Intense Deception

We are all affected by the great false prophet system of media and education. This complex system constantly bombards us with naturalism, materialism, humanism, and rationalism. Rationalism is the belief that the human mind can dream up truth without the benefit of either observation or divine revelation. These philosophies brought the great destruction of the French Revolution. And yet, people forget. What we hear repeatedly from many seemingly independent voices begins to sound “true” when it’s a lie.

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

When we associate assumptions with facts, they more easily deceive us. When we try to guess beyond facts, we think assumptions come out of the facts. However, they don’t come out of the facts. Instead, they float over the facts.

(end quote)

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Revelation versus Assumption

Notice the difference between assumptions and divine revelation.

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

Even though we can’t base assumptions on previous experiences directly, we assume carefully. Our assumptions don’t conflict with something real in a way that’s obvious. Not usually. Our assumptions conform to what anyone can easily check. Here’s the problem. Assumptions also conform to worldviews. And worldviews seem real. Hardened worldviews even seem more real than what we can easily observe. These are Satan’s strongholds in our minds.

Therefore, we must concede that people don’t always assume in a vacuum or in a way we can easily prove false. However, just because we make assumptions that don’t conflict with observations, Scripture, or experiences in an obvious way, that doesn’t mean the assumptions have somehow become true.

(end quote)

What God says is true. Assumptions consist of made-up stuff. When someone says the Big Bang Cosmology is fact, it’s OK to see if other cosmologies explain the observations as well or better. Those other cosmologies that work better expose the dogmatism of false science that insists on the Big Bang Cosmology. The danger is in thinking any cosmology is based on more than vapor. None of them can be proven. We can only prove they don’t conflict with what we observe or what God reveals. They are all laden with assumptions. There’s a vast gulf between assumptions and reality.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

False Science

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

More Complex than Assumption Based On Experience

 

Based on what we’ve just seen, we realize what’s happening here is more complex than just assumptions based on previous experiences. Bill Nye thinks his assumptions aren’t arbitrary, but all assumptions are arbitrary. He bases these assumptions on his arbitrary worldview. Why are worldviews arbitrary? All worldviews go beyond experience, observation, and divine revelation. Powerful social forces press for conformity in assumptions. This coercion from peer pressure makes Bill’s assumptions even more deceptive. Those pressing for conformity shun, exclude, or punish those who don’t conform. Those in control find ways to hurt anyone who doesn’t conform. Those who don’t conform lose money and opportunity. Then the fallacy of groupthink enters. It gives the illusion the assumptions have substance.

(end quote)

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Truth Only In Christ

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

Bill Nye admits he bases his thoughts on assumptions and still justifies this irrationality by saying he bases assumptions on experience. However, assumptions don’t come from experience directly as we’ve proved. While our experiences may be part of our thinking, we interpret our experiences by filtering them through our existing worldviews. Worldviews act like a thick veil to keep us from seeing reality directly. Only God can pull this veil away, and He does that whenever we yield to the Holy Spirit’s leading. Then, we automatically add the filtered impressions of experiences back into our worldviews as confirmation bias. As a result, our worldviews feel real. And confirmation bias reinforces the real-feel of the worldview. So when our assumptions and made-up stories come out of our worldviews, they seem more real than reality. We think our assumptions are real because our worldviews seem more real than reality. It’s deception. That’s why assumptions can seem obviously true. But all assumptions are illusions, and no assumptions are obviously true.

(end quote)

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Godless Thinking

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

But the question is whether we can use assumptions as a way of knowing. And we can’t. We try to avoid assuming because assuming is making up stuff and pretending what we made up is real. A chain of thought or a line of reasoning is only as strong as the weakest link. And assumptions are the weakest link we can get. But, we sometimes base our thinking on assumptions even though we try to avoid assuming. Because of the deceptive nature of worldviews from which assumptions come, we often don’t realize we’re assuming.

(end quote)

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Losing the Distinction

UNGODLY THINKERS LOSE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN ASSUMPTION AND OBSERVATION.

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

“Then, by the way, the fundamental thing that we disagree on, Mr. Ham, is this nature of what you can prove to yourself. This is to say, when people make assumptions based on radiometric dating, when they make assumptions about the expanding universe, when they make assumptions about the rate at which genes change in populations of bacteria in laboratory growth media, they’re making assumptions based on previous experience. They’re not coming out of whole cloth.” ~ Bill Nye

“assumptions about the rate at which genes change in populations of bacteria in laboratory growth media”

Why would we need to assume this rate? We can test and observe the rate at which genes change in populations of bacteria, but we can’t test assumptions. When Bill makes a statement like this one, we can see that he’s confused about the nature of assumptions. Specifically, he lost the contrast between assumption and observation. Could it be that he no longer knows the difference? Or is he doing whatever it takes to “win” an argument even if it takes crafty flimflam? We’re not picking on Bill since we’re probably all guilty of flimflam sometimes because the fallen fleshly nature likes to “win” and hates to “lose.” Again, we can’t look into Bill’s mind to see why he made these claims, but we can see that he wasn’t speaking rationally.

(end quote)

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Self-Deception

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

“Then, by the way, the fundamental thing that we disagree on, Mr. Ham, is this nature of what you can prove to yourself. This is to say, when people make assumptions based on radiometric dating, when they make assumptions about the expanding universe, when they make assumptions about the rate at which genes change in populations of bacteria in laboratory growth media, they’re making assumptions based on previous experience. They’re not coming out of whole cloth.” ~ Bill Nye

“assumptions about the expanding universe”

We can’t test assumptions about a supposed “expanding universe,” and contrary to what some people say, no one has observed an “expanding universe.” We do know God has expanded the universe in the past, and we know that by divine revelation. But how does Bill think he knows it’s expanding now? Admittedly, we can observe parts of the universe and assume nonsense. We can start from those observations and move smoothly to assumptions. From these assumptions, we can imagine an “expanding universe.” (Jake Hebert, Ph.D., Big Bang Blowup at Scientific American) Therefore, scientists interpret observations as a story about an “expanding universe,” and those who interpret it this way base this interpretation on assumptions. But Bill’s phrase presupposes a currently “expanding universe” using assumptive language. It’s worse than that. Bill oversimplified the problem. Scientists add more assumptions to the extrapolation of previous assumptions. They then use these assumptions to become dogmatic about their shaky conclusions. They finish with irrational conclusions based on layers of assumptions.

For instance, scientists base all radiometric dating on assumptions. Scientists must assume the conditions at time zero. The scientists who believe in billions of years assume zero contamination over time. They also assume a constant decay rate. They’re extrapolating back in time, but the further they extrapolate beyond what they observe, the more unreliable their calculations become. These scientists may think they’re using sound inductive logic, but they have left reality and spun away into the land of make-believe. They can’t prove any of their extrapolations with observation or experience. If they’re wrong on even one of their assumptions, they deceive themselves and anyone who believes them.

(end quote)

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Precisely and Consistently Arbitrary

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

Scientists observe and test. Then they make assumptions. Based on the assumptions, they calculate an age for the earth. These calculations don’t lead to tentative answers. They lead to arbitrary but precise answers. Arbitrary thinking is irrational.

Since they use the same assumptions, equipment, and methods they get precise answers. Since they ignore answers they didn’t expect they only report consistent answers. Since they always use assumptions, they get arbitrary answers. Their answers are consistently and precisely arbitrary.

(end quote)

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Inaccurate but Precise

There’s a difference between precision and accuracy. It’s possible to have precise answers that are wrong.

 

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

For example, scientists observe and test. Then they make assumptions. Based on the assumptions, they calculate an age for the earth. These calculations don’t lead to tentative answers. They lead to arbitrary but precise answers. Arbitrary thinking is irrational.

(end quote)

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Assumptions-Based Thinking Is Versatile

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

Assumption-based thinking is amazingly versatile since, once an ungodly thinker accepts reasoning based on made-up stuff, this ungodly thinker can prove anything the ungodly thinker wants to believe. If an ungodly thinker accepts made-up stuff as proof, then the ungodly thinker can use made-up stuff as proof to “prove” that we should accept made-up stuff as proof. Yes. That logic is insane because it’s circular. And made-up stuff can also “prove” that divine revelation can’t be proof. Anything goes in this make-believe world of an insane person. And ungodly thinkers find this insane logic handy when they want to question the truth they hate but also want to avoid questioning the lies they love.

(end quote)

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail