Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought captive to make it obedient to Christ.
-- 2 Cor. 10:5

Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free
-- Jesus (John 8:32)

Apologetics
Main home page
Apologetics section index page
Contact me

Axiom

Axiom used virtually throughout the articles in my webpage:

The Bible is inerrant and infallible

In all my theological and most apologetical articles, I use the axiom that the Bible is inerrant and infallible. Naturally, people may question if by so doing, I wouldn't be prejudiced for certain opinions and thus am not objective, thus I have failed to prove my point.This style of reasoning may seem valid at face value, but as I would show below, is actually not.

The problem with this style of reasoning is that there is an implicit assumption that abosolute objectivity in the area of worldview and religious thought requires one not to have any presupposition or axiom. To be sure, such objectivity does exist in certain cases, as in the witness of complete strangers who saw the details of a car accident, for example. In other times, objectivity can be forced even though a person have a vested interest in being subjective. This can be seen, hopefully, in the case of a judge who needs to pass judgement on his daugther who have just violated the law. However, it is impossible for any and every one to be objective regarding matters relating to worldview and religious thought without having any presupposition or axioms.

I would now endaevor to show why such objectivity is NOT possible, while I would show that this axiom supports and does not contradict itself, i.e. , the Bible does prove that it is inerrant and infallible if you treat it as such, here.

Arrow diagram form:

Word argument form:

Wordlview is defined as a comprehensive set of basic or ultimate beliefs that fit together in a consistent or coherent manner 1. Let's just suppose that it is possible for anyone to be objective in matters relating to their worldview without having any presuppositions. Subjective people are not considered as they would definitely have their own presuppositions in any manner. Premises used in a person’s worldview must be empirically verifiable, provable by definition, both or neither empirically verifiable nor provable by definition, and any premise in a person’s worldview that is neither empirically verifiable nor provable by definition is an axiom or presupposition. Therefore, it follows that all premises used in the person’s worldview must be empirically verifiable, provable by definition or both. Since that is the case, we can logically conclude that this premise itself “All premises used in the person’s worldview must be empirically verifiable, provable by definition or both” must also be empirically verifiable, provable by definition or both . However, when we analyze this statement, we can see that this particular premise cannot be empirically falsified and is not true by definition, thus this premise is false. Since this premise is false, the converse "Some premises used in the person’s worldview must neither be empirically verifiable nor provable by definition" must be true. As axioms in this case are neither empiricaly verifiable nor provable by definition, some premises in this person's worldview would be presuppositions or axioms. Therefore, it is impossible for anyone to be objective in matters relating to their worldview without having any presuppositions, which contradict our initial supposition. Consequentia Mirabillis! Therefore, it is impossible for anyone to be objective in matters relating to their worldview without having any presuppositions!

As I have shown, it is impossible for anyone to be objective in matters relating to their worldview without having any presuppositions. Therefore, everyone when dealing with matters relating to worldview and religious matters have their own presuppositions, thus in a sense there are no objective people when it comes to worldview and religious matters. Thus, the proper way for people to evaluate worldviews is to see how consistent, internally and externally, they are based on their foundational axioms. In this regard, I have used the axiom "The Bible is inerrant and infallible" and the foundation and the reasons why here, mainly because Christianity is based on Christ which is revelaed primarily in the Bible.

Of course, since it is my conviction that Christianity is consistent externally, it is also my contention that 'evidences' against inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible is wrong. What I mean is that these evidences are intepretated wrongly. Some examples could be found here.

Analysis of the logical argument:

Premises:

Premises used in a person’s worldview must be empirically verifiable, provable by definition, both or neither empirically verifiable nor provable by definition (True by definition)
Any premise in a person’s worldview that is neither empirically verifiable nor provable by definition is an axiom or presupposition (True by definition)

The premise “All premises used in the person’s worldview must be empirically verifiable, provable by definition or both” cannot be empirically verified and is not true by definition (True)
  • In trying to ascertain whether this is empirically verifiable, I have not self-referred the premise quoted to the premise stated in the quote, as that would arrive at a contradiction; you prove that the premise quoted is false which woiuld in turn prove that the premise stated in the quote is true. Since the premises are actually the same in this case, you would end up proving that the premise is both true and false at the same time.
  • Thus, for the premise stated in the quote, I have used the premise "The supernatural exist". This premise cannot be proven to be true or false as the supernatural may exist but do not interact at all with us, or that some people who claim to see them are actually imagining things. Therefore, since the premise quote says that all must be empirically verifiable, the pressence of one premise which is not empirically verifiable falsify this one of the premises that the person who suppose this would have. Thus, this premise is false.

All premises are true.
The argument is valid.

Therefore, the argument is sound!

References:

[1] C. Stephan Evans, 2002, Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy Of Religion, Inter Varsity Press, p.124