Some people like to debate issues ranging form evolution to global warming to socialism. I want to understand the depth of their thinking, so I ask them to tell me the basis of their thoughts: "How do you know this?" "What makes you think so?" "What is your basis for that?"We always end up with a hand full of hot air: "This is what I prefer to believe.""This is what so-and-so says." "My basis is such-and-such, which is a valid assumption." "People who disagree with me are making the wrong assumptions." "I guess I just made it up." The list of "foundational thoughts" could go on, but, as you can see, the foundation for these thoughts is a pile of sand. There is not solid footing. Yet these people are so sure of themselves. The concept of rationalism says that rationalism is the most valid form of reasoning, superior even to observation and experience.That is to say that "I just made it up, and every other thought is not valid because I made up this story." Is this really the best form of reasoning? Is this even sane?

So here we are with the people on the left side of the culture war saying that it makes perfect sense to have reasoning based on, "I just made it up."Then, these same people use all types of methods to hide their precarious reasoning and claim to be dealing with data and facts and research when they are really dealing with, "I just made it up."To top it all off, these same people assert that it is silly for the people on the right to put any stock the Bible, a book which has never been proved in error.

People who accept the lies of this age accept these lies based on presuppositions.  These presuppositions are just simple-minded assumptions.  They are filters and a way to censor out any information that supports the existence of God.  They set up a web of rules to filter out God.  They will only accept those things that conform to Naturalism, materialism, and uniformitarianism.  Naturalism claims that God does nothing.  Materialism claims that there is no God or spiritual realm.  Uniformitarianism claims that there was not creation and that there was no violent worldwide flood, as the Bible and numerous other historical accounts record.  Whatever they observe that does not conform to this complex filter is censored.  The way that it is censored can take several forms.  The ungodly may boldly proclaim that, though the data appears to support God's version and refute the version of the ungodly, yet it still must be interpreted to mean just the opposite of what it does mean.  A backup method that ungodly people use is to prophecy that in the future, science will be able to explain what they see as an anomaly.  If that fails, they will hide the data, set it aside, or lie to keep the public from knowing the truth.  The data clearly demolishes the story of the ungodly and clearly supports the reality of the Creator God, His Bible, and His abiding Presence in His people.  When confronted with the obvious, a closed-minded ungodly person says, "I can't understand it."  They are willingly ignorant because they refuse to hold God in their knowledge.  The reality is that these people, for whatever reason, don't what to know the Creator.  They don't want to truly know Jesus, their Creator.