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

We walk by the faith that comes when we hear the rhema (utterance) of God, but some people feel certain they must base all thinking on made-up stuff. Here’s a typical example of a statement from someone who’s convinced all reason must begin with assumptions.

“All reasoning is based on assumptions. All reasoning is done from some point of view. All reasoning is based on data, information, and evidence.” ~ Richard Paul and Linda Elder, The Analysis and Assessment of Thinking

We immediately notice this quote mentions three items.

• assumption
• point of view
• data, information, and evidence

Is all reasoning based on assumptions? Must we always reason from some point of view? Must we always base our reason on our worldviews? If the answer to either of those two questions is “yes,” then no reasoning is based on truth, no reasoning is sound, and knowledge is impossible. Only opinions and manipulation exist if we must base all reasoning on assumptions or some point of view.

What makes the authors of The Analysis and Assessment of Thinking believe “all reasoning is based on assumptions?” What makes them think “all reasoning is done from some point of view?” They base both claims on assumptions. They assume all reasoning is based on assumption. They assume no reasoning is based on divine revelation.

We also notice the quote doesn’t define the terms, “data,” “information,” and “evidence.” Nor does this quote suggest where the data and information come from or how we know it’s accurate. The words “data,” “information,” and “evidence” often mean interpretations riddled with opinion and bias.

(end quote)

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

False Claim: All Reason Must begin with Assumptions

We’ve answered this claim, but we bring it up again because many persuaders say we must base all reasoning on assumptions. As we consider this claim, we understand axioms and presuppositions are types of assumptions, but we don’t believe all reasoning must begin with assumptions. Instead, we believe God is real rather than merely conceptual. We believe God is real because we know Him through Christ. We constantly experience the Holy Spirit leading, teaching, and correcting us moment by moment. As far as alternatives, we don’t know of any way other than either divine revelation or made-up stuff on which to base our reasoning. We base all reasoning on either assumptions or divine revelation.

(end quote)

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

Not surprisingly, it’s common for irrational people to use presuppositions for persuasion. They can often deceive us this way. Consider the following from a discussion group:

“I don’t know why young-earth creationists refuse to see the obvious evidence that God created the world using billions of years and evolution.”

This persuader nested six presuppositions in one sentence. The persuader used the words “know,” “why,” “refuse,” “see,” and “obvious.” What’s the claim the persuader is presupposing? The persuader is presupposing God created the world using billions of years and evolution. The so-called evidence is phantom evidence, and the persuader used the word “evidence” to presuppose billions of years and molecules-to-humanity evolution. If we answer this persuader completely, we have to refute six presuppositions before we deal with the claim.

(end quote)

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

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

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

Or how about this one?

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

(end quote)

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

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

1 : to suppose beforehand

2 : to require as an antecedent in logic or fact

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

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

“If X, then Y.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(end quote)

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

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

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

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

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

(end quote)

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

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

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

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

(end quote)

(quote from )

Continued analysis of this statement:

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

…

The unscrambled statement:

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

…

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

Sanity Test:

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

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

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

(end quote)

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

Continued analysis of this statement:

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

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

Four Steps

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

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

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

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

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

The unscrambled statement:

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

(end quote)