Tag Archives: deduction

The Scientific Process

After my own studies and discussions with Grok xAI, I’ll outline a step-by-step breakdown of modern science. Some still believe science is rational, deductive, and logical. We’ll dissect the process and reveal it’s anti-logical from start to finish, despite using modus tollens.

Karl Popper exposed the anti-logical nature of scientific experimentation, particularly the nonsense of affirming the consequent. To counter induction’s irrationality and this fallacy, Popper proposed scientists use modus tollens to invalidate hypotheses. Modus tollens is a valid deductive form. Yet, if you lack upfront truth, affirming the consequent is the only way to positively affirm a claim, if the logic is to correctly correspond to your actions. Popper aimed to minimize this by favoring deduction. The catch? At best, modus tollens can say something is wrong—it can’t confirm truth. Today, top scientists recognize induction and science’s irrationality, leaning into falsification for better experiments.

If we admit science offers no truth, only pragmatic usefulness, then adding modus tollens at the end enhances practical outcomes. We support this. As noted, science fulfils God’s command to dominate the world for practical benefits—a blessing He ordained. But that’s all science is. Even when its utility seems impressive, its statements about reality are false.

Since the scientific process is rooted in inductive and observational fallacies, it’s irrational and anti-logic. Slapping modus tollens on the end doesn’t erase this irrationality; it just improves pragmatic results. It’s right to acknowledge science’s baked-in anti-logic and compensate with deduction—if we clarify this is for usefulness, not knowledge.

Before detailing the process, let’s define falsification. Grok xAI (2024) put it this way:
“The origin of falsification, per Popper, is rooted in the idea that a hypothesis must be scientific if an experiment or observation could prove it false. This was a direct jab at the inductivists and verificationists of his time. Popper’s philosophy was like saying, ‘Science isn’t about piling up evidence for your theory; it’s about daring it to fail.’”
This is accurate but needs unpacking to avoid confusion. Popper critiqued scientific experimentation (i.e., “verification”) that relied wholly on affirming the consequent to link hypotheses to reality.”

Grok calls it a “jab at inductivists,” which can mislead. Even with modus tollens, science remains overwhelmingly inductive. Though Popper shifted “verification” to the “pre-hypothesis” stage rather than the endpoint, falsification swims in a sea of inductive reasoning and observation. Grok was correct that “Popper would have it… it must be possible to conceive of an experiment or observation that could prove it false.” Popper’s falsification operates within “inductive observation” and “inductive experiment.”

Thus, despite jabbing inductivists, Popper’s method still employs induction. Science isn’t one thing—it’s a process. I once heard a scientist claim, “Science is only deductive because it’s only about falsification, specifically modus tollens.” This misrepresents Popper’s approach, which integrates induction and observation. When I asked Grok (2024), it responded, “Absolutely not! Popper argued a theory must be falsifiable, aligning with modus tollens’ deductive logic to disprove it. But induction isn’t sidelined:

  • Initial Phase: Science starts with observation and inductive reasoning to form hypotheses.
  • Ongoing Nature: As hypotheses are tested, scientists refine them with new observations and inductive leaps, keeping induction central.”
    Since falsification uses induction, it’s inherently irrational, violating the laws of identity and contradiction. It’s a systematic affirmation of false premises in unsound arguments, pretending to deny something.

Calling “science deductive” is false. I wouldn’t even say it’s inductive and deductive—its “deduction” is unsound. I wouldn’t label an unsound argument deductive unless we’re pretending in a fantasy world. Generously, we could call science heavily inductive with some deduction tacked on.

This matters for Christians. The Bible uses only sound arguments, rejects induction’s anti-logic, and shows our observations can be wrong. It dismisses empirical observation and induction for knowledge. Thus, falsification isn’t a biblical standard and can’t yield knowledge. Some fools hybridize this irrational human method with the Bible’s rational approach, claiming falsification aids understanding Scripture and truth. This is blasphemy—melding the irrational with God’s rational system defames His mind as irrational or endorsing irrationality. Similarly, fake presuppositionalists claim the Bible ratifies observation and empiricism for knowledge—nonsense.

Another reason to reject falsification: its maxim—“something must be provably wrong to have credibility”—is false. The law of contradiction (LoC) isn’t falsifiable; denying it requires using it. Self-authenticating truths, like the LoC, render falsification inapplicable. At best, falsification fits inductive observations. The Bible, as shown in epistemology, is self-authenticating—unfalsifiable. It can’t be proven wrong because any attempt presupposes it; Scripture declares itself true and all else false. We don’t use falsification to read the Bible or find truth. If it’s such a great rule for Christians, why doesn’t its maxim apply to Scripture?

Note the maxim says “for credibility,” not “to prove true.” Falsification is negative—it can’t produce positive claims without violating logic. Since the Bible rejects observation, empiricism, and induction for knowledge, and falsification uses them, Christians don’t employ it for knowledge. Even using modus tollens—directly, in reductio ad absurdum, or falsification—is only negative, offering no positive truth. When someone says, “I don’t see God healing today,” it’s wrong not because of falsification but because Scripture rejects inductive observation outright.

There’s nothing wrong with modus tollens to show something is false—Scripture uses this deduction. St. Augustine and Paul (1 Corinthians 15) did too, free of empiricism or observation assumptions. But if someone uses empiricism as a standard, showing documented healings should convince them if they’re consistent. We can use modus tollens to refute them with their own flawed epistemology. The catch? Induction’s conclusions don’t logically follow premises, so they can reject evidence due to its inherent uncertainty. Even a deductive argument using observation—ours or theirs—becomes unsound, leaving conclusions skeptical. Induction offers no logical binding to accept any conclusion—you can dismiss or embrace as you please.

As a Christian, the Bible says God heals, and on faith’s demand, He will (John 15: Jesus predestined us to ask and receive). I expect healings. My observations are private knowledge—and if I applied these with deductions from Scripture “for myself,” then my self-knowledge is what the bible asserts. But shifting private to public knowledge violates logic’s laws. Scripture alone is our starting point for knowledge about healing. Anyone using inductive observations to argue miracle healing is a fool, rejecting the Bible as the sole epistemic foundation.[1] Such debates aren’t about healing but epistemology—Scripture’s deductive logic versus induction’s fallacy. Tell them they’ve abandoned Christian doctrine on knowledge and logic; if they don’t repent, boycott and excommunicate them.

The Scientific Process

Observation and Hypothesis Formation (Inductive Step)

Note: “Scientific experimentation (affirming the consequent)” has been pushed back to “hypothesis formation.”
Scientists observe phenomena in nature or data, noticing that when event A occurs, phenomenon B follows. This resembles affirming the consequent: “If A, then B; B happens, so A caused it.”

  • Example 1: (A) Rain occurs, (B) my yard gets wet. (B) I see my yard wet, so I hypothesize (A) it rained.
  • Example 2: (A) Bacteria add chemical X to solution H, (B) it turns red. (B) I see it red, so I hypothesize (A) bacteria added X.

Formulating the Hypothesis (Setting Up for Modus Ponens)

Initially, scientists observe B (a fallacy) to check their idea. If testing’s possible, they run preliminary affirming-the-consequent experiments for merit. Then, they frame hypotheses as modus ponens: “If A, then B; A, thus B.” They pretend a necessary connection exists to apply modus tollens later—not to affirm the consequent but to predict outcomes. They say, “If hypothesis (A) is true, under these conditions, we’ll see (B).”
In layman’s terms, this is logical voodoo, a void, or superstition.
Two ways this bait-and-switch happens:

  1. Vincent Cheung’s Example (A Gang of Pandas):
    1. “If (A) is a cause, then (B) is a result. B happens, thus A caused it.”
    1. Restated as modus ponens with B and A flipped, using a false conclusion to build an argument.
  2. Direct Pretence: Pretending inductive “If A, then B” is real or pretend it’s a necessary connection. This is like misstating a math problem to reflect reality. If I buy 4 apples at $1 each, calling it calculus is delusional if it doesn’t match reality. Scientists engage reality via affirming the consequent due to observation—they can’t avoid it. Restating it as modus ponens is delusional because it doesn’t mirror their actual interaction with phenomena.

Experimental Design (Testing via Modus Ponens)

Scientists design experiments controlling A to see if B follows, mimicking modus ponens:

  • If hypothesis A is true, under specific conditions, B occurs (If A, then B).
  • They ensure A is present.
  • They check if B happens (A leads to B).
    This isn’t just to affirm the hypothesis (a fallacy) but to test predictions under control. Yet, problems still abound:
  • The setup stems from a fallacy—using a false conclusion from observation and affirming the consequent to fake a connection. This restated logic doesn’t reflect their real-world engagement; it’s fabricated.
  • They only pretend it’s modus ponens—in name only. Some admit the connection is merely sufficient, making falsification tentative, not necessary, contradicting the very definition of logical inference.
  • Controlled tests can’t rule out infinite unknowns (e.g., heat affecting results unbeknownst to a scientist ignorant of it).
    Vincent Cheung notes, “The idea is simple. To know that any experiment is “constructed properly” the scientist’s knowledge must be “bigger” than the experiment. But if his knowledge is already “bigger” than the experiment, then he hardly needs to perform the experiment to gain knowledge that is limited by the experiment. The only way to be sure that one has identified and controlled all variables that may affect the experiment is to possess omniscience. The conclusion is that only God can tell us about the universe.”[2]

Falsification Attempts (Modus Tollens)

Here’s the shift:

  • If B doesn’t occur when A is present: “If A, then B; not B, therefore not A” (hypothesis falsified).
    Scientists aim to confirm hypotheses (affirming the consequent), but better ones seek disproof. Misaligned results falsify, and this leads to rethinking and refinement.
    Yet observation and affirming-the-consequent thinking build the argument for falsification. Induction underpins science’s foundation and definition. The “deductive” arguments are unsound—born from false conclusions, misrepresenting reality. It’s deduction by pretence. Before falsification, the hypothesis’s necessary connection is unknown. Falsification deems it wrong, which says little.
    The experimental connection has two interpretations:
  • If honest (connection is sufficient or a guess), falsification is uncertain, not necessary—violating deduction’s essence.
  • If claiming necessity, it’s pretence, falsifying only a pretend reality, breaching contradiction and identity laws.
  • Finally, saying “laws are formulated by falsification” is a non-sequitur. Negative propositions can’t yield positives without adding information—violating logic. Laws from falsification can only say “this isn’t that.” Positive laws from falsification defy logic; negative isn’t positive.

The point is that observation and affirming the consequent thinking and testing is involved in formulating the argument that will be tested by falsification. Thus, induction is both the foundation of science and therefore involved in the definition of science. The so-called deductive arguments are unsound, because they are created by false conclusions and the logic does not reflect their interaction with reality. It is deduction only by pretending. Before falsification is used, it is not known if the major premise of the syllogism (hypothesis) has a necessary connection. Falsification says this unsound argument is wrong. which is not really saying that much.

The connection in their experiment can be taken in two ways. If they are honest and admit the connection, at the very best is sufficient or a guess, then if falsification is used, the falsification is only a guess, but not a necessary falsification. This violates the very definition of deduction, which is necessary. If they insist the falsification is necessary, then they violate the laws of contradiction and identity. If they want to insist their connection in their experiment is necessary, then it is only by pretending. Thus, if they use falsification, it is only falsifying a pretend reality.

Lastly, there is the part where scientists say, “laws… are formulated by falsification.” This is false. It is a non-sequitur fallacy. Remember our rules for category syllogisms? We talked about distribution of terms but also the quality and quantity of a syllogism. If the propositions of an argument are negative, you cannot get a positive out of it. The same here.  Falsification can only say, this is wrong, but to then turn around and say we have a law that says, “this is this,” is to add more information than what the argument says. Laws, formulated by falsification can only say at best, “this is not that.” Every positive law stated by scientists using falsification is a violation of the laws of logic. To say negative is a positive is anti-logic.  

[1] This is different from starting with the truth given by scripture, and then present your healing as “testimony” that agrees with the truth. You are saying the bible is the proof, and my testimony agrees with the truth, not the other way around.

[2] Vincent Cheung. A Gang of Pandas. Sermonettes Vol.1.

Science is Anti-Logic

Recently, I have been reminded that people think science is deductive and logical.

Empiricism, Observation and affirming the consequent are logical fallacies.  Because they are the epistemology, order and systematic practice of science, it means science has no knowledge. Science has no body of knowledge.  These logical fallacies are built into the nature of empiricism and science. For example, because the bible is God’s revelation given to us, deduction is therefore pre-baked or built into our worldview. We do not discover or observe truth, God reveals it and we apply (i.e. deduction) this knowledge to us and the world around us. We do not formulate generalizations because God already gives us the truth up front.

If your epistemology starts with the five senses (which is a fallacy), then fallacies of induction are pre-baked or built into your worldview. No amount of crying about this, will make the fallacies go away. You do not have knowledge because it was not revealed and given to you. And so, you must observe and attempt to find it. You must use particulars (‘some’ (in addition to being private, transient descriptions)) and generalize (‘all’ category statement). However, to do this you violate the law of contradiction by saying ‘some’ and ‘all’ are the same thing. The only way to avoid this is if you are omniscient, or can observe all things in all past, present and future with perfect understanding of all you observe. Unless this is the case, then the premises of observation are always a ‘some.’ However, category statements need to be ‘all’ statements if you want knowledge about reality. All conclusions produced by induction do not logically follow from the premises. This means all induction is a non-sequitur fallacy. This means all induction is anti-logic, because it violates the law of contradiction and violates the law of valid inference. The logical void between premise and conclusion is the place where the laws of logic are violated. Induction is anti-logic.

The statement “trees are rocks” is primarily a category mistake because it misclassifies trees, which are living organisms, as rocks, which are inanimate objects. Trees and rocks belong to fundamentally different categories and have distinct properties. However, it can also be seen as a contradiction because trees and rocks have inherent, distinct properties. Trees grow and reproduce, while rocks do not. Therefore, saying that a tree is a rock contradicts the essential properties that define each category. The primary issue is the misclassification of categories, but it can also be seen as a contradiction due to the inherent properties of trees and rocks.

The inherent properties of knowledge are not material. However, sensations and reality are material. To have premises about material things to then conclude with knowledge, is primarily a category mistake, but also a contradiction because of the inherent properties of these categories. Thus, observation and empiricism are anti-logic.

Empiricism is a fallacy. What you see is not the same as the thing you are seeing; they are different categories. Also, the visual or audio sensation is not knowledge, but you understand what you are seeing by invisible propositions of true and false. Sensations are not propositions, and thus you have multiple category fallacies when you go from the thing itself, to sensation and then to knowledge. This results in a repeated systematic denying of the law of contradiction. To say the category of a “the thing itself,” a “sound” and a “proposition” is the same, is a category error and so it also denies the law of contradiction. Category errors in one’s epistemology would lead to skepticism, and this would also deny the law of contradiction. Empiricism is anti-logic.

Scientific experimentation is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. I want to give credit to Vincent Cheung for helping me understand this below, from his essay, A Gang of Pandas.

A. If chemical Y is present, then this solution will explode.
B. The solution exploded.
C. Thus, I verified that chemical Y is present.

This is a fallacy. Maby chemical ‘k’ was present and it was the reason for the explosion. We are on the topic of logic. Logically, controlled tests do not eliminate the infinite number of variables that could be affecting the experiment. Controlled tests have no bearing on removing the fallacy of affirming the consequent. The only way for a scientist to know if his controlled test does eliminate all other variables, is to already have more knowledge than his experiment, but if that is the case then he doesn’t need science anymore, because he already knows all things.

A scientist will then take the conclusion produced by the fallacy of affirming the consequent and then restate it as a Modus Ponens in their scientific journal. Scientist want to be deductive and logical so they restate their fallacy in a deductive form. However, the reformulation is in name only. Logic must match up with reality.  Affirming the consequent is experimentation.

D. If his solution explodes, then chemical Y is present.
E. This solution exploded.
F. Thus, chemical Y was present.

 Thus, to restate such statements as Modus Ponens in scientific publications is nothing less than a delusion. They state their experiments as category statements to be used in deduction.  This gives them the appearance that they have knowledge. However, the first premise of their Modus Ponens was produced by the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Thus, their deduction is unsound.  There never was a body of knowledge to begin with. But they want to have a body of knowledge and so they transform categories and necessary connections not present in their premises and illogically put in their conclusions. They are anti-logic. 

Using “deduction” without knowledge or with false premises means the syllogism is unsound. To use deduction without knowledge is delusional and insane. For example, for me to say, “All box-jellyfish are jellyfish. I am a box-jellyfish. Therefore, I am a jellyfish,” would be deductive but also delusional. It is vain to use deduction or logical inference, unless you have a body knowledge to begin with. Knowledge is something science never had. You cannot use the triple fallacy of empiricism, observation and affirming the consequent and then produce knowledge; it is logically impossible. It is anti-law-of-contradiction to say a conclusion that does not logically follow from the premises produces knowledge.  

Resurrection According The Scripture

Paul says in 1 Corinthian 15:4 that we know Jesus was resurrected because the Scripture says it. This is good reasoning. This is the best type of deductive logic. This is adhering to the laws of Contradiction, Identity and Excluded Middle in perfection. This is thinking like the LOGOS.

Anti-Christians often dislike this type of answer and find it unacceptable. They want you to say, “we know the resurrection is true because of some empirical evidence proves it.” This is of course delusional. Empirical evidence cannot prove any statement of reality because empiricism, observation and scientific experimentation make a triple logical fallacy. This foundation of knowledge makes knowledge impossible. It violates the law of contradiction because it makes knowledge skeptical; and it leads to skepticism, because empiricism, observation and experimentation are fallacious.  Any worldview that uses such a foundation for any knowledge is to be mocked and dismissed.

It is a good thing that resurrection is not proved by our sensations, observations or experimentation, because if it was then resurrection could never be proven. Since our sensations and observations cannot prove any statement of reality, such as water, rocks or trees, then it therefore cannot prove resurrection. Just because some fools use delusional means to interact with the world does not mean you are to follow this example, or compromise by making a bible and delusion into a hybrid. No, you expose how dumb their source of knowledge is and destroy it by logic and the scripture.

The only source of knowledge is God’s revelation. God’s word says there is resurrection and that Jesus was the first born from the dead. Just as He experienced physical resurrection, we also will experience a physical resurrection with a new body. What Jesus experienced we experience. This is God’s love and promise to us.

The Scripture and God are interchangeable, and therefore, Paul says Jesus was raised according to Scripture. We ought to have renewed our minds so that no truth statement about reality has any foundation in our senses, observation or experimentation. As Paul says, we live by faith not sight. This is why Paul says, (Acts 26:8) why should you think it incredible that God raised the dead?

I Reserved 7000 Who Have Not Bowed to Empiricism

The only real problem with tackling adult doctrines like God’s sovereignty, predestination, election, and reprobation is that if you’re still a spiritual child, you’ll predictably end up injuring yourself and everyone in your vicinity. I recall Vincent Cheung dropping a line like this a few years back, and it just keeps ringing true every time I bump into churchgoers who prove the point.

When knowledge fails to amplify a person’s faith, it merely enhances their talent for faking it. Simply because some self-appointed expert decides to wrestle with an “adult” doctrine doesn’t automatically grant them spiritual or intellectual maturity. Sure, you could hand a baby the keys to a Ferrari, but he’s bound to total it in seconds. Plopping him behind the wheel doesn’t magically age him up. In the same vein, the vast majority of theologians are nothing more than spiritual toddlers clumsily juggling adult concepts. They toy around with ideas like divine sovereignty, the covenants, and the grand arc of redemption history, but the moment they try to drive—when they start formulating, teaching, and applying these doctrines—they cause massive pileups in people’s faith. [1]

I recently had another short exchange with a person (we’ll dub them Billy for anonymity) on the topics of faith and healing. I was laying out some key Bible verses about faith and healing, while encouraging them to actively cultivate and strengthen their own faith. I made a particular point about how faith in God’s promises—be it for forgiveness or physical healing—ensures you receive what you’ve asked for in prayer.

I pulled directly from John 15:7-8: “If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever YOU want and it will be done for you. My Father is glorified by this: that you bear much fruit, and prove to be my disciples.”

Not only does this passage explicitly state that you’ll receive what “YOU” personally desire (it doesn’t limit it to what GOD might want, but emphasizes “YOU”), but Jesus Himself positions these answered prayers—for the very things “YOU WANT”—as His genuine test of orthodoxy and discipleship. The gospel is Jesus’ Creed, and answered prayers is His test to see if you are legitimate. He declares that it “proves” you are truly His disciple if you pray for what you want and God provides them.

And why is that the case? It’s because only those who are true insiders within the Contract enjoy this level of privileged access to the Father. Outsiders simply don’t have the clearance. Jesus is offering up a test of orthodoxy that’s impossible to counterfeit or simulate. Only legitimate children of God can casually ask for anything they desire, and watch as the Father delightedly grants it. Reprobates and those outside the covenant are barred from this access and the vibrant life it brings.

This mirrors the kind of proof Jesus provided for His own identity as the Son of Man. The religious phonies and obsessive fanboys would obsess over external rituals, like washing the outside of a cup, to fabricate an appearance of being part of the Elect. But since they are, in reality, reprobates, they can’t deliver the authentic proof of orthodoxy, which boils down to genuine faith. Faith provides unhindered, direct access to God and serves as irrefutable evidence that you’re among the Elect. Jesus demonstrated that God was listening to His prayers, and through that, He showcased the Father’s full approval. This wasn’t something He achieved through His own isolated power; rather, God bestowed upon Him the fullness of the Spirit (a gift we’re also explicitly commanded to pursue and receive), and granted Him every request He made in prayer. By doing so, Jesus proved that His insider relationship with God was of the most intimate variety possible. Jesus urged people to believe Him, precisely because of His miracles. “Don’t believe me unless I carry out my Father’s work. But if I do his work, believe in the evidence of the miraculous works I have done, even if you don’t believe me,” John 10:37-38. And here’s the kicker: God commands us to do something similar, to receive answered prayers for miracles as tangible proof that we are indeed Elect insiders, rather than reprobates destined for the flames. He insists on a form of proof that no reprobate could replicate.

Aside from Jesus’ Creedal “proof” for discipleship, there’s also the truth about just how intimate our status as Contract insiders truly is. God loves us deeply; He views us as cherished children who sit at His family table. We can boldly ask for whatever WE want, and He will joyfully hand it over. The Father destroyed His only begotten Son by the agony of crucifixion. He was scourged and torn apart. He motions toward Jesus’ bloodied body and declares, “This is how seriously I take my promises.” He goes to great lengths to provide assurance that He will fulfill what He has pledged. And He has pledged to give us whatever we ask for in faith. Pause and reflect on the sheer lovingkindness of God toward us, on the unwavering loyalty of His unmerited favor for those He has chosen to love!

Billy came back with this retort:  
“Where are all these miracles? I do not see them. If what you are saying is true, then no one is saved.”

In my head, the immediate reaction was, “You David Hume empiricist whore, you spiritual adulterer and faithless pervert. You have sold out your soul to worldly philosophy at the most bedrock level of your worldview, outright rejecting God in the process.”

Aware that this individual prided themselves on being “Reformed,” I chose to respond by drawing on how God Himself addressed a comparable accusation in Scripture. First off, Paul in Romans chapter 9 acknowledges that if we’re just going by human observation (that is, empiricism and inductive reasoning), it might appear God has failed to save His people. But Paul counters that God hasn’t failed at all, because His promise was always to bless those included in the promise through election, not merely those born naturally as Jews. An overwhelming surplus of reprobates in no way invalidates God’s promise to save His elect ones.

Paul then references the story of Elijah and God as a prime illustration. Elijah was no minor figure in Israel—he was a heavyweight prophet, widely recognized, extensively traveled, and deeply experienced in the nation’s affairs. After enduring so much, he hits a low point of discouragement and complains to God that he is the sole remaining believer in all of Israel. As I mentioned, Elijah wasn’t some isolated rural farmer with limited exposure; he had seen and interacted with Israel. So, from a purely human evaluative perspective, his credibility for drawing an inductive—though fundamentally irrational—conclusion from his observations is better than most. He concludes, based on empirical data and inductive logic, that he is the last faithful one, and he presents this as truth before God Himself. But God rebukes Elijah, informing him that He has personally reserved 7,000 individuals who have stayed loyal. This ties directly into the Romans 9 framework, where God asserts that before people are even born or have done anything good or bad, He sovereignly chooses to love some and hate others, according to His election and reprobation. The lump was neutral; it wasn’t already bad or good. From this neutral lump God then creates good or bad things.

“God has not rejected his people, whom he foreknew! Or do you not know, in the passage about Elijah, what the scripture says—how he appeals to God against Israel? ‘Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have torn down your altars, and I alone am left, and they are seeking my life!’ But what does the divine response say to him? ‘I have left for myself seven thousand people who have not bent the knee to Baal.’ So in this way also at the present time, there is a remnant selected by grace,” Romans 11:2-5.

The very same response God gave to Elijah, Paul affirms, held true in his own era and continues to apply today.

Therefore, when someone whines, “I don’t see all these miracles and answered prayers (as Jesus described and commanded in John 15:7-8), so they must not exist, and so what Jesus said can’t possibly mean what it plainly states,” they’re behaving with the same irrational arrogance as Elijah did. God’s rebuke to Elijah is perfectly applicable here as well. God has reserved for Himself 7,000—or perhaps 70,000,000—who have not bowed the knee to empiricism (that modern Baal) and who haven’t abandoned Jesus’ directive for answered prayers. Regardless of what Elijah could observe and compute through his senses, God’s declaration is the sole valid starting point for all knowledge. God is truthful when He proclaims a remnant according to election, while Elijah was acting as a liar and a false witness against the truth. His false testimony stemmed directly from his reliance on empiricism and inductive conclusions.

So what if you personally don’t witness an abundance of answered prayers and miracles? Even if that implies there’s an excessive number of reprobates infiltrating the church, just as Paul noted with the Jews, it doesn’t indicate any failure on God’s part. It simply means the reprobates have failed to attain insider status due to their deficient faith, and as for the rest, it’s likely because you yourself are a reprobate, which explains why you’re not positioned to witness God’s power in action.

Religious fanboys and self-proclaimed Reformed enthusiasts love to bandy about doctrines like election and reprobation, but since these are mature, adult-level truths, they are utterly wasted on childish minds. This doctrine of reprobation is like a loaded gun pointed straight at their own faces, and they are the ones gripping the trigger. They will end up harming themselves and bystanders whenever they mishandle it. Perhaps the reason they fling around the term “reprobate” so freely is that, by God’s ironic providence, they themselves are reprobates and feel an unconscious affinity for the word.

I absolutely cherish God’s providence, especially because I don’t reject half the Bible to suit my preferences. As Vincent Cheung insightfully observes in “Predestination and Miracles,” I am predestined to experience miracles. But you outsiders, just because you have grasped a narrow sliver of God’s sovereignty and reprobation doesn’t exempt you from being reprobates yourselves. Similarly, just because Satan could lecture you on certain facets of hell doesn’t spare him from eternal imprisonment there. He might know it intimately because he’s experiencing it firsthand as God’s enemy.

If you are a genuine disciple, you will embrace with wholehearted faith all of God’s commands, promises, and His sovereign faithfulness. Those who have been “born from above” don’t fabricate excuses for their faltering faith if they encounter struggles; instead, they echo the desperate father seeking deliverance for his son, crying out, “Help my unbelief.” The Elect will pursue and obtain stronger faith. They are authentic disciples who mature in faith rather than in unbelief. They advance forward instead of retreating in fear. They are true insiders; thus, the Spirit whispers within their souls, “You are a child of God, so ask! And you will receive. Draw near to your Father, for He loves you deeply.”

There is a divine daycare drama: Spiritual losers are crashing theology cars, while the elect grown-ups cruise on miracle highways, leaving empiricist whiners in the dust.

Starting Point for Knowledge.

The other glaring issue in this person’s response is their rejection of God at the most profound level of worldview construction. That is, when confronting the ultimate question of knowledge (here using “knowledge” is exchangeable for truth), what serves as the foundational starting point or first principle from which you derive this knowledge? Every other ultimate question—whether concerning existence, causality, ethics, value, history, humanity, salvation, and beyond—will flow directly from this epistemological foundation. To call it merely important would be a massive understatement.

The Reformed cult loves to ridicule Catholics for their boastful dual starting point for knowledge, which adds the Pope to Scripture. But let’s dissect that: What is the Pope, really? He’s just a fallible man. When the Pope appends additions to Scripture, it’s rooted in the Pope’s observation and empiricism (a blatant logical fallacy) and often layered with additional fallacies of induction. The technical terms here are speculation (for empiricism) and superstition (for any inductive logic). The crucial element in both is a “man”-centered starting point for knowledge. In this epistemology, man does not begin with God’s direct revelation but with himself. Man, through some fallacious empiric process, magically extracts invisible true and false propositions from mere observation. Then, he employs superstitious induction to craft a premise from which to deduce further. But since this premise is built on speculation and superstition, even applying deductive logic can’t salvage or transform it into knowledge. It’s fundamentally a “man” starting point versus a God-revealed starting point that’s divinely disclosed, not sensorily derived. As Jesus told Peter, “Flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father has.”

By a straightforward logical analysis, empiricism is exposed as inherently irrational. Therefore, as a starting point for knowledge, it is ontologically impossible. It doesn’t exist.[2]

However, since Scripture is my starting point, what does my epistemology declare about empiricism? Vincent Cheung was the one who first drew my attention to these pertinent verses.

Commenting on 2 Kings 3:16-24 [3], he explains: “What did the Moabites see – blood or water? The Moabites thought they saw blood, but their senses deceived them. We know that they saw water that looked like blood because this is what the infallible testimony of Scripture says. Thus the passage points out that the senses are unreliable, and shows that we depend on divine inspiration to tell us about particular instances of sensations.” [4]

Vincent also references John 12:28-29, Matthew 14:25-27, and Matthew 28:16-17.

Even though these represent just a handful of divine revelations where empiricism (knowledge beginning with sensation) is shown to be erroneous, it’s enough to consign the entire approach to the trash heap of skepticism.

To underscore the gravity, consider if I could demonstrate even one instance where Scripture was false. For instance, what if it turned out Jesus was born in South Asia rather than Israel? The problem isn’t that every other premise would automatically be wrong; rather, there would be no infallible mechanism to justify any premise from scriptural. It would plunge the entire Bible (as a starting point for knowledge) into skepticism. But skepticism inherently denies the law of non-contradiction and is thus ontologically impossible.

If the notion that invisible knowledge arises from sensation is true, then where is the justification? How is this possible without violating the laws of contradiction and identity? Where is the sound argument to prove it?

Having a mental image of Mt. St. Helens is merely a copy of it (2); it’s not the actual mountain itself (1). That’s one categorical distinction, and then there’s yet another leap: forming propositional thoughts about (3) this indirect copy (2) of the real Mt. St. Helens (1). There exists no logical justification for these two categorical jumps between premises and conclusion. Essentially, the syllogism is as absurd as stating, “All dogs are mammals. All blue things are colors. Therefore, all humans are clouds.” There’s no more valid justification for that nonsense than for claiming that propositional thoughts in an invisible mind, based on a pictorial copy in my physical brain, constitute genuine knowledge about the actual Mt. St. Helens. Both are manipulating categorical realities as if they were malleable play-dough. That might fly in selling fantasy novels, but it falls flat when analyzing the reality.

This exposition has established that our sole viable starting point for knowledge is God Himself. Any starting point originating with “man” inevitably leads to skepticism, but skepticism is logically impossible and nonexistent. All human-initiated starting points for knowledge are illusory, existing only in realms of delusion and fantasy.

Most Christians intuitively grasp this without requiring all this technical breakdown. But when reprobates sneak into the Church and mislead the flock, it becomes necessary to deliver a thorough and scathing rebuke.

Many will affirm something like, “The Bible is our final authority.” But what I’m articulating here is even more foundational. I begin with the Bible as my exclusive public first principle for knowledge, and nothing else. If you claim ‘x’ is knowledge but can’t demonstrate it derives directly from the Bible or logically deduces from it, then by definition, it’s not knowledge.

Thus, when the Bible states that if I believe in God’s only Son for salvation from my sins and confess it, that’s a definitive truth claim about reality. It’s not a mere probability; it’s an eternally sure and reliable truth. If Billy counters, “Well, I’ve observed some Christians who renounced their faith and now worship Satan. Therefore, the Bible must be wrong, or people misunderstand it. What the Bible really means is that one can have faith in God for salvation, yet God might still reject them to hell.”

The core problem here is foundational. Billy has employed a “human” starting point to generate supposed knowledge, then uses that as a superior authority to override the Bible, forcing the Bible to conform its meaning to this human-produced “knowledge” via empiricism and induction. The fatal flaw is that all human starting points for epistemology yield nothing but speculation and superstition. No authentic knowledge emerges from a human epistemology—not even basic identifications like what constitutes a “tree” or a “dog.”

Most Christians, upon hearing Billy’s twist on faith and salvation, would be rightly alarmed; they’d at least have a hazy sense that he’s using a human starting point to dismiss what the Bible clearly teaches about faith and salvation. But when the conversation shifts to faith for answered prayers or faith for healing, suddenly a slew of Christians flip to human starting points as if they’re lifelong experts. They wield empiricism and induction like undisputed champions, enough to make David Hume and the Pope turn green with envy. If those historical figures could have clung to human foundations as instinctively as some Christians do, they would have lured even more souls to Satan’s side.

If resorting to empiricism for knowledge production feels so natural and automatic, then there’s a strong likelihood it’s your actual master and foundational bedrock. If you don’t commence with God for knowledge, how on earth do you expect to conclude with His revelation? You won’t, naturally. What you start with is your ultimate authority. If you don’t start with scripture, its not your authority.

When you read Jesus declaring that if His words abide in you and you in Him, then you can ask whatever you wish and God will grant it, you must begin with this as unassailable knowledge and refuse to contradict it. Obviously, you can’t pit other Scriptures against this, because the Bible and Jesus repeatedly affirm that if you have faith—whether for salvation, healing, or whatever you desire—you will obtain it. Jesus specifies it’s what “YOU” want.

There is a wrong place to start: it’s in starting with YOU when generating knowledge. From this place, you can ask in faith and God might still deny it. To fall back on “I do not see…, or I observe…, or the church fathers did not see or observe,” makes you nothing short of a recycled Pope. You’re a spiritual pervert at the foundational level of knowledge. You don’t initiate with God to acquire truth; you begin with YOU. You’ve relied on speculation and superstition in equal measure to some primitive shaman gazing at the moon and deducing ‘x’ or ‘y.’

Why do people engage in this? First, it’s how reprobates naturally think and operate. They’re simply acting in accordance with their inherent nature. Apart from Scripture as the starting point, all alternatives (including every non-Christian religion) revert to some form of human starting point. Thus, it’s instinctive for reprobates to reveal their true human foundation when encountering biblical truths that unsettle them or provoke discomfort. Secondly, to camouflage their own human starting point, they’ll mock more blatant examples like the Pope. This allows them to hide in the shadows of obvious reprobates. They chant “sola Scriptura,” but it’s a magician’s misdirection for “sola empiricism.” Thirdly, they crave human approval, and since it’s natural for reprobates to favor human epistemologies, other reprobates will gravitate toward them, offering praise, validation, and financial support.

If you are truly not a reprobate but merely imitating one out of spiritual immaturity, then repent immediately while opportunity remains. Tomorrow isn’t promised. God is eager to forgive and restore you. He will fulfill what He has promised. If you ask in faith for God’s forgiveness, He will grant it. If you are an insider to His love and Contract, then ask and receive, because He desires you to do so. He commanded it precisely because He wanted to create scenarios where you ask and He provides. God orchestrated this dynamic, because He sovereignty wants it. He wants you to ask, while He pays the bill. You don’t need to grovel or beg.

Because of God’s promises, which He sovereignly chose to issue, and the Contract sealed in blood, God has made it necessary for Himself to heed your faith-filled prayers and bring you what you desire, be it spiritual or material. Jesus stated it was “necessary” for the daughter of Abraham (who had been bent over for 18 years) to be healed on the Sabbath. The term “necessary” here is akin to saying 5+5 necessarily equals 10. It’s not just a sufficient or preferable reason; it’s an inescapable one. Jesus asserts that because she is a Contract insider to God’s love, it is “necessary” for God to heal her. God set it up this way because He wants it.

Jesus, in perfect alignment, stood firmly on God’s Word as His source of knowledge, and those who truly follow Him will emulate that stance.

“And this woman, who is a daughter of Abraham,
whom Satan bound eighteen long years—
is it not necessary that she be released
from this bond on the day of the Sabbath?” (Luke 13:16 LEB)

Epistemological smackdown central: Where empiricist pretenders build crumbling sandcastles of sense-data delusion, Scripture loyalists fortify unbreachable truth citadels, laughing at the skeptical tide washing it all away.

————-

[1] Vincent Cheung. Faith Override. From the ebook, Sermonettes Vol. 9. 2016.

[2] Even the secular philosopher David Hume admitted as much about his starting point of empiricism leading to skepticism.

[3] While the harp was being played, the power of the Lord came upon Elisha, and he said, “This is what the Lord says: This dry valley will be filled with pools of water! You will see neither wind nor rain, says the Lord, but this valley will be filled with water. You will have plenty for yourselves and your cattle and other animals. But this is only a simple thing for the Lord, for he will make you victorious over the army of Moab! You will conquer the best of their towns, even the fortified ones. You will cut down all their good trees, stop up all their springs, and ruin all their good land with stones.”

The next day at about the time when the morning sacrifice was offered, water suddenly appeared! It was flowing from the direction of Edom, and soon there was water everywhere.

Meanwhile, when the people of Moab heard about the three armies marching against them, they mobilized every man who was old enough to strap on a sword, and they stationed themselves along their border. But when they got up the next morning, the sun was shining across the water, making it appear red to the Moabites—like blood. “It’s blood!” the Moabites exclaimed. “The three armies must have attacked and killed each other! Let’s go, men of Moab, and collect the plunder!”

[4] Vincent Cheung. Presuppositional Confrontations. 2010. Pg 70. http://www.vincentcheung.com