Three Axiomatic Thinking Fallacies

Posted on by

3 axioms: Naturalism, Materialism, Uniformitarianism
 
<quote from Real Faith & Reason>
The big bang, billions of years, no Flood, and molecules to humankind stories depend on three axioms. Those axioms are naturalism, materialism, and uniformitarianism.
 
Smokescreen fallacies make axiomatic thinking fallacies seem real.
</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

Ungodly thinking must always resort to fallacy.

Posted on by

<quote from Real Faith & Reason>
Ungodly thinking must always resort to fallacy. Consider the following:

Skeptic: Divine revelation doesn’t happen.

Questioner: Why believe divine revelation doesn’t happen?

Skeptic: Its non-existence is self-evident.

The claim “Its non-existence is self-evident” is obvious axiomatic thinking. While this example is obvious, ungodly thinkers may use smokescreen fallacies to make the axiom seem real. Smokescreen fallacies always resolve to axiomatic thinking, but smokescreens are hard to uncover because they’re designed to deceive us. We usually have to probe to find the hidden assumptions.

By the way, we probe by asking questions. Unfortunately, ungodly thinkers often avoid answering questions, which is a type of smokescreen. The reason they refuse to answer questions is that they consciously or unconsciously want to hide the fact that every statement they make is based on made-up stuff. They avoid answering because they don’t want to think about their problems. They don’t want to open themselves up to the Holy Spirit to find out whether or not their philosophies or theologies are true. They want to stay as they are. To avoid exposure, thinkers who fear that they’re irrational will avoid answering questions. They can’t rationally defend their positions. They exert superhuman effort to keep themselves from acknowledging their irrationality.

From our standpoint, we’re looking for truth. We’re looking for true premises and sound logic. That means we’re looking for a foundation of divine revelation since only divine revelation can provide true premises and remove the need for fallacies. We’re willing to suffer the loss of all our ideas if those ideas are false. We already know, by divine revelation, that if anyone thinks that he or she knows anything, that person doesn’t know that thing as he or she ought to know it. God says, “Call to Me and I’ll answer you and show you great and mighty things that you didn’t know previously.” If we haven’t found divine revelation, we haven’t drilled down to a true premise.

In all of this, the object isn’t to win arguments. We must avoid the tendency toward dogmatic game-playing. People who harden their hearts against God don’t want the Holy Spirit to correct them. Only God can soften a heart. Our part is to yield to the Holy Spirit and only do the works and say the words that He says through us.

Any of us can resist the Holy Spirit. Our hearts can become hardened. We can miss the Way by trying in our own power to bring people to Christ. We must constantly encourage ourselves to walk in submission to the Holy Spirit, so we don’t miss the way as God leads us to higher heights.
</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

Floating Over Observations and Experiences

Posted on by

<quote from Real Faith & Reason>
Ungodly thinking always rests on suppositions that float over observations and experiences even if the ungodly thinkers call their suppositions “axioms.” It’s even true when the ungodly thinker is correct in his or her conclusion. Strangely, it’s possible to come to a correct conclusion using irrational reasoning.
 
For example, sometimes God reveals truth, but human beings fail to give Him glory. So they know that the revelation is true, but they don’t know the Source of the truth. When they try to explain how they know, they resort to fallacy. Therefore, if we don’t give God the glory, we must resort to fallacy even though we can all give God the glory and avoid 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.
 
http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_1_-_Scientia.pdf
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Why I Believe

Posted on by

<quote from Real Faith & Reason>
Here’s a reason to believe in Jesus without any axiomatic thinking fallacy.

Christian: Jesus is Lord.

Questioner: What makes you think so?

Christian: I know Him. He confirms to me that He is Lord, and what He says is Truth because He is God. I know all this by divine revelation, which is absolute.

…We see that acknowledging Jesus Christ and His leading is powerful.
</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

Why Is It So Hard?

Posted on by

<quote from Real Faith & Reason>
Why do they resist touching and listening to the real Jesus Christ? Why are they willing to perform any ritual, work, ceremony, or observance rather than really knowing Jesus Christ in a real way? Why are they willing to argue, debate, follow dead forms and rituals, engage in emotional displays, rationalize elaborate theologies, or do anything else in order to avoid knowing Jesus Christ? It’s simply this. When we start to know Jesus Christ, listen to His voice, and yield to His Spirit, we give up the right to run our own lives. We give up sovereign control over our own selves. We admit that our own minds are not God and that God is God.
</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

Axiomatic Thinking

Posted on by

<quote from Real Faith & Reason>
Axiomatic Thinking

We now realize that no Christian ever has to rely on axiomatic thinking fallacies. In simple terms, Christians never have to rely on suppositions, presuppositions, or worldviews since these are ways of making up stuff, and Christians never have to rely on making up stuff. Christians can be rational. Still, a Christian may present his or her faith poorly using axiomatic thinking fallacies. A Christian may use an axiomatic thinking fallacy as a reason to believe in Jesus.

Christian: Jesus is Lord.

Questioner: Why believe in Jesus?

Christian: I have faith.

The statement “I have faith” is an axiom if the word “faith” means making believe that something is true. But real faith isn’t pretending even though some people label pretending as “faith.” God says faith comes by hearing His rhema. “Rhema” is Greek for “utterance,” but it’s translated “word.” It’s God’s utterance. God says faith is substance and evidence. Substance means reality as opposed to made-up stuff. Evidence means absolutely certain proof of unseen things God reveals through His rhema. However, the person hearing “I have faith” hears “I pretend,” which is an axiomatic thinking fallacy. The Christian who made the statement might even be committing an axiomatic thinking fallacy depending on how the Christian defines “faith.”
</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

Fallacies Are Tricky

Posted on by

Going through the Nye-Ham debate repeatedly and painstakingly transcribing the entire debate, the wealth of fallacies became obvious. Without truth, fallacy is the only possible course. Without truth, the path leads only to the land of make-believe. All truth is hidden in Christ Jesus. The human mind has no path in itself to truth. The human mind can make up stuff, and it can use fallacies to give the illusion that made-up stuff is real stuff. From there, it can develop dogmatically-held opinions, strong emotions, and block-headedness. It can become self-righteous and proud. It can’t find truth other than by turning to Christ.
 
Innuendo is accomplished by leaving out parts of the logic. Often, the conclusion is left out. Sometimes, parts of the premise aren’t stated. The result is a claim that’s implied or a claim that’s stated while the proof is implied. This does two things. It makes it more difficult to evaluate the logic. It forces us to guess about the missing parts of the logic. It also provides an escape for the person committing the fallacies since that person can always create another scenario. In the end, the audience is left confused, and that’s just where Satan wants them.
 
The debate was filled with magick and illusion. Ken Ham occasionally made unfinished statements that used innuendo, but Bill Nye used innuendo with very few exceptions. It was difficult to find any other fallacies that Ken Ham fell into, but every claim Bill Nye made was nested in layers of fallacies. The difference was stark.
 
<quote from Real Faith & Reason>
circular reasoning.
 
“You can look at these rocks. You can look at rocks that are younger. You can go to seashores where there is sand. This is what geologists on the outside do, study the rate at which soil is deposited at the end of rivers and deltas, and we can see that it takes a long, long time for sediments to turn to stone.” (Bill Nye)
 
Bill committed an allness fallacy, making a strong statement without a way to prove that the statement was true. He hid the allness fallacy underneath the smokescreen of circular reasoning. Bill can’t prove his claim that “it takes a long, long time for sediments to turn to stone.” Here’s the hidden circular reasoning smokescreen Bill used to hide the allness fallacy.
 
If we were to assume no Genesis Flood, then we would assume slow processes. [hidden presupposition]
 
Slow processes take a long time.
 
Therefore, the Genesis Flood didn’t happen, and billions of years did happen. [unstated conclusion]
 
Though Bill implied all of this irrational thought using innuendo, we’ve exposed the circular reasoning to show that Bill’s statement assumes what’s he’s trying to prove. By making an incomplete statement of his reasoning, Bill left us guessing about the other parts of his logic. We tried to fill in the blanks here, but he has a hedge to deny that he was using circular reasoning. We may not be able to think of another way to interpret his statement, but there may be another way. However, our pilgrimage isn’t about Bill Nye, evolutionism, or old-earthism. It’s about reason, and we’re looking at an example of how circular reasoning can be hidden by using incomplete statements.
 
Through scientific research, God has revealed that rock forms quickly under conditions like those in the Genesis Flood, so Bill isn’t telling the truth when he implies that rocks must form slowly. To arrive at his implication, he’s using selective evidence. As far as whether some rocks form over periods too long to observe, we can’t know since the periods are too long to observe. Obviously, we can’t observe periods too long for us to observe, so statements about millions of years don’t come from science. However, we do observe rocks forming quickly. To put it another way, we can prove that rocks do form quickly using the scientific method, but we can’t prove rocks form over millions of years using the scientific method.
</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

Circular Reasoning Can Be Tricky

Posted on by

It’s difficult to sort through the tricky lies. How simple to stand in the presence of Christ and receive His truth from His mouth! We know, by divine revelation, that every argument against the Bible or the God of the Bible is based on made-up stuff. None of it has substance, but a lot of it is tricky and deceptive.
 
<quote from Real Faith & Reason>
Looking at circular reasoning another way, the chain of reason eventually hooks up to itself to “solve” the infinite regression problem, so circular reasoning is just a smokescreen to hide infinite regression. It also hides something more deceptive: the axiomatic thinking fallacy. We’re looking at simple examples of circular reasoning, but let’s look at some circular reasoning that’s more hidden:
 
“How could those animals have lived their entire life and formed these layers in just 4,000 years? There isn’t enough time since Mr. Ham’s Flood for this limestone that we’re standing on to have come into existence.” (Bill Nye)
 
Bill camouflaged his circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is rarely obvious as we listen to skilled persuaders use the fallacy. In this illustration, Bill held up a rock with fossils in it. Then he told a story about the fossils. The story was his evidence. Contrary to first impressions, neither the rock nor the fossils in the rock were Bill’s evidence, but the story was his evidence. That’s a weak premise since he hasn’t proved his proof. He hid his circular reasoning under this illusion of solid evidence.
 
We notice that Bill offers two choices, one being the 4,000 years that have passed since the Flood, and the other being a story of billions of years. Missing is the choice Bill left out—the time during the global Genesis Flood. In this way, Bill sneakily limits us to only two choices for depositing the fossils.
 
Something might have deposited them over the last 4,000 years.
Something might have deposited them over billions of years.
 
Bill committed a false choice fallacy and a stacking the deck fallacy. He limited the choices to two when at least one more choice is available, which he left out. Because his hidden presupposition was that the Flood hadn’t occurred, Bill left out the time during the Flood. As a result, he didn’t want us to think about the Flood depositing the fossils.
 
Bill secretly assumed that the Flood hadn’t occurred, so he reasoned that the deposits couldn’t have occurred during the Flood. How could they if the Flood didn’t occur? Therefore, the Flood couldn’t have occurred. And we have exposed the hidden circular reasoning since his presupposition is the basis of his premise, and it’s also his conclusion. Not only so, but he didn’t state his case clearly, and lack of clarity is another smokescreen making it more difficult to detect the circular reasoning fallacy.
 
If this information all sounds confusing, remember that persuaders use fallacies to confuse and befuddle. It’s confusing enough that it’s hard to explain the fallacy. It’s designed to fool us, but that’s not to say that Bill consciously decided to fool us. More likely, Bill deceived himself using the same method. To better understand what’s going on here, let’s look at Bill’s circular logic another way:
 
“The Flood didn’t occur, and billions of years did occur.” [Bill didn’t state these hidden presuppositions.]
 
“Therefore, the Flood couldn’t have laid down the fossils.” [Bill didn’t state this hidden presupposition.]
 
“Therefore, slow natural processes laid down the fossils either over billions of years or in the last 4,000 years.”
 
“Slow natural processes couldn’t have laid down the fossils in the last 4,000 years.”
 
“Therefore, slow natural processes laid down the fossils over billions of years, and the Flood didn’t occur.”
 
We note step 5, the conclusion, contains the unspoken presupposition in step 1. That’s circular reasoning.
 
Instead of stating the steps plainly, he implied them using innuendo. In his short statement, Bill also committed ad hominem, genetic, and appeal to coincidence fallacies. As a result, these fallacies are additional smokescreens that make it harder to spot the circular reasoning, and the circular reasoning is a smokescreen to hide the axiomatic thinking fallacy. Bill’s two axioms are that the Flood didn’t occur and that billions of years did occur. If he just stated this claim without pretending that his statement isn’t an axiomatic thinking fallacy, no one would believe him. Smokescreen fallacies hide logic based on made-up stuff.
</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

You Can Think Rationally

Posted on by

Example of Sound Logic

<quote from Real Faith & Reason>
Christian: “I know Jesus Christ, and He reveals Himself and His truth to me.”

Questioner: “But how do you know it’s God and not your imagination or an evil spirit?”

Christian: “The Holy Spirit gives me discernment, which increases as I keep step with the Spirit.”

We need to remember that these examples don’t prove anything since we can only find proof in God, but they can help us understand the nature of fallacy. The Holy Spirit provides the proof. Christ provides the knowledge. So as we look at these examples, we do so prayerfully, remembering that God is here, and He’s leading us right now if we yield our wills to His will.
</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

Review of “Evolution: A House of Cards” by Mike Viccary

Posted on by

Evolution: A House of CardsEvolution: A House of Cards by Mike Viccary
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

I enjoyed Mike Viccary’s book: “Evolution: A house of cards!” It’s straight-forward and easy to understand. Mike comes as a scientist, giving insights into the nature of naturalistic science. He has extensively researched the writings of scientists and philosophers of science. What he reveals may make some readers uncomfortable. It certainly exposes some of the problems science today. It’s the most detailed analysis of those problems I’ve ever read. It also features a very thorough analysis of nineteen prominent “evangelical” writers who are not young-earth creationists.

At the same time, Mike gives surprising insights into the way Christians know the truth about reality. He’s one of few scientists I know of who admits that Jesus Christ is real and knowable. Most Christian books I’ve read on the subject of evolution express belief that the Bible is God’s word and without error. However, they wouldn’t say things like the following quotes from “Evolution: A house of cards!”

“but the experience of sudden revelations and so forth, lead us to ask: where did that come from?”

“What does God require? He requires of us that we look to Him exclusively and that we chart our course according to His lead.”

“we have come to understand that God speaks clearly in and through creation, but man (and specifically the modern scientist) refuses to hear. God’s speech in creation does not conflict at all with His word in Scripture.”

View all my reviews

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail