2 Peter 2:12a and Jude 1:10 & 19 speak of those who are like brute beasts, unable to process rational thought and only able to respond to their five senses because they don’t listen to the Holy Spirit.

<quote>
Inductive Reasoning: True premises use language to argue for a conclusion. If the argument convinces someone, that person says that the argument is strong and cogent. If the premises aren’t proven, the inductive reasoning isn’t sound. If the premises are proven, but a person isn’t convinced, that person says the argument is weak and isn’t cogent. The word, “cogent,” means convincing or compelling, so inductive reasoning seems to speak to persuasion rather than knowledge of the truth. However, inductive reasoning can also be helpful for developing pragmatic solutions. All godless science is based on inductive reasoning, and some of that science produces working solutions and products. The usefulness of inductive reasoning depends on the form of inductive reasoning as we’ll define below.

Example :

If X is true, then Y could be true. X is true. Therefore, Y could be true.

Inductive reasoning is fundamentally unreliable. Some say that it deals with percentages of probabilities, but that isn’t usually the case. Most of the time, the thinkers who claim that something is probable or improbable haven’t calculated anything. They go by gut feeling or simply make an unsupported assertion. They might even calculate a supposed probability using an actual formula, for instance, Bayes Theorem. But if they insert assumed numbers into the calculation, they nullify the value of the calculation. As we look at various forms of inductive reasoning, we realize that those forms aren’t all created equal.

Inductive Generalization:

All the people I have known prefer Fords. Therefore, all people prefer Fords.

Statistical Syllogism:

Our historical records show that it rains the following day twenty percent of the time whenever we have the current atmospheric conditions. Therefore, we have a 20% chance of rain tomorrow.

Simple Induction:

Twenty-seven years ago, I was a Christian, and I prayed that God would answer my question about why He decided to send the Genesis Flood. Since I didn’t receive an answer that I couldn’t argue against, I conclude that God doesn’t exist.

Argument from Analogy:

Rats are similar in some ways to humans. We tested our drug on rats and haven’t seen any adverse effects. Therefore, it’s less likely that our drug will have adverse effects on humans.

Causal Inference:

Some people believe that natural selection caused some evolutionary changes. They believe that other factors caused other evolutionary changes. Therefore, molecules-to-humanity evolution happened.

Argument from Prediction:

If it’s raining outside, I would expect the sidewalk to be wet. The sidewalk is wet. Therefore, it’s raining outside.

Inductive reasoning can also be a Bayesian inference or inductive inference.

Thinkers reason with all of these inductive methods, and some of these methods are logical fallacies. Some of them can be helpful for decision-making, but none of them can lead to knowledge of truth. Most of them just give the illusion of rational thought but are irrational. To think irrationally is to think insanely.
</end quote>
#RealFaith #RealReason

Have you read this book yet?
http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_1_-_Scientia.pdf