Science commits a triple logical fallacy of empiricism, observation and affirming the consequence (i.e. experimentation.) This necessarily leads to denying the law of contradiction because of skepticism, which is impossible.

Even the bible shows man’s observation is not always correct, 2 Kings 3:16-24, John 12:28-29, Matthew 14:25-27, and Matthew 28:16-17.[1] The importance is significant. If I showed one place in the Bible was wrong, then it would move the whole bible into skepticism as a starting point for knowledge. It would mean that I cannot prove any one statement is true. This is skepticism. But skepticism denies the law of contradiction. Try denying your own existence without using it?

The point is this, a contradiction has no being in the mind or in reality. Yet, the bible shows man’s observation (empiricism) is mistaken. It also shows Jesus appealing to the law of contradiction and being called the LOGOS itself. Thus, empiricism is not a starting point for knowledge. And in addition to these fallacies, scientific experimentation uses affirming the consequent. For example, “If I speak there is a sound. There is a sound; therefore I spoke.” Yet, this irrational structure is the foundation for all experimentation. And yet, it is supposed to produce “knowledge?” LOL!

I have skipped many other problems with science but just focused on a few. If you need more reading, then I would recommend Vincent Cheung and the essay, “A Gang of Pandas.”

Johnny responded with:

“So…I should throw rocks at gay people?”

So… how long have you been abusing children? Getting past loaded questions and other informal fallacies, let us focus on the actual issue.

Since you used an ethic by saying “should,” ( I did not ) the burden of proof is on you to prove you have knowledge of what is an ethic without presupposing the bible, or that is, presupposing my worldview that says you are wrong.

The bible clearly defines ethics, and even establishes the ontology of ethics. How can you rationally question me about any ethic whatsoever, if you cannot produce a sound argument to tell me what is an ethic? You cannot. You are intellectually broken and malfunctioned.

How do you know what is an ethic if you use empiricism, without producing multiple category errors? How do you avoid category errors when you use descriptive premises, to then go to an “ought” in the conclusion? Did you smell an ethic? Did you see it? But an ethic is an invisible proposition in the mind about right or wrong revealed by God. To even understand what is an ethic you must presuppose the bible, but the bible says you and all anti-Christian systems are wrong.[2] Thus you are wrong by logical exclusion.

Here is an ethic that corresponds with reality, rather than the delusions you invent. The bible says all who do not believe in Jesus Christ as God’s only Son and repent are already judge by Father.

ENDNOTES

[1] Vincent Cheung first brought this to my attention.
Vincent Cheung. Presuppositional Confrontations. 2010. Pg 70.

[2] See Vincent Cheung, Captive To Reason, 2009 pg 44.