Tag Archives: worldview

Is It Not With Your Senses?

This is a good example to go over. It shows how the other side often does not even understand what a worldview is, let alone how to argue for one.

Oshea (replying to a video): “Christians usually respond by attacking metaphysics, which isn’t wrong. However, it is better to attack their starting point for knowledge. Attack it hard. Using sensations to prove sensation is circular nonsense. Without knowing, there is no knowledge about any aspect of their worldview.”

Johnny Billy: “How do you come to belief in God? Is it not with your senses? Doesn’t everyone have the same epistemic limits? Presupposing God to prove God is also circular nonsense.”

“How do you come to belief in God? Is it not with your senses?”

No.

That sentence already assumes your starting point and then demands I live inside it. That is the very thing under dispute. If that is how debates are won, then I can just say, “Since you read the peer-reviewed article using God’s innate knowledge, I win.” I know that is what happened in the causality of the thing — knowledge comes from God — but that is not a public argument in the context of a debate. It is me describing reality on my worldview’s terms.

A blank slate cannot interpret a tree. Look at the bark all day. What leaves the eye is not “tree,” “oak,” “living,” “outside me,” or “this is not a dream.” Those are universals and judgments. Universals do not leak out of particular sensations. To understand any datum at all you already need logic, self, space, time, difference, identity, motion, meaning, language, and causation. The data does not give you those. You bring them, or you do not have “data.” You have a twitch.

It is logically impossible to start with sensation in the premise and arrive at “logic, self, space, time, difference, identity, motion, meaning, language, causation” without jumping categories and breaking identity. Sensation is not logic. A color-patch is not the law of contradiction. A sound is not “therefore.”

So no: I did not come to God by cataloging sensations and then inducting my way to the Trinity. The reason is simpler than a conversion story. If I start with sensation, I cannot know any term about anything in reality. Nothing. Not “God.” Not “no God.” Not “senses.” Not “Johnny.”

Vincent Cheung puts the wheel in the open in “Questions for Empiricists” (Sermonettes, Volume 1):

“What is a sensation? How did you learn the meaning of a sensation? How do you know when you are having a sensation? Do you sense the sensation to know that you have a sensation? If you sense a sensation, then how do you know that? Do you sense the sensation that senses the sensation? Then, do you sense the sensation that senses the sensation that senses the sensation? … If information comes from sensation, then how do you know when you are having a sensation?”

That is not a cute riddle. That is the start eating itself. If knowledge comes from sensation, then knowing that you are sensing is another sensation, and knowing that is another, and you never get the first justified term. You do not even get to name the method.

“Doesn’t everyone have the same epistemic limits?”

No. That is the whole fraud you bought.

Worldviews have different starting points. Different starting points do not have the same limits, because they are different. That is the law of identity, not a Bible tract. You assume an empiricist start, then act shocked that another start does not share your ceiling. The Christian start is God’s revelation. The causality of knowledge is defined by that same account of reality: God, not nerve endings. Very different start. Very different limits.

“Epistemic limits,”

is a polite way to say your starting point cannot justify knowledge and meaning. A start has one job: make knowledge possible. Empiricism fails that job and then calls the failure humility. What it actually yields is skepticism. Skepticism cannot even be stated without using the knowledge it denies. “I know that we cannot know” is a contradiction. So empiricism does not survive as a starting point. A start that makes knowledge impossible is not a limited start. It is a dead one.

Pretending we all begin with sensation is not humility. It is a failure to argue for a worldview. The whole point of a worldview debate is that the starts differ, and you are here to show yours can carry knowledge and the other cannot. Assuming we all begin as empiricists is like walking into a room of rival worldviews and saying, “Aliens gave us consciousness, so why do you believe the Qur’an?” That is not an argument. That is you treating your story as the weather. If aliens-gave-us-knowledge is your epistemology, it is your job to argue for it. It is not a human default.

And since Scripture contradicts empiricism, if I granted that I depend on sensation to know the Bible, I would be denying the worldview I claim to believe. I would be saying the start is sensation and the start is revelation. Those are not the same thing.

“Presupposing God to prove God is also circular.”

You are confusing empiricism with every other starting point. You are so used to empiricism’s circle that you think every axiom must be the same shape. That is sloppy on its face, because my start is not yours.

Every system has an undeduced starting point. That is what a first principle is. If you can deduce it, it is not first. Empiricism uses sensation to prove sensation. That is circular, it never terminates, and it dies as skepticism. Skepticism cannot be spoken without contradicting itself. You need knowledge to deny knowledge.

Scripture does not lean on premises outside itself. It is self-authenticating by the sufficiency of its own content — similar to the law of contradiction, rather than to a hamster wheel called empiricism. The law of contradiction is not “proved” by a second, backup law of contradiction. It is the standard: to use it, you use it; to deny it, you use it. Empiricism is not like that. To “prove” a sensation you need another sensation, and another, and another. That is infinite regress, not self-authentication. So yes: sensation, used as a start, is circular. Revelation, used as a start, is a first principle. Calling both “circular” is how you hide that only one of them can even speak.

You want to talk metaphysics? Fine. You still do not have knowledge. Using sensations to prove sensation leaves you with no start. Without a start, you have no knowledge about any aspect of your worldview — including the objection you just made. You borrowed logic, self, space, time, difference, identity, motion, meaning, language, and causation. You borrowed “circular.” You borrowed “limits.” You borrowed the demand for justification. Then you pretended those tools fell out of an empiricist start you also admit is defective and limited.

Empiricism does not yield any knowledge. That is the argument.

It was never “God exists because a sunset felt warm.” It was this: your method cannot know anything, including that sentence. You cannot even know to deny my stance on God, because on your start you have no knowledge.

I Win No Matter What

I remember Vincent Cheung saying in Blinded by Atheism, “Apologetics is so easy that if it is the main focus of your life and if you become any good at it, you might become disillusioned with boredom and with a lack of purpose.”

He is correct; if you use biblical deductionalism or rationalism. If I choose not to be nice and always take apologetic arguments to the presuppositional level straight away (supposing my opponent even has the intellectual ability to go there), I win no matter what happens. If I stick to the scripture, I win. It doesn’t matter what my opponent says; if they say anything, I win. Even if all they say is the word “as,” I win.

The presuppositional level has to do with your starting point for knowledge and to a larger degree the things you must have in order to have any intelligence. My worldview is not their worldview. My Bible says it is true and all others are false. It says knowledge comes from God, not observation or empiricism. Thus, my worldview disagrees with all other worldviews about the presupposition of knowledge. Because other worldviews always disagree with my worldview about knowledge and the Bible is always right, then any knowledge they use does not come from their worldview, and so they never have logical justification for any knowledge they have. It does not matter if it is their own name, if it is knowledge about a tree, bird, or something abstract like “as,” “the,” or logic, or math; all such knowledge does not come from their worldview. Their worldview has no intelligence, or true or false premises about anything in reality; it has no subjects or predicates; it has no logic or math.

Even if I argue my position in a poor way, I still win. If we consider the worldview argument like a tree, the presuppositional level is the axe laid at the trunk of the tree. Even if I poorly argue for a point and my opponent seems to win a small point, they only manage to save a small twig at the top of the tree. However, one swing with my axe and the whole tree comes down.

If they make any statement about reality, or ask any question about reality or my worldview, I am not allowed to accept it, because the Bible says only it is true, says all others are false, and only it has knowledge. They do not have knowledge, and so they cannot use knowledge to make a statement about anything. If an atheist says rock layers show… (it does not matter what the conclusion is; the important thing is the knowledge of the terms rock and layers), I cannot receive his statement without presupposing his epistemology gives him knowledge. But the Bible clearly says only God gives knowledge; all others are false. If I accept his epistemology gives him the ability to use the terms “rock” and “layers,” then I reject the Bible at the same time because the Bible says only it gives knowledge (via God’s direct power) and all others are false. To use empiricism with my opponent is to reject my God at the same time. To use empiricism is to give the tree trunk to my opponent, so that the very best I can do is cut down some of his worldview branches, because I have now lost the ability to chop down the foundation of his worldview.

I would tell my opponent,

I do not use your epistemology of empiricism, which you used to produce the terms of rock and layers. If you are going to question me using an anti-biblical epistemology (the very thing we disagree about), then the logical burden of proof is on you to justify the knowledge of rock and layers. I admit, if I were to use or assume with you your empiricism, I must also reject my Christianity. But this is the very thing we disagree about, or will you just accept the Bible is the only starting point for knowledge? Because if you do, then I win, and you will be saved. I don’t believe in your worldview. I refuse to go further, because the burden of proof is on you. If you do not have knowledge of rock and layers, it is pointless what the conclusions are. You attacked me with the certainty that you have the knowledge of rocks and layers. I do not believe you. I don’t presuppose your worldview.

Cold Water on Their Fleshly Thoughts

To be carnally minded is death. What does it mean to be carnally minded? The word carnal is about the flesh. You can focus on the flesh in two ways. One is giving yourself over to its impulses like lust or anger; however, the other is more like empiricism. You use the flesh in a foundation for knowledge rather than the Word and the Spirit.  The fleshly mind is about, well, the flesh; getting knowledge from the 5 senses and feelings. Romans 8 contrasts this with “spiritual minded.” Jesus said to Peter, “flesh and blood did not reveal this, but My Father.” This is a similar contrast. Flesh is contrasted with divine revelation for knowledge.

The bible gives an infallible testimony that observation is mistaken, and so it is trash and garbage as a source for knowledge. Thus, to use any observation as a dual starting point for knowledge with scripture is worthy of excommunication and rejection.  However, beyond this, the bible puts a special contrast to the bible as an epistemology vs using the flesh. Whenever the bible says anything and you are presented with a different knowledge produced by your observations, sensations or feelings, you have two choices. One is to be spiritual, or spiritually minded and believe the Word. The other is to be fleshly minded and believe what you observe, see or feel.

Most Christians seem to be completely sold out to being fleshly minded. It does not matter how many times Jesus teaches, “if you have faith and ask, then you get what you ask,” including healing, they will say, “I don’t see this.” Their worldview is flesh foundational. Their minds are carnally dominated. Their authority is their eyes, and not the word. They are total perverts when it comes to knowledge and worldview. They are the worst type of spiritual whores.

They might condemn someone looking at porn, but they are humping on fleshly knowledge so hard, they would make girls working the red-light district blush in envy. “She lusted after lovers with genitals as large as a donkey’s and emissions like those of a horse,” Ezekiel 23:20 NLT. When these knowledge perverts see, feel and observe, they get a hardon as big as a donkey, and then orgasm so much, a stallion would get jealous. Hearing Jesus say, “we get, what we ask in faith,” keeps them mentally limp. Reading the bible say that by Jesus’ stripes we are healed, makes their carnal minds flabby. Finding James saying, “the prayer of faith will heal the sick,” is like splashing cold water on their fleshly thoughts. But as soon as their flesh does not see prayers answered or their flesh don’t observe the sick healed by prayer, their pants bulge as if a pornstar just asked them out on a date.

those who trust in what they can see, touch, or feel are “cheating” on divine revelation with the flesh. They are the nastiest sort of worldview whores. They are committing the ultimate epistemological infidelity.

Knowledge is a worldview issue. Knowledge determines everything about your worldview. If any two worldviews have different foundations of knowledge, then they are two different worldviews. They will see and interact with reality differently.  To have it based on fleshly observations and sensations is a anti-biblical worldview, because the bible only endorses itself as the only source of knowledge, and condemns observations as mistaken.

It’s a complete worldview overhaul, far worse than any other sin in scope because it challenges the very foundation of faith.

I say this to state how much bigger of a mistake it is to be fleshly minded on the topic of knowledge as compared to fleshly minded on the narrow subject of something like porn or prostitutes. This is not to excuse sins of lust, but to only point out the scope of such sins. Paul says, to the Corinthians, if you are misbehaving sexually, then get married. He still considered them God’s elect. They needed correction and a new positive focus, but they were still Christians.

However, to take the bible as the only source or knowledge and exchange it with fleshly based knowledge is to exchange your entire Christian worldview.  With sins of lust, it is just one part of the worldview you are struggling with. The bible tells us lust is a powerful force and so warns us about it, because it will be a tripping point for even Christians. However, flesh knowledge is the entire worldview itself.

It is not that this is the unforgivable sin, but a true born-from-above mind would never exchange Word knowledge for flesh knowledge. Satan asked God for Peter’s faith. Satan wanted the whole thing to fail. But we know the story, it was a momentary trip, but not an utter fall. Thus, there can be momentary trips, but God sovereignly will not lead our faith or worldview to utterly fall. God will not allow His elect to exchange revelation knowledge for observation knowledge. Just as God caused Peter to get up and get strong in faith so that he said, “What I have, I give, get up and walk,” God will cause an elect to get up and stop getting horny over fleshly observation as a source of knowledge.

The Christian who will not repent of this, after repeated attempts are to be mocked, excommunicated and abandoned.  Maybe after Satan destroys their flesh, they will stop using it as a source of knowledge.

Ultimate Authority


Imagine being so stupid that when you read 2 Corin. 8:9 you think it is about “spiritual” wealth rather than financial wealth. The words say wealth and poverty. Reading comprehension? Read the words first, before determining what the words say. First rule of reading: read the damn words! Paul’s out here collecting cash, so yeah, it’s about money, not some ethereal nonsense. Only a pastor or theologian could be this delusional.

Even if you can get additional insights from a redemptive historical reading of this passages, it is only indirect and secondary, and it would have zero relevance is negating the direct teaching of the passage.

This money substitute was part of the atonement of Jesus. He took our poverty, and gave us His wealth. It was part of the substitutionary exchange with Jesus. Also, curses included poverty. And Jesus took our curses of poverty, being nailed to a tree, and gave us the gospel of Abraham, which included miracle money. Jesus took our poverty, nailed it to the cross, and gave us his bling. It’s part of the whole Jesus substitution package deal. Mock the money part, you mock Jesus and trample His atonement. You’re not just wrong, you’re God’s enemy, an anti-Christian piece of trash. Such people have an anti-Christian worldview.

They leap from money to a spiritual category so fast, they don’t even bother to read the passage to learn from it. The Bible isn’t their authority; their observations are. The bible is not their final authority or first principle of knowledge, which is why they don’t even try to pretend to read the text. They have a different worldview. They will say things like, “I don’t see all Christians prospering.” They appeal to their observations as their final authority because the bible is not their authority. It never was. They use the bible to make their observations the highest judge. They are ruled by emotions, not scripture, and it shows with “reprobate” written all over their face.

Imagine you manage an Apple store. You hire a new employee, and the next day, you notice Microsoft products displayed on the counter. You pull the employee aside and ask what is going on. “This is an Apple store, and you affirmed that we only sell Apple products during the hiring process, why did you display Microsoft products?”

They affirm “we only sell Apple,” but then say “Microsoft also has keyboards and screens and so we can sell their stuff.” Of course, it doesn’t matter what the excuse is, it is irrelevant. There is no excuse. They affirmed we only sell Apple products. Thus we have 2 options. They really are that stupid that they don’t see the contradiction of their action to sell non-Apple products. Or they are wilfully trying to destroy the store.

The person I described is a typical Christian, pastor or theologian.

They say the Bible is their only starting point for knowledge and authority on truth, but they interpret a passage so that it doesn’t matter what the terms say or the context. When you point this out, they appeal to what they observe.

2 Corinthians 8:9 is about finances and the context is also about finances. They change the category to spiritual, as if the Bible was breathed out by their words and categories, not God’s.

Imagine how proud Satan is to see a person affirming the Bible is God breathed, but you steal God’s breath and change it to your breath.

Later they say, “but we don’t see all prospering,” or regarding the promises of healing, “we don’t see all healed.” And then they conclude, “it must not be God’s will to heal all,” or “even if you have faith to move mountains, God will do what He wants despite if you believe.” They say God is their authority, but they appeal to the authority of observation and sensation. Like the new hire, they affirm we only sell Apple products, but keeps displaying Microsoft products. Has an Apple new hire been so perverted and hypocritical as to sell Microsoft? I doubt it. And yet Christians are this perverted and hypocritical when they appeal to observation as an authority.

This is a worldview issue. To have different authorities will make your entire worldview different.

I do not address them as Christians but as reprobates and outsiders. I say this, not to be harsh, but to be exact and frank. A worldview is determined by one’s starting point for knowledge. If a person uses their observations for this, then we have a fundamentally different worldview. Not just small difference; we have an entirely different way to view reality. Not just a different take, we’re on different planets here. The moment they say, “I don’t see all prospering or healed,” it is not a matter of theology, but it is now a worldview issue. It is an ultimate authority issue. We have different ways to understand reality, not just reading text. Until they can prove they can get knowledge from observations and defend the irrational use of induction and empiricism, they have no justification for knowledge.

The biblical worldview reveals itself as the only epistemology and rejects all others, including observations. The bible rejects my use of observations to determine if something is knowledge. The bible does not allow me to observe and then use this to determine if something is false or true. If a so-called Christian appeals to their observation, “I don’t see all healed,” it means we view reality differently. The reason an atheist and I have different worldviews, is because I appeal to scripture for knowledge, and they appeal to observations.

The bible does not allow me to appeal to observations, “if I see people healed or not,” as an epistemology or an authority. Thus, if a so-called Christian appeals to observations to obtain any knowledge or authority, we are now as far apart as atheism is from Christianity. Because we appeal to different authorities, we have different worldviews. Because we appeal to different foundations of knowledge, we have different realities. It is not a matter of context of a text, but of worldviews. My worldview does not allow me to appeal to the authority of my observations, but the other so-called Christian is allowed. It is a matter of ultimate authority, not context. Because observations are not consistent, or justified, and because induction is not a valid conclusion, the dual authority of observation will always leave you room to make the text say what you want. This is why atheist and evolutionist love the authority of observation, because it lets them craft their worldview in their image.

These types of people appeal to the reprobate authority of observation, because, their worldview is a reprobate reality.

Different Worldviews

“The Catholic Church is the norm of faith. The Catholic Church is the teacher of truth. The Catholic Church is the security of salvation. The Catholic Church is the judge and interpreter of Scripture — which is neither defined nor interpreted. It is not necessary to read the Bible. It is necessary to listen to the Church.” (Some Catholic guy)

I saw this quote from a Catholic yesterday. The point to take away from this is basic. This is an entirely different worldview. It is not a matter of wrong interpretation of a few verses, the above is as distinct from Christianity as any other worldview or religion. When engaging them, you must engage them as you would a reprobate liberal atheist.

I will not go into all the wrong things, nor all the reasons why it is a different worldview, except this one comment.  Your starting-point for knowledge (i.e. epistemology) determines all the knowledge about your worldview. For this reason a worldview can simply be referred to its epistemology, because it is the source for the worldview’s knowledge. The above shows the Catholic’s epistemology in a dualism of the bible and men (Catholic church leaders). At this point I am not even saying if this is bad or good, but only stating what it is. Also because of St. Thomas, most Catholics have a third epistemology of empiricism. However, when there is a contradiction in this triple epistemology, the Catholic’s use Catholic leadership to make a final decision, and so, their true first-principle of knowledge is a human starting point. This is no different than atheism, with their human starting point for knowledge with empiricism. From a human point of power and money, it is clear why men want to be the final gate keepers, but this is irrelevant. The issue is that any deviation with starting points means you have completely different worldviews.  A worldview can be the same view of the world, if the starting point for knowledge is 100% the same. Even with a small 1% difference, because a worldview gives substantial knowledge about reality, the end result will be significant, and thus, different views about reality.

Also, I noticed something with Catholics that I also noticed with Reformed traditions, and that is, the arguments are mostly centered on men. My experience with Catholics and Reformed traditions is like Vincent Cheung’s essay, “Blinded by Atheism.” After their arguments, I am left saying to myself, “Where did God go? God is my defining foundation for reality, epistemology, salvation, praises and ethics, but in all your arguments, God isn’t there.”

 It is all about men. The Catholics and Reformed share this in common, they are a religion of men, focused on men.