Americans are giving up on what they call organized religion because they are truly ignorant of the facts that support a  belief in God. They have been convinced that science offers a more realistic explanation for our existence than religion.

Without going into who is to blame for all the ignorance, I would like to offer an explanation of why God has to be the real answer to all of life's questions. First, science or the scientific method, is not employed in answering questions of origin by those who say there is no God. The scientific method consists of systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. As you can see from this definition, none of this applies to the origin of mankind or the universe. It is not observable, so it cannot be measured. It cannot be replicated (not even the simplest one celled living organism has been created) so it cannot be tested. Since hypotheses are developed using one of these methods, so called hypotheses are created whole cloth from the desire of most scientists to satisfy their need for an alternative to a supernatural explanation for our existence. Has that prevented people from seeking a mechanism for explaining away the creation account in the Bible? No, of course not.

Let me give you an example of how the scientific community goes outside of the realm of science to remove God from the picture. Let's take the Big Bang theory. The theory supposes at the beginning of the universe, there was a primordial soup of certain basic elements. Now even an elementary understanding of physics tells us that even the simplest elements of the periodic table owe their existence to a very complex set of laws. So if such a primordial soup exists, it is either infinite or self creating and must have inherent power to order itself for recombining and replication. So the explanation, according to these supposedly brilliant people is...wait for it..

"here we are, so it must have happened!"

Even if you assume the existence of this primordial soup, the claim is that all of the mass in this soup began to collapse until it compressed into such a state that it exploded...VOILA!...the universe.  Never mind the facts that bely this imaginary event. What began the collapse? Never has such a thing been witnessed...gravity? Gravity is something we know about.  Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is sufficient to explain the forces of gravity relative to any given mass. There is no known gas or liquid (which is what we think of when something is called a soup) that even  approximates enough mass to begin the collapse of simple elements in the periodic table. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity  is required only when there is a need for extreme precision, or when dealing with very strong gravitational fields, such as those found near extremely massive and dense objects, or at very close distances. Again, no explanation is offered in the Big Bang Theory that makes gravity a viable mechanism to explain where such dense material came from or why this proposed material suddenly started collapsing. The Big Bang is a big flop.

Evolution is definitely not the answer to the existence of life. It can be proven mathematically that evolution is no answer at all.  See "Mathematically Proof Positive..." on this page

Other explanations are equally absurd, when objectively examined. However, In scientific circles, there is no room for objectivity. So all such science is doomed to fail. Reason is prevented by a hierarchy of elitist, dishonest and arrogant men and women who skoff and jeer at anyone who dare suggest there might be a creator/God. That is not to say that all scientists are blockheads. A substantial body of professionals in their various fields are open to an unbiased examination of information that suggests possible explanations outside the usual entrenched dogma in academic circles. They are unfortunately ostracized, belittled and hindered in their work if they speak out.

So those who are earnestly seeking truth will find it, if they are not merely looking for support of their preconceived ideas. The Bible is God's word. It has stood the test of time and numerous assaults on it's validity. It offers the only viable explanations for the questions of life and purports to be infallible. All men and their answers are questionable, God is not.  He presents the kind of evidence that human courts recognize and reason supports.  If one looks to men that claim to be Godly and have the answers, he is likely to be disappointed. God sent his Son to be an example of the kind of person we should strive to be. Look to Him for our pattern, not men or denominations of men. A record of men who followed that pattern is provided in God's word. Doing what they did to gain eternal life will have the same result when practiced today. Obeying the laws of God is far superior to an undisciplined life of sin, sorrow and hopelessness.    

God wants all men to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4), so he offers many convincing arguments and evidences. (Heb. 11:1) 

Logicians name various methods of reasoning like inductive or deductive, but both of these we commonly use and think of them simply as "if then" reasoning.  In science, "if then" reason is used in developing hypothesis. However, like the conclusions reached from syllogisms and other means of investigation or research, the conclusions stand or fall based on underlying assumptions. If any premise is false, the conclusion will also be false. The validity of "If then" models also depends on the postulated connection between premises. Does one premise always naturally follow from the other. For example, in the syllogism below, is Biblical foreknowledge always evidence of God?  Since men have no ability to see into the future with any degree of certainty, then, ("if then", reason) a supernatural explanation is required, so premise # 1 stands.   Secondly, does the Bible contain foreknowledge. That is also completely valid, because it has been known for centuries that events predicted throughout the Old Testament have been fulfilled with such accuracy, they are unquestioned by any objective standard. The 2 premises are true, so the conclusion is also true and accurately stated.     

Though the following are not always framed as syllogisms, many of them do fit well in this tool of logic. Look at some examples:

Premise 1) Biblical foreknowledge (prophesy) would be evidence for God.

Premise 2) The Bible contains foreknowledge.

Therefore, the Bible is evidence for God


Premise 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Premise 2) The universe began to exist. (Gen. 1:1)

Therefore, the universe has a cause. (Of course, it is God)

Premise 1) The more complex something is, the more likely it is a product of design. (Ps. 19:1)

Premise 2) Biological complexity is more complex than all man-made design. ( Romans 1:19-20)

Premise 3) Complex design is never considered spontaneous. 

Therefore, biological complexity is a product of design. (Design requires a designer)

Design in God's natural world is obvious...

Premise 1) Laws require a lawgiver.

Premise 2) The universe is governed by laws. (The laws of nature, God put in place, are observable.   Romans 1:20)

Therefore, the laws of nature require a lawgiver.  ( There is one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy..."  James 4:12)

Premise 1) If objective moral values exist, then God exists.

Premise 2) Objective moral values exist.

Minor premise) Men did not invent morality  (Mk. 10:18)

Therefore,God (who determines what is right and wrong) exists.   

Premise 1) The resurrection would be evidence for God.

Premise 2) The resurrection occurred. (Acts 4:33, 1 Cor. 15:12-19)

Therefore, the resurrection is evidence for God.

Premise 1) Free will cannot be the result of mere chemical reactions.

Premise 2) We have free will.

Premise 3) Our free will began at some point.

Premise 4) There cannot be an infinite regression of volitional causal agents to account for our free will.

Therefore, there is a self existent volitional being who accounts for our free will.

note: (premise 4) An infinite regress in a series of propositions arises if the truth of proposition P1 requires the support of proposition P2, the truth of proposition P2 requires the support of proposition P3, ... , and the truth of proposition Pn−1 requires the support of proposition Pn and n approaches infinity. Evolution supporters use this sort of nonsensical reasoning all the time.

Premise 1) Evidence for design within mathematics would point to a teleological source of mathematics. (teleological: a phenomena exhibiting purpose or design, i.e. the mathematical relationship between Fibonacci numbers and nature.)

Premise 2) There is evidence for design within mathematics.

Therefore, there is a teleological source of mathematics. .

Source: John Oakes    See mathematical proof

Romans 12:1-2

Premise 1...If you present your bodies a living sacrifice,

Premise 2...If you are transformed by the renewing of your mind,

minor premise... This is your reasonable service, acceptable to God

Conclusion...Then you prove what is that good and perfect will of God for you.

1 Corinthians 11:18-19

Premise 1...Paul said he believed there were factions in the church.

Premise 2...Factions reveal their leaders and their motives.

Conclusion...There must be factions to reveal those approved.

1 Cor. 11:20-27...

Reason, by the apostles, often teaches more than one principle.

Premise 1...You are not correctly observing the Lord's Supper.

Premise 2...The Lord's supper is a spiritual observance of the church.

Premise 3...You are eating and drinking to satisfy your own hunger and thirst.

Conclusion "...Whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner    will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord."

Premise 1...The assembly is the house of God. (necessary conclusion from verse 20)

Premise 2... Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? (rhetorical question, wherein the answer is axiomatic) 

Conclusion...Eat common meals at home,  not in the assembly.

Both the apostle Paul and Aristotle used partial syllogisms to teach certain principles.

That is, the hearer must fill in the missing part.

example:  Premise 1) Faith comes by hearing (Rom. 10:17)

                Premise 2) and hearing by the word of Christ.

              Therefore... ) I must hear or read to have faith. (The conclusion must be filled in by 

                                    the hearer or reader)

Both Jesus and the apostles used rhetorical questions in their partial syllogisms to strengthen the hearers application to himself.  i.e. 

Premise 1) "The day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up." 

Premise 2) (rhetorical question...since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness?

Conclusion and answer... I must be a paragon of godliness and holy conduct. (supplied by the hearer or reader)

Paul used a syllogistic type of reasoning and included a series of rhetorical questions in 1 Cor. 11:22 to further make these points.

   1. God's house is the assembly. (the spiritual body of Christ...Eph. 1:19-21)

   2. The Lord's supper is a spiritual observance.

   3. Eat common meals in your own house, not God's.

   4. Common meal observances in the assembly are shameful.

   5. Eating common meals in God's house is not praiseworthy.

Theconclusion is in verse 27..." Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord."

Since rhetorical questions have obvious answers, to appose their conclusions is absurd.   

Some, who call themselves Christians, use rather childish reasoning.  They naively believe because the Bible does not expressly forbid a practice, it is then permitted. They would not apply that kind of reasoning to their own family, but somehow it is fine in religious matters.

First, imagine what a Bible would look like if everything God would not approve of were included. That is why He uses sensible principles on which we can pattern our lives. Would God say you cannot kiss your neighbor and you conclude that since He did not say it, it is then permitted?  If a price of an admission ticket at the theatre is clearly posted as  $3.00 for adults, would you expect to be able to gain admission with a dollar bill,  because the sign did not say you couldn't get a ticket for that price?  Of course, these are nonsensical examples, so how is it they have become OK in religious matters? People commonly use extraneous passages in support of what they practice. This probably comes from the ridiculous idea that you can teach hundreds of varying doctrines (denominational in origin) and though they may be contradictory, God accepts all observances.  Not only is that false teaching...It is an affront to God, who specifically condemns division.

Internal evidences (those found in scripture) are numerous, but primarily they consist of...

The evidence of witnesses... The apostles were witnesses of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and upwards of 500 people witnessed Jesus alive after he was crucified, besides the apostles. (Acts 2:32, 1 Cor. 15:6) 

Miracles...These were unquestioned healings of people lame or blind from birth. People were raised from the dead.

Fulfilled prophecy...Details of future events recorded and fulfilled by prophets hundred and even thousands of years after prophesied.  (Mt. 1:22, 2:15,17,23; 5:18; 8:17;12:17, etc., etc.)

Signs and wonders...healings occurred from Jesus's shadow, the apostles garments, fire from heaven consumed sacrifices, some were struck dead for disobeying and lying to God, speaking in unlearned tongues, etc. (Acts 2:22)

External evidences are also abundant... Historical records support the accuracy of the Biblical accounts. Secular historians, such as Flavius Josephus verify much of the Biblical record. The Dead Sea Scrolls testify of the Bible's accuracy by furnishing numerous documents, predating by as much as a thousand years, the oldest existing manuscripts up to their discovery in 1947.

Archeology, constantly verifies the Biblical record of cities, civilizations, cultural mores, trade routes, idolatrous practices and religions of antiquity...some even not mentioned in secular records of any kind.

The Bible, is, itself a book like no other, consisting of 66 total books with 40 different authors addressing the history of man's existence and his relationship to his creator. It is without proven contradiction because it is the only divine record of the works of an almighty God. It contains a pattern for worship pleasing to God and supplies all spiritual blessings to mankind, including a path to eternal life. It deserves our diligent study. (2nd Tim. 2:15)

Make a free website with Yola