Science and the Bible are NOT in conflict

Science and the Bible are not in conflict with each other. Science and faith are not in conflict with each other. No need to change the Bible to make it fit speculations that are falsely labeled “science.” The reason may surprise you.

Find out more in the book “Real Faith & Reason Journey” that you can download FREE Now.

How to Benefit from this Book

  1. Download and read the book.
  2. As you read, ask God to reveal the truth and to destroy any thoughts that conflict with truth. As you read, sincerely ask Him to give you a mind that’s open to Him and His truth.
  3. Act on what you learn. Exercise the faith of God by yielding your spirit, mind, and body to it.

What You’ll Get if You Read and Act on this Book

  1. You’ll know the difference between real faith and make-believe faith, and doubts will disappear.
  2. You’ll know the foundation of real reason and be able to spot fake, deceptive, unsound reason.
  3. You’ll experience peace of mind and inner confidence beyond what you thought possible.
  4. You’ll be able to give this same foundation of rational thought to others.
  5. The wisdom, understanding, knowledge, love, righteousness, holiness, and freedom of Christ will begin to flow through you in an ever-increasing stream.

My Journey

This is my personal testimony. It’s how I found out that the Bible is the word of God without error. It’s how I found out that Jesus Christ is real and that anyone can know Him. It’s how I found out that every argument against Christ or the Bible is based on made-up stuff. Free Download


Find out more in the book “Real Faith & Reason Journey” that you can download FREE Now.

How to Benefit from this Book

  1. Download and read the book FREE:
  2. As you read, ask God to reveal the truth and to destroy any thoughts that conflict with truth. As you read, sincerely ask Him to give you a mind that’s open to Him and His truth.
  3. Act on what you learn. Exercise the faith of God by yielding your spirit, mind, and body to it.

What You’ll Get if You Read and Act on this Book

  1. You’ll know the difference between real faith and make-believe faith, and doubts will disappear.
  2. You’ll know the foundation of real reason and be able to spot fake, deceptive, unsound reason.
  3. You’ll experience peace of mind and inner confidence beyond what you thought possible.
  4. You’ll be able to give this same foundation of rational thought to others.
  5. The wisdom, understanding, knowledge, love, righteousness, holiness, and freedom of Christ will begin to flow through you in an ever-increasing stream.

What Can You Prove?

There is a deep settled peace of mind that can only come from absolute certainty of truth. The truth will set you free.

But how can you have certainty of truth? How can you have it absolutely?

We know that the Bible is true and that Christ is real because we know Christ. When He speaks to us, faith comes. He speaks through Scripture, but He also speaks through the things that He has created. He speaks in a lot of additional ways as well.

Download this FREE book for the rest of the story:


Deduction, Induction, Abduction, and the Problem of the True Premise

Deduction, Induction, Abduction, and the Problem of the True Premise

The intellectuals propose three basic forms of reasoning: inductive, deductive, and abductive. Without true premises, no reasoning is sound. In other words, if we make up stuff and inject that made-up stuff into our reasoning, we aren’t thinking rationally anymore. Our reasoning isn’t sound. Sound reasoning is sane reasoning. So, we need true premises to think in a rational way.

The trouble is that the human mind has no path to true premises. It does have the power to make up stuff and to use tricks (fallacies) to make the made-up stuff seem true, but it can’t reason to a true premise. It can live a brute beast life that merely reacts to the five natural senses. It can learn what works. It can learn what happens if we do a certain action, which is what real science is about. But it can’t reason about things like God, the age of the earth, the age of the universe, right, wrong, or truth without drifting into the land of make-believe.

Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument may be probable, based upon the evidence given. ~ Wikipedia

Some dictionaries define “deduction” as reasoning from the general to specific and “induction” as reasoning from the specific to the general. While this usage is still sometimes found even in philosophical and mathematical contexts, for the most part, it is outdated. ~ Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Deductive Reasoning: True premises use valid form to prove a conclusion. If the premises are true and the form is valid, the argument is sound, and the conclusion is true. If the premises aren’t known to be true, or the form is invalid, the argument is unsound, and the conclusion isn’t known to be true.

Example 1:

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

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 often speaks 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 2:

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.

While inductive reasoning can’t lead to knowledge of truth, we can use it to extend our observations and make predictions about the physical realm. The classic example is the ball on the table. We roll the ball off the table, and we observe that it falls to the ground. It never floats in the air. It never rises. If we do this multiple times, we can plan that the ball will fall the next time we roll it off the table. We can extrapolate that the ball will fall off the table every time if we do this same experiment once a minute for one year, ten years, or a thousand years. That’s inductive reasoning. It’s a form of inductive reasoning.

This principle works well for a ball on a table and its behavior when it hits the edge of the table. It doesn’t work at all for telling us why the ball always drops and never goes up. It doesn’t tell us whether there’s something about our observation that we don’t understand. Therefore, by this inductive inference, we can’t say for certain that the ball won’t float up the next time we knock it off the table. Inductive inference provides a way of survival, but it doesn’t lead us to knowledge of the truth.

By comparison, deductive reasoning is absolute but also requires a true premise. Only divine revelation can provide a true premise. By revelation we can know that God is faithful to enforce the laws of nature, so we can be confident that He’ll continue to enforce the law that makes the ball fall off the table. If He chooses to do a miracle (do something different), we know that He’ll make that slight and temporary exception in His wisdom and to complete His good purpose.

Since the premise for this knowledge is divine revelation and truth, we have a true premise, and we can use that true premise to reach a true conclusion. We can know with certainty. Therefore, we can continue to do science using inductive reasoning. We can continue to have absolute knowledge using deductive reasoning based on divine revelation. However, we would be irrational if we were to have absolute belief or conviction based on inductive reasoning.

Intellectuals argue against the problems they have with rational thought. When a person exalts the human mind and its ability to reason, the Münchausen trilemma (ungodly thinking problem) is an irritation that they must explain away. As we’ve seen, the ungodly thinking problem keeps human minds from having true premises without divine revelation.

Intellectuals have many ways to explain away this problem, and one of those ways is by appealing to induction. Typically, intellectuals will make an assertion that goes well beyond the information that they can get from their five senses. For instance, they may deny that anyone can know God. They may dogmatically believe in evolutionism or old-earthism. They may make statements about morals or history. They have no way to have a true premise for claims that go beyond their five senses, but they say, “I use inductive reasoning rather than deductive reasoning, so it doesn’t matter that I can’t prove my premises.” That isn’t true. Both inductive and deductive reasoning require true premises or they’re irrational. They aren’t sound. They aren’t sane.

Abductive Reasoning: In the absence of a true premise, both deductive and inductive reasoning default to abductive reasoning, which some people say is guessing. However, abduction isn’t always guessing. It’s intuitive. Abduction is a source of information in the same way that observation is a source of information. God can speak through the intuition, but so can demons, and so can our fallen fleshly minds. God tells the truth, demons lie, and the fleshly mind makes up stuff. We pray for God to make the difference plain to us, and He promises to answer that prayer.


Emmett Fields on Athiesm


Emmett F. Fields’ quote:

“Atheism is more than just the knowledge that gods do not exist, and that religion is either a mistake or a fraud. Atheism is an attitude, a frame of mind that looks at the world objectively, fearlessly, always trying to understand all things as a part of nature.”

Explaining the Fallacies

The phrase, “knowledge that gods do not exist,” asserts a universal negative. Only God can assert a universal negative since universal negatives require an all-knowing mind. Most atheists have stopped claiming that God doesn’t exist for this reason. It’s a position that no one can rationally defend since it’s based on a huge fallacy. In effect, Emmett Fields is speaking for all Atheists. He’s saying that they all assert this universal negative. In so doing, Emmett is claiming to be all-knowing, and he’s saying that all Atheists are also all-knowing.

Next, he asserts a universal positive. Universal positives run into the same problem that universal negatives run into. Only God can assert universal positives since universal positives also require omniscience. He claims to know that “religion is either a mistake or a fraud.” He boldly makes this universal statement about all religions.

Another Emmett F. Fields’ quote:

“Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom, Atheism is human concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind cannot begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an old religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and never has been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent in its simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness.” ~ Emmett Fields

He conveniently claims that Atheism isn’t a religion, although, he claims that Atheism has the beliefs in the quote above. As with all religions, Emmett claims that Atheism is “bedrock certainty in a world of madness.” All religions claim bedrock certainty and call everyone who disagrees “mad.” How is Atheism so special?

Atheism is “reality” itself? Why? Can Emmett prove the claims he makes for Atheism? No.

Atheism is “reason” itself? Show me the absolutely true premises. Atheism has none. Sound reasoning requires true premises. Truth is absolute by definition.

Atheism is “human concern”? Really? What is the bedrock basis of this concern? That would also require absolutely true premises. Atheism has no true premises for anything. Atheism can never extend beyond strongly but irrationally held opinions.

Atheism is “intellectual honesty”? That’s laughable. The entire philosophy requires intellectual dishonesty throughout. Emmett’s claims are all bare assertions. Bare assertions are the ultimate in intellectual dishonesty. And yet, every claim of an Atheist that tries to extend thought beyond what the Atheist observes or experiences is based on made-up stuff. Made-up stuff is the fakery that’s behind every intellectually dishonest claim.

By saying that all religions are either mistakes or frauds, Emmett is saying that all of us who follow Christ are either making mistakes or being deceived by frauds. He’s saying that he absolutely knows that we aren’t experiencing what we’re experiencing. You may wonder where the trolls on the Internet get this kind of nonsense. They learn it from so-called “intellectuals.” It would be good to get an understanding of the nature of epistemology or logic to avoid such fallacies as these. Clearly, much of religion is a mistake. Much of religion is also a fraud. However, to make the universal statement that Emmett made is irrational. I’ll explain how we know that Christ is real before I’m finished, but first, let’s go on to the next fallacy.

Emmett, speaking for all Atheists, claims that Atheism looks at the world “objectively.” That, in itself, commits the ontic fallacy. No one can get outside of himself or herself to objectively look at the world around us. Objectivity would require a miracle. God would need to intervene.

But going beyond the false claim of objectivity, Emmett sets a rule that all things must be interpreted as part of nature. This is the fallacy of Naturalism. Naturalism is a philosophy or religion. It’s a bare claim that Naturalists use as a filter to interpret every observation and experience. Making a bare claim is a fallacy. It’s the axiomatic thinking fallacy.

By purposely setting Naturalism as his filter, Emmett becomes totally biased toward Naturalism. He then uses a circular reasoning fallacy. He assumes Naturalism, which means that he assumes that God doesn’t exist and that the spiritual realm doesn’t exist. Then he uses his assumption to “prove” that God doesn’t exist and that the spiritual realm doesn’t exist. He uses this fallacious thinking to reject any evidence for God or the spiritual realm.

It’s good that Emmett admits his bias, but he also exposes his inconsistent thinking. He thinks that he’s objective. And yet, he admits that he’s biased by the philosophy of Naturalism.

Not only does Naturalism deny the existence of God, but it also commits the fallacy of asserting other universal negatives. For instance, it asserts that no miracles happen and that God doesn’t reveal anything to anyone. I’ve seen Naturalists argue that God wouldn’t be capable of overcoming the weakness of the human mind to reveal His will and absolute truth to humans who are willing to listen to the Holy Spirit. What would prevent the Almighty God from doing this? Naturalism also claims to know that God didn’t create the heavens, the earth, and the seas and everything in them. And it claims that the Genesis Flood didn’t take place. Not one of these claims is objective. They’re all irrational claims.

I said that I would explain how we know that Christ is real. We know that Christ is real because we know Him. He leads, teaches, and corrects every person who follows Him. When we listen to Him, He imparts a supernatural substance into us called faith. His faith is substance, which is reality as opposed to concept. And His faith evidence, which is absolutely certain proof of the truths that He reveals to us through His leading, teaching, and correcting. He leads, teaches, and corrects us through Scripture and every means He mentions in Scripture. And one last but very important point, He never contradicts Himself. That means that He never contradicts Scripture.

As we journey on with Christ, He provides the true premises for our reasoning. Sound logic requires true premises, but the fallen human mind has no path to true premises. Atheists and Naturalists make up excuses for this reason-killing problem and continue to justify irrational reasoning. The don’t allow reality to hinder their madness. However, those of us who follow Christ have the option of thinking rationally. We don’t always listen to Christ, but, when we do, we can be rational. Not only can we be rational, but we can also have true love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, goodness, meekness, humility, inner strength, faith, hope, and righteousness. It’s all available in Him.


Being a Humanist

Kurt Vonnegut gave his definition of what it means to be a humanist. Well, he gave a statement about it. He didn’t give a complete definition.

What do you suppose that he’s referencing when he says, “without the expectation of rewards or punishments after you are dead?” Several things. What he implies is that there are no consequences for what we do in this life, nothing that lasts after we die. Most humanists say that they don’t believe in an afterlife although they all know better. So, Vonnegut seems to be implying that he has no incentive for being decent other than his own inherent goodness.

That implies two other points. One, he implies that he knows the correct definition of what it is to “behave decently.” The other is that he thinks he’s able to fulfill what it is to “behave decently” without God’s goodness. His first assertion commits the moralistic fallacy. The human mind has no way to determine good, evil, right, wrong, decent, indecent, or any such thing without divine revelation. Any such self-generated assertion is a bare claim. Only God can determine what is right and what is wrong. Only God can reveal this reality to humans.

As to fulfilling what it is to “behave decently,” even after God has revealed His Laws to us, that is, His Love to us, we can’t possibly fulfill that Love without the God Who is Love.

Vonnegut also implies something about origins. Humanism requires a naturalistic (no God) origin of the universe. So Vonnegut’s statement isn’t made in a vacuum. He makes his statement under a cloud of no God in any aspect of life. This is a huge unsupported assertion, but it’s unspoken. It’s part of the word humanist.

What about those who follow Christ? If we expect that God will provide rewards and punishments, that means that we believe that God is just. It also means that actions have consequences. It doesn’t mean that we do good works to appease God or to work for our salvation. Salvation is a gift. God’s communication to every person is a gift. God’s faith is a gift. God’s grace is a gift. And righteousness is a gift from God.



Hemingway and Atheism


The meme may seem a bit bold but read on. The meme is actually true.

When Ernest Hemingway said, “All thinking men are atheists,” That isn’t a rational statement. I’ll explain that in a minute.

The meme says, “Atheists can’t think rationally.” That’s true because of this: “They have no path to true premises. Rational thought requires true premises.”

“Atheists have no path to true premises.” This goes to the Münchausen trilemma which explains that every conclusion requires further proof. Of course, the Münchausen trilemma doesn’t take into account divine revelation. All truth comes from God, and only He can reveal truth. We, who follow Christ, receive true premises from Christ directly as He speaks to us through Scripture and every means mentioned in Scripture. When we go to sources other than Christ, we are in the same trilemma as the atheists.

“Rational thought requires true premises.” This just means that we can’t make up stuff and then prove our points using our made-up stuff.

Was Earnest Hemingway an atheist? No one knows. He did make this one remark, actually from a character in one of his novels, that atheists use to convince people that he was an atheist. Certainly, he was a man with intense reasoning problems. It seems that he considered himself to be a rational man. However, this statement, “All thinking men are atheists,” isn’t rational for several reasons.

First, everyone thinks, so his claim is false. Rational thought is another matter. Not everyone thinks rationally. Perhaps Hemingway meant “rational” rather than “thinking.” Perhaps he meant to claim that all rational people are atheists. Perhaps he didn’t express himself clearly. If that’s what he meant, it would still be an amazing claim.

The claim that all rational people are atheists is a universal positive. It claims to know something about every member of a class that Hemingway called “men.” Given the language of his day, this claim may well have extended to women since the word “man” or “men” was used for humankind. So, he claims to know something that applies to all people. His claim is vague. It doesn’t explain what he means.

Let’s assume that he’s not claiming to know about every thought of every person who has ever lived. If he claimed that, it would be a bridge too far.

He might be saying that there is something about not being an atheist that automatically prevents people from thinking rationally. Perhaps he’s claiming to absolutely know that God doesn’t exist. That would be a universal negative, and most atheists have realized how silly that claim is. If an atheist thinks he or she knows such a thing, that atheist is claiming to know everything about everything. Most atheists don’t want to try to defend that claim anymore.

Those of us who know God through Jesus Christ have ongoing experiences with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God leads us, teaches us, and corrects us moment by moment. Hopefully, we listen and yield in submission to our God. That’s what we’re learning to do. As we yield, the Holy Spirit changes us by degrees from glory to glory into the image of Christ. What God says is truth. Therefore, we can have true premises as long as we don’t add to His words or diminish any of His words.

He speaks through Scripture and every means mentioned in Scripture. The first chapter of Romans tells us that He speaks through His creation and reveals Himself to every person this way. The twelfth chapter of First Corinthians tells us that He speaks through us when we speak by the Holy Spirit. Think about that. Of course, we must yield to Him if we are to speak as oracles of God. We don’t always do that. Sometimes, we yield to the flesh instead.

What about those who don’t follow Christ?

Those who don’t follow Christ have no path to true premises. They can observe and think pragmatically. They can’t reason to rational conclusions that go beyond what they observe. So, they can observe and test to find out what works. God helps them even though they refuse to thank Him for it. Any truth comes from God and God imparts truth to them. They just fail to glorify God for it.

In this way, they can do practical science. They can make cellphones. They can build skyscrapers. They can survive.

They just can’t reason rationally about things like truth, the origin of the world, morality, or any other such thing. God does reveal His morality to them, so they know that they fall short of His glory. God reveals how He formed the earth in the beginning and set the stars in place by His power, but they reject His revelation. Because they fail to acknowledge and glorify God, they can’t see any difference between the revelation that comes from God and the vapors that their own minds make up. They can’t tell the difference between reality and make-believe.

When confronted with these problems, it’s common for ungodly thinkers to assert that their own minds are able to make up stuff that is automatically true because it seems to make sense to them. We won’t get into the reasons that their made-up stuff seems real to them here, but you can get the book, Reason, First Leg of the Journey at You can get that book FREE. That book explains how they become so deceived.

So, they think that whatever they make up is true. By the power of this made-up stuff, they claim to know that God doesn’t reveal anything to us who follow Christ. They have several variations on this theme. Sometimes they claim to know that God doesn’t exist. These are the ones who didn’t get the note about universal negatives. Sometimes, they claim that God can’t reveal anything to anyone, which is another universal negative. Sometimes, they claim that God can’t reveal truth in a clear way that would allow us to understand, which is another universal negative. They may come from the side of the weakness of the human mind (the human mind is indeed totally helpless when trying to find truth) and then conclude that God can’t overcome that. However, God is well able to overcome our problem and impart truth to us. He won’t do it against our wills. When we resist Him, He backs off, but He’s always there. He’s all-knowing, almighty, and can’t lie. What would stop Him?



What About Other Gods?

“We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”  ~ Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

This statement misses the point. The point is that we know that God exists because we know Him. We know that Jesus Christ is God because we know Him. We know that the Bible is true because God reveals this fact to us.

Atheists have sometimes said that Christian faith is belief without evidence. Some Christians have said that faith is simply making ourselves believe—which would be make-believe. Others have said that faith is believing because of evidence. That is, we observe some things in the physical world, and then we interpret those things in a way that proves that God exists.

None of these are the faith as God defines it in the Bible and as Christ-followers experience it moment by moment.

Faith doesn’t come by observation of the physical realm. Faith doesn’t come by making ourselves believe.

“There were those who taught that you work your faith up within yourself by doing certain things and saying certain things—certain phraseologies like, ‘Lord, I believe, I believe, I believe.’ You don’t’ work it up that way because you don’t have it within yourself to begin with. It is something that is an impartation by God Almighty into the heart of man.” ~ Dr. Charles S. Price

How does faith come?

“Consequently, faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word (rhema, which means utterance) of Christ.” ~ Romans 10:17

God speaks through Scripture and every means of speaking that He mentions in Scripture.

What is faith?

“Faith is the substance (reality as opposed to concept) of things hoped (what God has said will be) for and the evidence (absolutely certain proof) of things not seen.” ~ Hebrews 11:1

Faith isn’t based on evidence. Faith is the evidence. Jesus Christ is the Author and Finisher of this faith. This is the faith that is of God. It’s not human make-believe faith. It’s solid and real.

Therefore, Richard Dawkins is wrong. He’s wrong because he’s basing His reason on made-up stuff. Atheists must always base all reasoning on made-up stuff.

So, once again, it comes down to divine revelation versus made-up stuff.



They Have No Excuse. They Know.

What makes an ungodly thinker believe that he or she doesn’t know that God exists? What makes them think that they haven’t suppressed the truth about God in their unrighteousness? God says that they did suppress the truth about God in their unrighteousness. God says that He revealed what can be known about God to them. God says that He turned them over to a depraved mind. God says that the human mind is deceitful and desperately wicked beyond the ability of anyone to know this mind.

When pressed on details about how matter formed from nothing (or from some unknown something), it’s common for them to claim ignorance. And yet, they’re dogmatic. When pressed on details about how the original living organism supposedly popped into existence, they often claim ignorance. And yet, they’re dogmatic.

We know that the Bible is true and that the God of the Bible is real because we know Him. We know Jesus Christ. We praise God for His abiding presence in our lives. We thank Him for His leading. We thank Him for correcting us when we’re wrong. He’s continually leading us forward.