"The proof of the Bible is that it gives
us a reason to believe that proof is real. An argument against the Bible, must
provide an alternate basis for proof." 1
Logic is based on biblical thinking. Whether we choose to recognize it
or not, Christianity formed the basis for the reasoning we take for granted today.
Since we base logic on biblical thinking, it must remain true
in order to provide rational support for its continued use. It is irrational and
self-destructive to remove the Bible and replace it with nothing. The fact that
the Bible cannot be replaced, is internal evidence that it is what it says it is.
Logic and Worldviews
In order to prove things, we accept the laws of logic. Without these laws,
there would be no correct way of reasoning. If we simply assume these laws to be true,
we really don't have a good reason for believing in them, however. The blind acceptance
of the laws of logic is an example of one of the basic assumptions we all have naturally.
It is important to understand that everyone depends on a set of assumptions.
It is common for people to think that they are unbiased, but that is not only untrue in experience,
it is also not logical.
The belief that someone can be unbiased is itself a positive belief and is, therefore, a biased belief.
So, the belief that someone can be unbiased is an example of a bias.
When I refer to the word "worldview," I am referring to the set of assumptions that a person
makes, upon which all their other beliefs depend.
Here’s an example that demonstrates that we all must make these basic assumptions.
Everyone Has a Worldview
Most facts that you know,
depend on other facts. Some facts, however, don’t depend on others. These “starting point” facts are ones
that you only assume to be true. You may or may not have a reason for your assumptions, but everyone makes
these assumptions. We rarely consider our assumptions, but in order to prove the Bible, these assumptions are
critical because the Bible claims to contain the only ones that make a belief in knowledge rational.
Here’s a silly example that demonstrates that we all make these kinds of assumptions:
Jack: “The grass is green.”
Jill: “How do you know?”
Jack: “Because I’m looking at it.”
Jill: “How do you know that you are seeing it right?”
Jack: “Because I trust my eyes.”
Jill: “Why do you trust your eyes?”
Jack: “Because I always have and they don't usually fail me.”
Jill: “Why do you think that your eyes are not failing you now?”
Jack: “Because my eyes are in good health.”
Jill: “How do you know that?”
Jack: “Because my doctor told me.”
Jill: “How do you know your doctor is correct?”
Jack: “Because he has studied these things.”
Jill: “Why do you think that people who study things are correct?”
Jack: “Because they know more about how things work.”
Jill: “Their study was in the past. Why would that matter now?”
Jack: “Because things keep working the same way today as they have in the past.”
Jill: “How do you know that?”
Jack: “I’m not sure… I guess I just assumed that.”
Jill: “Then I guess you really don’t know that the grass is green do you?”
There aren’t very many people as patient as Jack is here, but this does illustrate the point that everything
you believe is true depends on a set of starting point facts. In Jack’s case, one of these starting points is
not rational because He doesn’t have a reason to believe that things keep working the same way today as they
always have. Because of this, he actually can’t even be sure the grass is green.
There is a logical reason for us to trust in the fact that some things stay the same.
The Bible tells us that God stays the same and that He made everything. If Jack would have believed in
the Bible, he would have had a rational belief that the grass is green. In this case, the Bible even says that God
made the grass green and directed animals to eat it.2 The Bible also says that God
is honest and good and doesn’t trick people or animals; therefore the grass is definitely green.
The Bible claims to be the correct worldview. Since we all have a set of assumptions, we can say that
they are either biblical ones or they are not. Proving the Bible is a matter of demonstrating that the
biblical ones are the correct ones.
The Bible makes a claim that only it contains the worldview that makes knowledge possible.
When we put that to the test by critically analyzing non-biblical assumptions, we discover that the
non-biblical assumptions cannot logically support a belief in logic itself as well as the other things
we naturally assume to be true. If logic can't be supported,
then how can our belief in what it proves be be supported either?
The Biblical Basis for Logic
First, I would like to demonstrate that our
experience with the laws of logic is consistent with what the Bible says.
In order for the laws of logic to work, they must be universal, invariant and immaterial.
They must be universal because they must apply everywhere. For instance, when astronauts go into outer space,
we would expect that contradictions would still not be true.
These laws must be invariant. This means that they don’t change with time. For instance, you wouldn’t assume
that contradictions used to be true. You would also not assume that someday, contradictions will start becoming true.
In order for us to build knowledge on them, the laws of logic would have to be invariant.
The laws of logic by their nature are immaterial. This means that they are conceptual. You can’t step on one
accidently or throw it into the fire. You can’t experiment on one in a laboratory.
In order for biblical assumptions to be correct, they would have to account for the existence of these laws in
order for a Christian to use them rationally.
The Bible teaches that God made the laws of logic. It also teaches that God expects man to be logical.
Because God is omnipresent, his laws for man about how to relate to Him must be universal.
Because God never changes over time, it makes sense that these laws must never change so that we continue to
relate to God’s truth for all eternity. God is both immaterial and material,
so it makes sense that He would be the creator of the laws of logic.
So, biblical assumptions not only support the laws of logic, the God of the Bible expects mankind to know
and abide by them.
Naturalism is an example of a non-biblical assumption. A naturalist assumes that if something cannot be
experienced using our five senses, it doesn’t exist. This is often used as the basis for disregarding the
miracles in the Bible. Naturalism is also used as a reason for accepting the evolutionary model of history.
Because a naturalist refuses to accept anything but naturalistic explanations for things,
the Bible must be rejected. It can be demonstrated that a belief in naturalism is irrational as well.
A problem with a belief in naturalism is that laws of logic are not natural and as a result,
logical knowledge would not be possible if naturalism was true. A naturalist must assume the Bible’s laws
of logic in order to argue against the Bible, therefore, naturalism must be rejected as irrational.
As we test them, we discover that each non-biblical assumption has logical consistency problems like this.
The Limitations of Science
If you were expecting this proof to be about scientific evidence for the Bible, then you may have a
misunderstanding about the rational limits of scientific evidence. Scientific evidence must always be
interpreted by a philosophy. Some scientists are so used to their own philosophy that they no longer see
that they are interpreting the evidence in a biased way. All science is interpreted using a bias,
that’s because scientific evidence doesn’t have a tag on it telling you how it got there or what it means.
The simple answer to the question: “What scientific evidence is there for the Bible?” is: “All evidence proves
the Bible because God made all the evidence.”
I think that the real question is: “How does the Bible explain the evidence?” The truth is that the Bible can
explain all the evidence and it usually does so in a simpler way than the non-biblical interpretations do.
I want to give you an example of something that is commonly thought to be evidence for evolution,
and demonstrate that it can also be viewed as evidence of creation.
The light we see from stars is believed to be many light years away.
So many, that it would take millions of years for the light we see to reach us here on earth.
The Bible tells us that earth
is roughly 6,000 years old. As a result, distant starlight is assumed to be evidence that the Bible is wrong.
The fact that stars are light years away cannot prove a person’s assumptions. A person’s assumptions must be
accepted in order to use science. Science doesn’t prove things anyway. It only demonstrates that under certain
conditions, certain causes produce certain effects, which give us confidence that the same results would occur
if they were repeated. It is not a guarantee. Besides the fact that you must first believe in the “laws” of
cause and effect, you must also admit that your experiment may not be “closed.” There may be a factor that you
are not even aware of that you should have been controlling while doing your experiment. These kinds of mistakes
cause “surprises” all the time in science. For that reason, science can’t “prove” anything.
The starlight and time question is not as simple as it is often presented. The physics that tells us that light
has a speed, also tells us that time is relative. It is intellectually dishonest to suggest that just because
light appears to be so far away, that time is the same in both locations. One side or the other could have a
different sense of time depending on the concentration of mass. In order to understand this we have to understand
Einstein’s theory of relativity. After his theory was proposed, experiments were done with atomic clocks that
demonstrated that mass has an effect on time. The greater the differences in mass, the greater the difference
in time perception there was between the two locations. What is 6,000 years on earth may be 6,000,000 years in
certain areas in space, depending on where mass is denser.
As you can see, we cannot assume that time in space is the same as time on earth. The Bible was written from earth’s
perspective. Genesis seems to indicate that time was being considered at sea-level on earth. It actually tells
us that the Spirit of God hovered over the waters.3 If the earth was at the center
of the mass of the universe, it would actually make sense that time goes slower here than closer to the edge of the
universe where light appears to be older. So, distant starlight is actually evidence that the Bible is correct.
This particular interpretation could still be wrong. There are other theories that confirm the Bible and
account for starlight that may be more accurate. This just illustrates the fact that science is always
interpreted by philosophy. I believe that you need more than an interpretation to provide proof of the Bible.
How you use science depends on your biased assumptions. It doesn’t make sense to even use science if you
can’t prove that things can actually be known. Because the Bible proves that things can be known,
we can’t doubt the Bible without actually destroying the basis for science. In order use science we
must first assume the Bible to be true so we can gather knowledge.
Can't you still know things without believing what the Bible says? Not ultimately.
To be rational, we must have a reason for why we believe in every truth claim.
Every reason for a truth claim is also a truth claim that must have a reason.
I am unable to provide an infinite number of reasons. The point at which I run out of
reasons is the point at which I fail to prove that I can know anything that I based
upon that reason. The Bible allows me to know something by having faith in the written
words of a perfect God. This allows me to be certain of some basic truth that supports
all of the other things that I know. Without the existence of a perfect God,
I must either rely on my own assumptions or on the assumption of another imperfect human.
Relying on a person’s assumptions is irrational by definition.
What about people who don’t believe the Bible? Are you saying that they don’t
know anything? I agree that many people who don’t profess a belief in the Bible
are very intelligent. They obviously know things. What I am actually saying is that
they are depending on what the Bible says in order to know those things, whether they
profess a belief in it or not. People who know things choose to believe things that the
Bible says, even though they cannot support those beliefs using their own ideas. The
Bible says that God has written the truth about Himself into the minds of people.4
The fact that people can be intelligent without the Bible is evidence of that.
Can't you use logic to determine what is true for yourself without the Bible?
The laws of logic are the thinking rules we use to prove things. The Bible tells us
that God is the originator of these laws as well as all other fundamental laws.5
The Bible says that God is immaterial, invariant, universal and eternal; therefore
I can expect that His laws of logic would have the same qualities. If I don’t believe in God,
why would I think it’s reasonable to use and trust in laws of logic? How could I be sure
the laws really exist? How would I know for sure that they would not stop being true?
How would I know that they were always true in the past? If I don’t have a reason to
rely on the reasoning process, then why should I trust in it? If I don’t know if the
laws of logic are true, how could I prove that anything is true with them? When I believe
what the Bible claims, I am able to have reasons for things. When I don’t believe the Bible,
it doesn’t make sense for me to depend on laws of logic.
Isn't there anything you can know without believing the Bible first?
I discovered that, without the Bible, I also don’t have a reason for trusting in morality, or in science.
Morality assumes a standard for goodness and science would depend on even more laws than just logical ones.
If I don’t trust what the Bible says, I have no basis for the knowledge of anything that I can think of.
You used the Bible to prove the Bible. Isn't that circular?
Any ultimate standard of truth is circular, even your current one. This only proves the point that
proof itself is only possible if I first believe the Bible. Since only the Bible can account for
the knowledge of logic in the first place, there would be no way for me to provide a proof without
first assuming that the Bible is true. This also reveals that when someone asks for proof,
they already believe part of what the Bible says, even if they are attempting to deny it.
Even those who attempt to argue against the Bible must believe in what it says in order to argue.
Those who attempt to prove that the Bible is false, actually demonstrate that it is true.
Those who argue against the Bible are using circular logic too. When someone denies the Bible to
argue against it, they have assumed what they are trying to prove. That is also circular.
It has to be that way; otherwise it wouldn’t be an ultimate standard of truth.
You implied that everyone has an ultimate standard of truth. Why would you assume that?
The standard that says that a person has no standards is itself a standard. It’s just a very bad one
because it’s immediately self-refuting. A person can’t know an infinite number of reasons.
If you ask why enough times you run out of answers. At the point that you run out, or argue in a circle,
you discover your ultimate standard of truth. If you run out, you are being arbitrary.
If you argue in a circle, you will discover that your circle is self-refuting like this one,
unless you happen to actually believe in what the Bible says.
How can this possibly be?
God made us. Our minds are confined to his rules whether we want to admit it or not.
This is why we have no excuse not to accept what the Bible says. If we don't, God will hold us
accountable because He knows that we know these things, and He can prove that we have no excuse.6
If you want to study this further, here are two books that I highly recommend:
- See Proverbs 1:7; Colossians 2:1-4; Proverbs 21:30; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; Luke 4:4; John 17:17
- See Genesis 1:11, Genesis 1:30
- See Genesis 1:1
- See Romans 1:19
- See Genesis 1:1; Isaiah 1:18; Colossians 1:17
- See Romans 1:20
The Most Important Message
Troy's Kindle Books
Listen to DBR, his free daily commentary
Copyright 2016 Troy Taft |