(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

Once we deceive ourselves into thinking we can base logic on made-up stuff, anything goes. We have no limits. Suppose I say, “It makes sense to use the propositions of Scripture as axioms.” Can I tell someone else it doesn’t make sense for them to make a bare assertion like the following?

“The Bible doesn’t have authority unless the succession of Popes interprets it. It makes sense to use the propositions of the patriarchy as axioms.”

Or how about this one?

“It makes sense to reject the propositions of Scripture as axioms.”

(end quote)

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

Here’s the definition of “presuppose” from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

1 : to suppose beforehand

2 : to require as an antecedent in logic or fact

Did someone design this second definition to be confusing? It’s not hard, but this definition of “presupposition” hides what’s really happening. It’s like a magic trick that’s performed by using language most of us never use. Here’s what “requiring as an antecedent” means: if claim one is true, then claim two is true, and we’re going to assume that claim one is true before we start reasoning.

If that’s too theoretical, don’t worry. In a moment, we’ll look at an example of flying pigs to make it easy to understand.

“If X, then Y.”

Therefore, requiring the antecedent is claiming that the antecedent is true without proof. We’ll need to break this definition down. The statement above is what’s known as a hypothetical proposition. Hypothetical propositions claim that one thing is true if another thing is true. And hypothetical propositions usually begin with the word “if.”

Here, X is the antecedent. “Y is true if X is true.”

“If pigs have wings, then pigs can fly.”

The definition says, “to require as an antecedent in logic or fact.” That means they’re going to assume that the if-part is true without proof, and it goes like the following:

“If pigs have wings (and we suppose beforehand that they do), then pigs can fly.”

This statement plainly admits that we suppose beforehand, but presuppositions don’t work to deceive us if we state them plainly. The power of presuppositions is in making presuppositions seem real. That goes back to the word “tacitly” from the Google definition, which means we’re going to pretend the presupposition is true and not just made-up stuff. So, persuaders don’t usually state presuppositions plainly. Instead, when they presuppose, they state the presupposition something like the following:

“Since we obviously already know that pigs have wings, pigs can fly.”

So this statement is what requiring the antecedent looks like, and in this statement, we find four nested presuppositions.

The first presupposition: I don’t want you to question whether pigs have wings, so I presuppose that pigs have wings by using the word “since” instead of the word “if.”

The second presupposition: I don’t want you to question the word “since,” so I ask you to evaluate whether you and I know that pigs have wings, and so I say, “We know.”

The third presupposition: I don’t want you to evaluate whether we know pigs have wings, so I presuppose that we know, and I presuppose this by using the word “already” for my third presupposition.

The fourth presupposition: While you’re trying to sort out whether we already know, I’ve presupposed that we already know. And I presuppose that “we already know” using the word “obviously.” But if you’re quick, you might ask me, “To whom is it obvious?” However, I’m hoping you can’t wade through all four presuppositions to challenge the claim that I want to insert into your worldview. I want you to think that pigs have wings. (I don’t really, but I’m just giving you an illustration.)

(end quote)

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

Just to clarify, in case there’s confusion about the word “presupposition,” here’s the Google definition:

a thing tacitly assumed beforehand at the beginning of a line of argument or course of action.

synonyms: presumption, assumption, preconception, supposition, hypothesis, surmise, thesis, theory, premise, belief, postulation

“Tacitly” means implied, unvoiced, or unspoken. Therefore, if we assume it tacitly beforehand, we hide the assumption and don’t openly talk about it. We treat it as if it were true when we haven’t seen conclusive proof. That makes it extremely deceptive. Those who want to manipulate us introduce these presuppositions using assumptive language. Assumptive language hypnotically makes the presuppositions seem real.

(end quote)

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

We all have wrong ideas we learned and sincerely believe. Not one of us can say, “God can’t teach me anything.” As we live our lives, wrong ideas plant themselves in our worldviews. Once we allow an idea to plant itself in our worldviews, that idea seems real to us. It seems like part of reality. The wrong ideas we accepted and nurtured in our minds became strongholds of error. We have many inner strongholds that hold us down.

Others could correct us, but our worldviews act as filters. When we hear something outside our worldviews, it seems insane to us. When we say something that’s not in someone else’s worldview, what we say sounds insane to them. This worldview-filter deceives every person to some extent.

Intelligence can’t solve the problem. And education gives us unwarranted confidence in our worldview-filters. Intelligence and education can make the problem worse since they can puff us up in pride. Pride can make us stop seeking God for correction and further revelation. Only our spiritual weapons of warfare can tear down our inner delusions. Our inner delusions are the strongholds we have in our minds.

(end quote)

(quote from )

Continued analysis of this statement:

“An axiom is a presupposition, assumed true, from which theorems are deduced. It makes sense to use the propositions of Scripture as axioms.”

…

The unscrambled statement:

“It’s sane to use the claims of Scripture as made-up stuff that we assume to be true, and we can then base conclusions on this made-up stuff.”

…

It sounded good the way our friend first stated it. It sounded intellectual, intimidating, and rational even if we couldn’t quite understand it. However, when we stated it plainly, we can see it makes no sense at all. Atheists or unbelievers would rightly point out that our statement is irrational. Nor does it pass the sanity test.

Sanity Test:

1. Is it sane to use the claims of Scripture as made-up stuff?
2. Is it sane to insist that made-up stuff is true?
3. Is it sane to base conclusions on the made-up stuff?

However, the propositions of Scripture are true. God reveals this reality, so we don’t have to assume it. Rather than assuming, we can know. We can know because we have the Teacher, the Holy Spirit, Who teaches us this fact. Therefore, we don’t have to pretend the propositions of Scripture are true. And we know it’s not sane to claim the propositions of Scripture are made-up stuff. Assuming isn’t a sane way to use Scripture. It’s not an effective way to defend Scripture in apologetics.

And this same brother asked this. “How could anyone avoid using presuppositions?” How can we avoid basing every thought on made-up stuff? The answer is simple. Divine revelation frees us from the bondage of basing every thought on made-up stuff. Of course, that means we need to know Jesus Christ in a real way. Theory or theology won’t get us there. Jesus is real and knowable. His Spirit desires to teach us, lead us, correct us, and transfigure us. He’s not far off. He lives within if we have committed ourselves to Him.

(end quote)

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

Continued analysis of this statement:

“An axiom is a presupposition, assumed true, from which theorems are deduced. It makes sense to use the propositions of Scripture as axioms.”

We can break this statement into four steps. This well-known Christian apologist says we can use axioms as premises for deductive reasoning to prove a theorem. Axioms consist of made-up stuff. So he said we can make up stuff to prove a theorem. A theorem is a proven statement. He said making up stuff proves statements. We just make up stuff, and it’s true.  That’s the irrational philosophy of “Rationalism” from the godless era called “The Age of Reason.”

Four Steps

1. Axioms are the proof or premise. But axioms consist of made-up stuff.
2. The premise must be true because deductive reasoning without a true premise is unsound, meaning it’s irrational.
3. But, in this case, made-up stuff is the proof (premise) for deductive reasoning. Made-up stuff isn’t the same as true stuff.
4. A theorem is a proven statement, but making up stuff proves nothing. That means we didn’t prove the theorem, so what we’re calling “a theorem” isn’t a theorem. Therefore, it can’t make sense or be reasonable.

Let’s look at this claim from another angle to understand the problem fully by restating the two statements in plain English:

“We assume made-up stuff is true, and then we prove conclusions with the made-up stuff.”

“It makes sense to use the claims of Scripture as made-up stuff.”

They’re in reverse order, but we can see what our brother was saying if we flip the statements around.

The unscrambled statement:

“It’s sane to use the claims of Scripture as made-up stuff that we assume to be true, and we can then base conclusions on this made-up stuff.”

(end quote)

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

One well-known Christian apologist made the following statement:

“An axiom is a presupposition, assumed true, from which theorems are deduced. It makes sense to use the propositions of Scripture as axioms.”

This statement seems to make sense at first. When we hear phrases like these, it takes time to untangle the statements so we can understand them. So let’s break down these two sentences into normal English. Then we’ll unscramble this confusing claim into a simple statement down the page. But first, let’s understand these phrases:

• “It makes sense”
  • If something makes sense, it’s rational or reasonable.
  • To be rational is to be sane.
  • We need true premises and valid form to think rationally.
• “An axiom is a presupposition, assumed true.”
  • Axioms are unknown claims (Someone made them up.) we call “true” without proving they’re true.
• “from which theorems are deduced”
  • If we deduce, we use deductive reasoning.
  • We can’t base sound deductive reasoning on made-up stuff. We must know the premise is true.
  • A theorem is a statement we proved by sound deductive reasoning. Sound deductive reasoning has true premises and valid deductive form.
  • And yet he says we can base sound deductive reasoning on made-up stuff.

We can already see the internal conflicts even though the language is deceptive and clever. Why would we use this deceptive way of thinking about Scripture? Don’t we know Jesus Christ? Doesn’t the Holy Spirit confirm to us that Scripture is God’s word without error? Doesn’t the Holy Spirit speak to us through Scripture?

And yet, it’s not that this man is trying to deceive us. That’s not his intent at all. Rather, the brute-beast mind in each of us deceives us sometimes, so we have to sort through the nonsense. We need to sort through our own nonsense and the nonsense of others. God wants the nonsense out so the truth remains.

(end quote)

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

We can never know the truth using inductive reasoning. We can sometimes use inductive reasoning to calculate a probability of something being true. However, worldviews automatically influence calculations. We automatically add assumptions to calculations without realizing we’re doing it. The deception is so complete that only the Holy Spirit can show us our errors.

On the other hand, we have absolute proof. We know Jesus Christ personally. That’s proof. He leads us and guides us. He lives within us. By His utterance within us, we know the Bible is valid. He speaks to us through the Bible. And He speaks to us through every means of divine revelation mentioned in the Bible. We know it absolutely. Faith is absolute. And faith comes by hearing and hearing comes by the word (rhema or utterance) of God. We can’t prove our inner experience to anyone else. However, every person who seeks Christ finds Christ. And Christ is the Light Who lights every person who comes into the world. Anyone can seek Him. No one has to ignore Him when He speaks. Many willingly ignore Him. Many refuse to listen. Those who refuse to listen to Christ have no excuse.

(end quote)

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

Here’s the idea. Made-up stuff is a sound basis for thought. It doesn’t matter what we call the made-up stuff. We can make ourselves feel more comfortable by using deceptive words for the made-up stuff. We can call made-up stuff “axioms,” “presumptions,” “assumptions,” “basic principles,” “obvious facts,” “givens,” or “common sense.” The idea is made-up stuff is a sound basis for thought. Once we accept that idea, we can make ourselves believe anything. And we can observe the insanity of made-up stuff running out of control in society right now.

What happens if we reject divine revelation and the very real Jesus Christ? If we reject divine revelation from Christ, accepting the idea of made-up stuff becomes the only option. Accepting the idea of a theoretical or theological Christ doesn’t help. Only knowing Christ brings us into sanity.

(end quote)

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

The Depth of Misunderstanding

Consider the following quote from Critical Thinking, Second Edition:

“Assumption: An assumption is something we take for granted or presuppose. Usually it is something we previously learned and do not question. It is part of our system of beliefs. We assume our beliefs to be true and use them to interpret the world about us. . . . If our belief is a sound one, our assumption is sound. If our belief is not sound, our assumption is not sound. Beliefs, and hence assumptions, can be unjustified or justified, depending upon whether we do or do not have good reasons for them.”

This statement from “Critical Thinking, Second Edition” says that an assumption is something we “take for granted or presuppose.” That is, we accept the assumption without proof. Then it says that assumptions can be “justified or unjustified” depending on whether we have “good reasons for them.” But what would be a good reason for believing something that we have no sane reason to believe?

Indeed, the only way we can use an assumption as part of sound reasoning is if we prove that the assumption is true, but if we prove that the assumption is true, it’s not an assumption. Rather, it’s a proved fact. And yet we believe an assumption without a reason to believe it. So the critical thinking book is telling us there’s sometimes a good reason to believe some claim when there’s no good reason to believe the claim.

We can see the depth of the problem. Since so many authoritative sources use irrational thinking, we think it’s sane to think irrationally. We become calloused, and we don’t even notice the insanity. Schools teach irrational thinking as “sound reasoning” and “critical thinking,” so students lose the ability to tell the difference between sanity and insanity. Since ungodly thinking can’t possibly have true premises, secular schools accept irrational thinking patterns as not only normal but the only option.

(end quote)