The Atheist God Complex

I’m posting this conversation because it’s an excellent example of the convoluted and deceptive reasoning that comes from the fallen human mind. Those who are familiar with my blog are aware that the human mind has no way to self-generate truth. It can’t conjure up truth without a source for truth. It can react to its environment in the same way that an earthworm can react to its environment or a raccoon can react to its environment. It can’t find a way to reason to a conclusion beyond that environment. For instance, it can do science, which is always pragmatic and practical. It can’t reason rationally about right, wrong, the nature of knowledge, spiritual matters, or the nature of reality. It can’t even prove the existence of a real world. God, on the other hand, reveals right, wrong, the nature of knowledge, spiritual matters, the nature of reality, and the fact that the world around us is real.

The most irrational arguments are the hardest to refute. The refutation tends to become long and hard to follow because of the irrationality of the original argument. Here’s the conversation, but we’ll stop once in a while for critical thinking:

Rockbuilder: Ungodly thinking can’t possibly produce a rational thought that leads to a true conclusion. The problem of infinite regression prevents ungodly thinking from having a true premise. Without a true premise, rational thought is impossible. Only divine revelation can provide a true premise.

Sandbuilder: You don’t need God to have rational thought. Even if a supreme being were necessary, Brahman could easily be the ground for it instead of God. So your last statement is a bare assertion unless you’re using “divine” loosely to allow for any supreme being.

CRITICAL THINKING ****************

Sandbuilder said, “Brahman could easily be the ground for it instead of God.” Sandbuilder just claimed that a demon is just as credible as God. This statement is patently false. Demons lie, but God can’t lie. The most important thing to know is the source of Sandbuilder’s claim. He made it up. It’s an axiomatic thinking fallacy. As we’ll see, Sandbuilder thinks it makes sense to use axiomatic thinking fallacies as the basis of reasoning. The reason that axiomatic thinking is a fallacy is that axiomatic thinking in making up stuff and then calling the made-up stuff “true.” That’s the definition of insanity.


Sandbuilder: Divine revelation is a red herring. Even if we grant that a divine revelation could provide a true premise, which already is a shaky precept, it is impossible for a fallible human to know that any given experience of divine revelation is not a case of self-deception. If you cannot tell a genuine divine revelation from a fake, you have no argument.

CRITICAL THINKING ****************

Sandbuilder said that it’s a shaky precept to say that divine revelation could provide a true premise. This is another axiomatic thinking fallacy that claims god-like omniscience. Sandbuilder is claiming that God can’t reveal knowledge. What would prevent God from doing so?

Sandbuilder said, “It is impossible for a fallible human to know that any given experience of divine revelation is not a case of self-deception.” Here is Sandbuilder, who has no way to self-generate a true premise to prove any conclusion, but now he claims to know that God can’t reveal in a way that those who follow Him know that God is God and know the difference between God’s voice and their own human minds. Satan says that you can’t know. Satan says, “Hath God said?” He said that to Eve in the Garden of Eden.


Rockbuilder: Making unsupported assertions like you just did is irrational.

Sandbuilder: Can someone receive divine revelation, but in reality be deceived?

If your answer is yes, then my point is valid.

If your answer is no, then that means all claims of revelation are true, even those from different and mutually exclusive gods.

If your answer is “For everyone except me and my god” you need to demonstrate this before you can use it as a foundation.

So you’re in the same boat as the atheists, you’re just lying to yourself about it.

CRITICAL THINKING ****************

We’ll start with Sandbuilder’s conclusion since it’s the crux of his problem. “So you’re in the same boat as the atheists.” Sandbuilder is committing a classic tu quoque fallacy stated very plainly. Tu quoque means “You too.” The reason that a tu quoque fallacy is a fallacy is that it doesn’t solve the original problem, but it’s an admission that the original problem is real. The original problem is that there is no way rationally to come to any conclusion without divine revelation. Sandbuilder just admitted that, but he said, “You too have the same problem since no one anywhere can rationally come to any conclusion.”

Why is that a problem? Sandbuilder didn’t solve his first problem, which is that he can’t come to a rational conclusion about anything because he can’t have a true premise. He believes that an axiom is enough, but axioms consist of made-up stuff. But it’s irrational to say, “I made us X, and that proves Y.” Made-up stuff can’t prove anything.  Sandbuilder still has this problem. He admits it. He says, “You too have the same problem because I conclude that the Almighty God is incapable of communication in a meaningful way.”

Therefore, Sandbuilder is admitting that any conclusion is irrational, but yet he thinks that his conclusion about the limitation of Jesus Christ is rational. His conclusion that says, “Almighty God is incapable of communicating in a meaningful way,” is a claim of amazing knowledge of the spiritual realm and the nature of God. For an atheist, that’s an irrational claim. And yet, claiming to have this amazing knowledge, Sandbuilder can’t muster up a true premise for even the most simple conclusion. Of course, looking at the rest of what Sandbuilder wrote bears out his problem with reasoning.

Now, let’s examine Sandbuilder’s conclusion that takes the form of a three-pronged trilemma. We’ll look at each one and show the irrationality of all of them.

Prong #1: Can someone receive divine revelation, but in reality be deceived? If your answer is yes, then my point is valid.

No one can receive divine revelation but in reality, be deceived. He’s presupposing no God. Presupposing is a form of the axiomatic thinking fallacy. Someone can think that he or she is receiving divine revelation and be deceived, but this only happens when the person is deceived by his or her fleshly desires. And we all deceive ourselves at times. However, if we truly desire to do God’s will, He’ll correct us, we’ll receive or correction, and He’ll set us back on the right path. Every person who follows Christ has this experience of divine correction. So, the answer is No, but Sandbuilder is misstating the problem. He’s misstating the problem because he’s imagining the problem using his fallen mind that’s incapable of rational thought. In any case, Sandbuilder’s point isn’t valid.

Prong #2: Can someone receive divine revelation, but in reality be deceived? If your answer is no, then that means all claims of revelation are true, even those from different and mutually exclusive gods. That way absurdity lies.

We’ve touched on this already, but the answer is No. No one can receive divine revelation and be deceived by divine revelation. God deceives no one.

Sandbuilder’s conclusion is totally irrational, although his grammar makes his thought unclear. It is clear that he’s equating everything that humans call “a god” with the Almighty God Who created all things. That’s the type of nonsense that happens when a human being based reason on made-up stuff. Now, idols made of stone, wood, or gold cannot speak. They’re incapable of articulate speech. However, demons are created beings who have also fallen away from God just as mankind has fallen away from God. Demons speak, but they lie. God speaks, but He can’t lie.

Prong #3: Can someone receive divine revelation, but in reality be deceived? If your answer is “For everyone except me and my god” you need to demonstrate this before you can use it as a foundation.

Sandbuilder, like all people, know that Jesus Christ exists, and he knows a lot about Him. Sandbuilder knows this so well that God says that Sandbuilder is without excuse. He knows. He refuses to acknowledge Jesus Christ, the Creator God because Sandbuilder’s deeds are evil. God reveals these facts, and God doesn’t require that we “demonstrate this” to Sandbuilder since Sandbuilder already knows.

That being said, God demonstrates the fact that He can communicate and impart discernment to Rockbuilder, Sandbuilder, and every other person. That’s why Sandbuilder is without excuse. Therefore, Sandbuilder’s proposal is in error, which would be expected since he’s making the whole thing up. He was bound to get it wrong.

Notice that all three of these prongs are misstatements. They are straw man arguments that seek to frame the entire discussion inside of a lie. Someone who knows Christ can be deceived, but not by Christ. Christ is in charge of both divine revelation and discernment, so these aren’t dependent on human ability. If Satan deceives a person who knows Christ, God knows all about that and will lead that person back to Himself providing the Christ-follower sincerely wants to follow Christ. God is not equal to the lesser creatures that He created, and He’s not equal to the imagination of the human mind, but Sandbuilder presupposed that.

Rockbuilder didn’t cast these pearls before Sandbuilder, knowing that Sandbuilder wouldn’t be able to receive them. Instead, Rockbuilder just pointed out that Sandbuilder couldn’t reason to his tu quoque fallacy without first having a true premise.


Rockbuilder: You’re trying to reason beyond your immediate senses. You have no true premise for any claim, and it’s your own fault since Christ reveals Himself to every person and gives discernment between Himself and all creatures that He created. You can only know what God reveals. If you’re deceived, it’s your own fault since you want to be deceived to satisfy your flesh. But all who sincerely desire Christ receive Christ. All who ask for the Holy Spirit receive the Holy Spirit. Once they’re born again, they can be tempted, but God doesn’t tempt them. Their own flesh tempts them.

Sandbuilder: From your response, you fall on the third prong of my question, and so you need to demonstrate all of your claims before they can be seriously considered. I understand you don’t intend to, as this is what attracts people to presuppositional apologetics, thinking they can avoid this responsibility.

CRITICAL THINKING ****************

Sandbuilder just told a lie. Rockbuilder doesn’t need to demonstrate anything to Sandbuilder. God has already demonstrated this to Sandbuilder and to Rockbuilder. Not only that, but every person who seeks Christ finds Christ. Sandbuilder wouldn’t look at the evidence because he wouldn’t be able to continue in the sin that he loves. However, if Sandbuilder were to turn his life over to Jesus Christ and live in submission to Christ, Jesus Christ would demonstrate this and much more to Sandbuilder.


Rockbuilder: Nonsense. You’re way over your head. Your tu quoque doesn’t work since it’s based on made-up stuff and your desperation is trying shoehorning your faulty logic onto something that can confuse unintelligent people. Tell me something that’s not dependent on made-up stuff.

Sandbuilder: Already did, I don’t need to repeat myself. Engage with what I’m saying, rather than using your flimsy excuses not to. They are transparent.

CRITICAL THINKING ****************

Here Sandbuilder now claims to have presented a true premise. Notice the reversal since he admitted that atheists have no way to have a true premise. This is inconsistency and is irrational. He has so deceived his own mind that he thinks his bare claims are real. He’s committing the projection fallacy since he’s the one making flimsy excuses and refusing to engage with Jesus Christ, the Source of all truth.


Rockbuilder: Sorry. I don’t accept made-up stuff as the basis for reason, so I don’t accept your irrational tu quoque fallacy. In addition, God didn’t give me the responsibility to prove anything to you since you already know as I previously explained. You know. God holds you responsible.

Sandbuilder: “Sorry. I don’t accept made-up stuff as the basis for reason”

You know that’s a lie Bob, or else you wouldn’t have embraced such an evasive tactic as your primary apologetic. You cannot defend your claim, but you think you can avoid having to if you repeat it long enough.

CRITICAL THINKING ****************

Again, Sandbuilder resorts to pure made-up stuff, projection, and false bravado.


Rockbuilder: Show me a true premise, or don’t bother bringing yet another axiomatic thinking fallacy.

Sandbuilder: Already did. And btw, using axioms isn’t a fallacy.

CRITICAL THINKING ****************

Again, Sandbuilder lied about having a true premise. Then, he drops the bombshell. The reason he claims to have shown a true premise is that he thinks that making up stuff and calling the made-up stuff “true” is rational. That’s the insanity that’s common to ungodly thinking.


Rockbuilder: You have no way to prove any premise true, not even to yourself. That’s the ungodly thinking problem. It applies to every thought that’s not originated from God—including my own thoughts when I fail to yield to the Holy Spirit. So, you’re stuck without a true premise, and your smokescreen fallacies can’t help you.

Sandbuilder: You have the same problem as atheists. You cannot know that when you claim you “submit to the Holy Spirit,” you are not deceiving yourself. Indeed, if you think that you are, you ARE deceiving yourself, and you cannot avoid this. Even if your presuppositional argument had merit, you couldn’t lay claim to knowledge as you can always be fooled.

CRITICAL THINKING ****************

Now that we understand Sandbuilder’s reasoning, we see how he could say anything as foolish as what he just said. He just claimed to know about all of Rockbuilder’s inner spiritual experiences with Christ. In addition, he claimed to know that Christ is limited and unable to provide discernment and make His messages clear. Sandbuilder is suffering from a god complex. And Sandbuilder believes that whatever he makes up is truth.


Summary of the faulty atheist mindset:

  • believes that whatever he makes up is truth.
  • begins thinking with a presupposition of no Almighty Creator God or, at least, no way to know God.
  • presupposes that God has no power to communicate and impart discernment.
  • tries to project the atheistic problem onto those who follow Christ.
  • asserts that he knows all about the inner spiritual experiences of every person who follows Christ.
  • knows that he can’t self-generate a true premise but believes that he can self-generate a true premise.
  • doesn’t admit that God has already revealed Himself to him.

The ungodly thinker returned. You won’t believe how “The Athiest God Complex Part 2” went.


Is Evolutionism a Useless Waste?

Sandbuilder: All anyone has to do is come up with a more scientifically useful explanation for the diversification of life than the modern theory of evolution. Realistically, though, it’ll just be a better theory of evolution.

Rockbuilder: Right. What God reveals about origins is eliminated for religious reasons since the story of evolutionism is the main tenet of the religion of ungodliness, and ungodly people control the funding. Interesting that you brought up usefulness. Can you name one piece of technology that could only have been developed starting with the belief in molecules-to-man evolution?

Sandbuilder: I said scientifically useful, yes.

Rockbuilder: Really? Tell me about it and why the stories about evolutionism are necessary for creating the technology. If something that’s called “science” doesn’t create any technology that’s useful, then the so-called “science” isn’t useful. I don’t mean things like toys, comic books, textbooks, museums, amusement parks, models of evolutionism, etc. I mean real products that do something that could not possibly have been developed without stories of evolutionism.

Sandbuilder: Antibiotics.

Rockbuilder: Here’s an interesting quote: “The discovery of antibiotics began by accident. On the morning of September 3rd, 1928, Professor Alexander Fleming was having a clear up of his cluttered laboratory. Fleming was sorting through a number of glass plates which had previously been coated with staphyloccus bacteria as part of research Fleming was doing.”

Sandbuilder: And we use the theory of evolution to tell us how they work and how to develop them further. Vaccines as well. Other things that we use evolution for are the many dog breeds, cat breed, and cruciferous vegetable varieties.

Rockbuilder: What made you think that the stories of evolutionism would be required for antibiotics or vaccines or breeding?

Sandbuilder: Nothing. I don’t think that. We do, however, use the theory of evolution to tell us how antibiotics work and how to develop them further.

Rockbuilder: You’re talking about extending the story. That wasn’t the question.

Sandbuilder: Then the question was too narrow.

Rockbuilder: Evolutionism, the story about one-celled organisms gradually adding new information systems over millions of years, isn’t needful or even helpful to explain dog breeding, vaccines, or antibiotics. What we observe in the switching of epigenetics is helpful, but you have to ignore the story to understand epigenetics.

Sandbuilder: No, stories aren’t required, but in order for vaccines to be useful, or as useful as they currently are, an understanding of evolution is necessary.

Rockbuilder: I sense equivocation.

Sandbuilder: How so?

Rockbuilder: Like I said, equivocation. The trick is simple. Just create a broad definition of the word “evolution.” Then, the same word means very different things. That’s why the question needs to narrow that definition. I’ll ask the question again and see if you can do better. Can you name one piece of technology that could only have been developed starting with the belief in molecules-to-man evolution? Tell me about it and why the stories about evolutionism are necessary for creating the technology. I don’t mean things like toys, comic books, textbooks, museums, amusement parks, models of evolutionism, etc. I mean real products that do something that could not possibly have been developed without stories of evolutionism. I’m just looking for one answer, and I think I have it. The answer is that there is no such technology.

Sandbuilder: OK. So what?

Rockbuilder: So, the stories about molecules turning into people over millions of years have no practical value. Thank you for clarifying that.

Can you name one piece of technology that could only have been developed starting with the belief in molecules-to-man evolution? Of course,  a technology is any practical application of scientific knowledge. It would include anything that’s actually helpful to humanity. It could be a cell phone, a paper cup, or a lawnmower.  This question was taken from the Nye-Ham Debate from a few years ago. Ken asked Bill, and Bill wasn’t able to answer it either. The conversation has been edited to make it understandable. For instance, Sandbuilder isn’t one person but two. Anyone who has a discussion with an ungodly thinker knows that the ungodly thinker will make every effort to confuse the issue, so clipped out many of the rabbit trails.

Sandbuilder became frustrated and didn’t even try to be rational. That’s common with ungodly thinkers. He went to the epithet, “Bible wizard magic stories” as his great achievement in thought. See, in a world where the mind has become so darkened that every thought is based on made-up stuff, there can be no rational thought. At that point, the best insult wins. Of course, every ungodly TV show and cartoon that Sandbuilder has watched throughout his life also confirms that the most intelligent people are those who can use epithets skillfully.

Finally, Sandbuilder went to a tu quoque fallacy followed by attempting to misrepresent what had happened in the conversation and returning to his previously failed arguments. Sandbuilder tried to turn around the question, asking what technology could only have been developed starting with belief in the Bible. Of course, this is an irrational question since no one claimed that the Bible is science. No one gets governmental funding for studying the Bible to find new technologies, but evolutionism gets billions to teach it, propagate it, and defend it.

However, Rockbuilder just answered the question in terms of divine revelation. No technology of any kind is possible without divine revelation, and nothing can be known about anything without divine revelation. The book, Reason, is all about that. A little reading of this blog will explain why that’s true, but here’s the short version. Rational thought requires a true premise. In other words, you can’t prove that one thing is true by using something that’s not true as proof. You can’t prove anything by making up stuff. That’s pretty simple. When an ungodly thinker tries to prove something, that ungodly thinker will present some proof. It may be to call you a name. It may be to throw out an insult. It may be to cite a paper that’s filled with another person’s unproved claims. Of course, that person will cite another paper of someone else’s unproved claims, and that person will also cite another, and this citing of unproved claims goes forward to infinity. It’s known as infinite regression. An ungodly thinker has no way to ever have a true premise.

So, Rockbuilder answered the question, but rather than trying to refute Rockbuilder’s answer, Sandbuilder just resorted to a summary dismissal. Then, Sandbuilder claimed that his vacuous summary dismissal was a refutation. At the same time, Sandbuilder claimed that he had given several technologies that require the stories of millions of years and molecules turning into people. Of course, he gave three attempts, and all three attempts failed. When conversations degrade to total irrationality, it’s best to leave conversations like that, and that’s what Rockbuilder did.

Ungodly thinkers are extremely religious. Many denominations of ungodliness don’t gather in temples (though many do), but they’re religious none the less. They will abandon all rational thought just to keep from acknowledging Jesus Christ. They are dedicated to darkness. God doesn’t force them to follow Him, nor does He try to coerce them. It would serve no purpose for God to do so. Rather, the Father continually reaches out to them even though they try religiously to shield themselves from Him.





What follows is an excerpt from “The Creation-Evolution Debate,” which is the second book of a boxed set about reason from a Christian perspective. The first book in the set is titled “Reason” with the subtitle of “A Christ-Follower’s Exploration of Rational Thought.” The third book is titled “The Dictionary of Logical Terms and Fallacies.” The fourth book is titled “A Guide to Syllogisms.” Since this is an excerpt it ends rather abruptly, and, for that, I apologize. The point of the book is that we, as followers of Christ, don’t need to commit fallacies even though we often do. Please pray for me that I can complete this project and that I only write the words that come from the Holy Spirit.

Bill Nye also used the tactic of intimidation. He’s an actor and an illusionist. Throughout the debate, he portrayed a congruent character, acting out the role of the stern adult as if Ken Ham were the misbehaving child. Bill Nye’s demeanor never changed when Ken Ham was speaking, and it was always an amazing scowl of disapproval. That’s how he used contempt as a weapon.

He designed this extreme body language and facial expression to intimidate. Proof by intimidation is a logical fallacy. Anyone who raised teenagers knows about this tactic. The teenagers begin to act as if they’re the ones with the experience and authority, and they scold their parents and accuse them. It works. The parents often give in to what the teens demand, and the teens suffer as a result. On the positive side, Ken ignored Bill’s irrational antics effectively.

We’ve seen the same tactic work in politics. We see ungodly people in every part of life exercise intimidation, and as the ungodly gain more control, they escalate the intimidation. They often progress until they’re a physical threat. They may start by using peer pressure, one of the most effective ways to intimidate. Peer pressure morphs into open rioting, violence, and terrorism, pushing for political changes to allow even more intimidation.




It’s funny how easy it is to become dogmatic. Sometimes, we become dogmatic without even realizing that we’re dogmatic. We just think our opinion is reality and fail to even question it. Consider Vergil who says that he wants to consider the nature of reality without limiting the perspective to any one religion, philosophy or worldview. That sounds very open-minded, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, Vergil’s philosophy of fake open-mindedness quickly degrades into dogmatism. One of the dogmatic ideas that Vergil holds is that the nature of reality is beyond all descriptions. That would be a claim that God can’t describe reality. That would be a dogmatic claim that God can’t reveal anything to anyone.

Virgil is convinced that there is no truth that can be known at any level. Yet, he believes that he can find truth through looking at the various religions and philosophies and choosing what he wants to believe. Virgil is extremely dogmatic about this belief, and he gets upset if anyone should be so bold as to disagree.

Those of us who follow Christ don’t follow dogma. We follow Christ. Christ is real. He’s a real person. He tells us the following:

The one who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. ~ 1 Corinthians 8:2

And yet, He tells us that we know the truth if we know Him. He is the truth. He tells us that everyone who’s on the side of truth listens to Him. It would be different if He had gone off somewhere and wasn’t living in the heart (innermost mind) of every follower of Christ. But He is here.

You ask me how I know He lives. He lives in my heart. He walks with me and talks with me.


From Such Turn Away

This week, Franklin Graham quoted this Bible passage:

“But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power…” (2 Timothy 3:1-5).

2 Timothy 3:1-5 from the Berean Literal Bible

Evil in the Last Days

But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will be present. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boasters, proud, verbally abusive, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, savage, haters of good, betrayers, reckless, puffed up, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And turn away from these.

That passage describes the people of this age. They take classes on loving themselves. They take classes and tutorials on loving money, and they look for ways to get it without working. They’re proud and arrogant, judging those who struggle to follow God and even judging God.

They’re abusive, using coarse language and thinking that cutting down other people makes them look intelligent. They’re disobedient to parents and any other authority. Submission is a word that they hate to hear. They don’t live in thankfulness toward God, but they live in anger and bitterness.

They aren’t holy, and they don’t want to be holy. They love sin. They don’t want to live in Christ’s presence and allow God’s love to flow through them. They don’t want to submit themselves to God’s will and allow Him to flow out through them in works of love. They don’t care about the suffering of others as long as they can get what they want without working for it. They want to satisfy their own passions and goals more than they want to serve others.

They can’t be persuaded to make peace but continually and repeatedly attack those who follow the leading of the Holy Spirit. They attack anyone who crosses their paths, especially if they disagree with those people. They slander to win. They bring false accusations repeatedly. When God exposes one of their accusations as false, they dream up another accusation. They even accuse the righteous of making false accusations when the righteous speak God’s words.

They can’t control themselves because they put themselves in control rather than yielding to God’s Spirit. They use fierceness to get their way and to “win.”

They naturally oppose those who stand in Christ’s presence and listen to His voice. They especially hate those who listen to the Holy Spirit and who obey Him. They desire that everyone would follow the enemy of our souls and enter into all sorts of sin.

They’re reckless with their spirits, minds, and bodies, jumping down into sins that will end in their destruction. They’re proud and arrogant, thinking themselves to be wise when they have no basis for thought. They have no basis for thought because they’ve rejected God, the only Source of knowledge, wisdom, understanding, or righteousness.

They love pleasure more than they love God. If it comes down to a choice between what pleases God says or doing what pleases themselves, they choose what pleases themselves. They have a form of spirituality, respect, godliness, or political correctness but deny the power of God to reveal His will, perform miracles, and deliver His people from sin and the influence of the devil. They distort the word “love” to mean sensual desires that amount to using other people to fulfill their own self-gratification. They distort the words “mercy” and “justice” to using the government to satisfy their drive toward jealousy, envy, and covetousness. They don’t expect the Holy Spirit to lead them out of sin and into His righteousness and holiness. They don’t expect Him to deliver them from sin and sickness.

God simply instructs us to turn away from them. Why would those who claim to follow Christ ever listen to those who promote godlessness and sin? We’re in the world, but we don’t have to seek out and listen to those who refuse to sincerely follow Christ with their entire spirits, minds, and bodies. These people, as this passage shows, create a form or illusion of goodness even if they have to declare that evil is goodness and goodness is evil. From such, turn away. From such, turn away.





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

This was circular reasoning. Circular is rarely obvious as you listen to skilled thinkers use the fallacy.

Hidden by the circular reasoning smokescreen is a presupposition. Bill’s presupposition is that the Flood didn’t happen. Presupposition is a way ofmaking stuff up and making it seem true. The presupposition is also hidden by a framing fallacy and by a loaded question. If the limestone was laid down during the Flood, it was laid down quickly. The assumption that the Genesis Flood didn’t happen is the beginning axiom. Based on this axiom, no limestone could have been laid down during the Flood. That’s circular reasoning.

Bill held up a rock with fossils in it. He then told a story about the fossils. The story was his evidence. Neither the rock nor the fossils in the rock were Bill’s evidence. Using a story as evidence is a weak premise fallacy.

Bill assumed the Flood had not occurred. If the Flood didn’t occur, the deposits couldn’t have occurred during the Flood. That’s circular. Bill limits us to only two options for depositing the fossils. They might have been deposited over the last 4,000 years. They might have been deposited over billions of years. This is a false choice fallacy or exclusivity fallacy. It limits the choices to two when at least one more choice is available. Bill left out the time during the Flood. He didn’t consider the fossils being deposited during the Flood. Then he concludes that they must have been deposited over billions of years. Yet the only explanation that fits the evidence is the choice that was left out. It looks like the deposits were made during the Flood.

Bill’s circular logic goes like this:

  1. The Flood didn’t occur, and billions of years did occur.
  2. Therefore, the Flood couldn’t have laid down the fossils.
  3. Therefore, the fossils were either laid down over billions of years or in the last 4,000 years.
  4. They couldn’t have been laid down in the last 4,000 years.
  5. Therefore, they were laid down over billions of years and the Flood didn’t occur.

Note that none of that was stated. It was implied. When a skilled communicator uses circular reasoning, it’s often difficult to detect.
You’ll recognize additional fallacies. Bill used ad hominem fallacy, genetic fallacy, and appeal to coincidence fallacy. These fallacies make it harder to spot the circular reasoning. The circular reasoning is a smokescreen to hide the axiomatic thinking fallacy. The two axioms are that the Flood didn’t occur and billions of years did occur.


Testimony is Proof




00001ChristiansSpeakofWhatGodIs Doing


In all the opinions about God’s existence, most of what you hear isn’t rational. It’s not rational to claim that something that isn’t known is known. It’s not possible to know anything with proof that it’s true. You can never give anyone proof that anything is true if they aren’t willing to examine the proof. You can’t even prove the sun exists to a person who refuses to look and see that the sun exists. You can’t prove the sun to someone who explains away the evidence with other hypotheses.

Someone may tell you that something’s been observed using scientific method. Do you get to look at the evidence and evaluate it for yourself? Not usually. You’re supposed to take that person’s word for it. Yet, most of what is called evidence isn’t even the observation. It’s an interpretation of observation based on assumptions. Those assumptions are derived from worldviews.

This is particularly interesting among those who call themselves “free thinkers.” You can get into the free thinker club. Just don’t question the group-held worldview of the free thinkers. This worldview includes the big bang, billions of years, no God, no flood, molecules to man stories. It’s OK to question some small detail. You can question something that’s in dispute among the free thinkers. Thinking outside the box of the stories simply proves that you aren’t a free thinker though.

When you speak by the spirit of Christ, it’s different. God tells us that no one can say that Jesus is Lord but by the Holy Spirit. Testify of Jesus Christ and what He’s doing as Lord of your life. When you do, you’re speaking by the Holy Spirit. It’s good if you recognize that this is what’s going on. You ought to acknowledge Him in all your ways.

Testify of Jesus Christ and what He’s doing in your life. Those who hear what you say or read what you write aren’t hearing or reading your words. Rather they’re interacting with the Holy Spirit who is speaking or writing through you. They’re having a direct experience with Christ.

When an free thinker tells you something, you’re just supposed to trust him or her. You’re supposed to trust that the so-called science is true. They don’t tell you what they think “science” is. Most of them haven’t even done the research themselves. You know that it’s a rare thing for you to have a chance to actually make the observations yourself. They don’t even give you the pure observations. The observations wouldn’t prove what they want to prove. They give you the interpretations of the observations. You can’t possibly prove an interpretation, by the way. An interpretation is a concept as opposed to something with substance. Thinking that interpretation is substance is a form of losing touch with reality.

When you testify of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit is speaking His words through you. The person to whom you speak is having direct evidence in the form of the words you’re speaking. I doubt that anyone is always in submission to the Holy Spirit. I doubt that anyone always speaks His words. Yet when you are, that other person is directly dealing with Christ Himself. That person isn’t dealing with you. Jesus said that if such a person rejects you, that person is rejecting Him. And if they reject Him, they’re rejecting the Father who sent Him. That’s a sin against the greatest commandment. “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind.” Jesus also says that they reject Him because they love darkness rather than light and because their deeds are evil. Self-righteousness is an evil deed.

I write this to encourage you to keep testifying. Don’t accept the lie that you  haven’t proved that God exists. You have demonstrated that God exists in the persons of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. They testified through you. You manifested the Father to the person who’s rejecting Jesus Christ and the Father. While such a person gladly accepts the claims of the free thinkers without any proof. Yet this person is rejecting absolute proof just as the ruling Jews rejected Jesus. Jesus directly manifested the Father before them. So keep on keeping on. Make progress in obeying the Holy Spirit. There are higher heights and deeper depths. Keep testifying wherever God opens the door for it.

Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led. Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. ~ 1 Corinthians 12:2-3

For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually works also in you that believe. ~ 1 Thessalonians 2:13

Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety. ~ Proverbs 11:14

The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkens unto counsel is wise. ~ Proverbs 12:15

Hear counsel, and receive instruction, that you may be wise in thy latter end. There are many devices in a man’s heart; nevertheless the counsel of the LORD, that shall stand. ~ Proverbs 19:20-21

Without counsel purposes are disappointed: but in the multitude of counsellors they are established. ~ Proverbs 15:22

Blessed is the man that walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of the scornful. ~ Psalms 1:1

If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God gives: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. ~ 1 Peter 4:11

He that hears you hears me; and he that despises you despises me; and he that despises me despises him that sent me. ~ Luke 10:16

But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaks in you. ~ Matthew 10:19-20

Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. ~ 2 Corinthians 3:2-3


Confused Words


When the same word is used to mean very different things, it causes confusion. The word, “science,” is used for knowledge gained by repeated experimentation and observation by many people, but it’s also used for the unsupported assertions of a group of politically elite scientists.

The word, “evidence,” is used for absolute and certain proof, but it’s also used for interpretations based on unsupported assertions, on made-up stuff.

The word, “faith,” is used for the absolute proof and certainty that comes when God speaks, but it’s also used for a belief based on unsupported assertions. The word, “hope,” is used for the vision God gives concerning what He has promised He will do, but it’s also used for a human-generated wish based on vapor.

The phrase, “I’m a Christian,” is used to mean, “Jesus Christ leads me and teaches me moment by moment and does His Works through me,” but it’s also used to mean, “I know that Jesus Christ exists.”

These are just a few examples, but the list could go on and on. The result is that statements need clarification. Words must be defined.


Revelational Apologetics

0001 PresuppVRev3

Both presuppositional and Revelational apologetics use physical observation and experience/experiment. Evidential apologetics seems to focus mainly on physical observation and experience/experiment that is interpreted via assumptions. Presuppositional apologetics generally recognized Divine revelation as one of many sources of truth, but it puts puts special emphasis on presuppositions as the basis for thinking, while revelational apologetics puts special emphasis on Divine revelation through the Holy Spirit, our Teacher and Counselor sent through Christ, as the basis for thinking.

“Evidential apologetics or evidentialism is an approach to Christian apologetics emphasizing the use of evidence to demonstrate that God exists. The evidence is supposed to be evidence both the believer and nonbeliever share, that is to say one need not presuppose God’s existence.” Wikipedia

“Presuppositionalism is a school of Christian apologetics that believes the Christian faith is the only basis for rational thought. It presupposes that the Bible is divine revelation and attempts to expose flaws in other worldviews.” Wikipedia

I’m careful about what Wikipedia says, since they have such an anti-God influence, but I’ve included these definitions from that site.

“Evidential Apologetics is that style of Christian defense that stresses the miracles found in the Bible, particularly Christ’s resurrection as an evidence for the existence of God and the validity of Christ and His words. It also uses historical evidences to support the veracity of the Biblical account(s). In this, it is very similar to Classical Apologetics, which stresses reason in its approach to evidences.”  Matt Slick of CARM,

“This form of Christian apologetics deals with presuppositions.1 A Christian presuppositionalist presupposes God’s existence and argues from that perspective to show the validity of Christian theism.2 This position also presupposes the truth of the Christian Scriptures and relies on the validity and power of the gospel to change lives (Rom. 1:16).” Matt Slick of CARM,

Comparing evidential apologetics to revelational apologetics, evidential apologetics exposes the mechanics of the lies. Revelational apologetics exposes the structure of the lies. Evidential apologetics is helpful to expose the lies about what has been observed. Revelational apologetics exposes that fact that nothing can be known without Divine revelation. Without Christ, nothing can be known. In Him is hidden all knowledge. In Him is hidden all knowledge.

You may wonder if revelational apologetics is the answer that will cause all bad doctrine to cease. Eventually, God will reveal the fallacies of all the lies that have been told, but don’t expect someone who dearly wants to believe in evolutionism or Atheism to be rational. There are many ways to get out of being rational. They’re called fallacies, tricks, and games.

Here is some further reading:

Revelational Apologetics Versus Presuppositional Apologetics

Extrabiblical Revelation, Interpreting Scripture Through Assumptions, and Adding to the Canon of Scripture

A Conversation Using Revelational Apologetics with a Theistic Evolutionist

A Conversation with a Presuppositional Apologist

Equivocation of Assumptions at Berkeley



Divine Revelation

Warnings About Divine Revelation

Skeptical Arguments Against Divine Revelation

What Brings Regeneration?

00001 PresuppVRev22





Can Evidence Based on Assumption be Taken Seriously?


In science, theology, politics, and interpersonal communications, it’s difficult to tell the difference between reality and make-believe. We observe things, but not directly. We filter our observations through our own worldviews. Worldviews are powerful filters that don’t allow us to observe what doesn’t already fit into the worldview. Group-held worldviews are even more powerful, since they provide the group-think confirmation bias that creates an even stronger illusion . . . that our worldviews are reality itself rather than an just inner concept of what we think reality is.

Look at the Theory of Evolution as an example. When you actually look at the so-called “evidence,” every evidence is based on assumptions. Assumptions consist of made-up stuff that generally has been formulated to conform to the existing worldviews. The worldview is merely a fake reality masquerading as real reality. If you allow yourself even a single assumption, you can prove anything to yourself.

Let me give an example. Allow me one assumption. I will assume that you don’t exist. That’s now a given. Since you don’t exist, you don’t exist. That didn’t take any heavy lifting, did it? I just proved that you don’t exist based on my assumption.

Of course, that wouldn’t fool anyone. You need many more fallacies to cover up the fact that I’m making the whole thing up. So, how do I do that. Add more stories and complexity to the idea using the hundreds of available fallacies, and I could develop a story about your non-existence that’s as funny as the big bang, billions of years, no Flood, life from non-life, amoeba to human, no need for God story.

Here, we have a situation where every person who follows Christ knows Christ and is led and taught by the Holy Spirit moment by moment. As you know that you exist because of your experience of being you, everyone who follows Christ knows God exists because of his or her experience of being led and taught by the Holy Spirit. That’s not to say that we’re always faithful in listening, acknowledging, submitting, or allowing Him to think His thoughts, speak His Words, or do His acts through us. It just means we’re familiar with Him to some extent. To the extent that we have yielded to Him, we have discernment between that which comes from Him and that which comes from other sources. Many times, we do lean on our own understanding rather than acknowledging Him. Hence, you can witness the many doctrinal and denominational divisions in the Church. Yet, Jesus Christ is real, and He is the reality of the ongoing experience of every single person who follows Him.

For a Secularist (skeptic, Atheist, Agnostic, Humanist, etc.) to claim that a follower of Christ isn’t experiencing what he or she is experiencing is as bizarre as me claiming that you don’t exist. The Secularist has only one tool to develop such a thought: making stuff up and then confusing the issue with smokescreen fallacies.

Yet, when confronted with the fact that you know Jesus Christ personally, Secularists commonly will begin to use the fallacy of faulty comparison. There are several types of faulty comparison fallacies. This one is false equivalence of two opposites. It’s very helpful to the Secularist in this situation, since the Secularist is faced with a stark contrast between Divine revelation and making stuff up. The Secularist isn’t comfortable with the fact that every single thing he or she thinks he or she knows is based on made-up stuff. So, in this case, Secularists intuitively reach for a tu quo que (you too) fallacy. They want to say, “You too have the same problem.” Of course, tu quo que doesn’t solve the Secularist’s problem. It merely is a way to project their problem onto you. In effect, they’re saying, you’re situation is just as bad as mine. There are many problems with this kind of thinking. Most importantly, you don’t have the same problem the Secularist has. Yet, if you don’t stay in the Presence of Jesus, if you try to lean on your own mind rather than His Mind, you will become confused by these tactics.

To use tu quo que, the Secularist must use a faulty comparison fallacy first. Therefore, the Secularist will try to lump Divine revelation in as part of the made-up stuff. He or she must claim that Divine revelation is also made-up stuff. This asserts the following universal negative: “God doesn’t reveal anything to anyone.” This, of course, is based on that bare assertion and universal negative, “There is no God.”

When the lumping fallacy fails, the Secularist may turn to other ways to equate Divine revelation with making stuff up. He or she may claim that you can’t know it’s God speaking to you, and, if Divine revelation depended on human ability, that would be true. However, Divine revelation is, as the term implies, dependent on God. He is able. What would possibly prevent the Almighty God from being able to reveal Himself and His Truth to a willing human heart? Another common Secularist tactic is to claim that the human mind must interpret the revelation, and the revelation is, therefore, subject to human interpretation. That’s a statement contrary to fact. God’s revelation is pure. Human interpretation adds to it or diminishes it. That’s why God commands us not to add to His Utterances or diminish them. Divine revelation plus human interpretation equals human ideas. We must leave the things God hasn’t revealed with God and receive the revelation He has given. Then the Secularist is likely to remind you that your own mind can fool you, and this is true. However, that’s not a problem to God as long as we remain humble. It’s a very good reason for us to hold our theology loosely, but it’s not a good reason to stop seeking God or to follow the Secularist’s delusion. The Holy Spirit is constantly leading us. As we yield. our spiritual senses are exercised, which brings maturity and discernment between good (what God is saying) and evil (what comes from human or demonic minds). The Holy Spirit is given to lead us into all Truth. Just keep following Him, and be ready to abandon your own convictions and many things you’ve been taught in favor of Divine revelation.

The big problem that the Secularist has with all his or her claims is that Secularist’s claims are based on made-up stuff. It’s irrational to make stuff up and call it real. Their claims to deny Divine revelation are based on made-up stuff. Your testimony of Divine revelation is based on Divine revelation. It always comes down to Divine revelation versus made-up stuff.

If the Secularist is successful in convincing himself or herself using these arguments, the Secularist loses the ability to know the difference between reality and make-believe in this regard. It’s no longer a game. It’s insanity. Secularists have lost touch with reality.

The big bang, billions of years, no Flood, life from non-life, amoeba to human, no need for God story is a complex story based on fallacies. The hundreds of fallacies can be classified into two groups, and only one of those groups is functional. The functional fallacy is always some form of making stuff up and calling it true. It could be an outright lie. It could be a hidden assumption. It could be an “axiom of science.” There are many ways to make stuff up.

All other fallacies are smokescreens to give the illusion that the made-up stuff isn’t made-up stuff. Those smokescreens include appeal to ridicule, which has become very popular. There are many ways to ridicule. Appeal to offence is becoming very popular: “I’m offended; therefore, you are wrong and I am right.” Appeal to anger works the same way.

Then, there are the many statistical fallacies: “It’s very unlikely that God exists.” Really? What is the number you can put on that probability, and how do you derive it? How do you know that you have taken every factor into account? What are the steps to your scientific experiment you use to determine that every follower of Christ is not experiencing what he or she is experiencing?

Bill Nye debated Ken Ham. He suddenly realized that he had to defend the use of assumption. He claimed that assumptions come out of experience. Another word for experience is experiment. One of the ways we observe in science is through experience/experiment. These experiences are repeatable, so many people can observe the same thing. Assumptions don’t come out of experiments. They’re used to interpret the observations made when performing an experiment. Interpretation always adds to what has been observed or diminishes it. These assumptions are developed to conform to the existing worldview, in most cased, the group-think of the ruling shared worldview of the scientific community.

Of course, the same thing happens in Christian denominations. It happens in politics. Is there any hope for humanity?

Yes. Jesus Christ came to set us free. In fact, He said that the Truth will set us free. He is the Truth. God knows all things. He reveals some things to us. For instance, He reveals Himself through the things He has created to every person. Those who acknowledge Him and thank Him receive further revelation and faith, that is, certainty of reality, comes to them. Those who refuse to acknowledge Him lose the ability to tell the difference between what human minds are making up and what is coming from God.

When we believe what God is telling us about Jesus Christ and how He died to pay the price of our own sins, how He rose again from the dead having overcome sin, and how He now offers us forgiveness and a path to freedom from our fallen state, we are changed. We are born into the family of God, when we had previously been slaves to Satan. At that point, we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit to be our Teacher and Leader. If we seek Him and His Will, then, we continue to learn and be changed. One of the first things that He teaches us is that the Bible is His Word without error, and that He speaks to us through the Bible. He teaches us that there are many gifts that come through the Spirit, that the gifts, ministries, offices, and orders that He reveals through Scripture are important to Him and that He will eventually reveal how all of them work for us and are part of our salvation.

As we walk with the Spirit and keep step with the Spirit, we don’t stay in the same place. What we thought we understood yesterday soon becomes quite shallow compared to the new, unfolding, revelation of today. Tomorrow, there will be more as we progress in the Spirit. God has built many safeguards into the Church to keep this unfolding revelation on track. Every human-developed method that isn’t in Scripture creates a danger of going off course. As we yield to the Spirit, our spiritual senses are exercised by reason of use to discern between good (what comes from God) and evil (what comes from other sources).

We don’t need to boast of our spirituality. In fact, such boasting is a sure sign of spiritual immaturity. God has provided no way by which we can truly measure our maturity in Christ. We can tell a bit about our spiritual immaturity every time we exhibit some form of the fruit of the flesh: thoughts, words, or acts of sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. Every time we find ourselves irritated or striving for something, we realize that we need more of Him.

The way forward is glorious for those who don’t get distracted. There are higher heights and deeper depths in Christ. Keep on keeping on.