Make-believe or reality

<quote from Real Faith & Reason>

Make-believe can go anywhere, whereas reality is restricted to reality itself. In fact, reality doesn’t include anything we pretend, so we can’t sanely impose make-believe onto reality. In effect, when we fallen creatures make up stories, our thinking quickly degenerates, especially if we pretend those stories are part of reality. In particular, we end up losing our ability to tell the difference between reality and make-believe, and it all starts with a little pretending.

In this light, we see that ungodly thinkers try to give the illusion that they have a rational reason for believing the bare claims of naturalism, materialism, atheism, or other ungodly philosophies. They use smokescreen fallacies to hide the axiomatic thinking of these philosophies. The schools teach a way of thinking that can’t be rational since, without God, there’s no reason to believe any thought can be rational. Adding to the problem, ungodly thinkers are often experts at loaded language and insincere tactics. They aren’t willing to consider the alternative to irrational thinking. They aren’t willing to turn to Christ. C. S. Lewis had some things to say about the futility of reasoning without God:

“Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.”

C. S. Lewis didn’t use this statement to prove God’s existence. Instead, he merely pointed out that arguments against God are always irrational because, without God, there’s no justification for belief in rational thought. Even the arguments against this C. S. Lewis quote are impossible to justify since those who bring the arguments can’t justify belief in rational thought.

From what we’ve learned so far, we can finally understand why ungodly opinion is always tentative even when they’re stated dogmatically and emphatically. Knowledgeable ungodly thinkers admit the tentative nature of ungodly opinion freely. And yet so many of them are dogmatic. They’re internally inconsistent since they’re dogmatic while claiming that all knowledge is tentative. That’s not sane. In other words, while strong ungodly opinions are the norm, strong ungodly opinions are always irrational since they’re unsupported claims. Basing thinking on unsupported claims, ungodly thinkers have no way to know whether their most dogmatically held opinions are true or false, so those opinions are unknown to them. Therefore, it makes no sense for ungodly thinkers to have strongly-held opinions since no one can be certain of any knowledge about anything without divine revelation.

An ungodly thinker may say, “Not so fast! I memorized nursery rhymes as a kid. I learned Aesop’s Fables. I studied evolution. I know a lot.” We can understand that reaction, but when we say no ungodly thinking can lead to certainty of knowledge, we have to remember how we’re defining the word “knowledge.” In this case, we define “knowledge” as accurate, precise, and absolute knowledge of truth as opposed to knowledge of made-up stuff. This knowledge isn’t the pragmatic familiarity of brute beasts who follow their senses but are destitute of reason. By our definition, ideas, stories, lies, conceptual frameworks, assumptions, or other forms of made-up stuff are not knowledge. These aren’t part of reality. Truth is absolute by nature since truth is actual reality.

As we’ve mentioned, naturalists may claim that divine revelation can’t provide knowledge with certainty. At first, this claim almost seems like it might be true in a sense. It’s not true though. Granted, many people claim to have divine revelation when God hasn’t spoken. And it’s true that the problem of false prophets, false apostles, and false teachers is a major theme in the Bible. Although, the benefit of true prophets, true apostles, and true teachers is also a major theme in the Bible.

This issue isn’t simple since Satan is always working to create confusion. False prophets, false apostles, and false teachers accuse the true ones of being false. God never sent the false ones, but they went anyway. Disagreements over various doctrines separate sincere Christians. Those disagreements come from rationalized doctrines. They don’t come from listening to the Holy Spirit. The same Holy Spirit speaks to all of us. He won’t give conflicting revelation to different people. However, our preconceptions may keep us from listening to Him. He will be pure, but we’re not pure.

God has a solution to conflicting opinions. If we remain humble and respect the presence of Christ in each member of Christ’s body, He’ll eventually lead us all to the same truth. He’ll tear down the strongholds in our minds and demolish our preconceived ideas, replacing them with truth. God promises to complete this work. We see His vision in the Letter to the Ephesians.

</end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this FREE book yet? “Real Faith & Reason” gives the absolutely certain proof of the Bible and the God of the Bible and shows how you can have real faith. This is faith that changes situations and transfigures you from glory to glory.

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

<quote from Real Faith & Reason>

“You don’t want to raise a generation of science students who don’t understand how we know our place in the cosmos.” (Bill Nye)

Ken Ham agreed with Bill’s point, yet Ken didn’t agree with Bill’s method of knowing our place in the cosmos because he didn’t think we could know our place through assumptions. Instead, Ken said the way to know our place in the cosmos is to allow God to reveal the interpretations of observations. Bill Nye, in direct opposition, said the way to know our place in the cosmos is to use a certain set of assumptions to interpret observations.

And Bill had a clever rationalization for using assumptions as his basis for thought. He claimed that assumptions are based on past experiences. While Bill’s rationalization might feel true to a person who hasn’t thought it through, our assumptions are only loosely linked to our filtered, distorted, and interpreted experiences and observations. We’ll examine the true source of assumptions in the next trip, and we’ll see that they come out of worldviews in a process involving circular reasoning and confirmation bias. For now, it’s enough to say we don’t really base assumptions on past experiences.

When Bill claims that assumptions are based on past experiences, he isn’t consistent. The claim blurs the line between make-believe and reality. Experience is real. If we listen to God, He reveals reality through experience, but human assumption-based interpretation of experience isn’t real. Assumptions are made-up. They’re make-believe. And if we interpret revelation or observation based on assumption, we run into the same problem. Reality is one thing. Assumption-based interpretation of reality is another thing. Blurring the difference between these two is insane.

And this problem with assumptions is almost universal since human interpretation often goes beyond reality. While we base part of our speculative interpretations on reality, we pretend that some made-up stuff is true. If we reason to conclusions based on what we made-up while we were interpreting, we make matters worse. To obscure reality even further, the irrational reasoning may use many complex steps to hide what’s happening. In this way, complexity helps hide two things: (1) the basis when the basis is made-up stuff and (2) the missing foundation for thought. As a result, human interpretation that allows even a single hidden assumption is just making believe. It’s just pretending.

To understand the contrast, we can consider how children make believe. We see that they base their make-believe partly on past experiences of reality, but their make-believe isn’t reality. Instead, their make-believe is always distinct from reality, and we call our ability to see this difference “sanity.” Conversely, if we lose our ability to tell the difference between reality and make-believe, we call this loss “insanity.” Children usually know the difference, while we adults often lose the distinction. Entire groupings of intelligent adults engage in mass insanity in a permanent state of pretending. That hardens their thinking against God, and they’re no longer able to come to Him in childlike surrender.

“Truly I say to you, if you are not converted and become as the little children, you shall never enter into the kingdom of the heavens.” (Matthew 18:3 Berean Literal Bible)

</end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this FREE book yet? “Real Faith & Reason” gives the absolutely certain proof of the Bible and the God of the Bible and shows how you can have real faith. This is faith that changes situations and transfigures you from glory to glory.

You can BUY  it on Amazon, but you can get 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>

As we’ve seen, ungodly thinkers always make up something and then use that made-up stuff as a foundation or starting point for their reasoning. That made-up stuff is the basis for their reasoning. And we’ve discovered that ungodly thinkers have to make up something to do any reasoning at all. Then they almost always hide the assumption, pretend it’s not made-up stuff, or defend their habit of basing all thought on made-up stuff. As a result, ungodly thinking gets complex. And complex irrationality is difficult to evaluate. That’s why ungodly thinkers use complexity and confusion to hide their axiomatic thinking fallacies.

Someone may say, “There’s another way besides making up stuff and using smokescreen fallacies, and that way is observation.” This claim introduces a third source, observation, but observation is one of the ways God reveals reality to humanity. Claiming that observation is separate from divine revelation commits a fallacy known as denying the correlative conjunction. Though God reveals reality to us through observation, the human mind filters and distorts revelation unless the observer is in submission to the Anointing of the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, if the human mind interprets observation in a way that goes beyond observation, it corrupts observation. Therefore, theories corrupt science as soon as anyone treats theories as if they were more than an organized way to think about made-up stuff. As we think about this corruption, we’re aware that people who build their lives on theories find it difficult to consider the possibility that their theories aren’t a solid foundation. However, whatever can be shaken will be shaken so what can’t be shaken will remain.

Also, we can’t observe objectively without divine intervention since we can’t get outside of ourselves to be objective, and our worldviews filter our observations. As a result, our worldviews act as a veil or filter over our senses and thoughts, so when God wants to reveal something to us, He pulls back this veil of the worldview. “Removing the veil” is the literal meaning of “revelation.” Scripture interprets the meaning of “the veil.” The veil is a symbol of our human fleshly nature. Those who reject God try to stop God’s revelation. They often substitute a vision out of their innermost minds, but when they do, these visions come out of their worldviews, which are part of their fleshly natures. As we progress on our journey in the next trip, we’ll explore the fantasy land of worldviews. We’ll also explore more of the arguments that persuaders use to defend ungodly thinking in the book Real Faith & Reason Volume Three.

</end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this FREE book yet? “Real Faith & Reason” gives the absolutely certain proof of the Bible and the God of the Bible and shows how you can have real faith. This is faith that changes situations and transfigures you from glory to glory.

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

<quote from Real Faith & Reason>
While people sometimes deliberately use logical fallacies to deceive others, more often, people deceive themselves. The ungodly thinking fallacy is the only fallacy since we can define every fallacy in the context of the ungodly thinking fallacy. Without divine revelation, we would be doomed to base every conclusion on made-up stuff, that is, bare claims. Those bare claims are axiomatic thinking fallacies. However, we try to make the made-up stuff look like real stuff using smokescreen fallacies. So, the ungodly thinking fallacy consists of axiomatic thinking fallacies along with smokescreen fallacies that try to make the axioms seem real.

In simple terms, the ungodly thinking fallacy is making up stuff and calling the made-up stuff “true.”

At the risk of being redundant, we’re going to look at this ungodly thinking fallacy another way. We want to understand the basis of all fallacies. The simplicity of this understanding is that while hundreds of fallacies exist, they sort into these two kinds.

Axioms are claims that we don’t know. They may be outright lies. They may be assumptions. They’re always made-up stuff.

Smokescreen fallacies give the illusion that made-up stuff is real stuff.

And that’s how simple it is. It’s so simple that most people miss it. And yet, even though it’s simple, fallacies can be tricky illusions. They must blur the division between reality and make-believe or the fallacies don’t work.

Many fallacies fit the term “axiomatic thinking fallacy.” These fallacies are all axiomatic thinking fallacies, but they’re different from each other. Under the axiomatic thinking fallacy, we’ll find fallacies like the following:

• assumption
• blind authority
• bold-faced lie
• hypothesis contrary to fact
• ipse dixit
• lie
• misrepresenting facts
• outright lie
• the big lie technique

Under the smokescreen category of fallacy, we’ll find things like the following:

• ambiguity
• appeal to authority
• appeal to emotion
• appeal to ridicule
• circular reasoning
• coercion
• comparison
• contradiction
• distraction
• fallacies of cause
• fallacies of choice
• fallacies of omission
• fallacies of pressure
• flawed evidence
• genetic fallacies
• infinite regression
• invalid form (formal fallacies)
• limiting presuppositions
• message control
• non sequitur
• statistical fallacies
  </end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this FREE book yet? “Real Faith & Reason” gives the absolutely certain proof of the Bible and the God of the Bible and shows how you can have real faith. This is faith that changes situations and transfigures you from glory to glory.

You can BUY it on Amazon, but you can get 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>

“Axiomatic thinking” is a fancy way of saying “making up stuff.” So thinkers sometimes make up stuff, but how does made-up stuff look? It looks like interpretations, speculative explanations, models, theories, theologies, assumptions, or axioms. These add to what God reveals or diminish parts of what God reveals.

While circular reasoning and infinite regression are smokescreen fallacies, they aren’t the only smokescreens as we’ve mentioned. For instance, neither circular reasoning nor infinite regression includes appeal to ridicule fallacies or red herring fallacies. In fact, the trilemma missed hundreds of fallacies, but those other fallacies affect our daily lives. While the trilemma doesn’t cover all these other fallacies, the term “smokescreen” does cover them, so we’ll trim the trilemma to made-up stuff and smokescreen fallacies.

As we’ve discovered, the ungodly thinking trilemma has several problems. First, it’s too complex. Second, it doesn’t account for all the other fallacies that cause errors in thinking. Third, it begins with an assumption of naturalism or atheism. Fourth, some people work under the illusion that the trilemma affects everyone, everywhere, in every circumstance—that’s not true.

So on our journey, we move forward to a much simpler way to understand the problem. Thinkers only commit one active fallacy: making up stuff. All other fallacies are smokescreens. Smokescreens try to give the illusion that made-up stuff is real stuff.

So axiomatic thinkers are either making up stuff or defending their made-up stuff. Since this two-part fallacy only impacts ungodly thinkers, we name it “the ungodly thinking fallacy” and dispense with the trilemma going forward.

</end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this FREE book yet? “Real Faith & Reason” gives the absolutely certain proof of the Bible and the God of the Bible and shows how you can have real faith. This is faith that changes situations and transfigures you from glory to glory.

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

<quote from Real Faith & Reason>

Ungodly thinkers have no choice but to reason using axiomatic thinking fallacies, and then they use smokescreen fallacies to cover up their axiomatic thinking. Circular reasoning and infinite regression are only two of hundreds of possible smokescreens. For instance, in socialist countries, the smokescreens include appeal to fear, appeal to force, and message control.

</end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this FREE book yet? “Real Faith & Reason” gives the absolutely certain proof of the Bible and the God of the Bible and shows how you can have real faith. This is faith that changes situations and transfigures you from glory to glory.

You can BUY  it on Amazon, but you can get 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>
We need to define our options for thinking more clearly. We can choose demonic influence. We can choose the ungodly thinking trilemma. Most people know of this as Münchausen trilemma, and this trilemma offers a choice of the axiomatic thinking fallacy, circular reasoning fallacy, or the infinite regression fallacy. However, we can also choose divine revelation. We’re now thinking of our options as five choices: demons, axioms, circular reasoning, infinite regression, or divine revelation. Only divine revelation can give us truth.

Up to this point, we’ve focused considerable energy on a true premise. However, even given a true premise and valid form, there’s more to truth than a true premise and valid form. Truth is spiritual, and logic without Jesus Christ is futile. He is the Logos. A person can repeat a creed without knowing Christ, or a Christian can use logic to defeat an anti-God thinker in a debate, yet this Christian may not know Christ. To put it in explicit terms, this Christian may never acknowledge Christ’s voice or allow God’s grace to do God’s works through him or her. But Jesus said, “These people honor Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me.” Perhaps we’re all guilty of this error sometimes, and yet God leads us forward in Him if we cooperate with the Holy Spirit. Jesus is the Truth, and God has hidden all knowledge and all wisdom in Him.

Let’s consider one more conversation.

Rocky: “Godless thinking ends in irrational thinking. Godless thinking doesn’t need a premise. It uses assertions.”

Sandy: “You went to debate school so you can distance yourself from a conversation with logic. Is that a premise or an assertion?”

Ungodly thinkers who are trolling the Internet don’t necessarily make sense. The remarks about debate school and logic don’t make sense, nor do these remarks relate to anything that came before them.

Rocky: “You wouldn’t know since every time you try to reason beyond your immediate sensations you have to do so based on made-up stuff. That’s not a slam. It’s the result of the Münchausen trilemma. It’s the fate of every ungodly thinker.”

Sandy: “You refuse to learn anything about biology to support your claims, and I am not going to write a term paper for your edification.”

Now, Sandy brings up biology, which has nothing to do with the discussion. With Internet trolls, they may just be copying and pasting comments from a document of trolling posts without regard to the discussion.

Rocky: “As I said, you wouldn’t know since every time you try to reason beyond your immediate sensations you have to do so based on made-up stuff. That’s not a slam. It’s the result of the Münchausen trilemma. It’s the fate of every ungodly thinker. Are you bringing up biology because you want to discuss the stories of evolutionism? You aren’t equipped to discuss those either since every time you try to reason beyond your immediate sensations you have to do so based on made-up stuff.”

Sandy: “Ok. Now you are just repeating yourself word for word. I am not reasoning from my own senses. I was saying you could open your eyes and look around every once in a while. But nobody’s ever seen DNA with the unaided eye. We interpret the results of DNA testing with our eyes, but the math is there whether we are looking at it or not. No circular reasoning there. So yeah, scientific proofs require further proofs, but not ad infinitum. Science being based on previous science doesn’t make it axiomatic, it just means you have to learn the other previous science it rests on if you can’t take it for granted, but you are unwilling. No trilemma there.”

Rocky: “That’s exactly the problem. You aren’t reasoning from your senses as you say. You’re trying to reason beyond them. That’s why I said that you wouldn’t know since every time you try to reason beyond your immediate sensations you have to do so based on made-up stuff. If you understand this problem, you’ll stop arguing. As soon as “science” goes beyond observation, it’s either based on made-up stuff or divine revelation. If you have science based on previous science, you can’t base the previous science on stories, or you base it on made-up stuff. So, godless stories do fail because of the Münchausen trilemma. They’re irrational. Give that some thought. Think about it. See if you can understand it.”

Sandy: “Perhaps it would help if you defined made-up stuff.”

Rocky: “Stuff you make up. Like fabrications. Axiomatic thinking fallacies. The Münchausen trilemma would destroy all reasoning if Münchausen were right. It would destroy all science. However, Münchausen made the mistake of assuming the myth of naturalism. He assumed only a natural world and a natural mind. He’s right that you can’t prove anything if you assume naturalism. You can’t prove that observation, logic, or science have any value. You can’t even prove your existence. However, God reveals that observation, logic, and science have value. All you lose is the ability to think beyond your senses. You can’t think beyond your senses without divine revelation. So, you can fry an egg. You can invent a cell phone. But you can’t rationally guess how much of that ability comes from tinkering with what your senses tell you and how much God reveals to you. You can invent a new microscope or telescope to improve your capacity to see. But you can’t rationally extrapolate from observation to a story about evolutionism or millions of years. You can’t rationally talk about right, wrong, God, philosophy, or anything else that you can’t sense with your five natural senses.”
</end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this FREE book yet? “Real Faith & Reason” gives the absolutely certain proof of the Bible and the God of the Bible and shows how you can have real faith. This is faith that changes situations and transfigures you from glory to glory.

You can BUY it on Amazon, but you can get 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>
We need to define our options for thinking more clearly. We can choose demonic influence. We can choose the ungodly thinking trilemma. Most people know of this as Münchausen trilemma, and this trilemma offers a choice of the axiomatic thinking fallacy, circular reasoning fallacy, or the infinite regression fallacy. However, we can also choose divine revelation. We’re now thinking of our options as five choices: demons, axioms, circular reasoning, infinite regression, or divine revelation. Only divine revelation can give us truth.

Up to this point, we’ve focused considerable energy on a true premise. However, even given a true premise and valid form, there’s more to truth than a true premise and valid form. Truth is spiritual, and logic without Jesus Christ is futile. He is the Logos. A person can repeat a creed without knowing Christ, or a Christian can use logic to defeat an anti-God thinker in a debate, yet this Christian may not know Christ. To put it in explicit terms, this Christian may never acknowledge Christ’s voice or allow God’s grace to do God’s works through him or her. But Jesus said, “These people honor Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me.” Perhaps we’re all guilty of this error sometimes, and yet God leads us forward in Him if we cooperate with the Holy Spirit. Jesus is the Truth, and God has hidden all knowledge and all wisdom in Him.

Let’s consider one more conversation.

Rocky: “Godless thinking ends in irrational thinking. Godless thinking doesn’t need a premise. It uses assertions.”

Sandy: “You went to debate school so you can distance yourself from a conversation with logic. Is that a premise or an assertion?”

Ungodly thinkers who are trolling the Internet don’t necessarily make sense. The remarks about debate school and logic don’t make sense, nor do these remarks relate to anything that came before them.

Rocky: “You wouldn’t know since every time you try to reason beyond your immediate sensations you have to do so based on made-up stuff. That’s not a slam. It’s the result of the Münchausen trilemma. It’s the fate of every ungodly thinker.”

Sandy: “You refuse to learn anything about biology to support your claims, and I am not going to write a term paper for your edification.”

Now, Sandy brings up biology, which has nothing to do with the discussion. With Internet trolls, they may just be copying and pasting comments from a document of trolling posts without regard to the discussion.

Rocky: “As I said, you wouldn’t know since every time you try to reason beyond your immediate sensations you have to do so based on made-up stuff. That’s not a slam. It’s the result of the Münchausen trilemma. It’s the fate of every ungodly thinker. Are you bringing up biology because you want to discuss the stories of evolutionism? You aren’t equipped to discuss those either since every time you try to reason beyond your immediate sensations you have to do so based on made-up stuff.”

Sandy: “Ok. Now you are just repeating yourself word for word. I am not reasoning from my own senses. I was saying you could open your eyes and look around every once in a while. But nobody’s ever seen DNA with the unaided eye. We interpret the results of DNA testing with our eyes, but the math is there whether we are looking at it or not. No circular reasoning there. So yeah, scientific proofs require further proofs, but not ad infinitum. Science being based on previous science doesn’t make it axiomatic, it just means you have to learn the other previous science it rests on if you can’t take it for granted, but you are unwilling. No trilemma there.”

Rocky: “That’s exactly the problem. You aren’t reasoning from your senses as you say. You’re trying to reason beyond them. That’s why I said that you wouldn’t know since every time you try to reason beyond your immediate sensations you have to do so based on made-up stuff. If you understand this problem, you’ll stop arguing. As soon as “science” goes beyond observation, it’s either based on made-up stuff or divine revelation. If you have science based on previous science, you can’t base the previous science on stories, or you base it on made-up stuff. So, godless stories do fail because of the Münchausen trilemma. They’re irrational. Give that some thought. Think about it. See if you can understand it.”

Sandy: “Perhaps it would help if you defined made-up stuff.”

Rocky: “Stuff you make up. Like fabrications. Axiomatic thinking fallacies. The Münchausen trilemma would destroy all reasoning if Münchausen were right. It would destroy all science. However, Münchausen made the mistake of assuming the myth of naturalism. He assumed only a natural world and a natural mind. He’s right that you can’t prove anything if you assume naturalism. You can’t prove that observation, logic, or science have any value. You can’t even prove your existence. However, God reveals that observation, logic, and science have value. All you lose is the ability to think beyond your senses. You can’t think beyond your senses without divine revelation. So, you can fry an egg. You can invent a cell phone. But you can’t rationally guess how much of that ability comes from tinkering with what your senses tell you and how much God reveals to you. You can invent a new microscope or telescope to improve your capacity to see. But you can’t rationally extrapolate from observation to a story about evolutionism or millions of years. You can’t rationally talk about right, wrong, God, philosophy, or anything else that you can’t sense with your five natural senses.”
</end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this FREE book yet? “Real Faith & Reason” gives the absolutely certain proof of the Bible and the God of the Bible and shows how you can have real faith. This is faith that changes situations and transfigures you from glory to glory.

You can BUY it on Amazon, but you can get 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>

Denying demonic influence is failing to deal with reality, yet demons don’t help us reason. Oh, occult spirit guides give the illusion of help, but they’re deceitful and dangerous. And while we don’t want to glorify the devil, we don’t want to deny what God has revealed about him either, so we’ll look briefly into what God has revealed and then move on.

We’re forced to admit that many scientists have used occult techniques, and many religions follow demons as gods. People join self-help programs that say they’ll tap into human potential when the programs are gateways to demonic possession. Some of these self-help programs claim that they can increase our IQs and give us secret knowledge, promising to break addictions and destructive habits, undo negative life-patterns, and unlock the power of our minds. Not only so, but they also claim their programs can overcome stress, give relief from any crisis, and allow us to use our untapped mental energy in our careers. In short, these programs claim that they’ll give us success. Then in the seminar, students learn techniques for conjuring a spirit guide, a familiar spirit, to “help” them throughout their lives.

Beyond these “self-help” programs, many other gateways exist for demonic influence. Most, if not all, of the extra-terrestrial experiences are similar to demonic possession experiences. Also, some people actively practice Wicca, Neopaganism, and Satanism in the highest levels of organizations and governments. Plus, many religions conjure demons. We should bear in mind that demons eventually want to kill us.

Therefore, in science, business, and daily living, the three possible sources for interpretation of experience and observation are (1) human imagination, which is making up stuff, (2) divine revelation, or (3) demonic magick. While we may not like to think anyone is using demonic magick in science or business, some people use demonic magick as a regular part of their lives.

Contrast this wickedness with divine revelation. Unique from all other ways of thinking, divine revelation results in a premise we know is true, so we have a Foundation for sound reasoning with divine revelation. That Foundation is Christ Himself. Also, love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, goodness, meekness, hope, and inner strength are only available through the Holy Spirit. Our fleshly nature can only produce counterfeits of these. And when considering divine revelation, we’re mindful that observation and experience are two of the ways that God reveals reality to humanity. That is, He speaks to us through these things if we’re willing to take His correction and instruction.

</end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this FREE book yet? “Real Faith & Reason” gives the absolutely certain proof of the Bible and the God of the Bible and shows how you can have real faith. This is faith that changes situations and transfigures you from glory to glory.

You can BUY  it on Amazon, but you can get 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