Naturalism: Severe Limits

<quote from Real Faith & Reason>
Here’s a question about the ungodly thinking trilemma: why stick to three choices when five choices exist, and why filter out the one choice that allows sound reasoning? Of course, there’s a reason that all ungodly thinkers filter possibilities this way. They have this problem because they bind themselves up by falsely assuming naturalism. Since they’ve chosen this way of thinking, naturalism filters their experience of life and twists their thinking. It irrationally eliminates divine revelation a priori. It’s worse than that. Naturalism forces ungodly thinkers to miss the opportunity to hear from the Absolute. It blocks them from hearing from the One Who created everything. They block their ears so they won’t hear from Him Who knows all things and can’t lie.
 
Ungodly thinkers refuse to consider revelation because revelation is outside the ungodly worldview. They’re also biased against Christ and His righteousness. God explains that they’re biased because their deeds are evil and they love darkness rather than light. They don’t reject revelation because of evidence but because of spiritual bias.
 
As we can see, reason and revelation aren’t in conflict. Revelation is the only basis for sound reasoning because sound reason must have a true premise. Reason can’t be sound without a true premise. Since no one can prove that a premise is true without divine revelation, ungodly thinkers have an unsolvable problem. Perhaps that’s what God means when He says, through Scripture, that all wisdom and all knowledge are hidden in Christ.
 
For the reasons just given, the time has come to trim the trilemma. While Agrippa, Münchausen, and Albert had a point, we can simplify this trilemma. 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.
 
 
http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_1_-_Scientia.pdf
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Truth is Spiritual

<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

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Speak as the Oracle of God

<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

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Three Authorities

<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

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Alternatives to the Münchausen Trilemma

<quote from Real Faith & Reason>
Alternatives to the Trilemma
 
While naturalists have no alternatives, those who follow Christ can be rational. The ungodly thinking trilemma only affects thinkers who think without God—ungodly thinkers. Of course, Christians are capable of ungodly thinking, and we confess our fault, but we have a better option. In contrast with this better way, the ungodly trilemma tries to limit all thinkers to three choices for thinking, and it ignores both divine revelation and demonic influence.
</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
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

There’s a Reason

<quote from Real Faith & Reason>

Note that pragmatism works for survival. It can be clever. It can do science. It can’t reason to truth. It can only have opinions. It can only react in conditioned response like Pavlov’s dogs. It can only handle the present and the material realm. You can find a more detailed listing, with refutations, in the book Real Faith & Reason Volume Three.

When skeptics, have finally admitted the ungodly thinking trilemma keeps them from knowing anything at all, they usually want to project this problem onto those of us who follow Christ. To project, they may claim that we aren’t experiencing Christ as we say we are. When they make that claim, they’re committing at least two fallacies. First, they’re gaslighting. Second, they’re claiming to know the inner spiritual experience of every person who has ever existed. They’re claiming to be all-knowing.

Sandy Sandbuilder: “You talk about experiencing divine revelation, but it’s all in your head. You have to understand. You can’t mention divine revelation when talking to someone who doesn’t believe. We go by facts and evidence, not by feelings or hearing voices. Nothing you’re saying is appealing to my logic.”

Rocky Rockbuilder: “Your claim is interesting since sound logic requires a true premise. How do you know a premise is true without divine revelation?”

Sandy: “I follow the evidence.” [This so-called evidence is phantom evidence, not proof.]

Rocky: “Does evidence mean absolute proof of truth, or does evidence mean made-up stuff?”

Sandy: “Evidence is proof I can tangibly see and manipulate and discover.”

Rocky: “Is your proof derived by making up stuff?”

Sandy: “No.”

Rocky: “How do you prove your proof then? Do you use some other proof you can’t prove? Are you familiar with infinite regression?”

Sandy: “I’m familiar with it, but I’m familiar with it regarding religion.”

Rocky: “So you know about an infinite regression of unproven proofs. Then are you familiar with the Münchausen trilemma?”

Sandy: “Yes, I’ve heard of it, but the argument pretty much is saying we can’t know anything is real. These two arguments hurt both of our positions.”

Rocky: “While it affects Christians and non-Christians alike, it only affects those who try to reason without divine revelation. Christians can use a true premise based on revelation. Are you sure you understand why this trilemma is so devastating? If you truly understood it, you wouldn’t bother reasoning.”

Sandy: “I can include divine revelation in the trilemma. How do you know that it’s divine? What truth do you use to determine that it’s divine revelation?”

Rocky: “When God speaks and I acknowledge Him, He authors His faith in my mind, and I know. Faith is substance as opposed to made-up stuff, and it’s absolute proof since Jesus Christ, the only Source of all truth, knowledge, and wisdom, is the Author of faith. Faith is the only way anyone can know anything. On the other hand, your claim of including divine revelation in the trilemma is an axiomatic thinking fallacy, so it fails on that horn of the trilemma. You can’t even prove it to yourself. In your theory, what prevents God from revealing reality miraculously to humans? What prevents God from revealing the difference between human thought and His revelation?”

Sandy: “Why isn’t God included in the trilemma?” [Rocky just answered this question, but we’re dealing with Sandy’s worldview filter that won’t allow him to understand.]

Rocky: “I can’t imagine a way anyone could rationally think the ungodly trilemma demolishes divine revelation in the way it demolishes ungodly thinking. I would have to know how you try to fit God’s divine revelation into the trilemma to answer your question. I don’t see how you can do it. But you may have a presupposition that makes you think divine revelation fits into the trilemma. I can’t answer your presupposition unless I know what it is.”

Sandy: “I guess it’s the lack of presupposition that is my problem. I don’t assume a god, and I don’t assume divinity. So I think it’s perfectly okay to question the validity of both knowledge of divinity and reality of God.”

Rocky: “You didn’t answer the question. Walk me through your logic step by step. Show me how you think you know that when God speaks to me, it constitutes one of the three fallacies of the trilemma. When I say, “walk me through your logic,” I mean without any bare claims. You must base your claims on absolute proof. To clarify, when you say you have no presuppositions, you’re claiming to have absolute proof. You’re claiming that your proof doesn’t depend on any assumptions, stories, conceptual frameworks, ideas, or other forms of made-up stuff. Since you think you can include revelation in this ungodly thinking trilemma, you ought to be able to explain exactly what makes you think so. And you ought to be able to tell me how I can check it out for myself without assuming anything. I gave you a way to check out Jesus Christ without making assumptions when I explained how I know that God reveals truth and how you can also know, simply by getting to know Christ, that God reveals truth.”

 Sandy: “OK. Here’s my logical reasoning. I presuppose no Almighty God as a starting axiom. If there is no Almighty God, then God cannot possibly impart knowledge and bypass the human inability to self-generate knowledge. If God cannot possibly impart knowledge and bypass the human inability to self-generate knowledge, then all supposed divine revelation originates as an assumption in the human mind. Therefore, all supposed divine revelation originates as an assumption in the human mind. Therefore, God can’t impart a divine substance and certainty known as faith when He speaks, and so, no one can know anything by divine revelation because of begging the question and infinite regression.” [Sandy admitted that he’s basing his thinking on made-up stuff. Amazing! Keep in mind that this is a transcript of an actual conversation.]

Rocky: “OK. So you’re basing your thinking on the axiomatic thinking fallacy. In other words, you’re starting by assuming the thing you’re trying to prove.”

Sandy: “Then I’m misunderstanding. How is your concept not starting with the thing you’re trying to prove?”

We notice the subtle change that misunderstands the circular reasoning fallacy. Rocky said, “starting by assuming the thing you’re trying to prove.” Sandy switched Rocky’s statement to “starting with the thing you’re trying to prove.”

And Sandy also committed another axiomatic thinking fallacy when he used the word “concept.” He committed this sly suggestion by innuendo, but his actual claim is, “God is just a concept in your mind.”

Rocky: “Within your presupposition of ‘no God’ you can’t have understanding. You can only make up stuff and call the made-up stuff true. Well, you can scour the Internet for other people’s made-up stuff and call this made-up stuff true. I’ll grant you that. But you have to break out of this box you’re in if you want to understand anything.”

“We either start our thinking with God Who is real and verifiable, or we start our thinking with a fake, unverifiable presupposition.”

Sandy: “With your presupposition of God, we are definitely at a stalemate!”

Again, Sandy twists Rocky’s testimony that God reveals Himself, His will, and His truth. Sandy filters that testimony through his worldview and shoehorns it into the phrase “your presupposition of God.”

Rocky: “First, I’m not trying to prove anything. God proves Himself to me. I don’t tell you about my relationship with God to prove God to you. I tell you about it as a spiritual testimony of my ongoing experience. There’s a difference between explanation and proof. Second, you’re presupposing that I’m basing my thinking on presupposition, which is another example of you making up stuff and calling the made-up stuff true. Third, you can’t define a process by which you could know anything, yet you presume to know that I’m assuming rather than experiencing God’s revelation. In other words, you’re claiming to read my mind. Fourth, you can’t define a process by which I could verify any of your claims. You ask me to believe you or some other fallen human without any proof. You ask me to believe a deceitful and desperately wicked mind, a mind that must rest every thought on fallacy and can’t possibly know anything.”

“On the other hand, I can tell you exactly how I know in simple terms. God reveals it to me. It’s that simple. Not only so, but you can check this revelation. You don’t have to take my word for it. You can seek Christ yourself since everyone who seeks Him finds Him. I invite you to do so.”

We notice that Sandy is certain of his ability to reason, and he bases his certainty on a circular reasoning fallacy. Also, Sandy is certain that his impressions and experiences are real. Not only so, but he’s also certain of his interpretations that go beyond his ability to observe or experience, saying, “I follow the evidence.” What evidence could Sandy possibly observe that would tell him about Rocky’s inner spiritual experiences with Christ?

It quickly becomes obvious that Sandy’s so-called “evidence” isn’t observation and experience, but Sandy’s evidence consists of the stories that Sandy tells himself about reality. At the same time, Sandy has such unwarranted belief in his stories and assumptions about the lack of divine revelation that he tells Rocky that Rocky isn’t experiencing what Rocky is experiencing. We can see the double standard. Also, even after Rocky invited him to know Jesus Christ (examine the evidence), Sandy refused to do it (invincible ignorance fallacy).

This conversation, which is typical of the ungodly way to deal with the ungodly thinking trilemma, illustrates that Sandy has a problem of providing proof. For example, if Sandy says that there can be no proof of anything because no absolutes exist, Sandy can’t prove this statement. Or if Sandy says God doesn’t reveal, Sandy is claiming to be all-knowing and has no proof for his claim. In fact, Sandy must base any claim he makes on made-up stuff. Sandy can’t make a rational statement because rational statements must be based on truth, and ungodly thinkers have no path to truth.

Similarly, any argument against divine revelation fails because it must rest on fallacies. The fallacies are axiomatic thinking fallacies and smokescreen fallacies. Now, we can see why all arguments against God and all arguments against the Bible fail.

</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

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Christ Defeats the Münchhausen Trilemma

<quote from Real Faith & Reason>
Failed Ungodly Solutions for the [Münchausen] Trilemma
 
Ungodly intellectuals have several ways of dealing with the ungodly thinking trilemma. Nevertheless, not one of those ways is rational. While fallacious dismissals of the trilemma are endless, here’s a short and partial list of ways to deal with the ungodly thinking trilemma.
 
  • Ignore it.
  • Hide it.
  • Make fun of anyone who points out the problem.
  • Claim multiple lines of evidence which are simply additional bare assertions.
  • Claim proximate knowledge.
  • Use pragmatism.
  • Claim that success equals sound reasoning.
  • Defend infinite regression.
  • Claim that many assumptions stacked on top of each other equal truth.
  • Defend circular reasoning.
  • Defend axiomatic thinking by declaring claims to be self-supporting or self-evident.
  • Defend axiomatic thinking by claiming that we must base all thinking on axioms.
  • Claim to use the right assumptions.
  • Redefine science.
  • Credit scientific advances to humanity rather than to God.
</end quote>
 
Only Christ and His moment-by-moment leading, teaching, and correcting can overcome the Münchausen Trilemma. He speaks to us through the Bible and every means of divine revelation mentioned in the Bible.
 
#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
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

A Good Reason to Believe

A Good Reason to Believe

<quote from Real Faith & Reason>

“The mark of rationality is to have a good reason for what we believe.” (Jason Lisle)

A good reason? What’s that? A good reason is a true premise and valid form, but we’re focusing on the premises. Conclusions can’t be better than the premises that prove them. If our premises are mere presuppositions, then they aren’t good, and we don’t have a good reason for what we believe. If our proof consists of mere presuppositions, we haven’t proved our conclusions. A presupposition has no truth because a presupposition is an unknown, and unknowns can’t lead to truth just as any other types of bare claim can’t lead to truth. Bare claims are mindless.

If God reveals something, what God reveals isn’t a human presupposition. Without exception what God reveals is true. But presupposition, being without a true premise, provides no way to have sound reasoning or a good reason for what we believe.

Even so, axiomatic thinking is widespread while truth is rare. We see axiomatic thinking in action when scientists teach that transitional forms exist or theologians teach speculative theologies, but both insist that they’re teaching reality. And surprisingly, there isn’t much difference between the reasoning processes of speculative scientists and speculative theologians since both start with evidence but base their claims on fantasy. In one case, the evidence is physical observation. In the other case, the evidence is Scripture. However, the claims speculate beyond the evidence in both cases. In neither case do persuaders base their conclusions on evidence. Instead, they use the filter of their worldviews to interpret evidence, and then they add imagination to shoehorn the evidence into their worldviews. Then they take their imagined speculations as axioms and repeat those speculated axioms until they think that the axioms that they imagined are part of the evidence. At this point, they can’t tell the difference between good versus evil, truth versus error, or reality versus make-believe.

No one has to have this problem. It’s a choice.

</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

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Godless Thinking is Ultimately Baseless

<quote from Real Faith & Reason>
Naturalism is a bare claim, but smokescreens make it harder to detect the fact that naturalism is an irrational bare claim. Smokescreens fog up the difference between good and evil, truth and error, or reality and make-believe. Since evolutionists must use naturalism as a starting assumption, they call it “an axiom of science” to make it seem more real. Of course, it’s easy to see how the word “axiom” sounds so much better than “made-up stuff.” The word “axiom” is a euphemism. Resorting to this euphemism is a smokescreen fallacy. If reasoning depends on naturalism, it depends on a premise that isn’t true. That’s why appeal to naturalism is a fallacy. The same is true of appeal to materialism and appeal to uniformitarianism. These aren’t proved, and we know, by revelation, that they’re false.

Besides the smokescreens already mentioned, deceptive persuaders may disguise their assumptions with misleading labeling. They might label the assumptions deceptively using terms like “knowledge,” “settled science,” or “rational thought.” We must guard our minds against these deceptions since disguising assumptions makes it hard to tell the difference between supposition and reality. We’ve seen this fallacy in rationalized theology just as we’ve seen it in rationalized speculations about the history of the earth. To rationalize isn’t rational, but it lacks rationality. It’s too bad these two words, “rational” and “rationalize,” sound similar. However, before we complete our journey, we’ll fully understand that rationalizing is trying to make irrationality seem rational. It’s trying to make insanity appear sane.
</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

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Naturalism is a Form of Atheism

Naturalism is a form of atheism.
 
<quote from Real Faith & Reason>
 
Naturalism is obvious. [To whom is it obvious and why?]
 
No one at the university follows any other way of thinking. [Bandwagon and marginalizing fallacies prove nothing.]
 
We must base science on naturalism, or all progress would cease. [An appeal to consequence fallacy based on an assertion contrary to fact provides phantom support for the axiom of naturalism.]
 
These are just three examples of defending naturalism with smokescreens. We may run into name-calling or summary dismissal. Some people use credentials as proof. Not only those, but hundreds of other smokescreen fallacies exist, and we’ll face them all. These smokescreens pretend that naturalism is more than an axiomatic thinking fallacy.
</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
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail