Is the Premise True?

Is the premise true?

  • A statement may be known to be untrue. If someone tells you something that you know by sound logic and actual experience to be false, then it is false. However, your own logic may be flawed, or you may be interpreting your experience. For instance, certain theologies that use many Bible verses as premises are actually inductively believed rather than deductively believed or may even be based on reading things into Scripture that are not there. Yet, if we have never challenged them, we can think they are absolute. The same is true of science, philosophy, family relationships, politics, etc.
  • A statement can be impossible to be shown to be true in a concrete sense, yet, when the statement is presumed or presupposed into convincing language, stated as if it were fact, it can be very difficult to detect that the statement is not actually known to be true. Example: “evolution is a fact.”
  • A statement must be shown to be true using deductive (not inductive) reasoning. When someone says that all the evidence points to X being true, that is inductive (not deductive) reasoning. It might be all you have to make a decision, but don’t throw out what God has made real to you over such a statement.
  • When someone says that all the evidence points to X being true, that is inductive reasoning, not deductive reasoning. Most evidence is interpretedand can be interpreted to support multiple views. For instance, all the evidence for evolution can more easily be interpreted to support creation. All the evidence that can be interpreted to support an old Earth can be more easily interpreted to support a young Earth.
  • There is a reason that it's difficult to communicate. The person following assumptions is frustrated because the assumptions seem like reality. The Christ-follower doesn't realize the depth of the darkness of the ungodly.If evidence is interpreted, it is interpreted through the personal filter of the interpreter. Every person filters his or her perceptions though a powerful inner perception of the world called a worldview, paradigm, or fake-reality. This fake-reality seems more real than reality itself to each of us. Peer review becomes meaningless when ashared fake-reality/worldview governs it. A sharedworldview is more restrictive than an individualworldview. And we have great difficulty perceiving anything that doesn’t confirm what is already in this fake-reality, so it promotes what is called confirmation biasby only receiving that which can be interpreted to support our current fake-reality and rejecting anything new.
  • Look out for waffle words like might or could. Scientific journals are full of these. Each time that a waffle word is used, the entire statement becomes hypothetical andcannot be used as a true premise to prove anythingdeductively (with certainty).
  • As with science texts and politicians, theologians often don’t even use waffle words when interpreting Scripture but will state the Scripture, then paraphrase an interpretation of it that is one of two or more possible interpretations–but it is stated in concrete terms. This is especially true if the theologian is leaning on his or her own understanding rather than standing in the Presence of God, acknowledging Him, and receiving revelation. Through Scripture, God tells us about His orders, patterns, gifts, ministries and offices in the Church that are designed to guard against error.
  • A premise cannot be true if it has any of the following problems:Build truth, not lies
    • made-up stories-Examples: Evolution is a made-up story. (read) Each time evolution is shown to be false, a just-so story is made up to explain away the evidence. (read) Secular Humanism is a made-up story about human goodness without Christ. (read)(read)
    • arbitrary assumptions-Examples: Naturalism (read) Materialism (read) Uniformitarianism (read) Atheism (read) Presuppositions, that is, assumptions that are worked into language as if they were already established facts (read) Worldviews/Paradigms/Fake-Realities, that is, each person’s inner conception of the world that is based on assumptions that have become presuppositions—worldviews are fake-realities that seem more real than reality itself. (read)
    • irrationality-Examples: basing all calculations of radio dating of rocks and fossils on arbitrary assumptions so that if you change the assumptions you change the ages drastically (read)(read)(read) universal negative: “There is no God!!!” “Christ doesn’t reveal Himself to people!!!” “There are no longer any gifts of the Spirit operating in the church!!!” (read)(read) bandwagon: “The fact of evolution is no longer questioned by men of science!!!” “Everyone here at the University regards Evolution as fact, and you had best do the same if you know what’s good for you.” (read)(read) Personification: Evolution tinkered with this until it got it right!!!” “…organism has, through prior mutation and natural selection, evolved a tendency to experience certain types of mutations more frequently in certain conditions!!!” (read)(read)
    • outright lies-Examples: “There is no evidence for the Genesis flood, creation, a young Earth, or God!!!” (read)(read)(read) “Evolution is science!!!” (read)(read)(read) “You cannot do science without the assumption of Naturalism!!!” (read)(read)(read) cherry-picking radiometric date results so that they match what was expected and then using that is evidence for continuity of dating methods (read)(read)(read) claiming that information of the type necessary for molecules-to-man evolution is added to cells by natural processes or claiming that universal information comes from something other than existing information (read)(read) “We’re just one out of millions of planets where life is likely to exist!!!” (read)
    • deliberate confusion-Examples: using the word, evolution to describe both the small adaptations and loss of DNA information in living things and also a story that a single-celled living thing evolved over vast amounts of time to eventually become human. (read)(read)(read) nesting several confusion techniques that are designed to deceive–one of the tools of neuro linguistic programming (read)

Leave a Reply