideas of spiritual things, such as thought, love, fear, in general. Ideas of such things, he urges, are just repetitions of them, so that he who has an idea of any act of love, fear, anger or any other act or motion of the mind, simply so far repeats the motion in question; and if the idea be perfect and complete, the original motion of the mind is absolutely reduplicated. Edwards presses this so far that he is ready to contend that if a man could have an absolutely perfect idea of all that was in his mind at any past moment, he would really, to all intents and purposes, be over again what he was at that moment. And if he could perfectly contemplate all that is in his mind at any given moment, as it is and at the same time that it is there in its first and direct existence, he would really be two at that time, he would be twice at once: "The idea he has of himself would be himself again." This now is the case with the Divine Being. "God's idea of Himself is absolutely perfect, and therefore is an express and perfect image of Him, exactly like Him in every respect. . . . But that which is the express, perfect image of God and in every respect like Him is God, to all intents and purposes, because there is nothing wanting: there is nothing in the Deity that renders it the Deity but what has something exactly answering to it in this image, which will therefore also render that the Deity." The Second Person of the Trinity being thus attained, the argument advances. "The Godhead being thus begotten of God's loving [having?] an idea of Himself and showing forth in a distinct Subsistence or Person in that idea, there proceeds a most pure act, and an infinitely holy and sacred energy arises between the Father and the Son in mutually loving and delighting in each other. . . The Deity becomes all act, the Divine essence itself flows out and is as it were breathed forth in love and joy. So that the Godhead therein stands forth in yet another manner of Subsistence, and there proceeds the Third Person in the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, viz., the Deity in act, for there is no other act but the act of the will." The inconclusiveness of the reasoning lies on the surface. The mind does not consist in its states, and the repetition of its states would not, therefore, duplicate or triplicate it. If it did, we should have a plurality of Beings, not of Persons in one Being. Neither God's perfect idea of Himself nor His perfect love of Himself reproduces Himself. He differs from His idea and His love of Himself precisely by that which distinguishes His Being from His acts. When it is said, then, that there is nothing in the Deity which renders it the Deity but what has something answering to it in its image of itself, it is enough to respond - except the Deity itself. What is wanting to the image to make it a second Deity is just objective reality.

Inconclusive as all such reasoning is, however, considered as rational demonstration of the reality of the Trinity, it is very far from possessing no value. It carries home to us in a very suggestive way the superiority of the Trinitarian conception of God to the conception of Him as an abstract monad, and thus brings important rational support to the doctrine of the Trinity, when once that doctrine has been given us by revelation. If it is not quite possible to say that we cannot conceive of God as eternal self-consciousness and eternal love, without conceiving Him as a Trinity, it does seem quite necessary to say that when we conceive Him as a Trinity, new fullness, richness, force are given to our conception of Him as a self-conscious, loving Being, and therefore we conceive Him more adequately than as a monad, and no one who has ever once conceived Him as a Trinity can ever again satisfy himself with a monadistic conception of God. Reason thus not only performs the important negative service to faith in the Trinity, of showing the self-consistency of the doctrine and its consistency with other known truth, but brings this positive rational support to it of discovering in it the only adequate conception of God as self-conscious spirit and living love. Difficult, therefore, as the idea of the Trinity in itself is, it does not come to us as an added burden upon our intelligence; it brings us rather the solution of the deepest and most persistent difficulties in our conception of God as infinite moral Being, and illuminates, enriches and elevates all our thought of God.

Australopithecus Deyiremeda: Strong Argument for Evolutionism?

Australopithecus deyiremeda is a proposed species of early hominin among those who lived about 3.3–3.5 million years ago in northern Ethiopia, around the same time and place as several discovered specimens of Australopithecus afarensis, including the well-known "Lucy", a juvenile specimen. (Wikipedia). Some 3 jawbones discovered on March 4, 2011 were proposed as specimens of this proposed species. While the discovery may have prompted overjoy in the evolutionist camp, it doesn't aid to quell doubts regarding the problem of transitional fossils (missing links), considered one big problem of the theory of evolution. Of course, while now and then specimen of so-called inter-species are claimed to have been unearthed, the question of why so less of these still lingers. Often, the missing links are either just a few pieces of fragmentary bones that are put together or only jawbones or such. One answer suggested is that the fossil record itself is meagre. But, obviously one can't sell his everything for not-very-conclusive proofs of treasure in the ground; it will require too much faith to hang the theory of evolution on just a few pieces of bones vaguely assumed as some links between notable species. Also, given the fact that the discoveries can be explained in any other way than referring to the evolutionary theories, these fossil facts do not in any way lend bulwark to evolutionism.Of course, there are arguments that there are other "proofs" besides. The creationists have always maintained that evolutionism violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics; to which the evolutionists have responded saying that living organisms belong to an open system and not a closed system; therefore, the 2nd Law doesn't apply to them: they receive energy from the sun. But, how does that answer the question of how life evolved out of mere atoms in the first place; for certainty, the atoms weren't above the 2nd Law. Yet, even if it was insisted that energy in the form of say lightning or sunlight aided the random collocation of atoms to form amino acids, proteins, and living bodies, the very idea of randomness makes disorder or chaos inherent to the process, thus self-defeating the theory of evolution that projects an anti-chaotic world, evolving upward. The resorting to feelings of "scientific sincerity" will not be bad only if "scientific sincerity" were for a moment freed from the shackles of "anti-supernaturalism". The excuse that "science is still young" or "fossil records are scant" is just an excuse that is willingly believed in hope of more proofs later on. But, is it scientific to build scientific theories on mere hopes rather than on mathematically accurate calculations and predictions? Of course, one doesn't need to be evolutionist to be scientific; that is clear.

Did Jesus Claim to Be God?

Did Jesus ever claim to be God? Did He ever use the words "I am God"?

Though Jesus didn't use the exact words "I am God", that doesn't mean that He never said that He is God. One doesn't need to use the same framing of words to convey a message; the same message can be communicated in different compositions of sentences. For instance, note the following sentences which all convey the message, "I am employed."

1. I work for a Company.
2. My boss pays me well for my work.
3. I am very busy at office during the day.
4. The staff had a picnic last Saturday.
5. I would like to change my job.

So, the right kind of question to ask with reference to the doctrine of Christ's divinity would not be "Did Jesus ever use the words "I am God"?" Instead, one should ask something like, "Did Jesus ever convey the message that He was divine?" To that question, the answer is a definite "Yes." In fact, the "Yes" is too clear, because the claim to divine sonship (which the Jews understood as a claim to divinity) was one reason why the Jewish leadership condemned Jesus as a blasphemer and demanded His execution. Let's look at some of Christ's related claims:

1. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. (Joh 3:16 NKJ). Jesus claimed to be God's "only begotten Son"; but, that is not all, He states that God gave this only begotten Son so that whoever believes in the Son should not perish but have everlasting life. Now, some may object that this claim was a later theological construct; not a claim by Jesus but an interpolation by the apostles. This interpolation-theory, however, is because of the prejudiced made-up mindset that Jesus was not God. It is not based on proof but on prejudice.

2. When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven you." And some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, "Why does this Man speak blasphemies like this? Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (Mar 2:5-7 NKJ). Evidently, here Jesus is doing something that the Jews were aware that only God can do. Not even a prophet or a priest could forgive a sin committed against others and against God. I can only forgive sins of those who sinned against me; but, I cannot forgive sins of those who have sinned against the Law of God; because if I do that I try to take the place of God. Jesus, obviously, knew this. But, He didn't stop just at that. He affirmed His authority to forgive sins by an act of divine power.

"When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven you." And some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, "Why does this Man speak blasphemies like this? Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (Mar 2:5-7 NKJ)

3. Now behold, one came and said to Him, "Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?" So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments." (Mat 19:16-17 NKJ) In this statement, Jesus not only conveys the message that no human can claim to be good or try to have eternal life by virtue of good works (for none is good), but He also forces the young rich man to reconsider his calling Jesus as the Good Teacher; for if he really believed Jesus was Good, it meant that he equated Him with God. Jesus foils the human quest for autonomy and desire to independently, by virtue of personal merit, inherit eternal life -- no one can be good apart from God. This He proves by asking the young man to sell all his possessions, distribute them to the poor, so that He will have treasures in heaven, and to follow Him,. But, the young man was not willing to part with his riches since he wished to have a life independent of God--that was impossible; it is not possible to be independent of God and have eternal life--for that would mean sin co-existing with life, which is contradictory to divine Justice:

Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever "-- therefore the LORD God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. (Gen 3:22-23 NKJ)

But, by answering the question of the rich young man, Jesus has affirmed that He could authoritatively show how one could have eternal life; authoritatively, because He had eternal life. It meant both that He was Good (which no man but God was) and that He knew how one could have eternal life. He tells him to do something beyond the Old Testament command, He asks him to sell all he has, distribute it to the poor (so that he will have treasure in heaven), and to follow Him (Matt.19:21). Obviously, by asking the young man to follow Him in relation to eternal life, He is making a claim that no human can make (for "no one is good but One, that is, God.")

4."I and My Father are one."
Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him.
Jesus answered them, "Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?"
The Jews answered Him, saying, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God."
Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law,`I said, "You are gods"'?
"If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),
"do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world,`You are blaspheming,' because I said,`I am the Son of God '?
"If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me;
"but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him."
Therefore they sought again to seize Him, but He escaped out of their hand. (Joh 10:30-39 NKJ)

There are a number of clauses here that convey Christ's claim to divinity: (a) He calls Himself one with the Father (b) They understand His claim as blasphemous because, as they say, "You, being a Man, make Yourself God."). (c) Jesus replies by quoting Psalm 82:6, where God calls humans as "gods"; so if He called them gods, to whom the word of God came, then why should they consider it blasphemous if the one whom "the Father sanctified and sent into the world" said not "I am God" but "I am the Son of God". Obviously, Jesus was evoking their understanding of His statements as conveying the idea of His affirmation of His divinity. They obviously knew that there was a difference between God saying "You are gods" in Psalm 82:6 and Jesus saying "I and My Father are one." The statement of Jesus clearly meant that He was claiming to be God. Secondly, He refers to Himself as the one "whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world". In other words, He was claiming pre-existence (His birth of the world was not the beginning of His life but the event of His being sent into the world). It also implies His greatness above every other human; for if those to whom the word of God came could be called "gods", then what is wrong the One who was sanctified and sent into the world calling Himself "the Son of God"? (d) Jesus also says that "the Father is in Me, and I in Him", which again provokes them to try to seize Him.

5.Then the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. (Joh 8:57-59 NKJ) The message here is too clear to miss. Jesus claims in the present tense "I AM" to exist before Abraham (i.e. before Abraham was born). In other words, His existence predates the Father of the Jewish race, Abraham. Thus, though He was the son of Abraham, according to the flesh, His existence is (not was) before Abraham. The I AM (the Name of God as revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:14) also affirms that His existence is trans-temporal, that is infinite and eternal. As such, He is not a creature but the Creator. No surprise, the Jews were infuriated again by this claim and wanted to stone Jesus. For them, no existing human could claim to be greater than Abraham, their father.

Several Scriptural proofs exist for the divinity of Christ. Following are some verses that corroborate the divinity of His Person:

1. Preincarnate
Pre-existence (Jn. 1:1; 1Jo. 1:1; Jn. 17:5).
Participation in creation (Gen. 1:26; Prov. 8:30; Col. 1:15; Jn. 1:3; Col. 1:16; 1Co. 8:6).
Christophanies (Gen.18,19; Hos.1:7; Gen.22,31; Exo. 3:2; Exo. 14:19; Num. 22:22; Judg.6).
2. Divine Nature
Divine Attributes (eternal- Jn. 1:1; Jn. 8:58; Jn. 17:5; omnipresent- Mt. 28:20; Eph. 1:23; omniscient- Jn.16:30;21:17; omnipotent- Jn.5:19; immutable- Heb. 1:12; Heb. 13:8)
Divine Offices (Creator- Joh 1:3; Col 1:16; Sustainer- Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3)
Divine Prerogatives (forgives sin – Mt. 9:2; Luk. 7:47; raises dead- Jn. 5:25; Jn. 11:25; executes judgement- Jn. 5:22)
Identified with OT YHWH - I AM (Jn. 8:58; Jn. 12:41; Jn. 8:24; Jn. 8:50-58)
Divine Names (Alpha & Omega-Rev. 22:13; I AM –Jn. 8:58; Immanuel- Mt. 1:22; Lord-Mt. 7:21; Son of God- Jn. 10:36; God- Jn. 1:1; 2Pe. 1:1; Tit. 2:13; 1Jo. 5:20)
Divine Relations (Image of God- Col. 1:15; Hb.1:3; One with Father- Jn. 10:30)
Accepts Divine Worship (Mt. 14:33; Mt. 28:9; Jn. 20:28-29). Claims to be God (Jn.8:58; Jn. 10:30; Jn. 17:5 – in such case, He is either liar, lunatic, or the Lord that He claims to be, but never can be regarded as merely a good moral teacher)

Any quick perusal of the Gospels will clearly demonstrate to the unbiased mind that Jesus did claim again and again to be divine.

The Problem of Evil As Evil

The Problem of Evil is not a problem at all unless “Good” and “Evil” are properly defined and meaningfully understood; or else, the problem cannot be raised.

Given that meaning is usage, let’s look at what we usually do not absolutely consider to be the meaning of Good.

1. Good is not painlessness. For, in our daily usage, it is commonly accepted that Good usually involves pain (e.g. in exercise, study, work). 
2. Good is not absence of grief or sorrow. For, if that was the case, the sense of a loss of Good would not exist; which would in turn imply that the sense of Good itself doesn’t exist. It is possible for Good to exist along with grief (for instance, when someone in a world X which is free of a particular Evil, say starvation, is sad about people in a world Y, where people are starving). In this sense, sympathy, grief, and compassion are virtues; i.e. they are good.

So if Good is not the absence of pain or sorrow, then what is Good? Before we answer that question, let’s submit that Evil and Good are perfect opposites of each other; thus, we can define Evil as anything that is opposite to Good (one definition looks at Evil as just the absence or privation of Good in the same manner that darkness is the absence of light).

1. The Relativity of Good in A Contingent World: Good is always recognized as relative to the instance of an essence (e.g. vision is a quality which is good in humans; however, one doesn’t say that it is evil for a pen to not have vision and to be blind). Thus, what is good in a particular world is to be understood in relation to it and not in comparison with other kinds of worlds, where the essential properties are different (for instance, we cannot compare what is good in an ant and say that the same should be with humans; for in that case, Good would become Infinite, if not contradictory (one could be as tiny as an ant and as large as a whale at the same time)). But, if Good could become Infinite in the instance of this universe, then the universe would become God (which is not the case at all). Consequently, one cannot call anything evil unless one is able to identify what is actually good with respect to that particular entity with respect to which evil is being predicated.

Further, in an economy or eco-arrangement of multiple contingent beings, dependence would become inter-related (implying that the profit of one would mean the loss of something or someone else; the profit of tigers would mean the loss of deer and the profit of deer would mean the loss of grass, for instance). A non-dependent world would be loss-free, or Infinite (which, in the case of our universe, is negated by experience of contingency – the core concern of the Problem of Evil).

Another possibility would be for a contingent world to become not inter-dependent but trans-dependent; that is to become absorbed into the Infinite in such a way that the contingent is supplied by the Infinite (as in the new creation of biblical eschatology). But, that possibility will require a non-free universe (which is super-governed by the Infinite) in a way that the Good also exists as freedom (i.e., is also recognized as good, thus being free). This is contradictory.

But, the contradiction is only conditional; given the non-free absorption of free-creatures into the Infinite. However, given that the free-creatures within a temporally and spatially finite and contingent world choose (by exercise of freedom- for freedom to exist for the recognition of Good) to be absorbed into the Infinite world (Kingdom of God) and there is a bridge (ontological and moral) between the Infinite and the finite, then such a world free of contingent evil, will become possible. In Christian doctrine, that bridge is the person of Christ, the Mediator.

2. Good as Absolute and Necessary. Good as absolute and necessary (i.e. devoid of any instance of or possibility of Evil) can only be predicated of a being that is Infinite and in which Good can be Infinitely instantiated (with no room for Evil). In contingent beings or entities, Good can be absolute only with respect to what can be defined as Good relatively to them. For instance, an apple tree that produces sweet apples is experiencing the Good (there is an ideal “absolute” image or standard of Good when one talks about good apples and bad apples); however, one cannot consider an apple tree not producing apples but producing mangoes to be a good apple tree in any sense (in fact, that image is contradictory). But, it is conceptually possible to imagine a perfect apple tree whose fruit is 100% perfect – i.e. the good apple tree conforms to the ideal of an absolutely good apple tree. But, contingency and inter-dependence would mean that such perfection itself is also contingent and therefore not necessary (if a card loses balance somewhere, all other cards are affected – contingency is necessary, but perfection is not).

But, such relativity doesn’t apply to the Infinite. An Infinite does not submit to gradation of degrees of Good, since the Infinite is trans-temporal (the Infinite cannot be a little good at times and better at other times). Also, there cannot be more than one instance of the Infinite (e.g. many Infinite oceans cannot co-exist). Therefore, the Infinitely good is absolutely and necessarily good.

3. The Problem of Evil as Evil. The very moral condemnation of the Infinite on grounds that Evil (physical and moral) exists is Evil, for it is an attempt of the contingent to deny its necessary contingency and assume equivalence with the Infinite without submission to the Infinite (which by virtue of the very rule it uses to raise the Problem of Evil condemns itself).

1. If God (as Necessary) is All-powerful, All-loving, and All-good, then Evil (as Contingent) cannot exist.
2. Evil (as Contingent) exists.
3. Therefore, God (as Necessary) is not All-powerful, All-loving, and All-good doesn’t exist.
4. That is to say, God is a Contingent Being.

The syllogism is invalid. 

1. If God (as Necessary) exists, then Evil (as Necessary) cannot exist.

2. Evil exists as Contingent, not as Necessary.

3. Therefore, God (as Necessary) exists.

[Also non-sequitur]*

The valid form should be

1. God (as Necessary) or Evil (as a Necessary).
2. Evil as Contingent, not-Necessary.
3. Therefore, God (as Necessary)

To assert that Evil exists as Necessary is to assert the absoluteness, inevitability, infinity, and immutability of Evil; which makes Evil co-Infinite with Good. But, this is both a contradiction and a denial of the Problem of Evil. It is a contradiction because Good and Evil cannot infinitely co-exist (Good would infinitely negate Evil as light negates darkness – and in Infinite Good, there are no degrees of goodness (dim light, brighter light) because of its infinitude). Also, to assert that Evil exists as Necessary is to deny the Problem of Evil, for then one can neither desire the annihilation of Evil nor would have need to argue for the non-existence of Necessary Good (since the concept of Good would become negative in face of Absolute Evil, with no contingent existent remaining). Therefore, to posit the Syllogism of Evil in order to negate the existence of Absolute Good is to engage in prejudiced judgment; that judgment is Evil since it doesn’t just concern the issue of validity or invalidity but also the choice (in freedom) to call evil good and good evil -- it features as Evil when it condemns Infinite Good as either non-existent or being the opposite of Good; thus, affirming Evil as Ultimate Reality. But, if Evil is Ultimate Reality, then the problem would no longer be the Problem of Evil, but the Problem of Good. Then, the cry would not be for the Christ, but for the Anti-Christ (See Nietszche, The Antichrist). Such approach is nothing but the approach of Evil against Good.

Also, to claim that Necessary Good be unconditionally attributed to Contingent Being is to claim unconditional right to Infinitude (which implies the overthrow of the Infinite; for, there cannot be more than one Infinite). But, the overthrow of Infinite Good (though logically impossible) is Evil. Therefore, also, the Syllogism of Evil is Evil.

---

Updated on December 11, 2014, *Sept 28, 2025

Discussion extended at Philpapers.

God in Graphology: Considerations in Gematria, Theology of the Alphabet (Hebrew, Chinese), and Philosophy of the Word

Let us call the method of trying to decode the writing system in order to seek proofs for faith as "Graphological Theology".

Sacred Gematria

The works of Ivan Panin that discover numeric patterns in the Bible are examples of Textual Gematria. Check the following excerpt from his letter to the New York Sun:

The first 17 verses of the New Testament contain the genealogy of the Christ. It consists of two main parts: Verses 1-11 cover the period from Abraham, the father of the chosen people, to the Captivity, when they ceased as an independent people. Verses 12-17 cover the period from the Captivity to the promised Deliverer, the Christ.

Let us examine the first part of this genealogy. Its vocabulary has 49 words, or 7 x 7. This number is itself seven (Feature 1) sevens (Feature 2), and the sum of its factors is 2 sevens (Feature 3). Of these 49 words 28, or 4 sevens, begin with a vowel; and 21, or 3 sevens, begin with a consonant (Feature 4).

Again: these 49 words of the vocabulary have 266 letters, or 7 x 2 x 19; this number is itself 38 sevens (Feature 5), and the sum of its factors is 28, or 4 sevens (Feature 6), while the sum of its figures is 14, or 2 sevens (Feature 7). Of these 266 letters, moreover, 140, or 20 sevens, are vowels, and 126, or 18 sevens, are consonants (Feature 8).

That is to say: Just as the number of words in the vocabulary is a multiple of seven, so is the number of its letters a multiple of seven; just as the sum of the factors of the number of the words is a multiple of seven, so is the sum of the factors of the number of their letters a multiple of seven. And just as the number of words is divided between vowel words and consonant words by sevens, so is their number of letters divided between vowels and consonants by sevens. ...Read More

There has certainly been criticism that Panin was creating the patterns arbitrarily and, if we look for, we can find numerical patterns anywhere (See Ivan Panin and the Gospel of Mark). However, this doesn't diminish the fact that Gematria has been used as an apologetical tool in graphological theology.

Theology of the Alphabet

Ha Dabar

Jewish mystics have maintained that God created the universe from the 22 consonants of the Hebrew Aleph-Bet, called the otiyod yesod, the foundational letters [Hebrew4Christians]. A theology of the alphabet would contend for the sacredness of the alphabet's origin in God. An even more intense form of this would lead to the mysticism of the alphabet. Check the following comment on Genesis 1:

After Bere’shiyt bara ’Elohiym there is a fourth untranslatable word. That fourth word is actually two Hebrew letters: the Aleph and the Tav. The aleph-tav (את) does serve a grammatical purpose in that it points to the direct object of the sentence. These two letters do not actually form a word, but rather they express an understanding. The aleph (א) is the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and the tav (ת) is the last letter of the alphabet. The placement of these two very significant letters at strategic locations within many sentences of the Hebrew Scriptures express a total completeness. It is equivalent to saying "from alpha to omega, from a to z, from first to last, from beginning to end." So, from the Hebraic point of view, they see that "In the beginning ’Elohiym created the aleph-tav. In other words, they believe that the very first thing ’Elohiym created was the Hebrew alphabet, which is known through ancient writings also as the aleph-tav. They recognize that He created the letters by which all life and all physical things spring forth from. They are divinely ordained building blocks of life. [Brad Scott, "Mysteries and Truths Hidden Within the AlephBeth"]

However, the Bible doesn't seem to support the prioritizing of any one particular language as such. The Bible was also written in Aramaic and Greek; and Jesus, in the New Testament, actually declares Himself to be the Αlpha (A) and the Omega (Ω), the beginning and the end (Rev.1:8,11; 21:6; 22:13). Alpha is the first and Omega the last letter of the Greek Alphabet.

Genesis in the Chinese Characters

But, this may not be limited to just Hebrew or Arabic. Studies in the Chinese characters have been used as proofs for the reliability of the Bible by Chinese scholars. Check the following two excerpts from C.H. Kang's The Discovery of Genesis (1979):

Again, the validity of such interpretations has been debated. One counter-argument has been that such interpretations are very literalist and do not do justice to the intent of the character composition. It has been argued that though the characters were ultimately derived from pictograms, when they became used for writing, they ceased to be pictographic, and that most of the Chinese characters have both phonetic (establishing sound) and signific (hinting at a semantic category). For instance, "the character 媽, used to mean 'mother', is composed of the elements 女 'woman' and 馬 'horse'. While the component meaning 'woman' hints that the character has something to do with women, the component meaning 'horse' in fact establishes pronunciation - both the 'mother' and 'horse' morphemes are pronounced /ma/, albeit with different tones." [Wiki: Chinese Characters and the Bible]. But, the fact that the contextual apologists were looking at the ultimate derivative beyond the surface usage, is certainly not discounted.

Philosophy of the Word

The All-Encompassing Syllable

Verse 1-2 of the Taittiriya Upanisad's fourth chapter describes the Sacred Syllable Om as "preeminent in the Vedas, that pervades all words, and that emerged from the immortal Vedas as their quintessence..." [Trans. Swami Gambhirananda, Advaita Ashrama]. The Mandukya Upanisad exposes Om as the the Beginning, Middle, and End of all sound; it encompasses all the sounds beginning with the opening of the mouth with the sound (Aa), then closing to middle with U, and closing down with Ma. OM=Aa+U+Ma. The Upanisads encourage the recital of Om before every incantation of prayer (Taittiriya 1.8.1). Check the poetic motif of Om in this beautiful prayer of the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad 1.3.28:

oṁ asato mā sad gamaya (Om Lead me from Truthlessness to Truth)
tamaso mā jyotir gamaya (Lead me from Darkness to Light)
mṛtyor mā amṛtaṁ gamaya (Lead me from Death to Immortality)
oṁ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ (Om Peace, Peace, Peace!)

The Hindus have long looked at Om as the Beginning and the End of all reality. It has become the religious symbol of Hinduism. Practical Hindu mysticism values incantation and utterance of Om as encompassing all things including all quarters of space and time.

Interestingly, the Indian concept of Om seems to be a bit parallel to that of the Greek AΩ (See above). However, the philosophical frameworks of meaning in which the terms are used compel difference. Still, the concept of Beginning-Middle-End looks inviting to compare it with the phrase, "who is and who was and who is to come". Also, the idea of the All-Encompassing cannot ignore the Person in whom all things, both in heaven and on earth, will be gathered together (Eph.1:10). Yet, again the Biblical view is Trinitarian and non-pantheistic, and the human soul is a creature of God.

He gives to all life, breath, and all things. (Act 17:25)
in Him we live and move and have our being, (Act 17:28)

The All-Governing Word

Heraclitus taught that the universe was governed by the Logos, which means "word" but may also be interpreted as "law" or "reason". According to Heraclitus,

• The Logos was fire-like.
• The Logos was a divine force.
• The Logos produces the order and pattern discernible in the flux of nature.
• This divine force is similar to human reason. [Logos, Microsoft Encyclopedia Encarta, See Hamartiology Notes]

Church Father Justin Martyr (c.100-c.165), elaborately made use of the Logos theology as an apologetic approach to Greek philosophy and religion. In Christian Theology, Logos is the Person of Christ. This helped Justin to accept philosophers such as Plato as speaking according according to the Word. According to Justin,

Even before the coming of Christ, the logos was manifested partially in such Greek philosophers as Socrates and Heraclitus, and in such Hebrews as Abraham, Ananias, Azarias, Misael, and Elijah (1st Apology). Plato’s truth was dependent on Moses (chs.59-60).
o The seed of God’s logos (logos spermatikos) was disseminated to all men in their God-given capacity to respond to truth. “Whatever things were rightly said among all men are the property of us Christians” (2Apol. 13:4)
o There were Christians before Christ, such as Socrates and Heraclitus (1Apol. 46:3)
o All Theophanies in OT were Christophanies “For the ineffable Father and Lord of all neither comes to any place… but remains in His own place…” [Dial.127:2, See Justin Martyr]

Similar line of thinking exists in Sikh theology, in which the Sabad, i.e. the Word, is considered to be the Guru (i.e. the Teacher).

Conclusion

Is Graphological Theology biblically justifiable? With regard to Theology of the Text, the Bible does speak about every scripture being inspired and that every jot and tittle having significance in the Bible (2Tim.3:15; Matt.5:18). However, there are dangers in over emphasizing gematriac patterns and disregarding the messsage of the Spirit for the composition of the word. God gives us the tree in order to eat of its fruit; not to count its leaves and spend time analysing its patterns. However, this doesn't mean that the patterns do not exist; for everything that is God-created is God-sealed.

The same also holds for studies in Chinese characters. It is certainly not very surprising to find bridges and connections to the Bible in local folk stories, rituals, and even graphology. Don Richardson has recorded amazing missionary findings in various cultures all over the world in his very important book Eternity in their Hearts. However, one must be careful to not assume a bridge where a bridge doesn't exist, or else he may have to walk over thin air. The Chinese findings cannot be discounted as accidental; nor does an argument of phonetics rule away the question of finding the sources of the original characters. God is not just the God of the Hebrews or of the Mayans; He has been historically present among us all from the beginning. And, His trails are visible among us. We only need to find them.

But, what about the inclusion of the extra-biblical themes in the study of Scriptures. Again, one must be careful not to misapply anything to where it doesn't belong. We must remember that the Bible only tells us this about the Scriptures:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2Ti 3:16-17 NKJ)

Attacks on God

There are two ways of getting known by the world; get famous or get infamous. John Wilkes Booth, the assassin of Abraham Lincoln already had some fame; however, as Dale Carnegie tells us in his Lincoln the Unknown, it was his desire for more popularity that drove him to kill the most famous man in America. Somehow, the assassin believes assassination as being a short-cut to popularity-control. You kill the king and usurp his throne. Of course, John Wilkes Booth was shot dead sooner; he didn't become the President of United States; but, he did became infamous.

There are a number of provocative titles that drop into the market and create enough ripples, waves, and commotion. Some of them become know for their audacity against common faith. Some may be offensive tools (not apologetical but crusader like, negative jihadist attacks, meant to conquer the centrality of the opponent's faith). These people are serious about what they say. They are willing to die for what they contend for. The others are merely big mouthing tactics. They are like Rabshekah in the Biblical story; he came and shouted audaciously, vociferously, and quite volubly in order to catch attention and put Jerusalem into panic. But, of course, he failed. However, most times such loud-mouthing gets successful as the enemy gets down from the walls and comes out in surrender (compromise) with the more voluminous.

But, there is another kind who only wages verbal warfare, from bulletproof cover zones, in order to get commercially successful. A provocative title might attract much attention and readership; however, one doubts if the writer is willing to die for the claims and arguments he is making. However, the contradictory words somehow are successful in engaging certain apologists into discussion. The result: a lot more people who didn't know about these books get to know these books; some go out and buy these books. One way or the other, the books become commercially successful. Curiosity, threat, and hurt do compel engagement for some. However, we must understand that there are a few talks that the Christian is not called to engage in. We must understand that some challenges can be ignored. The Bible gives us a better solution:

Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul, having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation. (1Pe 2:11-12 NKJ)

Also, Christian leaders are reminded:
Avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless. (Tit 3:9 NKJ)

Finally, we must remember that there are cases that are not open for us anymore to deal with. We must have love towards all; however, we also know that an attack on God is not any attack at all. We do not need to be threatened. Apologetics exists only to contend for the truth, to clarify misunderstandings, and to help those who have difficulty with faith (1Pet.3:15; Jude 1:3; Acts 17:2,17; 18:4,19); it does not exist to debate with those who have made up their minds.

"If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, useless wranglings1 of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw yourself" (1Ti 6:3-5 NKJ)

"Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him." (Jud 1:14-15 NKJ)

Notes on Thanatology: Arguments against Materialistic Annihilationism

Excerpts from unfinished rough draft of a writing project at Seminary, 2000

Thanatology (the study or science of death) is a vast subject; its literature incorporating a motley of massive corpus with a time span of above five thousand years. In Christian theology, it is treated under the division of Eschatology (the study or science of Last Things).

Though, evidently, a significant subject, thanatology is, ironically, one of the least non-debatable subjects of the world. This is understandable, knowing that it is also one of the least verifiable disciplines of all disciplines. And yet, it is a significant one.

It is significant because of the psychological problems it addresses like the shock of bereavement or loss of a beloved one, the instinct of survival, the curiosity concerning the future, or the unknown, etc. It is also significant because of the philosophical¹ and theological problems it addresses like ,“Why is there the phenomenon of death,” “Why is there such a morbid fear of death,” and “Is there any value of values (or is death the end of all)?” Its significance is also evidenced by by the rise of its presence in drama, movie, literature, music, and painting, etc.

The past few decades have witnessed a considerable growth of interest in the study of death. Levit and Weldon in their “Is There Life After Death?” note that

‘There is a new interest and openness today about the world’s most fearsome mystery – where we go when we die. Invariably a taboo topic, death has lately come into its own as a conversation piece. Books are appearing one after the other, purporting to explain the inexplicable, and folks who have returned from the beyond are publicly willing to discuss their tours….Even scientists are talking seriously about death, conducting research and inquiry into a real frontier of human life. Psychology Today points out: Death is in vogue as a topic of books, seminars, scholarly articles and classes at every level from college down to elementary school(Sept, 1976, p.44). A recent Gallup Poll reported that 73% of Americans believe in life after death (National Observer, May 15, 1976, p. 10), and that large majority obviously has a more than routine interest in death.’

Billy Graham noted in 1987 that

‘More books have been written about death in the last ten years than in the previous century.’

Thanatological beliefs affect greatly one’s theological, soteriological, and ethical beliefs and conduct. The same is also true of vice versa. How a person comes to a particular thanatological belief is important. It is understood that this mysterious subject cannot be truly resolved by firsthand experience, for death is the cessation of experience. No sane man would expect a rotten body or skeleton to rise up, alive and fresh, and recant what death meant to it. This has made some persons to abandon the subject as being a wild-goose chase. Epicurus said:

‘Death, feared as the most awful of evils, is really nothing. For so long as we are, death has not come, and when it has come we are not.’²

Job, in his reply to Zophar, his friend, said:

‘For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease. Though the root thereof wax old in the earth, and the stock thereof die in the ground; yet, through the scent of water it will bud, and bring forth boughs like a plant. But man dieth, and wasteth away: yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he? If a man die, shall he live again?’ (Job 14:8-10,14, KJV)

Scientifically, the answer is "No". The concept of returning back from the world of the dead is against the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is against the laws of biology. Death is the irreversible cessation of life.

Yet, though an inductive, empirical approach to the subject is understood to be an absolute impossibility, attempts are being made to give the subject a very scientific outlook. Examples are: Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, Raymond Moody, Erica Simon and Swami Abhedananda. The London Society for Psychical Research and the American Society for Psychical Research were founded for the purpose of scientifically investigating psychical phenomena. Movies, literature, and TV programmes are attracting public attention towards spiritualist and Eastern theories. Thanatology is significant. Biblical thanatology is urgent.

[This work] purposes to examine the major thanatological beliefs of the world from a rational biblical perspective and after a most reasonable thanatology in accordance with the Bible....

Earlier, we had noted that beliefs concerning death cannot be verified empirically. For example, if a statement such as "death is the termination of existence" is made, how is that going to be verified? Virtually, none. For once the experiment is conducted, death has already taken place, and there is apparently no returning back. There can't be the experience of death and the experience of physical life (to furnish a verified thanatological theory) at the same time. This doesn't relegate the fact, however, that attempts have not been made. Attempts to prove the existence of soul, by finding the difference of a body weight before and after death, have been made (with an assumption that the soul adds to body weight while on earth). The results, however, are controversial. The Society for Psychical Research has record of after death experiences, of people who have been resuscitated. Theories have been made based on such experiences. The experience, however, are varied and the premises of most theories debatable. All such experience may be considered a sort of revelation.

Scientific predictions are based on proved scientific laws and principles. The theory that's formulated on basis of induction is proved by experimentation. As to what is going to happen after death cannot be predicted because what happens after death is not and cannot be known a posteriori. For as we have already said, death is the cessation of all physical experience. What then is needed?

A clue. A revelation. The records of the experiences of resuscitated persons and the like psychical experiences are solitary revelations that cannot be given scientific and rational credulity because of their varied recounting. It is not the revelation that much matters but the placement of that revelation in the available or known body of truths or facts. Does the revelation cohere to the truth, to reason? That's where reason comes into note. It must be noted that the experience or revelation in itself cannot be verified. Reason must play a role.

Biblical revelation is the truth God has conveyed to us. In the Bible is found all that we need to know concerning matters of ultimate concern. God has given us sufficient reason to believe the credibility of this inspired scripture....The Biblical revelation fits well into the body of known truth. This will be obvious as one reads this [paper]. It must also be significantly noted that this [paper] is not an adventure in natural, rational theology but is based on Biblical Systematic Theology. Thus, the [paper] plans to first rationally investigate the thanatological beliefs and then give the biblical verdict concerning them....
...........

Thanatology is not an island discipline as we have earlier noted. Anything about anything cannot be said seclusively disregarding the amount of mounting evidence or objections against it. The unity of knowledge is necessary for the existence of absolute truth. And to say that absolute truth doesn't exist is self-contradictory, for how could one even believe that the statement "absolute truth doesn't exist" is true if truth itself doesn't exist as an absolute category. Thanatology, therefore, must also submit to the principle of uniformity. The particular proposition must stand fitted well in the body of available truth. someone would place an excuse saying: "Well, but science is still young. Our complex, high level knowledge, is, therefore, not understandable to it." But are we concerned only with scientific or a posteriori truths? Don't a priori truths play a role in the verification process? Of course, they do, as we have already seen two of them above: the law of non-contradiction and the principle of uniformity. These cannot be denied without proving their veracity at the same time. In addition, the excuse that science is young and therefore must not interfere with a proposition is a very lame one. If it were a matter of mere paradoxes, it may be admitted, but where there are direct contradictions, reasonability demands clarification and the law of contradiction must address reality.

There are also others who say that their knowledge transcends science and logic. Well, then what do they mean by transcend? Of course, not irrationability and anti-science, for then they would be contradicting themselves. Does transcend then mean "beyond logic and science?" Then, could they be conveying that knowledge in reasonable terms? Logic must play a role and any attempt to explain the nature of the physical universe must at least submit to known universal scientific principles.

It must be made clear, however, that the laws of science cannot be forced upon thanatology itself. If the other world exists, there is no reason why its laws should be identical with ours. What is being said, actually, is that the assumptions and premises on which a particular thanatological belief is based and the problems it rises must be verified. "How reasonable is a particular thanatological belief cosmologically and teleologically?" "How beneficial is it to the community?" "How pragmatical is it?" "How reasonable is it philosophically?" are some of the many questions to probe the veracity or reasonability of a proposition. The system which produces the particular thanatology needs to be examined, first of all, seeing that the thanatology itself cannot be examined on experience. Therefore, a rational examination with the principle of correspondence to truth in mind. If the foundations prevail, the belief may be valid; if not, the belief collapses with the foundation.

In final, let it be also understood that a perfect classification of thanatological beliefs seems to be very difficult. For example, Buddhism is both annihilistic and reincarnationist with a dash of semi-agnosticism on the other hand.

For the sake of avoiding a host of classifications, the beliefs are divided and placed in each divisions according to the degree of importance they lend to a particular belief. For example, Buddhism is dealt under reincarnation.

Major Thanatological Perspectives

Annihilationism

Annihilationism, by far, has been recognized to be the doctrine of Western materialism. Nevertheless, traces of it can also be found in the religions and philosophies of the East; for example, the ancient Charvakas of India and the Sadducees of Palestine. Materialism, being the main proponent of annihilationism, has been chosen for a rational examination. Its main argumetns and the problem it poses will be examined. If the foundation stands the examination, so may the building.

1. Materialism
Materialism, the belief-system based on the proposition "all is matter", is not a novel Western concept. Its roots can be traced back to Leucippus and Democritus in the fourth century BC. Unfortunately for it, its influence has been quite a minor one with regard to population; but painfully, for the world, its effects has been disastrous, giving rise to both existentialism and spiritualism on the other hand.

The rise of rationalism and scientism led to a revolution which attempted to explain everything naturally (i.e., in accordance to the laws of nature). Then came Darwin (1802-1881) who gifted the scientific world with the theory of Evolution which revolutionized almost all thinking. Herbert Spencer, a contemporary of Charles Darwin, discovered that the principle of evolution may not be limited to biology alone, and thence began a mission of evolutionary psychology, sociology, and ethics. In process of time, religion also was evolutionized. This, to the despair of religionists, ruled out the necessity of both God and a human soul. Later developments in psychology and studies in behaviorism contributed greatly towards a rigorous materialistic worldview. Materialism dismissed the concept of necessitated dualism: "nothing but matter exists" became its widespread slogan. The failure of materialism, however, is evident. It is still a minority belief.

a. Materialism bases its theory of annihilationism on the phenomenon of the destructibility of the physical body; mainly, the brain.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), the English philosopher, tried to limit all reality to corporeality. Both physical and mental events were, according to him, nothing more than bodies in motion. John Locke (1632-1704) went a little forward and propounded that the mind is like a blank sheet of paper on which the sense experiences are written (empiricism). George Berkeley (1685-1753) turned against all this and argued that only the mind exists (idealism). Then came David Hume (1711-1776) and destroyed even that mind by his definition that mind is only the series of ideas and thoughts; thus, annihilating the possibility of both empiricism and idealism together. Thankfully, Immanuel Kant (1714-1804) came along and resolved the problem by propounding that the mind acts as a grid which sorts out and coordinates sensations or ideas. But a problem still remained: What is the mind? Is it simply the brain or something other than the brain?

The mind-body problem has been a subject of great debate in the history of philosophy. It is well known that Plato talked of the psyche (soul, mind) as a disstinct entity imprisoned in the body of a person. The psyche is immortal and immutable, according to Plato. But, itnerestingly, Aristotle, a disciple of Plato became an annihilationist. He brought the soul and the body to such a close relationship that with the destruction of the body, the soul, its organizing principle, also perished.³ This disagreement is significant as these were two of the greatests thinkers of the ancient world. The disagreement is also typical of the failures of human endeavors to come to any agreement on the subject:

The mind-body problem is a persistent one. People have struggled with it for centuries… Interpretations of and solutions to the mind-body problem are many and varied. The solutions range from a complete denial of mind and a thoroughgoing materialism to the assertion that mind is the only fundamental reality and that what we have called matter is an illusion or a byproduct of mind or consciousness. Most explanations, however, have avoided these extremes. There is a widespread belief that mind and body are essentially different.⁴

The fact of the disagreement and the persistence of the problem itself, however, speaks volumes. Why would an issue such as this even be argued, if its facts were self-evident and axiomatic? A matter of consideration is that if any of the theories posited were really convincingly true, there wouldn’t possibly be any disagreements at all. The disagreements seem to prove that none of these theories are satisfying enough, at least. Following is a tentative investigation of the problem:

Dualist Interactionism. This is the widely accepted so called commonsense view. According to it, “in addition to a physical causal sequence and a psychical causal sequence, the mind may cause bodily changes, and bodily changes may produce mental effects.”⁵ There needs to e no great, hardcore, endeavor to explain this view. It is universally known that physical conditions affect mental dispositions. The effects of chloroform, LSD, alcohol, on the mind are well known. And we do know of many psychosomatic illnesses, bodily ailments caused by mental states and dispositions…. We all know how emotions affect bodily changes: shivering, blushing, quickened heart rates, whitening, etc, and how bodily experiences produce thoughts and emotions.

Titus, Nolan, and Smith note that

Despite the array of evidence and its widespread support, the theory of interactionism has been criticized severely. People question how two substances or entities so different could possibly interact. A causal relation between a change in the brain or nervous system and a muscular movement can be understood. A causal relation between an ida and a physical motion is difficult to comprehend. The two areas seem independent and self-sufficient.

Well, cases of hypnotism and hypnotherapy seem to explain a greater part of possible interactionism. But interactionism doesn’t seem to touch even the bone of the problem. As a matter of fact, it assumes the existence of the one it is meant to prove in the first place. It will be noticed that interactionism had already assumed the existence of a duality: the mind and the body. But, does the assuming of an assumption disqualify al its arguments and experiments? The answer is a ready, no. Most scientific theories themselves start from assumptions and then proceed on to verification through experimentation. Dualist interactionism poses lesser problems than ideal monism and material monism as will be obvious in the following investigation. The only problem lies in pin-pointing the mind, which is neither seen nor able to be located in the body of the individual. In addition, experiments in cephalogy seem to point out the possibility of explaining all mental states as physical. The problem lies in that of causality. Why can’t it be that the mind affects the physical changes and states to facilitate physical action and the mind is affected by the physical body being conditioned by it for possible function in a physical world? Both positions are unverifiable.

Ideal Monism. This is the theory that whatever exists, exists in the mind only. The only things that can be known are ideas. George Berkeley (1685-1753) was one of the most popular idealists known in the philosophical world. He summarized his view in the Latin slogan esse est percipi, which means “to exist is to be perceived.” Berkeley contends that objects exist because there is a God who is continuously perceiving them. For any object would have no existence unless it were perceived by at least someone. Thus, only minds or spirits and ideas are the only reality.

The problems of such ideal monism will be evident when one centers around the perception alone. Since ideas alone can be perceived, it is easily inferred that minds or spirits cannot be perceived. But, ideas exist only in the mind and so what is perceived is that which is in the mind itself. But how are these variety of ideas caused to be perceived first of all? Berkeley assumes that God causes them in each mind (even the perceptions of the other minds as ideas- minds as ideas or ideas in mind!)

Thus, God is brought into picture to make possible at least the following two:
1. That the ideas perceived are not illusions.
2. That the ideas perceived are not uncaused or self-caused.

Berkeley is steaming with assumptions. First, he assumes that since what we perceive is only ideas or sensations, ideas alone exist with an accompanying assumption that ideas can resemble ideas alone and nothing else. Then, he assumes that God exists to facilitate reasonable idealism. But, if to exist is to be perceived, how does one prove that God even exits? We see Berkeley ending up in a cosmological, teleological argument. But, the problem is that God is not perceived as an idea in the mind as other minds or spirits are perceived. And even if He were perceived, He would still be an idea in our mind and not outside our mind (or minds). We see his argument falling down here. How can one say that one exits in something (say, space) when he has already reasoned that that something actually exists in his mind as an idea? And that is what Berkeley himself does; he calls God the one "in whom we live, and move, and have our being" and at the same time, also as a spirit who is intimately present to our minds.⁶ He contradicts himself, first, by saying that nothing exists except it is perceived and then by arguing that God must exist, who it is clear is not perceived by any finite human senses.

His own theory thus fails him. Sometimes common sense is more intelligent and appropriate than secluded sense, if not nonsense.

It has been understood that Berkeley's idealism was intended for the purpose of salvaging the reasonability of the beliefs concerning mind, spirits, and God, from the advancing influence of materialism. Berkeley's approach, however, doesn't seem to be quite feasible. In matters of belief, is it possible for one extremism to destroy another? In addition, Berkeley's hypothesis revolts against the very common sense of man.

Material Monism Materialism maintains the hypothesis that "all is matter". Then the concept of anything other than physical is considered meaningless in a materialistic worldview. Thus, the mental is reduced to the physical. Geisler and Feinberg, in their Introduction to Philosophy wrote:

While we do have a great deal to learn about physical behavior and the mind, there have been numerous attempts to reduce the mental to the physical, and all have failed. While it is always logically possible that a reduction could be carried out, there are good reasons for thinking that it is empirically impossible and infact will never be accomplished.⁷

Since it is this proponent of annihilationism that is presently under consideration, a broader scrutiny of it is attempted below.

Materialist Arguments
Following are the basic arguments that materialists forward in favor of materialism:
1. What begins must end. The thesis that things that begin must of necessity flow towards termination is quite obviously in the natural world. Everything follows the second Law of Thermodynamics which states that the quantity of expendible energy in the universes is decreasing - that the ascent of entropy is irreversible. And, so argue the materialists that since man's life also begins, death is his absolute termination, annihilation.

2. Consciousness depends on the brain and so must also fall with it. The phenomena of mind failure, ageing, mind slowing down, memory faults, blackouts, and such surely point to the fallible activity and function of the brain. Memories and habits are bound up with the structure of the brain, in much the same way in which a river is connected with the riverbed. The brain is dissolved at death and memory, therefore, may be expected to be also dissolved.⁸ Thus, since consciousness is due to the brain, it must of necessity end with the death of brain.

3. Body concerns are universal. Though a person may believe in an afterlife, he wouldn't be ready to go to that afterlife immediately. Men are concerned with their bodies. The well-being of their bodies is the well-being of their selves. What happens to their bodies happens to them. Therefore, the self is not to be thought other than the body itself. Thus, the annihilation of the body means the annihilation of the self in commonsense.

4. Materialism is relatively simpler. Materialists argue that their view is relatively greater in simplicity than dualism and therefore passes the checking of "Occam's razor" or the principle of parsimony.

It is a principle of rational methodology that if all else is equal, the simpler of two competing hypothesis should be preferred. This principle is sometimes called "Ockham's Razor"... The materialist postulates only one kind of substance (physical material), and one class of properties (physical properties), whereas the dualist postulates two kinds of matter and/or two classes of properties. And to no explanatory advantage, charges the materialist.⁹

Following is a critical evaluation of the above four arguments:

1. Materialism itself is a belief founded on the proposition that matter is eternal (since there is no God to transcend matter and matter cannot be self-caused in the materialist's world). How then does it speak of beginning and end? But, the materialist would contend, beginning and end refer to the personality or consciousness and not to matter itself. So, then personality is distinct from matter. But in what way? Personality or consciousness cannot be weighed and measured or located in space. If it is not identical with matter, then what is it? Of course, the materialistic world-view wouldn't allow for an other. Therefore, consciousness and such mental states must be reduced to physical states. The physical is, of sure, subject to the law of entropy. The beginning of a person must, however, account for a development and not for entropy; thus, a conflict already arises. The problem is actually a cosmological one and needs to be pushed further back. This will, therefore, be postponed to a further discussion under cosmological problems. Suffice to ask for now that when materialism talks of a beginning, what does it mean by it? What cause does it refer to? For if a cause beyond the material world could be proved rationally, that cause's ability to keep something enduring (lasting forever) cannot be disputed.

Secondly, the argument focuses only on the physical phenomenon. If a spiritual realm is supposed, how would the argument apply to it. It cannot be stated that what begins must also end; but that what begins can also end. But, what if God is brought into the picture and eternal life, as quality, and everlasting lief, as durability, be thus made possible?

Thirdly, the theory that since all that begins must end and so must consciousness end, must still pass the empirical test. It is something that can be known only after death. But, how can one prove it? It is a proposition which is unverifiable and unfalsifiable; therefore, no judgement either concerning its verifiability or falsity can be given. Dualists have argued that the law of conservation of energy may be applied to consciousness even, if it were merely physical. It, however, doesn't seem quite feasible to start an argument for a proposition, say mind, from a base, say matter, it itself stands on...

2. The mind-body relationship problem has been explained away by some dualists by the theory that while on earth, the mind or soul is conditioned by the physical body. This, though be a theory, is still more plausible than materialism which struggles to explain how consciousness is produced by random collocation of atoms. Why doesn't a stone, which too is a collocation of rapidly moving atoms, not have consciousness or even life? How does matter account for emotions, imaginations, creativity, rationality, morality, freewill, and the religious experience of man? These and other questions will be probed under problems of materialism.

3. That body concerns are universal in no way proves that "the body alone constitutes the self." A simple pondering like "Who is concerned about the body?" may shatter the argument. For the answer, "I" or "my" surely points to the fact that the body alone doesn't constitute the self and that self is that which calls the body its own.

Secondly, men are not just concerned about their own bodies but also about their thoughts, attitudes, desires, emotions etc. And, when concerned about a certain thought, it doesn't mean that they are concerned about their body. The word "concern" itself has a psychological background.

Thirdly, the fact of human affection shatters the body-concern argument into pieces. That men make sacrifices out of love and honor for others feelings, emotions, and honor cannot be denied. Then, they are not just concerns about mere bodies, but about "selves" in a more comprehensive sense.

Fourthly, how does the argument from body-concerns answer the fact of asceticism, spiritual discipline, and other such religious concerns? For spiritual concerns cannot be reduced in anyway to mere, absolute body-concerns. The self, thus, is seen to be more comprehensive than the body, at least in matters of concerns.

4. Materialism is simple only superficially. In reality, it is a very complex system. It's assumptions and theories, with their subsequent implications, are devastating, and almost incredible to commonsense, as we will see in the following section.

Problems of Materialism

Following are a few of the many problems of materialism that are worth consideration...

1. Cosmological Problems. Materialism posits that matter is eternal. That means that it is uncaused. For to say it is caused is to annihilate its own eternality and presuppose an other external but uncaused cause. To say it self-caused is to presuppose its own existence before it caused itself, which is sheer nonsense. To be uncaused means simply to be there disrespecting either time or the laws of nature. But, that is not so with the universe; it is in a space-time continuum and in subjection to certain laws of science.

Secondly, if matter were eternal, in the sense that it never had a beginning, we could never have had the present because of the infinite regression of the past.

Thirdly, if matter were eternal, the second law of thermodynamics demand the complete expiration of all useful energy by now (if the word "now" can be used). The evidences are, however, contrary to this.

Fourthly, if matter were eternal, in the sense of its being timeless, it could never have reverted back to time. For to come out of eternity is a sheer impossibility, since, once in eternity, there is no more time and "to come back" requires the presence of at least some time.¹⁰

Fifthly, matter could never have gained the top of energy from which it is now running down according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, without an external act of propulsion or starting of a mechanism; for to say that matter propelled itself up is like saying a person could levitate by pulling up the straps of the boot he is wearing. Therefore, there needs to be at least a beginning where a mechanism is designed and then set to motion. The eternality of matter is a philosophical impossibility.

2. Teleological Problems. Reason demands the existence of an intelligent designer to account for the existence of design in the universe, a designer who is above matter and its laws. Materialism denies the existence of such a being; thus, giving rise to at least two hypotheses to explain design, that is, that either matter designed/designs itself or that all design is the result of random chance and nothing else.

a. To say that matter designs itself amounts to saying that matter is self-determining and intelligent; in other words, it is alive. Pantheism, Gaia hypothesis, Mother Nature cults, etc are popular forms of this theory. So then, the word "life" must be redefined to suit this proposition. The facts are, however, at odds with this concept. Matter doesn't design itself. As a matter of fact, matter is irreversibly subject to the law of entropy and is moving towards greater and increased disorder.

b. Concerning chance, R.C. Sproul well calls it as nothing. Chance is nothing else but nothing.

...chance is nothing. It has no weight, no measurement, no power. It is merely a word we use to describe mathematical possibilities. It can do nothing. It can do nothing because it is nothing. To say that the universe was created by chance is to say that it came from nothing.

That is intellectual madness. What are the chances that the universe was created by chance?¹¹

In anyway, chance, whatever it is, could not bring forth life in the universe. Even man, with his sophisticated and brilliant scientific mind, could not bring forth life out of dead matter, how could then chance, whatever it is, do that. And it is not just a matter of bringing forth life, it's also the matter of designing a favorable habitat (earth) for that life. The following excerpt displays the inefficiency of chance.

Dr. Emile Bord, one of the world's great experts on mathematical probability, formulated a basic law of probability. It states that the occurence of any event where the chances are beyond one in 10⁵⁰... is an event which we can state with certainty will never happen-- no matter how much time is alloted, no matter how many conceivable opportunities could exist for the event to take place. In other words, life by chance is mathematically impossible on earth or any place else.

... by calculating the chance of life itself evolving on just the planet, i.e., the earth, Dr. Carl Sagan of Cornell University estimated this to be roughly one chance in ten followed by two billion zeroes. A number this large would fill over 6,000 books the size just to write it out. A number this size is so infinitely beyond 10⁵⁰ (Bord's upper limit for an event to occur) it is simply mind-boggling.¹²

And so, matter, being non-living but subject to the laws of entropy, cannot design itself; and chance, being nothing, can design nothing. With that being obvious, materialism has, evidently, no other way to solve the teleological problem. Isn't the Biblical answer a more plausible one?

3. The Volitionistic Problem. Since matter is all in all, and matter has no freewill, any of its product is predetermined. There is no freewill, thus relegating the concept of freewill to mere chimera or illusion.

In classical physics, you could predict the future behavior of a particle if you knew its present velocity and the forces that were going to act on it. These forces would be exerted by the gravitational, electric, or magnetic fields of other particles. Imagine an ideally intelligent person who would be given the present position and velocity of every particle in the universe. In principle, he could calculate the future motion of each particle under the forces exerted on it by the others. Even though the actual calculation would be too complicated for anybody to carry out, the laws of physics certainly implied that the future of the universe is completely determined by its state at present. The universe was a machine; all its parts, including men, could merely go through their predestined motions. Physics left no room for freewill.¹³

McCue goes on to say that the new Quantum physics resolves the matter of freewill by destroying the principle of causality at the atomic level. The problem, however, is how the mere destruction of causality can facilitate the possibility of freewill. Can freewill be possible without consciousness? If would be ludicrous to suppose that atomic particles have consciousness and then determine themselves their future. More problematic is the inference of freewill from seeming non-causality. Matter being an automata, its product would also be an automata.

This gives rise to several problems. Not only does freewill become an allusion, but the responsibility of man is also threatened. Man is no longer responsible for his actions. It was determined. The concept of absolute morality and the concept of justice are threatened. As we shall observe later, the concept itself becomes an illusion. One may refer back to the laws of Quantum mechanics again. Well, given the atoms possessed self-consciousness and freewill (or say, were free from the law of causality), one must still ask whether the laws of Quantum mechanics themselves were eternal, i.e. uncaused (since to be caused or to be self-cause is a threat to materialism). For once the law of causality is destroyed, words like "because", "therefore", become meaningless.... Thus, a great confusion arises. Firstly, materialism says that since all is pre-determined none ought to be blamed for his actions. Then, the concept of "blaming" and "ought" is also deemed nonsense by the same system. We turn now to the ethical problems. But before that, doesn't the statement, "Only man created in the image of a volitional being, God, can be volitional?" seem more plausible?

4. Ethical Problems. Morality is baseless in a materialistic society. Firstly, because there is no God to authorize the absoluteness of a moral law; secondly, because every action (or happening or event) is determined; thirdly, because the concept of an "ought" becomes nonsensical in a deterministic, materialistic society. This last problem needs a little elaboration.

Materialism says that all is matter, and it is well known that matter is continuously in a flux an dis moving towards increased disorder. How then could it produce a mind (or whatever the materialist would like to call it) that carries a concept of an "ought" and thus calls for an order in the midst of disorder.

Secondly, since matter would be an automata and events, thus, predetermined, the concept of an "ought" would be a useless commodity. Where freewill doesn't exist, what is the use of the concept "What ought to be"? Morality, then, becomes meaningless and nonsensical in a materialistic world.

Some would opt for a theory of relative moralism. Since God doesn't exist, man must dictate laws. But, men are many and finite in being. Thus, the existence of relative moral laws. But, if such laws were really possible, would they at least not be bound by a common thread of a particular end? What do all moral laws aim at? Say, the goal is the well being of the individual in the society. Now if the end were one, how would it be that contradictory means could lead to the same end. Obviously, a theory of relativity could only be based on the possibility of relative ends--i.e., where the ends are diversified. But that would annihilate the possibility of a pluralistic morality. For, for an absolute end, there must of necessity be an absolute means. The absolute end cannot be reached by relative means. No battle can be won, if some of the soldiers followed a moral law of allegiance to their nation and others followed a so-called moral law of traitorship. Anyone knows that traitorship is not a good quality. Now, how traitorship is to be defined is another subject. The existence of absolute moral teleological standards themselves are evidence to the fact that materialism is not the truth.

Practically, the only kind of morality possible in a materialistic society is Nietzschean. The will to power. Dominion, violence, survival of the powerful, oppression and even extinction of the weak, and so on. Materialism has disastrous consequences. "Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die" is the real ethical slogan of materialism.

5. Metaphysical Problems. The existence of metaphysics itself is a great threat to materialism. For if materialism were true, no metaphysics would have been possible. The two main metaphysical problems materialism must accept defeat before are as follows:

a. Abstract Thought. It is indubitably understood that man hs the ability of abstract reasoning. But, how could abstract thought flow out of concrete matter? Such concepts as "infinity", "eternity", "perfection", "beyond", "existence", "justice", etc would have been an impossibility if matter alone existed. But, abstract thought is a reality and materialism becomes a rational impossibility.

b. Absolute Truth. As Dr. Ravi Zacharias well exposes in his sermon, "The Questions of a Man in Agony," if matter plus chance plus time had produced the brain, then truth as an absolute category would no longer exist; since truth to be truth must be immutable disregarding space and time. But, matter is changing, chance is changing, and time is changing; therefore, truth as an absolute category can no longer exist in a materialist world. The problem, however, is that if absolute truth were non-existent how would one know that the statement "matter plus chance plus time has produced my brain" is true?

Materialism thus is self-defeating and in all an utter rational impossibility. It threatens the validity of the very reason on which it had concluded that matter is all and all is matter. And with the collapse of the foundation, materialistic annihilationism also, hereby, collapses.


NOTES:

---

¹ Schopenhauer noted that "Death is the true inspiring genius, or the muse of philosophy... Indeed, without death men could scarcely philosophize at all." (as cited by James L. Christian in Philosophy, An Introduction to the Art of Wondering (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Wiston, 1986), p.544
² Zola Levitt and John Weldon, Is There Life After Death (California: Harvest House Publisher, 1977), pp.3,4
³ Samuel Enoch Stumpf, Socrates to Sartre, IV. Edn. (New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc, 1988), p.97
⁴ Harold H. Titus, Marilyn S. Smith, and Richard T. Nolan, Living Issues in Philosophy, VIII Edn. (California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1986), pp.89-90
⁵ Ibid, p. 90
⁶ as cited by Manuel Valesquez, Philosophy IV Edn. (California: Wadsworth, 1991), p. 262
⁷Norman L. Geisler and Paul O. Feinberg, Introduction to Philosophy (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1997), p.219
⁸ Bertrand Russel in "The Illusion of Immortality" as reproduced in Introduction to Philosophy by Louis P. Pojman (California: Wasdworth Publishing, 1991), p. 367
⁹ Paul Churchland in "A Critique of Dualism" as reproduced by Louis P. Pojman in Introduction to Philosophy, p. 314
¹⁰ Cf. Paul Davies in "Time", as reproduced by Daniel Kolak and Raymon Martin in The Experience of Philosophy II Edn (California: Wadsworth, 1992), p.85
¹¹ R.C. Sproul, The Holiness of God (Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, 1985), pp.21-22
¹² John Weldon and Zola Levitt, UFOs: What on Earth is Happening (California: Harvest House Publishing, 1915), p.155
¹³ J.J.G. McCue, The World of Atoms (New York: The Ronald Press, 1956), p.478