Thinking is Either Based on Made-Up Stuff or Divine Revelation

When people go beyond what God has revealed, the only option is making stuff up.

Truth is Reality

Truth sets a true course. It is the compass for all aspects of life. Opinions can lead to disaster. Truth is absolute by nature. You either know something or not. You can have a strong opinion about things that you don't know, but that's useless. To state that something is true when it's just an opinion based on interpretation of observation is to lie.

Reality and Truth

Making Things Up

Logic requires valid form and a conclusion that follows from a true premise. Generating that true premise is a problem. Premises based on axiomatic thinking are irrational. Axioms are beliefs that can’t be known yet are treated as part of reality. In the final analysis, there are only two ways to interpret observations: axiomatic thinking (made-up stuff) or Divine revelation. Any conclusion that anyone makes about anything is just an opinion if it’s based on made-up stuff.

Human-Generated Knowlege

Divine Revelation

God speaks. He speaks through Scripture and through every method mentioned in Scripture. God knows all things and cannot lie. He is the ultimate and only true authority. Whoever seeks Him finds Him. Ask Him to pardon all your times of failing to listen and obey, and you will be pardoned. Ask Him to rule over you as Lord and Savior, and you will find that the Holy Spirit leads and teaches you moment by moment.

Divine Revelation

How Can We Know for Sure?

 

How can we know that the Bible is true from beginning to end? How can we know that the history in the Bible is accurate? How can we even know that God exists?

God speaks through Scripture and every means mentioned in Scripture. We can’t read the Bible without experiencing the voice of God. Einstein said. “No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.” And yet, Paul mentions in that the Hebrew people had come to the point where they no longer heard what God was saying through Scripture but only saw the veil (flesh) that was in front of their faces. (2 Corinthians 3) Depending only on theology without the Holy Spirit does that, and we can end up interpreting the Scripture through a fake reality of our individual theological worldviews to the point that we no longer hear the voice of God speaking to us through Scripture.

We automatically interpret Scripture and the physical world around us, but we don’t always agree with the way other people interpret things. Who’s interpretation is correct? Without the Holy Spirit, we can only interpret Scripture and the material reality around us by adding information from some source other than God. Information doesn’t create itself, and both godly and ungodly philosophers know this.

Only three sources for information exist: divine revelation, the human mind, or demonic influence. Demons lie, and the human mind can make up stuff. But God knows all things and can’t lie. We’ll call divine revelation truth since that’s what it is. Those other two things, lies and made-up stuff, we’ll call make-believe since that’s what they are. So, we’re comparing truth to make-believe.

How does that get us to truth?

We can never find truth by reasoning from make-believe. We have to start from truth to determine truth. We can’t reasonably say that making believe proves anything. We can reasonably say that one truth proves another truth. For instance, God reveals that He exists; therefore, He exists. What God reveals is truth. God, being almighty and all-wise, is well able to reveal Himself and reality to anyone who will listen to Him. For anyone who has depended on making believe as a way of thinking, this information is devastating and hard to hear.

If that’s true, why are atheists and agnostics able to survive?

God has provided for a practical existence without rational thought, and we call this pragmatism. It’s how animals from earthworms to raccoons survive. This pragmatic thought can only deal with what it can observe and test. When it tries to interpret Scripture or the five senses, it has to add information, and that information comes from lies or made-up stuff. Therefore, pragmatic thinkers can do science as long as they stick to observation and testing. They can use pragmatic science to find out what works and what doesn’t work. They can use it to find out what exists in the material world. They can’t answer questions about what they can’t observe and test. For instance, they can’t answer questions about morality, God, angels, the origin of the universe, or how we came to be. Only God can answer these kinds of questions if we’re willing to listen to Him.

God determines morality, and He defines it. Only He can reveal the spiritual realm. Only He can reveal the secrets of the origin of the universe, and He says that He created everything in six days.

All of that is obvious when we give it serious thought, but many questions remain unanswered. “The Reason Collection” is a boxed set of five books that answer many questions about how we can know anything about anything. At times, this collection uses the creation-evolution debate as an example, but the books are about reason and how we can know anything about anything. Other than some artwork and recording an audiobook, Petros has the books ready to be published in ebook formats. He estimates that he’ll publish the collection bundled with two audiobooks in two months but adds this reminder, “If the Lord opens the door.” The two audiobooks will be “Reason, Part 1” and “Reason, Part 2.”

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

By Grace through Faith

It’s time to explore faith and grace more deeply than we previously looked at it. We want to see how grace and faith relate to sound reason and discerning truth. We can only reason sanely “by grace through faith.” When the Holy Spirit births us into God’s family, we can immediately recognize truth better than before we were born again. However, as we mature, our spiritual senses grow. And we continually increase our ability to tell truth from error.

What are Grace and Faith?

We often hear people misusing these two words “grace” and “faith,” but God defines these words correctly in Scripture. By God’s definition, faith is none of the following:

  • rationalized belief
  • pretending
  • making believe
  • believing what’s seen and experienced [actually interpretations of these]
  • self-generated unsupported belief

Instead, faith is God’s gift lest anyone should boast. Ephesians 2:8 And though some people speak of something they call “blind faith,” real faith isn’t blind, but rather, faith sees the vision of God’s hope. Faith is absolute because “faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the rhema (utterance) of God.” And since faith comes by hearing God’s utterance, faith is supernatural, and it’s both certainty and substance. Romans 10:17 That’s why faith is the actual existence of the heavenly vision of reality. It’s absolute proof of the reality that our natural human senses can’t detect. Hebrews 11:1

Then, on to grace, unmerited favor, the gift. God gives the awesome gift of pardon from sins, but He also gives supernatural power to do what’s right and to destroy sin. We need this power to do good because we don’t have righteousness in our natural selves. God designed us in a way that makes us depend on Him to work His good works through us. John 15:4-5 And He designed us to receive His love, flow in His love, and have our lives, our actions, and our beings in Him. Acts 17:28

See http://realreality.org/is-faith-the-same-as-making-believe/

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

The Debate Mindset

From time to time I post conversations with antagonistic people who refuse to acknowledge the real, living Christ. I do this because those who have hardened themselves against Christ work hard to resist Him. They devise clever questions and hope that no one can answer their questions. They develop arguments against Christ, but all their arguments are irrational. The Holy Spirit can answer the gainsayer and demolish the strongholds in our minds, but it seems that those who have repeatedly rejected Jesus Christ just become more hardened. One of the problems with debates is that they don’t change minds. They just intensify dogmatically-held opinions.

Rockbuilder: Without divine revelation through Jesus Christ, a true premise is impossible. Without a true premise, rational thought is impossible. Whoever seeks Him finds Him. I invite everyone to know Him rather than get involved in religiosity of any kind.

Sandbuilder: that is how imaginary people work.
you have to convince yourself that they are real, before the imaginary is able to do anything.
which is why you have nothing to offer Jesus to convince him to give non-believers (like myself) a “divine revelation”.
tell me about the “divine revelation” you received.

Rockbuilder: God reveals Himself to every person. Some people pretend that they don’t know, but they do. Since they refuse to acknowledge God, God turns them over to their own reprobate minds so that they do all sorts of abominations. They then suppress the truth about God through their unrighteousness. In other words, they build up imaginary worldviews in their minds that act as strongholds against God since they don’t want to yield to the love of God.

Sandbuilder: your God never revealed himself to me.
how did your God reveal himself to you? in fact i have no reason to think your God even exists.

Rockbuilder: What makes you think that you have not suppressed the truth about God in your own unrighteousness? Without making up stuff, what makes you think so?

Sandbuilder: now that is a good question.
do you think you have suppressed the truth about the easter bunny, tooth fairy (or any other creature or being) that you know does not exist?

Sandbuilder: comparing your God to the easter bunny, is how i realized your God does not exist.

Rockbuilder: Tell me how comparing God to the easter bunny proves the universal negative that God doesn’t exist. Explain how you get around the fallacy of claiming a universal negative.

Sandbuilder: LOL, i understand, and if you are willing to answer some simple questions, i can help you understand how i got to my conclusion.
but you didn’t answer my question.
it’s a simple yes or no.
do you think you have suppressed the truth about the easter bunny, tooth fairy (or any other creature or being) that you know does not exist?

Rockbuilder: God reveals to me that they don’t exist, so they don’t exist. When I ask the Holy Spirit about it, He confirms His original statement. Do you see that you how you have suppressed the truth in your unrighteousness? You rationalized and argument against God that was based on made-up stuff. Then you fortified that with smokescreen fallacies. Then you repeatedly confirmed your bias until you built a worldview that you use as a stronghold to filter out the reality of God. Your worldview seems real to you, but it’s a fake reality that seems more real than actual reality. What makes you think that you can get around Agrippa’s trilemma without divine revelation?

Sandbuilder: now that would be a neat trick.
if that were true, there should be ways for you to demonstrate such a thing.
does your God know how many books i have on the table in my bedroom?
if you are able to tell me the correct number, that would be very impressive, and give me a reason to take your claim seriously.

Rockbuilder: God knows. What makes you think that God moves at my command to tell me whatever someone asks me? How did you reason to that conclusion?
And, what makes you think that you can reason to any conclusion beyond what you can observe and test since you have no path to a true premise when you try?

Sandbuilder: because Jesus said so, unless you don’t think Jesus was referring to you.
do you think when Jesus said “anything you ask in my name will be done” applies to you?

Rockbuilder: What makes you think you can reason to your interpretation of that Scripture since your interpretation goes beyond what you can observe, read, or test and you have no path to a true premise when you try?

Sandbuilder: i agree, the bible is so poorly written that i doubt my interpretation of most of the bible is accurate.

Rockbuilder: What makes you think you can reason to your claim that Scripture is poorly written since your claim goes beyond what you can observe, read, or test and you have no path to a true premise when you try?

Sandbuilder: if you rely on the holy spirit to tell you what does and does not exist.
then shouldn’t there be a way for you to test the accuracy of what you are being told?

Rockbuilder: Yes. But what makes you think you can reason to your interpretation leading to your claim that Scripture is poorly written since your interpretation goes beyond what you can observe, read, or test and you have no path to a true premise when you try?

Sandbuilder: i don’t know what you mean.
that sounds like word salad.
i try and make my questions as simple as i can, so i can give you the best chance of understanding what i mean.
do me a favor, and do the same for me.

Sandbuilder: how many well written books can you not understand by reading them once?

Rockbuilder: None. Understanding comes from God, and it’s always progressive.

Sandbuilder: then you already know my reason.
since you assume i don’t understand the bible, then i have no reason to think the bible is well written.

Rockbuilder: Perhaps you don’t understand the question because it conflicts with your worldview. You made a claim. You claimed that the Bible is poorly written. Since you have no path to a true premise for your claim, what makes think your claim is true. Are you just making up stuff and calling the made-up stuff true?

Sandbuilder: what claim do you think i made?

Rockbuilder: “the bible is so poorly written” Your words.

“You made a claim. You claimed that the Bible is poorly written.” My words.
Since you have no path to a true premise for your claim, what makes think your claim is true. Are you just making up stuff and calling the made-up stuff true?

Sandbuilder: oh i see your mistake, and i think i can help you.
do you think i understand most of the bible?

Rockbuilder: Without the Holy Spirit, you can’t understand any of the Bible. Since you refuse to listen to the Holy Spirit, you can’t understand any of the Bible. Since you refuse to listen to God, you can’t understand anything about anything beyond what you can sense with your five natural senses.

Sandbuilder: does the holy spirit know what i will and will not listen to?

Rockbuilder: God is all-knowing.
“the bible is so poorly written” Your words. Since you have no path to a true premise for your claim, what makes think your claim is true. Are you just making up stuff and calling the made-up stuff true?

Sandbuilder: i would love to know how you know that.
since you would have to be all knowing to know if there is something your God does not know.
especially since you won’t even ask your God simple questions that can be verified by others.

Rockbuilder: Actually, anyone would have to be all-knowing to know anything about anything beyond their five senses. That was Agrippa’s trilemma as a naturalist and skeptic. However, God can reveal reality to whomever He wills. He revealed the reality of His existence to you for instance, although it did you no good since you refused to acknowledge Him and suppressed His truth in your unrighteousness. I invite you to know Jesus Christ. Everyone who seeks Him finds Him so long as they sincerely desire Him and His righteousness.

Sandbuilder: are you all knowing?
if you really believe that then i want you to tell your God a message. i want you to tell your God
“Dan B gives his permission to (your God) to get his attention, by any means necessary, no matter what it takes, so he can know without any doubt that (your God) does exist”
that is how confident i am that your God does not exist.

Rockbuilder: You just refuted yourself. Your mind is open, which gives you confidence that your mind is justly closed. You think that’s an excuse, but God says you have no excuse. You avoid Him because your deeds are evil. You love darkness rather than light because you don’t want His light to expose your evil deeds and turn you from them.

Rockbuilder after a long wait: I have to go now, but it’s been good chatting with you. Keep in mind that the door is open for you and the invitation stands. Jesus Christ invites you to know Him. At any time you can direct your mind toward Him and speak to Him. He’s right there. His light shines on you, and He’s keeping you alive to give you a chance to turn to Him. If you ask for the Holy Spirit, He won’t give you a serpent (demon) or a stone (human intellect). He invites you to come to Him and receive His love/righteousness.

Sandbuilder: that is your opinion.
i think you know you don’t have a good reason to think your God exists, which is why you aren’t able to tell me how your God revealed himself to you.
or the revelation was so mundane, that you forgot about the day your God revealed himself to you.

Rockbuilder: For you, everything is just an opinion based on made-up stuff since you fail to acknowledge God’s goodness toward you. You have come to that unfortunate place where you can’t tell the difference between reality and make-believe. Your last post is an example of some claims that are based on made-up stuff. And yet you know that God exists, and you know what He requires, so you’re without excuse before God. The invitation to know Him stands. Not only will He save you from the insane fake reality in which you now live, He’ll deliver you from aionian destruction or worse. I offer you hope, love, life, and purpose. You offer gaslighting fallacies.

Sandbuilder: i have nothing to be saved from.
my offer to explain how i got to my conclusions still stand, if you are willing to answer simple questions, i can help you understand my point of view.

Rockbuilder: More claims based on made-up stuff. A waste of time talking to someone who is dogmatic about his own made-up stuff. It must be true if you thought it up. Rather than wasting my time with a bunch of questions, write a blog. Then give me a link to your blog and save time for both of us.

Sandbuilder: i want to understand your point of view, which is why i ask so many questions.

Rockbuilder: If you want to know my point of view, direct your mind toward Jesus. He’s right there. Speak to Him in your mind or with your mouth. Tell Him that you want truth and righteousness. Tell Him that you know that you’ve become calloused against Him so that your spiritual senses and your mind has trouble accepting Him. Confess your sins to Him, the fact that you haven’t acknowledged Him being the chief sin. Confess all the things you’ve taken when you shouldn’t have. If you’ve ever looked at a woman with lust, confess that sin of adultery. If you’ve ever defended sex outside of a lifelong marriage union between one man and one woman, confess that adultery. If you’ve ever wanted what someone else has, confess that coveteousness. If you’ve ever wished something bad would happen to someone who had more than you, confess that malice and covetousness. If you’ve ever been disrespectful to your parents or anyone who is in authority, confess that. If you’ve ever hated anyone, confess that sin of murder. Stand guilty as charged before your God and ask Him to forgive you. Persist until you break through the strongholds in your mind and you can acknowledge that these words I’m writing aren’t coming from me but the Spirit of the living God. When you realize that these words are from God and listen to God, He will impart His faith, and you will know with certainty. From there, you’ll begin an adventure of moving with Him from glory to ever-greater glory. He’ll impart the Holy Spirit to you, and the Holy Spirit will begin to lead, teach, and correct you in every situation. Then, you’ll know my point of view.

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Appeal to Consequence Fallacy

“If we continue to eschew science, eschew the process, and try to divide science into observational science and historic science, we aren’t going to move forward, we’ll not embrace natural laws, we’ll not make discoveries, we’ll not invent and innovate and stay ahead.” ~ Bill Nye at the Nye-Ham debate.

“Now, one last thing, you may not know that in the U.S. Constitution, from the Founding Fathers, is the sentence: to promote the progress of science and useful arts. Kentucky voters, voters who might be watching online, in places like Texas, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Kansas, please, you don’t want to raise a generation of science students who don’t understand how we know our place in the cosmos, our place in space, who don’t understand natural law. We need to innovate to keep the United States where it’s in the world.” ~ Bill Nye

Bill committed an appeal to consequences fallacy. He didn’t say the exact words of the meme, but that was the implication. Appeal to consequence is a fallacy because consequences can’t change reality. He also committed an appeal to fear fallacy. Fear can’t change reality either. Making this line of reasoning even more ridiculous, the consequences Bill proposed weren’t realistic, but even if they had been realistic, consequences have no power to change reality. In other words, it’s not sane to deny reality simply because of a consequence. This consequence could be real or imagined. Therefore, Bill’s imagined and unrealistic consequence isn’t proof against God, doesn’t prove the ungodly origins story, and doesn’t disprove God’s account of origins.

Bill points to a consequence, but his supposed consequence is an absurd extrapolation. We know that we won’t suffer this consequence since young-earth creationists started most branches of science. (Scientists of the past) These were scientists who didn’t believe in the ungodly origins story, which shows that scientists who don’t believe in the sacred-cow story have made tremendous scientific progress. Bill’s supposed consequence is a phantom consequence. It’s not going to happen, and Bill’s prophecy is silly.

Then there’s the following framing fallacy, which is also an appeal to consequence fallacy:

If we continue to eschew science, eschew the process, and try to divide science into observational science and historic science, we aren’t going to move forward. ~ Bill Nye

This statement implies that certain relationships exist, but those relationships don’t exist. Dividing science into observational science and historical storytelling is discerning the difference between observation and creative stories about the distant past. As we’ve already seen, the term “historical science” is really just historical storytelling even though the storytelling generally begins with observation or divine revelation. Bill claims that knowing the difference between observation and storytelling will stop progress. He claims that knowing the difference between what scientists have observed and what scientists have made up is the same thing as deliberately avoiding science and scientific method.

(Excerpt from “The Creation-Evolution Debate.” “The Creation-Evolution Debate is the second book in the boxed set titled “Reason.”

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Dentological Ethics

Rockbuilder: Ungodly thinkers have no basis for any thought that goes beyond what they can observe and test. They can’t rationally make statements about morality, truth, spiritual matters, interpretations of historical documents or artifacts, historical interpretations of fossils or geological observations, etc.

Sandbuilder: Yes we can, it’s called deontological ethics

Rockbuilder: It’s based on made-up stuff. Made-up stuff is magic. Anything can be “true.” Ungodly thinkers are ever learning but never coming to knowledge of the truth.

Sandbuilder: Bob Stenson we have a solid ethical stance that comes from First Principles and Logic. Your morality is based off a psychopathic, death loving, mass murders opinion. It’s completely subjective. Mine is Objective.

Rockbuilder: Every statement you make beyond your five senses is based on made-up stuff. Then, you claim that God doesn’t reveal—based on made-up stuff. That’s the definition of insanity.

I mean, think about it. You’re claiming to be omniscient based on made-up stuff.

Sandbuilder: Bob Stenson what? Since when? Your [sic] just pulling things out of thin air and making that your argument

Rockbuilder: You have no path to a true premise. A true premise is required for rational thought. Have you never had a class in logic?


Note: Deontological ethics consist of rules, duties, or obligations. But who gets to make the rules. As we have witnessed over the last several decades, those with the power make godless rules, and right becomes wrong and wrong becomes right. This is known as tyranny.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Question: How is this book’s view of reality different from what others might say on the subject?

This question came from a discussion group, a Christian writer’s group.

Reality places some restrictions on what’s rational and what’s not. “Reason” is the first book in the set, and it covers the subject comprehensively. It’s 410 pages on 8.5X11 in #12 Times Roman font. Most of that is dealing with misconceptions and objections, so I’ll give you a quick summary without trying to deal with all the questions that the book answers. Because of the brevity, it may seem a bit stuffy.

Here’s a short version of the basics of how we can know anything about anything. Knowledge of truth requires a true premise and valid deductive form. Neither inductive nor abductive reasoning can get us to the truth. That’s commonly taught in logic books and classes everywhere. Yet, the classes and books seem to ignore the ramifications. They allow premises that no one can prove.

On their own, our human minds have no path to true premises. When we observe anything or read Scripture, we can’t go beyond what we see without adding information. Without divine revelation, we get that information by making it up, which we call making assumptions or using axioms. Axioms come from our worldviews, so they seem more real than reality. We need Jesus Christ if we’re to go beyond what Peter and Jude say is like a “brute beast.” The brute beast mind can react to the environment. It can be very clever, and it can do science. This mind can be ever learning, but it can never come to the knowledge of the truth.

Jesus Christ is real. I know this because I know Him. Everyone who seeks Him finds Him, and He leads, teaches, and corrects us moment by moment. God speaks through Scripture and every means mentioned in Scripture. Anyone can test this. The reason that we know that the Bible is God’s word (utterance) without error is that the Holy Spirit speaks this into our hearts. There are many facets and pitfalls concerning divine revelation, and I go into those in detail in the book. We’ve probably all met people who said “Thus sayeth the Lord” when God never spoke. We’ve also probably met people who said “The Bible says” when the Bible says no such thing. That being said, God tells us that He’s a good Father and well able to give the Holy Spirit to those who ask for the Holy Spirit. He won’t give us a stone instead of bread or a serpent instead of a fish.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Another Way to Handle the Tossing-the-Elephant Fallacy

This ungodly thinker is tossing the elephant. It’s a way to cause confusion in a discussion. In these cases, summary dismissal is one option. Another is to find some way to organize the thoughts. The following diagram shows one option for doing that organization.

On some discussion groups, they’ll allow you to upload your images. On others, you may be able to point to a web page or blog where you put your images. This way, you can keep the discussion from becoming confused. Though the hardened ungodly thinker may never turn to Christ, someone may be silently reading your post, and it may help that person.

Below, is some more of the conversation context:

Sandbuilder stepped into a conversation from the outside with a demand for a definition and a weird rule-setting tactic of wanting Rockbuilder to “like” his comments because “no one gets notified of your comments unless you . . .” Actually, they get notified if you click “reply.”

 

Sandbuilder: Define “rational thought”.

Also note: No one gets notified of your responses unless you react (“like”, etc) to their comments. If younwant an extended comversation then I encourage you to react to each comment.

 

Rockbuilder: I don’t know that I want extended conversations. LOL. As to rational thought, we can just follow the standard rules of logic: true premises and valid form. For truth, the form must be deductive. For opinions, any form will do, premises need not be true, and no rational thinking required.

 

Sandbuilder: So what DO you want here?

You never actually defined “rational thought”. You only (partially) indicated how to achieve it.

So you don’t give any credence to inductive or even abductive reasoning?

 

Rockbuilder: Some people think that all abductive reasoning is just guessing. I don’t agree. My experience is that God often communicates through the intuition. Inductive reasoning is OK, too. I check the weather forecast. This weekend was supposed to be a total washout, but it was really nice when we actually lived out those days. I wouldn’t bet my life on inductive reasoning. But, sound inductive reasoning also requires a true premise, doesn’t it? Without divine revelation, how do you reason to a true premise? Is there any path you know of to absolute proof without divine revelation?

 

Sandbuilder: So why assume it isn’t just a guess that “God often communicates through the intuition”? I mean, you even use the word “often” to imply not all the time. Does that mean you can’t even nail down exactly when your god is communicating through intuition? It seems quite non-deductive.

You absoultely DO bet your life on inductive reasoning! We all do. The most basic line of indictive reasoning we all use is that the future will be much like the past. There is no way to deduce thise from experience because you haven’t actually experienced the future. We get in our cars and travel at deathly speeds, betting our lives, that the car and traffic will operate much like it has done in the past. If we don’t assume that, then we wouldn’t be able to live productive lives, Bob.

All premises come back to nature, Bob. Does it work for our lives right here and right now? Nature is the (or maybe a) revealler. Now, whether there is another objective revealler at the foundations of nature is another question worth pondering. But there certainly doesn’t NEED to be a “divine revelator” in order for nature to be its own revelator. In fact, many speculate that the divine revelator is one and the same with nature (ie. pantheism).

You STILL haven’t defined “rational thought.” You keep claiming that others aren’t capable of it, yet you won’t even define what it is.

And you still haven’t told me what you do want here…?

 

Rockbuilder: I’ll answer your questions after you answer these two. Let’s have a conversation or cut it off. Without divine revelation, how do you reason to a true premise? Is there any path you know of to absolute proof without divine revelation?

 

Sandbuilder: I JUST answered that. Re-read my “all premises come back to nature” paragraph. Even for the theists, “divine revelation” has to comport with nature. And even when another nature is revealed in the afterlife, revelation still has to comport with that nature. Something is “true” if it aligns with nature.

Of course, that begs many questions, first and foremost which is, “Can we ever fully know nature?” I would just say that right now it doesn’t seem we do, but maybe someday. But of course, non-coincidentally, that is what theists tend to say about their god. So theists and atheists are in the same “reasoning boat.”

You still haven’t defined what “rational thought” is, or explained what you are doing here.

And as I said before, if you want a conversation then it is best to react to my comments. I will lose the conversation if you don’t, and won’t respond simply because I can’t find it anymore.


Note that Sandbuilder does everything in his power to diffuse the conversation into many rabbit trails that are hard to follow. Sandbuilder is pretending not to know what it is to be rational. Rockbuilder ignores that and sticks to the point. Sandbuilder keeps asking, “What are you doing here?” That was a reaction to Rockbuilder’s remark about not always wanting to get into extended conversations. Since Rockbuilder is building on the Rock of Jesus Christ, extended conversations with dogmatically ungodly persons indicate that Rockbuilder has failed to make his points clearly or that Sandbuilder is extending the conversation through invincible ignorance. Rockbuilder keeps working toward one point. The choice is divine revelation versus made-up stuff.

Pragmatically reacting to stimuli from the senses isn’t rational thought. Earthworms do that. Ungodly thinkers have no path to a true premise, so they can’t rationally reason beyond their sensory experience. When they do, they use made-up stuff to do so. Their sense experience includes muscle memory of skills, memories of techniques that worked, etc., and it’s not really terribly limiting as long as ungodly thinkers to stick to their sense experience and pragmatics. They can do science for instance. They can note the results and share those results with others. Others can learn from those notes and carry on further research. However, this only works for what can be observed and tested. It doesn’t work for topics like spirituality, God, morality, or truth. They can never come to a knowledge of the truth without Christ.

On the other hand, those of us who follow Christ are led by Christ. Christ leads, teaches, and corrects us moment by moment. We know Him. Since He knows all things and cannot lie, we can reason rationally. It’s not that we always do. We’re learning to listen to His voice and to react in submission and obedience. We often follow our own fleshly desires rather than following God, but the Holy Spirit eventually corrects us if we’re sincere about wanting His will over ours. We do create inner strongholds against the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit will tear down those strongholds but not against our wills. He waits patiently for our submission. God promises to give us the Holy Spirit if we ask for the Holy Spirit. If we prefer a certain dogma, then that dogma will blind us until the Holy Spirit can gently work in our lives to relax our grip on it.

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Leap of Faith?

What’s a greater leap of faith: God or the multiverse?

God’s faith isn’t actually a leap. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing comes by the rhema of God. The Greek word rhema means utterance. Faith comes by the utterance of God. God speaks through Scripture, and every means mentioned in Scripture. We hear. His faith comes. Jesus Christ is the Author and Finisher of this faith, which isn’t like the make-believe faith of the ungodly thinkers. That’s why God’s faith is substance, which means it’s part of reality as opposed to being a concept. And that’s why God’s faith is evidence, which means that it’s absolutely certain proof.

Since I kept this brief to make the point, you may want to check http://realreality.org/by-grace-through-faith/ and http://realreality.org/is-faith-the-same-as-making-believe/ to see the basis of these statements.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Science Will Bring You Closer to God

Dr. James Tour is an accomplished scientist and a Christian. The video link below is a talk that he gave to Syracuse University. He wanted to show what science can prove—what humanity can know from science. He could show, through science, that no one has yet proved abiogenesis and molecules-to-humanity evolutionism. He wasn’t able to show, through science, the impossibility of either of these, although they both are implausible He goes through the research that scientists have done on abiogenesis. None of the research had the purpose of showing that abiogenesis happened. None of the research tried to discover the odds of abiogenesis happening. We could say the same of the research on molecules-to-humanity evolutionism. And yet, those who control the message distort the research to claim that both of these stories, abiogenesis and molecules-to-humanity evolutionism, are probable even though they’re unlikely. From there, they imply that these stories happened.

What science can’t do, God can. God can reveal reality through Scripture and through every means of revelation He mentions in Scripture. Science will bring you closer to God if you bring God with you to help you understand science. That’s a very good thing to do since God knows everything. He’ll open your eyes to discoveries you would never have noticed on your own. This isn’t just true for scientists. It’s true for moms, dads, and kids no matter what they’re doing. The deep respect for the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. All knowledge and wisdom are hidden in Christ Jesus.

https://youtu.be/-Gsa58Rm8Sk

P. S. I found this meme on Facebook. I didn’t create it. I tried to find The Illogical Atheist, and it may be a discussion group, but I’m not certain.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Anything is Possible? Really?

Have you noticed that evolutionists never try to prove that the stories of evolutionism actually happened? Rather, they argue that these stories are possible. Could you imagine being accused of committing a crime and being convicted based on the fact that it would have been possible for you to have committed the crime? Somehow, that sounds like some to the corruption that now has invaded a corrupted justice system. However, it’s not rational. It’s insane.

Evolutionism starts with a simple axiom: anything is possible.

Therefore, the stories of naturalism and evolutionism are possible. Therefore, naturalism is probable. Therefore, naturalism is a fact and an axiom. Therefore, all explanations must conform to naturalism, which means that God is excluded. Therefore, the stories of evolutionism are the only acceptable explanation of origins. Therefore, the stories of evolutionism are probable. Therefore, the stories of evolutionism constitute a fact and an axiom that we must use to interpret all observations. Therefore, when we observe something that conflicts with any of the stories of evolutionism, we must deny the observation or develop an additional story to make the new observation fit into the stories of evolutionism.

Well, let’s turn the same searchlight on the creationists? Let’s each examine our own hearts on this matter. Are we starting with axioms and working toward a conclusion that God created the heavens and the earth? If so, we’re saying, “I made this up. Based on this made-up stuff, God created the heavens and the earth.”

That’s insane.

We know because the Bible says so. But how do we know that the Bible is accurate? Are we also starting with axioms to claim that the Bible is accurate? Are we using circumstantial evidence rather than a true premise? No.

We know that the Bible is accurate and trustworthy because we know the God Who wrote the Bible. He speaks to us. When we were born again, our spirits were joined to His Spirit. He communicates to us through our spirits to our souls. Our souls are our minds. The word “soul” is a synonym for the word “mind.” We know that the Bible is accurate and trustworthy because Christ speaks this truth into our minds. We might say that He speaks this into our hearts, but “heart” is also a synonym for “mind.”

Whenever we’re challenged on the point, we go back to Him, and He confirms it to us again. Not only that but every time we read Scripture or hear someone reading it, He speaks to us through the Scripture. We don’t lean on our own understanding, but we stand in the presence of the King of kings and hear His voice as He speaks through Scripture. When we look at creation or read the Scripture, we ask Him to correct any misunderstandings we may have, and He does this little by little to the extent that we’re able to yield to Him.

The argument between evolutionists and creationists isn’t about the scientific observations. We all have the same creation that we’re observing. The argument is between made-up stuff and divine revelation.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail