The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.(2 Thessalonians 2:9-12) NKJV
Yesterday we looked at definitions of axioms, corollaries and principles. We’ve diagnosed the five inherent flaws in the theoretical foundation of popular science (SciPop), its supposed axioms. They are:
The Induced Axioms of Mainstream Science (SciPop)
|1||There’s a causal relationship between space-time and gravity||Isaiah 48:13|
|2||Earth orbits the sun||Ecclesiastes 1:5|
|3||Stars are distant suns and galaxies||1 Corinthians 15:40-41|
|4||Nuclear decay has always been constant||Deuteronomy 32:22|
|5||Humanity is a product of of biological evolution||Romans 5:12|
If people believe that these things don’t need to believed they just are, then they’re axioms. Supposedly there are three requirements for an axiom. They have to be:
- accepted, or
- self-evidently true.
The question is, does an axiom have to meet all 3 requirements? or can it meet just one of them? We’ve made the case that none of the SciPop axioms are 1) established or 3) self-evidently true. They’ve been 2) accepted because people want them to be true. They’re part of the strong delusion which has been made available so that people can believe the lie of godless existence.
The axioms of SciPop have been accepted because peer review is in the hands of intellectual elites. Intellectual elites are, by and large, atheists. The problem with these so-called axioms is that they aren’t the only possible explanation of the evidence. They’re an interpretation of the evidence that you can induce after you’ve accepted the premise of the SciPop paradigm.
Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given.– Inductive Reasoning, definition (Wikipedia)
This means that SciPop wasn’t derived from axioms, but the reverse, the axioms were derived from SciPop. Logically then, the axioms aren’t axioms, and SciPop is axiomatically wrong.