Hello Everyone,
Challenges to Christianity such as atheism bring our beliefs such as God's existence into doubt. Christian philosophers then take on the burden of proof to accept these doubts and then prove God's existence. In other words, they accept that God's existence is not just readily apparent or obvious for the sake of argument, and then they prove God's existence from the position of doubt or initial unbelief in God. Christian philosophers will take on the burden of proof to address atheist challenges.
However, challenges to Christianity from radical skepticism are not treated the same way. Radical skepticism includes doubts such as: "Am I in the Matrix?" Others include: "Was I born yesterday with all of my memories?" Christian philosophers generally argue that these doubts need reasons to be treated seriously in the first place. Even though radical skepticism challenges Christian beliefs such as the reality of human history, Christian apologists never take on the burden of proof to address these extreme doubts the same way atheist doubts are treated.
However, I am fleshing out a solution to simulation theory and similar forms of radical skepticism. This answer will specifically deal with whether the radical skeptic is in the Matrix. A similar form of radical skepticism includes the doubt: "Was I created ten minutes ago with all of my memories?" And the solution to simulation theory would also apply to this alternative form of radical skepticism. Furthermore, this solution is compatible with scripture and natural revelation.
Essentially, the solution is that the radical skeptic can pray for an omniscient being with perfectly-certain knowledge to answer the radical skeptic's doubt as to whether he is in the Matrix. An omniscient being with perfectly-certain knowledge is possible strictly-speaking, and this being would know if the radical skeptic is in the Matrix. So the radical skeptic can pray to this being for Him to provide the radical skeptic with the being's own direct and knowing certainty as to whether the radical skeptic is in the Matrix or if other forms of radical skepticism are true.
In Christianity, this is known as a word of knowledge, and Jesus used this when dealing with the Samaritan woman at the well. He already knew her relationship status via a word of knowledge, and other passages indicate that God provides similar kinds of directly-intuited knowledge as well. Such passages include Numbers 12:6, Ecclesiastes 3:9-11, John 14:26 and Acts 17:28. Some passages indicate that the inward dwelling of the Holy Spirit allows God to impart this kind of direct or even psychic knowledge to believers.
But how can the radical skeptic know that such an omniscient being with perfectly-certain knowledge exists? Radical skepticism naturally includes the doubt that such a being or god exists. However, the radical skeptic is still able to prove or demonstrate to himself that such a being exists with a few arguments that still work within radical skepticism.
The first argument is James Anderson's use of the laws of logic to prove a god's existence. This is in his work: "The Lord of Noncontradiction." The second argument is the moral argument that is normally used by Christian theists. The third argument is my own modified Kalam Cosmological Argument that I will provide. These arguments also helpfully demonstrate qualities about the omniscient being. James Anderson's argument demonstrates that this omniscient being would be logical or rational. The moral argument demonstrates that this being would be morally good. And the modified Kalam Cosmological Argument demonstrates that this being would be extremely powerful and atemporal.
The rest of this essay is devoted to the modified Kalam Cosmological Argument. These ideas are still a work in progress, but I decided to share them now. I hope that radical skeptics can find some peace with these ideas or new tools with them to answer their own questions.
Also, I admit that this solution hinges on what the omniscient being's response is. What if the omniscient being does not respond? What if the omniscient being informs an unhappy radical skeptic that he does live in the Matrix? Ultimately, the answer comes down to the radical skeptic's relationship with this being and what response is provided. Radical skepticism deserves its name for a reason. What it suggests about reality is virtually impossible to truly answer. And so I hope everyone sees the strength of this solution according to the merits of its arguments that demonstrate a God's existence and relies on Him for a word of knowledge or complete, peaceful reassurance that such doubts are false.
The Modified Kalam Cosmological Argument
The radical skeptic can only trust facts about his own psyche, and he cannot entirely trust his senses. This means he needs his sensory qualia to be proven to be real representations of the world. However, he can still use a modified version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument that just uses observations of the sensory qualia to determine an atemporal God’s existence. Then he can pray to this God to address his extreme, skeptical doubts.
First, the radical skeptic can determine that the sensory universe of qualia had a beginning. The sensory universe of qualia can be referred to as the “sensible universe.” The radical skeptic can observe that the sensory qualia pass through time. He can observe that an ice cube in the sun will melt into water. The ice cube passes through time as does everything else he can sense. Therefore, the sensible universe had a beginning. It could not have existed forever. This is because anything with an eternally-old past cannot exist, yet the sensible universe passes through time. And it can be sufficiently demonstrated that an eternal past cannot exist with various arguments. The sensible universe that experiences time had a beginning.
Second, the radical skeptic can determine that the beginning of the sensible universe was caused. The first reason he can determine this is from his own mind. He can tell that his other mental objects are caused by his own mind. Therefore, he can assume that this sensible universe and all of its contents must have been caused into existence as well like his own mental objects. Furthermore, something cannot come from absolute nothingness. Absolute nothingness has no properties such as the ability to create anything by definition. Therefore, the beginning of the sensible universe had a cause.
Third, the radical skeptic can conclude that the cause of the sensible universe is personal. This is because there are only two options left, and the second option is better. The first option is that an atemporal abstract object created the universe. This does not work for two reasons.
Reason one is that abstract objects such as the laws of logic exist, yet it can be observed that they do nothing and cause nothing to happen. Abstract objects are causally-inert. Reason two is that the argument that an abstract object with a property that can create the universe would need an explanation for why its property created the universe. This produces an infinite regress of inquiries about the abstract object’s creative property.
Therefore, a powerful, atemporal living being with libertarian free will is the best answer. The living being is atemporal and has the ability to choose an action to create the universe, and His ability to choose is a feature of His living mind by definition. Then the radical skeptic can determine that this being is logical, benevolent and now extremely powerful and atemporal.
Faithfully,
John Lasaru
Challenges to Christianity such as atheism bring our beliefs such as God's existence into doubt. Christian philosophers then take on the burden of proof to accept these doubts and then prove God's existence. In other words, they accept that God's existence is not just readily apparent or obvious for the sake of argument, and then they prove God's existence from the position of doubt or initial unbelief in God. Christian philosophers will take on the burden of proof to address atheist challenges.
However, challenges to Christianity from radical skepticism are not treated the same way. Radical skepticism includes doubts such as: "Am I in the Matrix?" Others include: "Was I born yesterday with all of my memories?" Christian philosophers generally argue that these doubts need reasons to be treated seriously in the first place. Even though radical skepticism challenges Christian beliefs such as the reality of human history, Christian apologists never take on the burden of proof to address these extreme doubts the same way atheist doubts are treated.
However, I am fleshing out a solution to simulation theory and similar forms of radical skepticism. This answer will specifically deal with whether the radical skeptic is in the Matrix. A similar form of radical skepticism includes the doubt: "Was I created ten minutes ago with all of my memories?" And the solution to simulation theory would also apply to this alternative form of radical skepticism. Furthermore, this solution is compatible with scripture and natural revelation.
Essentially, the solution is that the radical skeptic can pray for an omniscient being with perfectly-certain knowledge to answer the radical skeptic's doubt as to whether he is in the Matrix. An omniscient being with perfectly-certain knowledge is possible strictly-speaking, and this being would know if the radical skeptic is in the Matrix. So the radical skeptic can pray to this being for Him to provide the radical skeptic with the being's own direct and knowing certainty as to whether the radical skeptic is in the Matrix or if other forms of radical skepticism are true.
In Christianity, this is known as a word of knowledge, and Jesus used this when dealing with the Samaritan woman at the well. He already knew her relationship status via a word of knowledge, and other passages indicate that God provides similar kinds of directly-intuited knowledge as well. Such passages include Numbers 12:6, Ecclesiastes 3:9-11, John 14:26 and Acts 17:28. Some passages indicate that the inward dwelling of the Holy Spirit allows God to impart this kind of direct or even psychic knowledge to believers.
But how can the radical skeptic know that such an omniscient being with perfectly-certain knowledge exists? Radical skepticism naturally includes the doubt that such a being or god exists. However, the radical skeptic is still able to prove or demonstrate to himself that such a being exists with a few arguments that still work within radical skepticism.
The first argument is James Anderson's use of the laws of logic to prove a god's existence. This is in his work: "The Lord of Noncontradiction." The second argument is the moral argument that is normally used by Christian theists. The third argument is my own modified Kalam Cosmological Argument that I will provide. These arguments also helpfully demonstrate qualities about the omniscient being. James Anderson's argument demonstrates that this omniscient being would be logical or rational. The moral argument demonstrates that this being would be morally good. And the modified Kalam Cosmological Argument demonstrates that this being would be extremely powerful and atemporal.
The rest of this essay is devoted to the modified Kalam Cosmological Argument. These ideas are still a work in progress, but I decided to share them now. I hope that radical skeptics can find some peace with these ideas or new tools with them to answer their own questions.
Also, I admit that this solution hinges on what the omniscient being's response is. What if the omniscient being does not respond? What if the omniscient being informs an unhappy radical skeptic that he does live in the Matrix? Ultimately, the answer comes down to the radical skeptic's relationship with this being and what response is provided. Radical skepticism deserves its name for a reason. What it suggests about reality is virtually impossible to truly answer. And so I hope everyone sees the strength of this solution according to the merits of its arguments that demonstrate a God's existence and relies on Him for a word of knowledge or complete, peaceful reassurance that such doubts are false.
The Modified Kalam Cosmological Argument
The radical skeptic can only trust facts about his own psyche, and he cannot entirely trust his senses. This means he needs his sensory qualia to be proven to be real representations of the world. However, he can still use a modified version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument that just uses observations of the sensory qualia to determine an atemporal God’s existence. Then he can pray to this God to address his extreme, skeptical doubts.
First, the radical skeptic can determine that the sensory universe of qualia had a beginning. The sensory universe of qualia can be referred to as the “sensible universe.” The radical skeptic can observe that the sensory qualia pass through time. He can observe that an ice cube in the sun will melt into water. The ice cube passes through time as does everything else he can sense. Therefore, the sensible universe had a beginning. It could not have existed forever. This is because anything with an eternally-old past cannot exist, yet the sensible universe passes through time. And it can be sufficiently demonstrated that an eternal past cannot exist with various arguments. The sensible universe that experiences time had a beginning.
Second, the radical skeptic can determine that the beginning of the sensible universe was caused. The first reason he can determine this is from his own mind. He can tell that his other mental objects are caused by his own mind. Therefore, he can assume that this sensible universe and all of its contents must have been caused into existence as well like his own mental objects. Furthermore, something cannot come from absolute nothingness. Absolute nothingness has no properties such as the ability to create anything by definition. Therefore, the beginning of the sensible universe had a cause.
Third, the radical skeptic can conclude that the cause of the sensible universe is personal. This is because there are only two options left, and the second option is better. The first option is that an atemporal abstract object created the universe. This does not work for two reasons.
Reason one is that abstract objects such as the laws of logic exist, yet it can be observed that they do nothing and cause nothing to happen. Abstract objects are causally-inert. Reason two is that the argument that an abstract object with a property that can create the universe would need an explanation for why its property created the universe. This produces an infinite regress of inquiries about the abstract object’s creative property.
Therefore, a powerful, atemporal living being with libertarian free will is the best answer. The living being is atemporal and has the ability to choose an action to create the universe, and His ability to choose is a feature of His living mind by definition. Then the radical skeptic can determine that this being is logical, benevolent and now extremely powerful and atemporal.
Faithfully,
John Lasaru
