<quote from Real Faith & Reason>

Socrates

“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.” ~ Socrates

In this statement, Socrates claimed to know nothing, yet he claimed to know that the only true wisdom is in “knowing” you know nothing. We immediately see the conflict as he claimed to know nothing, yet he claimed to know something. He claimed to know that no one can know anything.

His logic seems confusing because he’s confused, so let’s look at it another way:

Socrates claimed to know nothing.

By claiming that other people can’t know anything, Socrates claimed to have infinite knowledge of those people’s minds and spiritual experiences.

Socrates conflicted with himself. How could Socrates know about the knowledge (or lack of knowledge) of every person? He couldn’t. As a result, Socrates couldn’t know what he claimed to know when he said, “No one can know anything.” To make his claim rationally, he would have to know all the inner spiritual experiences of every person, but only God knows the inner spiritual experiences of every person.

We should note that Socrates also had a different and conflicting theory of knowledge. He said everyone is born with some absolute knowledge. Although he didn’t tell us how he thought he knew that, his statement might contain some truth.

God tells us He formed us in the womb, He knew us before He formed us in the womb, and He wrote His laws on our hearts. Writing His laws on our hearts (innermost minds) is a form of revelation. However, God doesn’t tell us the extent of the laws He writes on the hearts of humans, nor does He tell us exactly how He writes these laws on our hearts. He does indicate we’re three-part creatures: spirit, soul, and body. In 1 Thessalonians 5:23, the Greek word “psuche” is translated “soul,” and this verse speaks of the human spirit, soul, and body. According to this verse, the soul is distinct from the body and the spirit. In other verses, “psuche” is translated as “mind,” “soul,” “life,” and “heart.” Therefore, we know that God wrote His laws on our hearts (minds or souls), not on our bodies or our human spirits. That means He wrote these laws (this information) on our hearts, on our minds, and the information didn’t create itself, but rather, God wrote it there.

Getting back to skepticism, Agrippa the Skeptic, Baron Münchausen, and Hans Albert have echoed the skeptical mindset as they each wrote about a basic flaw in the ungodly thinking process. This flaw is the ungodly thinking trilemma. And we’ll go into this trilemma more fully, but first let’s take a sixty-second break to watch this video about mindless logic. (https://youtu.be/_asypV77_54)

</end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this book yet? Here’s the absolutely certain proof of the Bible and the God of the Bible. It speaks of real faith, faith that changes things, not making believe. It shows how this active faith transfigures us from glory to glory.

You can BUY  it on Amazon, but you can your FREE copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_1_-_Scientia.pdf

<quote from Real Faith & Reason>

Two Skeptics

Somewhere in a nearby city, two philosophy professors engage in a heated debate. While one insists the only thing he “knows” is that he exists, the other argues that he can’t even “know” he exists. Each man represents a different branch of skeptical philosophy.

We get the word “philosophy” from two Greek words. “Philo” means “loving.” “Sophia” means “knowledge or wisdom.” How could anyone love knowledge and wisdom while denying that knowledge and wisdom exist? And if no one can know anything about anything, how can either professor know what they think they know? Strangely, they assume that the laws of logic have value. They aren’t skeptical about that, but they have no reason for thinking that logic has any value.

Another question comes to mind: what are they teaching their students, and why do they think it’s worth teaching?

These professors have chosen the thought-foundation of assumptions, so they base their thinking on unknowns that they treat as facts. Basing all reasoning on unknowns can work pragmatically if the assumptions happen to be correct, but those who base thinking on assumptions can’t be certain that their assumptions are correct. Not having truth as a starting point, they check to see if the assumptions lead to the conclusion they desire. They prove the conclusion they prefer by making up stuff. Then they predict results of specific actions, and if the actions lead to the predicted result, they take the assumptions as “probably true.” They didn’t prove that the assumptions are true, but they treat them as if they were true. They discard unfulfilled predictions without discarding the assumptions that these predictions were supposed to prove or disprove. Ungodly thinkers can dogmatically defend pure nonsense using these techniques.

Most ungodly thinkers assume certain necessary things like the laws of logic existing, their senses being reliable, the world around them existing, and they themselves existing. Then they assume the reliability of the laws of nature and math. They know these truths because God revealed these truths to them, but because they refuse to acknowledge God, they relegate these truths to assumption. Therefore, even though they hold some truth, they don’t know any truth. They’re always learning but never coming to knowledge of the truth. ^{(2 Timothy 3:7)} They hear God’s voice, but as they hear, they don’t hear, so faith never comes to them. ^{(Matthew 13:13-15)}

Ungodly thinking always bases reason on making up stuff and calling made-up stuff true. Unfortunately, those who choose to be ungodly have no choice but to be irrational, yet they believe that they’re being rational. They can’t be rational without knowing that the premise of their reasoning is true, and they can’t prove that a premise is true. They can only make up stuff and pretend it’s true.

</end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this book yet?

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_1_-_Scientia.pdf

This conversation begins with the skeptic’s reaction to a post from a Christ-follower that we call “Rocky Rockbuilder.” Rocky has just posted a few obvious facts as follows:

1. Sound reasoning must be based on truth.
2. If reasoning begins with untruth, it can’t be rational.
3. We can’t make up stuff and base our reasoning on made-up stuff without being irrational.
4. Skepticism is a claim that nothing can be known absolutely. It’s self-refuting since it claims to know an absolute truth: that nothing can be known absolutely.
5. The human mind has no path to truth without divine revelation. Therefore, the human mind is always irrational without the leading of the Holy Spirit. The only alternative to divine revelation is making up stuff, or lying.
6. God is able to reveal reality to humans. What would stop Him? Those of us who follow Christ know that He does this since He does this constantly in our lives.
7. Only divine revelation supplies true premises, a starting point of truth for rational thought.

These are obvious and testable facts since every one who seeks Christ finds Christ. Any skeptic can set aside his or her dogmatically-held belief in skepticism and come to Jesus Christ, listen to His voice, and be transformed. Anyone can make a real commitment to following Christ in this way and allowing Christ to do His works of righteousness through him or her.

When confronted with these facts, Skeptic are likely to argue against the truth. Of course, every argument they bring is based on made-up stuff. No argument they bring is rational since they have no path to truth as long as they resist Jesus Christ. So, they will argue for a while, but it’s very common for them to finally admit that they know nothing and then switch over to some form of argument where they claim that we, who know Jesus Christ, are in the same boat as skeptics who don’t know Jesus Christ. That’s where we enter the following conversation.

<quote from Real Faith & Reason>

Let’s sit in on another conversation:

Sandy Sandbuilder: “As to divine revelation, that premise itself would also lack proof, no?”

Rocky Rockbuilder: “You’re saying that I have the same problem you have, that divine revelation as a premise also lacks proof. That’s a tu quoque fallacy. For several reasons, your tu quoque doesn’t work. Do you want to know why?”

Sandy: “Of course, please explain.”

Rocky: “You have no way to reason to your tu quoque other than by making up stuff. You make up a story. In your story, you say that the Almighty God isn’t able to prove His divine revelation and make Himself and His revelation obvious. What possible mechanism would prevent God from revealing and giving us discernment? You can’t prove your story. You can’t even prove it to yourself. And yet, God does reveal Himself to me and to anyone who seeks Him. He reveals Himself explicitly, so we don’t have to guess. You can test my claim by seeking Him. I can also test your claim and find it false.”

Sandy: “I would like to know whether one person’s divine revelation should be accepted by another as true if they have not themselves received it. If so, how do we distinguish between competing claims of divine revelation?”

Sandy Sandbuilder didn’t answer the question. Ungodly thinkers can use various techniques to dodge questions about their bare claims or they can answer the questions irrationally. They don’t have other options. The question was, “What possible mechanism would prevent God from revealing and giving us discernment?” Sandy didn’t answer because he had no answer. He’s just blowing smoke. Instead, he changed the subject.

Rocky: “You ask if you should accept another person’s claim of divine revelation if you haven’t received the revelation. I suppose you may be thinking this person would be asking you to trust them. However, if it is divine revelation, they aren’t asking you to trust them. If it’s truly revelation, you’ve received it. If it’s divine revelation, Jesus Christ is asking you to trust Him as He speaks through them. Christ teaches us that those who follow Him ought always to speak or write by the Holy Spirit. He says we should speak as His oracle. He says whoever rejects those who speak by His Spirit rejects Him directly. Whoever rejects Him rejects the Father directly. But what if the person isn’t speaking by the authority of the Holy Spirit? If you seek God, He’ll give you discernment to recognize and reject the false teacher or false prophet.”

Sandy: “But I don’t believe in God, so why would I seek His mind?”

Rocky: “God has also revealed one thing most disbelievers find disturbing. He says He revealed Himself, and a lot about Himself, to every person. Some people refuse to respond to Him. They then suppress this truth in their unrighteousness [deceitful trickery]. They reject Him because they love darkness rather than light since their deeds are evil. Otherwise, they would come to Him. They know that Jesus Christ would lead them out of their sins, and they don’t want that. They love their sin and independence from God. As God says, they have no excuse. Most disbelievers find this fact disturbing and hard to accept, but it means you already know. You know God exists and you know a lot about Him.”

“Beyond that, anyone can test the reality of Jesus Christ without any equipment or expense. No one has to take someone else’s word for it. All who seek Christ find Christ. Of course, they can’t deceive God. They must come with sincerity, persistence, respect, and submission to Christ. They must want Christ to set them free from sin.”

Through the mouths of those who won’t come to Christ with an open mind, God confirms the revelation He gave us through Scripture that those who reject Him are willingly ignorant. They know. They won’t come to Him with sincerity, persistence, respect, and submission even though they don’t need to buy anything or even inconvenience themselves. They know about the spiritual cost intuitively. They know that they would have to give up their sinful thoughts, words, and deeds. They’re comfortable as slaves of Satan.

At this point, Sandy Sandbuilder said axiomatic reasoning is reasonable and useful in all sorts of circumstances. Here’s where he’s confusing two methods of thinking. He has a brute-beast mind that can react to his five senses. He can make pancakes and learn about burning them. He can avoid the problem next time he cooks pancakes. He can work within what he learns from his five senses. However, when he tries to extrapolate beyond his five senses, he’ll be irrational.

Animals react to their five senses and learn, too. And Sandy would say, so what? He’s just an evolved animal. He can project from his sense data. He can see what’s happening ahead of him on the road as he’s driving and hit his brake or step on the gas as needed. He’s calculating the results of speed and how long it takes to slow down or speed up. He sees a car veering all over the road and gets away from it, extrapolating that information as a warning sign. Besides sense data, God gave him instincts. He can follow those. And though he won’t thank God for it, God also guides him. God helps all of us. He warns us of danger. He tells us of opportunity. His rain falls on the wicked and the righteous. Christ is the Light that lights every person who comes into the world.

Though Sandy has great ability within his brute-beast mind, he can’t think beyond his five senses and still be rational. He can’t tell the difference between what God reveals and what his own mind makes up. Sandy can’t discern the difference between what his own mind makes up and what a demon tells him. He certainly can’t reason to the conclusions he wrote about online in the conversation we just followed. He reasons to these conclusions based on axioms. Axioms consist of made-up stuff. Made-up stuff isn’t reliable information.

When he says axiomatic reasoning is reasonable and useful in all sorts of circumstances, he says he’s rational to make up stuff and call the made-up stuff true. He thinks that he can base all his reasoning on made-up stuff and he says it makes sense for him to reason this way. Of course, he says axioms aren’t made-up stuff. He says axioms are so obvious that he can take them as proved though they’re not proven. But how can they be obvious if we can’t prove them?

He also thinks it’s okay if we each have our own made-up stuff, and your made-up stuff can conflict with his made-up stuff. He says neither one is ultimately true, but you can use your made-up stuff, and he can use his made-up stuff for sound reasoning. Then two people can come to conflicting conclusions when both are using sound reasoning. He really says that.

Sandy: “Taking divine revelation to be an axiom, as you said, isn’t binding on those who haven’t received it. I further challenge whether those who HAVE received it and hold it axiomatic, are correct.”

Rocky: “I never said “Taking divine revelation to be an axiom.” We don’t hold divine revelation axiomatic, as you claimed. You’re trying to put your words in my mouth. We don’t offer axiomatic reasoning as a way out. Axioms are made-up stuff. Rather than axioms, we experience divine revelation in an ongoing flow from the Holy Spirit Who never leaves us or forsakes us.”

“You say Christ didn’t reveal Himself to you, but He has. He’s revealed Himself to you through me. He’s also spoken to you in many other ways. God has revealed Himself to you through the things He created, but you’ve suppressed His truth in your deceitful trickery.”

“Christ leads, teaches, and corrects every person who follows Him moment by moment, and Christ is how we know. When He speaks to us, faith comes. Faith is reality as opposed to concept, and faith is the only proof possible to prove anything. Jesus Christ authors it, and only the Almighty, All-knowing, Creator God Who cannot lie can establish any truth. If we hold divine revelation as an axiom, we forsake Christ and begin following the fallen human mind. God wants a relationship. He doesn’t want theoretical believers.”

“God doesn’t give anyone responsibility to convince you or persuade you. He holds you responsible since He provides the revelation you need. He’s very clear on this fact. Those on the side of truth listen to Christ. Many other voices exist, but God equips you to discern truth if you desire righteousness and truth.”

Sandy: “Axioms aren’t made-up stuff. They’re things that seem so self-evident we accept them without challenge. An example would be the ‘excluded middle,’ which is the impossibility for something to be both true and false at the same time.”

“God has certainly not revealed himself to me in the things he has created, not even when I prayed for such a revelation.”

Rocky: “Axioms are unproven claims, yet we accept them as if we had proved them. However, we have to be careful not to confuse divine revelation with made-up stuff. If we won’t acknowledge Christ, we’ll see everything the same. We make no difference between made-up stuff and reality. However, we do see conflicts between what’s in our worldviews and what’s in other people’s worldviews. We also see conflicts between what’s in our worldviews and what God reveals. Whatever we firmly establish in our worldviews seems “so self-evident we accept it without challenge.” For instance, God reveals that something can’t be true and false at the same time. A person without Christ would take this truth as an axiom. A person with Christ hears this truth from Christ at the moment God says it to that person. A Hindu says that things can be both true and false at the same time and in the same way and that you don’t understand Eastern philosophy. To the Hindu, what you call ‘self-evident’ is nonsense.”

“God has indeed revealed Himself to you. As I said, God says He reveals Himself to every person, and most disbelievers find this fact disturbing. He reveals Himself to you today in the words that I’m saying to you. You can’t hear Scripture quoted or read a verse without hearing His voice. You can’t look at any part of creation without Him revealing Himself to you. However, you can reject Him. You can refuse to acknowledge Him. One of the things I noticed about the way you express yourself, you look for reasons not to believe. You approach God with animosity and skepticism, with a closed mind. You look for ways to screen Him out. You must come as a child, full of wonder and acceptance of Him. He won’t force Himself on you if you don’t want Him. When you come with every intention to prove that He isn’t there, He knows your heart better than you do. He turns you over to your own corrupted mind. The fall corrupted every human mind. Our minds aren’t capable of rational thought without divine revelation.”

Sandy Sandbuilder is a skeptic who believes that he can’t know anything for certain. He claims that he was once a Christian who knew Christ. Then, he decided that he didn’t know anything and questioned everything he once believed. He became dogmatic enough about his disbelief that he now looks for every opportunity to argue against Christ. The trouble is that he bases every argument he makes on made-up stuff, so every argument he makes is irrational.

Here’s another point from the conversation:

Rocky: “God teaches those who follow Him to communicate guided and empowered by the Holy Spirit. He says, ‘Speak as His oracle.’ He says whoever rejects His words as He speaks through His followers rejects Him directly. Whoever rejects Him rejects the Father directly.”

This point means that God spoke to Sandy Sandbuilder during this conversation, but Sandy rejected God. Sandy refused to acknowledge God. He has closed his mind to God.

During this conversation, Sandy tried to prove three things. He wanted to prove that he was open to God, but that it was God’s fault that he couldn’t find God. He wanted to prove that he could be rational without a true premise. And he looked for ways to question knowing anything by divine revelation. We’ll go over a few of Sandy’s comments to see how he argued.

Sandy Sandbuilder has done his part. He tried. He implies that God failed him.

Sandy: “I have been completely open to being convinced of God’s existence by revelation or reason on several occasions in my life.”

We notice that Sandy isn’t open now. He’s become dogmatic. He’s entrenched in His philosophy and unwilling to challenge His own dogma. Sandy insists that he can think rationally by depending on axioms as long as he sincerely feels that those axioms are obvious. We’ll go into some detail on this journey to find out why our axioms, even the false ones, seem so obvious to us.

Sandy: “I must have received divine revelation since I appear capable of at least some rational thought. Since I am not conscious of having received revelation, the word “revelation” does not seem appropriate to whatever I may have received from God.”

Sandy receives revelation. He refuses to acknowledge God, so he can’t tell the difference between what he makes up and what God reveals to Him. Most of what God shows him, he rejects. The revelation Sandy accepts seems like something obvious that he got from some unknown source. He puts his made-up stuff into the same category. He makes no difference between the two. And because he continually and consistently refused to acknowledge God, thank Him, and give Him the glory, God turned him over to his own corrupted mind. As he continues to disrespect and ignore God, even trying to convince Christians to stop following Christ, he hardens his mind against God. He develops disbelieving answers for every approach the Holy Spirit may make toward him. His senseless mind is darkened. The following quotes show how he claimed to be rational without a true premise:

“The thought was rational, even though its premise and conclusion later turned out to be false.”

“It’s entirely possible to have rational thought of correct form without ultimate certainty in its premises.”

Though Sandy can’t be sure of anything, he’s sure that he can reason rationally without a true premise. But he can only state bare assertions. He exposed his useless definition of “rational thought.” He thinks that valid form is rational thought, but sound logic must also have true premises. Rational thought is sound reasoning, not merely valid form.

When Sandy says “of correct form” he’s pointing out a failure of the education system. Schools teach that correct form is all we need for sound logic. Sandy feels that he’s reasoning rationally even though he uses premises that may be false. He thinks rational thought only requires valid form. Consider the sociopath who thinks it’s OK to murder people on Tuesdays. This claim seems obvious, so the sociopath takes it as an axiom. Sandy is saying that the sociopath is rational if he uses this axiom about murdering people on Tuesdays as a premise. Here’s this valid form with a false premise:

Sociopath: “It’s OK to murder people on Tuesdays. It’s Tuesday. Therefore, I can murder people today.”

The form of the sociopath’s logic is valid. Sandy is saying that a sociopath can make this statement rationally as long as the sociopath feels that it’s obviously okay to murder people on Tuesdays.

Sandy also insisted that he couldn’t know anything for certain. And yet, he doesn’t claim his uncertainty in uncertain terms. He’s certain of his uncertainty. How can he be so certain that he can’t be certain about anything? Here are a few of Sandy’s claims about not being able to know:

“I have no way of knowing anything.”

“I have not denied that divine revelation may be possible.”

“You are certain about some things, unlike me; I’m uncertain about everything.”

“I do not believe such a proof (for or against God) is conceivable, or necessary.”

Disbelief is a form of belief. It’s belief in not believing. Sandy doesn’t just express a lack of belief. He willfully disbelieves. When he says “is conceivable,” we can see his desire to push the possibility of knowing God as far from himself as he can. When he says “or necessary,” he’s rationalizing a complete theology and concept of the spiritual and natural world. Since he can’t be certain of anything, how is he so certain about his belief? Why would he willfully disbelieve God? Here’s what he said as he looked back at when he was a Christian:

“I found I could not at all distinguish between the things I was convinced were revelations and the things that turned out to be wishful thinking.”

Sandy Sandbuilder brings up something every Christ-follower must overcome. We do find out that we’re wrong sometimes. We find out that we misinterpret God as He speaks to us through Scripture, intuition, the created world, or any other way He communicates. We find that teachers tell us things we believe, and we later, sometimes decades later, realize that those teachers were wrong. The only reason we’re ever deceived is that we’re immature in Christ. We haven’t grown to His fullness. We have a fleshly nature that’s deceitful and desperately wicked, so we all make many mistakes. However, as we focus on Christ and His will, He continues to correct us where we’re wrong. As we forsake our own will and our own strongly held opinions, He reveals truth. We need patience. We have Christ rather than dogmatism.

We can’t look into Sandy’s past when he was a Christian and see the experience he’s describing, so we don’t know if it was real. If God did reveal reality to him, he looked back at those revelations at a certain point and convinced himself that God’s revelation was wishful thinking. Then he knew HE COULDN’T BE CERTAIN of anything, YET HE WAS CERTAIN he couldn’t tell the difference between God’s revelation and wishful thinking.

If God didn’t reveal, but Sandy Sandbuilder just believed the things he wanted to be true, that’s a different story. Sandy may have wished for a million-dollar check and imagined that God told him it would come on April 30^th of 2012. We don’t know what Sandy means by “revelations,” but we’re just giving an example of what these revelations might have been. Perhaps a pastor told him to name it and claim it, but, for obvious reasons, God didn’t honor Sandy’s claim. If Sandy had cared about God’s will and submitting to God’s will, he would have been seeking God’s mind continually. If he was wrong, the Holy Spirit would have corrected him at some point and told him that he was prophesying a vision out of his own heart. The Holy Spirit would then have revealed the truth He wanted Sandy to know, and Sandy may have received this truth from the Holy Spirit, or he may have rejected this truth since he didn’t want to hear it. He may have decided to get rid of God if God wouldn’t be his vending machine to give him his own will. Then, he may have directed his mind to believe that he couldn’t be certain about anything.

He’s inside his bunker, protecting himself from God by willful ignorance. He said he couldn’t know the difference between what his mind makes up, what demons tell him, and what God reveals, but only in the ultimate sense. He didn’t say what the “ultimate sense” is. He’s not uncertain about his uncertainty. He’s certain that he’s uncertain about everything. And He’s certain that God hasn’t spoken to Him. He said, “God has certainly not revealed himself to me.” And yet, he can’t see that he’s conflicted with himself in describing his certainty and his universal uncertainty at the same time and in the same way.

He thinks he has moral flaws, yet he doesn’t admit to a lawgiver. He doesn’t know of a source of morality. He’s eliminated every means by which God could give him an understanding of right and wrong with certainty. In all likelihood, he tries to follow God’s Laws, since God reveals these Laws to every person. However, he refuses to acknowledge God or give Him the glory.

We can see why Jesus said, “I tell all of you with certainty, unless you change and become like little children, you will never get into the kingdom from heaven.”

Sandy Sandbuilder’s thinking is similar to the thinking of many who reject Christ. A person who is open to Jesus Christ won’t defend thinking based on made-up stuff while trying to find a way to prove that those who follow Christ aren’t experiencing what they’re experiencing. ^{(video: Scooby-Doo and the Skeptometer https://youtu.be/YrGVeB_SPJg)}

</end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this book yet?

You can BUY  it on Amazon, but you can your FREE copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_1_-_Scientia.pdf

Don’t fall for the fear tactics of Satan. God has a plan. Don’t believe the lies. https://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_1_-_Scientia.pdf

<quote from Real Faith & Reason>

Speaking through Scripture, God tells us that faith is substance (reality) and that it’s absolute and certain proof that comes as a gift from God. This faith comes when He speaks, and Jesus Christ, the almighty and all-knowing Creator is the Author of this faith. Anyone who sincerely seeks truth will consider Christ by coming to Him in willing submission since all who seek Him find Him. And though our knowledge is partial, yet through persistent obedient submission to His will, we make progress. Those who follow Christ are becoming increasingly mature. The Holy Spirit is forming Christ within us, so we increasingly have His influence, wisdom, knowledge, and understanding. The Holy Spirit is purifying us. Therefore, we’re increasingly able to discern between good (God’s leading) and evil (our own minds). As implied by this statement, maturity is having Christ formed within and dying to the fleshly nature.

</end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this book yet?

You can BUY  it on Amazon, but you can your FREE copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_1_-_Scientia.pdf

Intellect worship

<quote from Real Faith & Reason>
Everyone who wants truth listens to Christ. Christ is real, all-powerful, and faithful. So, the Christ-follower’s confidence rests in Christ rather than in human ability or intellect.
</end quote>
#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this book yet?

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_1_-_Scientia.pdf

Long Dialog with a Skeptic

Most of the recent posts have been short quotes from the book “Real Faith & Reason Volume One.” This is a longer quote. It’s longer because it’s a dialog that explains real faith and real reason as opposed to a fake, make-believe dogmatism and fake, irrational reason. Please read the entire dialog. You’ll be glad you did.

<quote from Real Faith & Reason>

Skeptic: I’m no longer a Christian.

Christ-follower: “Did you turn from following Christ or didn’t you ever experience His moment by moment leading and correction?”

Skeptic: “I never imagined I’d find anything more wonderful than my daily walk with Jesus and the joy of the Lord, and yet I did.”

As we can see, the skeptic is claiming certainty, and he’s certain of his “joy.” But what makes him certain that his so-called “joy” is real? Although not included here, the skeptic went on about his experience with Christ before abandoning Christ, which led to the following exchange:

Christ-follower: “From that, it sounds like you did know Him, and you heard His voice, but it sounds like you just walked away from Him and chose something else. Some people don’t think that’s possible, but I’ve seen that it’s possible in my own life as I started to walk toward my own will and desires. When I tried to depend on my own understanding, His voice became dull. Then I started having trouble knowing the difference between my mind and the voice of the Holy Spirit.”

Skeptic: “Right. When I was a young child of seven, after begging Jesus to save me but doubting my salvation, I had many Christians assuring me that I was a Christian. Do you think they were lying? I know the joy of the Lord, and I know how it feels to have a personal relationship with Jesus. The human mind can do incredible things. But after reading the Greek New Testament through 11 times in Greek, I could no longer believe due to the absurdities. I was a licensed pastor, but I had to give that up for the sake of epistemic integrity.”

We can’t know all about the skeptic’s experience, but we may have a clue in his words. He seems to equate a relationship with Jesus to a feeling. Feelings are fickle and can come from a variety of sources. This statement conflicted with his former statement about following Christ and listening to His voice. From this statement, it sounds like the skeptic was conforming to peer pressure from his local church rather than finding Christ, but we don’t know that.

The skeptic is certain that the human mind is capable of deception. We know, by revelation, that the human mind is indeed capable of deception. The human senses can fool us too. The skeptic admits this weakness, and then the skeptic ignores the deceptiveness of the human mind as he asserts his certainty of supposed absurdities in the New Testament. Skeptics live with continuously conflicted thoughts. He’s certain that his logic is perfect when he claims to have found absurdities in the New Testament, but, at the same time, he can’t be certain about anything.

He’s concerned with what he calls “epistemic integrity.” The term “epistemic” means relating to knowledge. This man is a skeptic who claims that knowledge is impossible, yet he’s concerned about having integrity regarding the knowledge that he claims can’t exist.

The skeptic presupposes the absurdities rather than stating them. These are phantom absurdities, and we’ll explain how we know as we continue our pilgrimage. However, this skeptic is certain about what he calls “absurdities in the New Testament.” He’s certain enough of his rationalizations about the New Testament that he’s willing to deny his actual experiences with the living Christ if he had any. Finally, he’s concerned about integrity, which exposes his inner conflict since integrity is an idea he can’t verify in his worldview.

Skeptic: “I might ask you some questions about the coherency of your belief system later if you don’t mind.”

When discussing ideas, it’s common for skeptics to want to ask questions, but they rarely like to answer questions. All too often, they obnoxiously turn the discussion into a game of “Now I’ve got you.” This game works against a person with no rational basis for thought because it works to expose the foolishness of ungodly thinking in anyone, including Christians. So it’s not a bad thing to ask questions since asking questions can expose vacuous thinking. However, it’s rude to turn a conversation into a nasty game, and it’s irrational to demand an unequal burden of proof.

Christ-follower: “That’s fine. I’m not a theologian, but I’m learning to perceive God’s voice and to respond in submission to Him. In other words, I don’t follow a belief system. I’ve come to know Christ, and all my arguments shatter in His presence, so I listen to His voice of truth and follow Him.”

Skeptic: “I will also have questions about your epistemology. The process you used to determine whether it’s God or something else less honest talking to you.”

Christ-follower: “It’s a walk from glory to glory of learning to perceive. It started about 65 years ago when I was young, but about 50 years ago, God showed me the weakness of human thought. He explained, in various ways, that human thought can’t be rational without divine revelation. I now understand this truth from the rules of logic and the Münchausen trilemma. I would like to ask you how you, without divine revelation, justify any reasoning at all without knowing that your premise is true.”

Skeptic: “I believe I cannot be absolutely certain about anything apart from my immediate sensations.”

Once again, the skeptic claims certain belief. He believes he can’t be certain, and he believes he can reason to this belief and be certain of it. He also believes that he can be certain about his immediate sensations, his five senses and his emotions. The skeptic is certain about the reality of logic and reason, and yet he said he could only be certain about immediate sensations. However, neither logic nor reason is an immediate sensation. We see the conflict plainly, but the skeptic has blinded his own eyes to it.

Going back to a previous claim, “. . . after reading the Greek New Testament through 11 times in Greek, I could no longer believe due to the absurdities.” Since he can only be certain of his immediate sensations, how could he be certain of his analysis of the New Testament? He couldn’t, and we would find, if we took the time and he allowed it, every so-called “absurdity” depends on assumptions. Every so-called “absurdity” depends on made-up stuff. An ungodly thinker can only base thought on made-up stuff as we’ll more fully explore on this trip when we get to the ungodly thinking problem. Ungodly thinkers have no other choice for thinking, so we know that ungodly thinkers base their arguments against Scripture on made-up stuff.

Also, why should he be certain about his immediate sensations? We know by divine revelation that his five senses are somewhat reliable, but he rejects divine revelation. And he includes emotions like a feeling that he calls “joy” in his sensations. Emotional sensations are unreliable. As already mentioned, his belief in skepticism isn’t an immediate sensation. Instead, it’s a rationalized belief system that he hasn’t reasoned rationally. Irrationally, he firmly believes in his ability to reason from made-up stuff to a complex and selective mix of dogmatism and skepticism.

Christ-follower: “Why do you believe that you can’t be certain of anything except your immediate sensations when you have no proof? Why do you believe your immediate sensations?”

Skeptic: “I can’t be wrong to believe I am feeling joy when I feel joy since there is no necessary intermediate mechanism. But how are you absolutely certain it is God speaking to you when you feel He is?”

Again, the skeptic claims he can’t be wrong, this time about something he calls “joy.” One can only wonder what mechanism allows him to “know” that his so-called “joy” is real joy and not some counterfeit. Notice that he also used the word “feel” to define the Christ-follower’s certainty in Christ. That’s a subtle suggestion to imply that Christ is an emotional rationalization rather than a real person.

What unfolds next is an amazing case of a double standard and inner conflict. The skeptic insists that he knows nothing and, at the same time, insists that his joy is real. He’s sure that God can’t possibly reveal the difference between Jesus Christ and some other entity. This poor skeptic claims to know nothing. And yet his claims imply that he knows all about the spiritual realm, God, and the way God can work with human minds.

Christ-follower: “God imparts certainty of reality called ‘faith’ when He speaks. He makes me certain. What makes you think God can’t impart certainty and give discernment? Also, how do you know you’re feeling joy when you think you’re feeling joy? That would involve sound reason, and sound reason requires a true premise.”

Skeptic: “Through what mechanism did you determine it was actually God?” [The skeptic is ignoring both questions and repeating a question that the Christ-follower already answered.]

Christ-follower: “Through the mechanism of divine revelation. Divine revelation is the only way to know anything. Divine revelation is also how I know that it makes sense to reason based on true premises. But again, I don’t see a reason for you to know that you’re feeling joy when you think you’re feeling joy since you would need sound reason, and sound reason must have a true premise.”

Skeptic: “Through what mechanism did you determine divine revelation was actually God?” [The skeptic again refused to address his own issue and repeated a question the Christ-follower already answered twice.]

Christ-follower: “God revealed Himself to me when I was about five years old. Since then, I’ve been coming to know Him better. I still make mistakes. But He assures me that, as the Holy Spirit forms Christ in me and my carnal mind atrophies, the transformation will change me. I’ll eventually be free to be fully rational. Many have died without receiving this promise. My way is secure even if I don’t realize the fullness in my lifetime on earth.”

Skeptic: “Through what mechanism did you determine divine revelation was not actually Satan?”

Christ-follower: “I’ve dealt personally with both Satan and God, and the difference is stark, but you asked about the mechanism. God is the mechanism. He reveals the difference between Satan and Himself. Jesus Christ is the Author of faith and faith comes by hearing God’s voice. God is almighty, and He won’t deceive a sincere heart who seeks Him. All who seek Him find Him. And, by the way, it’s the only way we can know anything about anything. For instance, it’s the only way to know whether joy is merely chemical, fake joy induced by an evil spirit or true joy that’s a fruit of the Holy Spirit.”

Skeptic: “I know what you believe. I want to know the mechanism that determined the divine revelation was actually from God.”

Asking the same question repeatedly after we’ve answered the question is a trick that can work sometimes, but it’s not rational. In this case, the trick became too obvious to fool even a dedicated ungodly mind. We also note the trick of turning a conversation into a one-sided interrogation, which is a common way for ungodly thinkers to debate. They refuse to answer any questions while using questions as weapons for ungodly evangelism. Not only atheists and skeptics use these tactics, but Christians who are reasoning in an ungodly way also use these tactics.

We can sense the skeptic’s frustration in dealing with a Christ-follower with real faith rather than rationalized faith. The skeptic has no power to introduce doubt when the Christ-follower can turn to the Holy Spirit in real time. The Holy Spirit assures the Christ-follower that the skeptic’s statements aren’t rational.

Christ-follower: “The mechanism is divine revelation, as I said. In other words, the mechanism is God speaking and imparting faith. What is the mechanism by which you think it makes sense to reason about these things?”

Skeptic: “You had to make sure the “divine revelation” was not Satan, right? How?” [The skeptic again ignored the question, but he doesn’t understand God’s power.]

Christ-follower: “God reveals, but you seem to be implying that God is incapable of revealing and giving discernment. What mechanism do you imagine would prevent God from revealing and giving perception? It seems that you only want to ask questions rather than having a real conversation. Could you answer the question I asked? How do you justify reason?”

Skeptic: “How do you know it is God rather than Satan?” [Again, the skeptic repeated a question the Christ-follower already answered, and he refused to answer questions even after the Christ-follower brought attention to the skeptic’s rudeness.]

Christ-follower: “Because God reveals it. When I focus my will on acknowledging Him, He takes care of the rest. How do you justify reason? How do you know your joy isn’t hatred?”

Skeptic: “How do you know God revealed it rather than Satan?”

Christ-follower: “I’ve answered this question enough times, but you refuse to answer any questions. No one can know anything without Christ. God reveals this fact. What makes you think God can’t reveal and impart perception? What makes you think your joy isn’t fake joy induced by a demon who intends to kill you?”

Skeptic: “There is no intermediary between my joy and myself. There is a huge gap between you and any proposed revelation. But, let me confirm. You actually believe you can’t be wrong, right?”

To analyze this claim, we might ask, “What is the mechanism by which the skeptic thinks he knows that no intermediary exists between his joy and himself?” He’s asserting a universal negative and denying that his worldview filters every experience he has, including his supposed joy. It seems that he forgot what he said about his body and mind working together to produce several immediate sensations. However, he admitted having this problem earlier, but he only applied it to his experience with Christ. His thinking conflicts with itself. He only applies his skepticism to Jesus Christ and the Bible. Without divine revelation, he has no mechanism to know anything.

Also, the skeptic makes the dogmatic claim of a huge gap between the Christ-follower and God’s revelation. What makes him think a gap exists since Christ abides within the Christ-follower? Is this claim part of his immediate sensations? He claims he “knows” what comes from his immediate sensations and knows nothing else. So, where does he get this supposed gap? He would have to either observe it using his five senses or else feel it in his emotions. And he’s certain that his emotions prove things to himself, so that must be where he gets his gap. But what could prevent Almighty God from giving certainty, discernment, and perception to His people? Nothing could.

The skeptic is committing an argument against self-confidence fallacy. He craftily substitutes confidence in God’s ability with confidence in human ability to discern. If God made us responsible for managing discernment, then we would indeed be in trouble. Since Christ within us is in charge of discernment, nothing can stand in His way. We must admit that we sometimes allow others to deceive us by directing our wills toward authorities other than Christ. But Christ promises that He’ll give us the Holy Spirit if we ask Him, and He promises that we’ll find Christ if we seek Him.

We notice that it’s common for ungodly dogmatic persuaders to resort to attempts to destroy faith by questioning God’s voice while trying to give the illusion made-up stuff has substance. Faith is substance, but made-up stuff is vapor. Since faith comes by hearing God’s utterance, the sarx mind tries to undermine this faith by asking us to listen to utterances other than God’s utterance. This undermining takes the form of Satan’s question to Eve, “Hath God said?” “How do you know that God revealed it rather than Satan?” However, God assures us that Christ is our highway called “the Holy Way,” and, though we may not understand, He’ll be the One Who makes sure we don’t get lost. God can restore those parts of our lives where we’re convinced of false doctrines, as we follow Christ. He’ll demolish all those strongholds in our minds if we yield to Him.

 “A highway will be there—yes, there— and people will call it ‘The Holy Way’. As for unclean people, they will not journey on it, but it will be for whomever is traveling on that Way—not even fools will get lost.” (Isaiah 35:8 International Standard Version)

“And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein.” (Isaiah 35:8 King James Bible)

God gives us great confidence through this Scripture about this Highway, a Way. We know this Way. His name is Jesus. If we can get on this Way, He’ll make sure we don’t err. The original language implies we won’t wander about in sin and confusion. What do we need? How do we qualify? First, we must be clean. This Way isn’t for the unclean. “As for unclean people, they will not journey on it.” Jesus washed us. Second, we must be wayfaring. We must be moving. We can’t think we’ve arrived. It’s for those who move. It’s not for those who don’t want to move. If we’re willing to move at the command of God, we won’t wander around in a confused, drunken stupor, and sin won’t bind us. He’ll even make sure that a fool doesn’t err. It doesn’t depend on us except to be willing to seek His mind and submit ourselves to it.

The practiced skeptic who came with fake politeness suddenly became rude, refusing to answer any questions and repeatedly asking the same two questions. He didn’t want to move. He wanted to stay as He was. He was a dogmatic skeptic.

He showed his frustration as he said, “You actually believe you can’t be wrong, right?” Of course, the Christ-follower didn’t claim or imply any such thing. However, this skeptic had already claimed that he couldn’t be wrong, so we’re looking at a projection fallacy as he projects his own fault onto the Christ-follower. Since the Holy Spirit leads, teaches, corrects, and purifies everyone who follows Him moment by moment, this disbeliever is inconsistent when he says the Christ-follower is claiming that he can’t be wrong. If the follower of Christ couldn’t be wrong, Christ wouldn’t need to lead, teach, correct, and purify us moment by moment every day. As the Holy Spirit forms Christ in us and we die to the fleshly nature, our understanding of Christ and His leading becomes more accurate and precise. Now, we know in part, but we will know in the fullness. We may even make mistakes, but, since discernment doesn’t depend on us, Christ will correct our errors in thinking and perception as we yield ourselves to Him.

Christ-follower: “People can have false joy. How can you assert such definite statements regarding your own supposed joy and the lack of an intermediary? And how can you assert such definite statements regarding an imagined gap between myself and God’s ability to reveal and impart His faith? In fact, you imagine a gap between Christ and me. Christ is in me and joined to me, and yet you dogmatically assert this gap that you conjured up from your imagination. But you’re claiming to have amazing familiarity with my inner spiritual experiences. You’re dogmatic, but you claim not to have any knowledge of reality other than your immediate sensations. How do you sense my inner spiritual experience with Christ? To your last question, I’ve already answered it by saying I’m learning and God is constantly correcting me. That means I’m wrong a lot. If I depended on myself, all would be hopeless, but I know Christ.”

Skeptic: “You believe I could have a false joy, but you could not have a false Christ, right?”

The skeptic is implying that we could be sincerely seeking Christ and yet be deceived by our own fallen minds or by evil spirits. Satan uses this lie against Christians. And yet, Christ has promised us that He is faithful. He promises us that He won’t give us a serpent if we ask for a fish. The serpent is a type of Satan, and the fish is a type of Christ. He promises that He won’t give us a stone if we ask for bread. The stone is a type of the hardened human heart or mind, and the bread is a type of Christ’s body.

But some people do follow false Christs. They follow demons, false prophets, false teachers, or their own minds and think that they’re receiving revelation from Christ. So, how does that happen? It happens when they’re deceived because they are drawn off the path by their own desires. Those who truly want to do God’s will have zero percent chance of going astray because of the power and goodness of God, not because of a theological formula. In our immature state, the fleshly nature is deceitful and desperately wicked. The fleshly nature is opposed to God. So, Christians may slip or step off the Way (Christ) from time to time, but, because their hearts are sincere to desire righteousness, Christ will bring them back in line. On the other hand, if they truly want to go their own ways, God won’t force them.

Satan often works by introducing confusion. In this case, the skeptic is working to suggest that there’s no difference between the skeptic’s ability to absolutely know that the joy he’s feeling is real and the Christ-follower’s ability to absolutely know that Christ is leading. In fact, the skeptic claims that he has a superior ability to know about his supposed joy absolutely, but the Christ-follower just can’t know.

Let’s look at the basis for the two claims. The skeptic’s basis for his claim is a rationalization. He rationalizes a story, and, in his story, he tells himself that there is no intermediary between him and the joy he feels. So, the skeptic’s confidence rests in himself and his own mind. The Christ-follower’s basis for knowing that Christ is leading rests in Christ and the faith that Christ imparts when Christ speaks to him. Everyone who wants truth listens to Christ. Christ is real, all-powerful, and faithful. So, the Christ-follower’s confidence rests in Christ rather than in his own ability or intellect.

Christ-follower: “I know you haven’t mentioned a true premise on which you build your belief that your joy is real. I know Jesus Christ gives every person a true premise to believe Him. You seem to think God isn’t capable of imparting divine revelation. However, you haven’t mentioned any proof of His inability.”

Skeptic: “Yeah, I think this conversation is over. You need to learn some honesty.”

The skeptic became upset at that point and shut down discussion with the epithet “You need to learn some honesty.” His remark brings up a question. From a skeptic’s position, how could the word “honesty” mean anything? He says he only “knows” immediate sensations. Is he saying honesty is an immediate sensation? As a skeptic, he doesn’t even have proof that any form of reasoning is worth the mental effort. He didn’t have a true premise for believing his immediate sensations.

We must revisit this issue of not knowing whether Christ or Satan is leading us since it’s an issue evil spirits love to bring up. Christ speaks to us and says all who seek Him find Him. He also says every person already knows. We can already perceive and judge between Christ and other voices, but other voices can fool us when we want our own wills or follow our own minds. We can be wrong, so we ought to bring our doctrines before Him continually and allow Him to point out those untrue doctrines. We must admit that we often make job decisions, communication decisions, or financial decisions where we don’t understand God’s will. Some of us have even fallen into gross immorality, but we found that Christ pulled us out of it.

However, we do know the difference. And this skeptic knows the difference but wants to do his own thing so he’s willingly ignorant. He denies the knowledge and hides it from himself, so, in a sense, he knows nothing even though he does know. We humans mix up our minds when we want to do our wills rather than God’s will. It’s in those places where we want our desires and our ways rather than God’s way. When we were first born again, the Holy Spirit started a project within us. We sincerely confessed Jesus is Lord, which no one can confess except by God’s Spirit. From that day forward, even if the deceivers deceive us, God is watching over the entire process and will be faithful to complete the work in us. God gave us the responsibility to sincerely seek Him and yield to His Spirit despite the voices of many liars. If any of this revelation and discernment depended on our strength, intelligence, wisdom, understanding, or judgment, we would lose our way. But it depends on the Creator God Who’s well able to complete the work.

“being persuaded of this very thing, that the One having begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Christ Jesus.” (Philippians 1:6 Berean Literal Bible)

Revealing the twisted nature of skeptical thinking, the skeptic’s entire line of thinking has self-righteousness and virtue signalling oozing out of it. It shows that skeptical reasoning is absolutely vacuous. Because of his mindless thought process, the skeptic couldn’t answer the following questions:

Without divine revelation, how does the skeptic justify any reasoning at all without a true premise?

Why does the skeptic think he can’t be certain about anything apart from his immediate sensations when he has no proof?

How does the skeptic know that he’s feeling joy when he thinks he’s feeling joy since such knowledge would involve reason, and sound reason requires a true premise?

Why does the skeptic think that it makes sense to reason about anything?

How does he justify reason?

How does he know his joy isn’t hatred?

How does he know his joy isn’t sorrow?

What makes him think that what he calls “joy” isn’t fake joy induced by a demon who intends to kill him?

How can he assert that there’s no intermediary between him and his joy?

How can he be so sure about an imagined gap between a Christ-follower and Christ Who lives in the Christ-follower?

What makes him think that God can’t impart divine revelation?

What makes him think that God can’t reveal and impart perception?

What mechanism does he imagine that would limit God’s ability to reveal and impart His faith?

What mechanism does he imagine would prevent God from revealing and giving discernment?

The skeptic and the Christ-follower didn’t discuss the Bible and the history in the Bible, but God reveals the accuracy of the Bible just as He reveals Himself. Of course, He doesn’t reveal everything, and we don’t know much, but we do know whatever He reveals to us.

</end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this book yet?

You can BUY  it on Amazon, but you can your FREE copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_1_-_Scientia.pdf

<quote from Real Faith & Reason>

Skepticism

Since the nature of reality severely restricts knowledge of truth, many ungodly scholars say no one can know truth. They’ve observed that ungodly thinking can’t know anything. They don’t want godliness, although godly thinking could free them. In fact, skeptics are certain that we can’t be certain about anything, so they believe that it makes no sense to believe anything. But how can they be certain about this uncertainty if no one can be certain about anything? And why would they believe this idea when they say no one should believe anything? Their self-refuting claims are nonsense. But many teachers proclaim skepticism as a way to overcome their other fallacy of claiming the universal negative: “God doesn’t exist.”

When anti-God thinkers claim, “God doesn’t exist,” they assert a universal negative, and since universal negatives claim omniscience, this claim falls apart for anti-God thinkers. Not even circular reasoning can effectively camouflage the foolishness, so some atheists redefine the word “atheist” to mean someone without a belief in God. They redefine “atheist” to try to hide this problem in their thinking. In short, they claim that they simply lack belief. Craftily, they make this claim to frame the discussion so they can use an argument from ignorance fallacy to imply, “Prove God, or He doesn’t exist.” They go through these mental gymnastics to make it harder to detect their universal negative of “God doesn’t exist.”

Atheist: I simply lack belief in God. Prove to me that God exists, and I’ll surely believe in Him.

Christ-follower: I simply lack belief in the lack of belief in God. Prove to me that God hasn’t revealed His existence to you, and I’ll surely believe you.

Atheist: I told you I lack belief. I know whether or not I have belief.

Christ-follower: God tells me you’re willingly ignorant. He says you refuse to acknowledge Him, thank Him, or give Him glory. You refuse even though He has revealed Himself, through the things He has created, to all people including you. Why should I accept your personal testimony rather than His? And why don’t you hold my personal testimony in the same regard as your personal testimony about a supposed lack of belief?

The new definition of “atheist” is a definist fallacy that doesn’t help the anti-God thinker’s case for several reasons. It gives no rational way to support a claim like “I don’t know whether God exists.” Anti-God thinkers can’t prove that they haven’t suppressed this truth in unrighteousness as God says they have. They can’t prove that they don’t know. They can’t even prove their claim to themselves. They may insist that they don’t know, but they can’t insist on it without committing fallacies. Since God says anti-God thinkers know He exists, God’s words are proof that they know. And He also says they know a lot about Him, His righteousness, and His judgment, but God says He turned them over to their own corrupted minds, and they’ve suppressed the truth in their unrighteousness [deceitful trickery]. Also, God says they’re willingly ignorant of the Creation event, the global Flood, and the coming judgment.

In response, anti-God thinkers claim that God is untruthful and that they’re the truthful ones. They ask us to believe their bare claim of “lack of knowledge.” They ask us to disbelieve God when He says they know. However, they can’t prove this claim or any other since they suppress truth through their deceitful treachery, and their corrupted minds deceive them. They’ve closed their minds to God, building elaborate worldviews and filling their lives with many distractions to keep themselves from being aware of His reality.

</end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this book yet?

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_1_-_Scientia.pdf

<quote from Real Faith & Reason>

Let’s inspect three sanity-killing philosophies that destroy rational thinking. We find these three philosophies throughout modern society.

Sanity-killing philosophy #1: “Reason is, in itself, a source of knowledge superior to and independent of either divine revelation or observation.” This philosophy is called “rationalism.”

Sanity-killing philosophy #2: “God doesn’t reveal anything to anyone.” This philosophy is part of naturalism. Naturalism is a fancy word for the religion of ungodliness.

Sanity-killing philosophy #3: “All knowledge is personal. No absolutes exist. Everything is relative. Each person has his or her own reality.” We call this philosophy “relativism.” It’s part of a broader philosophy called “post-modernism.”

</end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this book yet?

You can BUY  it on Amazon, but you can your FREE copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_1_-_Scientia.pdf