A Good Reason to Believe

Posted on by

A Good Reason to Believe

<quote from Real Faith & Reason>

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

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

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

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

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

</end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this FREE book yet? “Real Faith & Reason” gives the absolutely certain proof of the Bible and the God of the Bible and shows how you can have real faith. This is faith that changes situations and transfigures you from glory to glory.

You can BUY  it on Amazon, but you can get your FREE copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_1_-_Scientia.pdf

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Godless Thinking is Ultimately Baseless

Posted on by

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

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

Have you read this FREE book yet? “Real Faith & Reason” gives the absolutely certain proof of the Bible and the God of the Bible and shows how you can have real faith. This is faith that changes situations and transfigures you from glory to glory.

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_1_-_Scientia.pdf

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Naturalism is a Form of Atheism

Posted on by

Naturalism is a form of atheism.
 
<quote from Real Faith & Reason>
 
Naturalism is obvious. [To whom is it obvious and why?]
 
No one at the university follows any other way of thinking. [Bandwagon and marginalizing fallacies prove nothing.]
 
We must base science on naturalism, or all progress would cease. [An appeal to consequence fallacy based on an assertion contrary to fact provides phantom support for the axiom of naturalism.]
 
These are just three examples of defending naturalism with smokescreens. We may run into name-calling or summary dismissal. Some people use credentials as proof. Not only those, but hundreds of other smokescreen fallacies exist, and we’ll face them all. These smokescreens pretend that naturalism is more than an axiomatic thinking fallacy.
</end quote>
 
#RealFaith&Reason
 
Have you read this FREE book yet? “Real Faith & Reason” gives the absolutely certain proof of the Bible and the God of the Bible and shows how you can have real faith. This is faith that changes situations and transfigures you from glory to glory.
 
 
You can BUY it on Amazon, but you can get your FREE copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.
http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_1_-_Scientia.pdf
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

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