Why axioms are unavoidable

Book text · 4th, corrected edition 2026

Goal: Introduction to thinking in basic assumptions, exposing the myth of neutrality

Imagine putting on glasses whose lenses are tinted—red, green or blue. Suddenly the whole world looks different, although nothing about the world itself has changed. Precisely so with our deepest convictions: They are like the lenses through which we see the world. They determine what we perceive, what we consider important and how we judge everything—including God, truth and life's meaning.

Take a concrete example: Two people read the same news: A woman has decided on an abortion in the 8th week of pregnancy. One smiles contentedly: “Progress! Women must be allowed to decide about their bodies and have a right to terminate pregnancy. After all, it is only a clump of cells, basically a parasite being removed.” The other falls silent. Stricken and inwardly torn, tears well up in his eyes. Quietly he whispers: “Termination of pregnancy? When a student is violently torn from life, we do not call it termination of studies either. An unborn child with no voice to speak for itself has been killed—before ever being allowed to see the light of day.”

What happened? The same reality, but two completely different reactions. Why? Because of the “glasses” through which they see the world.

• The first wears the glasses of secular humanism. For him, life begins only with self-awareness or consciousness. The criterion is humanity—more precisely, the human allowed to define themselves.
• The second looks through biblical glasses. For him, humanity is created by God, and life from its beginning is a gift not at humanity's disposal. He believes:

“For you possessed my inward parts; you wove me in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am made in an astonishing, excellent way. Wonderful are your works, and my soul knows it very well.” (Psalm 139,13-14)

It is not the world that has changed but the worldviews through which people view it.

Every person makes decisions and forms opinions on the basis of convictions they cannot prove. These basic assumptions—conscious or unconscious—determine how they see the world, what they consider true and how they think. One could say: They are the invisible foundation on which they build all their thought and life. Without these basic assumptions, no one can judge or understand anything at all. Yet especially today, many believe one can discuss matters of faith entirely “neutrally,” “objectively” and “impartially,” as though there were worldview-neutral ground from which to weigh the “evidence.” But this is a dangerous error. In truth, every discussion concerns a much deeper question: Whom do you trust as the highest authority—God or humans, that is, human reason guided by God or detached from him?

This first chapter seeks to help you recognize precisely this: The point is not simply to “prove Christian faith logically” but to understand how every person arrives at their convictions at all. Every person lives by convictions they simply presuppose at the outset, whether atheist, Muslim, Christian or agnostic. The question is not whether one has such a foundation but which. And precisely here defending faith begins: When we learn to recognize our own fundamental convictions and disclose the other's, it becomes clear: The Bible is not simply one of many opinions about the world. It is the only basis on which truth, logic and knowledge are possible at all.

1.1 Introduction to the concept of basic assumptions

Before a person arrives at any conviction, they already believe something. Even before consciously reflecting, they proceed from certain things. These fundamental convictions are often not even conscious to them, yet they determine everything that follows: how they think, decide and live.

Such fundamental presuppositions are called basic assumptions (presuppositions). They are like a house's foundation: One does not always see it, but it supports the entire building. Every person lives from such foundations, even if never consciously formulated. Without them, not a single conversation, reflection or assessment would be possible.

Imagine two people wanting to discuss, for example, whether God exists. Before even beginning, both silently assume certain things, often without noticing. These basic assumptions are like a house's foundation: Invisible, but supporting the entire conversation. Such unspoken presuppositions include, for example:

• Language works—words have a fixed meaning and can be understood.
• Logic holds—contradictions are false, and true statements always yield true conclusions.
• Truth exists—something is true or false independently of our opinion.
• The human mind is capable of knowledge—we can distinguish truth from error.
• A moral obligation to honesty—one must not deliberately deceive or lie.
• A moral obligation to fairness—arguments must be examined objectively, not arbitrarily rejected.
• Disagreements are not resolved through violence—we seek truth through arguments, not threats or coercion.

Without these foundations, no real discussion would be possible: We could not understand one another, examine arguments or assess anything as right or wrong. Every person thus always already lives and thinks from such basic assumptions, even if never consciously formulated.

In the introduction you already encountered the concept of an axiom. The distinction matters here:

• A worldview axiom is the most fundamental and important of these presuppositions. It is the ultimate authority from which all other basic assumptions are logically derived, ordered and assessed.
• The basic assumptions (presuppositions) are all fundamental presuppositions with which we think, speak and argue. Together, these different basic assumptions shape our worldview.

Every worldview has many basic assumptions but only one axiom in the proper sense. This axiom is like a house's foundation: If it gives way, everything collapses. The next section concerns which axiom supports the Christian worldview and why only this axiom can stand amid harsh reality's storms and floods.

1.1.1 What is an axiom?—a simple explanation from epistemology's perspective

Every worldview begins with an axiom. One can imagine it as a seed: small, inconspicuous, yet already carrying the entire blueprint of the later tree within itself. Thus an entire view of God, the world and humanity unfolds step by step from an axiom.

I use the concepts God, world and humanity to cover all reality—from God as the source of all being to the created world and us humans within it. Following Phillip E. Johnson, the author Nancy Pearcey proposes another, very practical division.¹⁰ Every worldview can be presented through three basic questions:

1. What is the origin of everything? (Creation)

2. What causes the problems in the world? (Fall)

3. What is the solution to these problems? (Redemption)

These three themes not only describe the biblical story from beginning to end but also provide a clear framework for understanding and assessing every other worldview.

But one can also express this through philosophy's classical technical terms and interact readily as a Christian with pagan philosophers:

• Metaphysics (What exists and what is real?)—For example, as a very basic biblical metaphysics, the Bible teaches the distinction between the uncreated and the created: Only God is eternal and uncreated; he called everything else into existence (Gen 1,1; Ps 90,2; Jn 1,3).
• Epistemology (How can we know something?)—True knowledge begins with the fear of the LORD (Prov 1,7) and rests on God's revelation in scripture and creation (Ps 19,2; 2Tim 3,16).
• Ethics (How should we act?)—Our actions follow God's holy being and commandments, which define the good (Lev 19,2; Mic 6,8; Jn 14,15).

This is possible because an axiom is the most fundamental conviction on which all further thought about the entirety of reality builds. It is not proved by other statements but presupposed as a firm starting point. From this one point, a person's entire worldview unfolds—what they consider real, how they attain knowledge and what they regard as good or evil.

The biblical worldview begins with a clear axiom: “The Bible alone is God's Word.” In this one sentence, the “entire tree” is, so to speak, hidden: If God has truly spoken—clearly, reliably and authoritatively—it follows that he exists, that he reveals himself, that humanity is accountable to him, that truth cannot be relative and that salvation is possible only through the Gospel. This seed produces fruit bearing life, hope and eternal truth.

But other worldviews, too, have their seeds. Naturalism, for example, begins with the axiom: “Only nature exists, and everything can be explained from it.” This axiom categorically excludes a personal God and miracles, explains humanity only biologically, derives truth from usefulness for survival and sees morality as what benefits society.

The decisive question is therefore not merely: “What do you believe?” but: “From which seed does your thinking grow?” For every tree produces its own fruit, and every axiom unfolds a worldview that either collapses, taking relationships, societies and civilizations with it, or gives humanity firm support and brings blessing.

An axiom is therefore not simply an arbitrary assumption. It is the first, unquestioned criterion against which everything else is measured—an epistemological starting point. In mathematics, axioms are such basic assumptions on which an entire logical system rests.¹¹ In a worldview, an axiom is the foundation on which all further convictions are built—whether concerning life's great questions, morality or faith.

Every person believes something first and thinks only afterward. Before consciously forming a thought, they already live from certain convictions, often without noticing. No human thinks “from zero.” No one stands neutral and without presuppositions in life. Anyone saying “I believe only what can be proved” already silently assumes that proving anything is possible at all and that its methods (logic, observation, measurement and so on) are reliable. The problem: These methods themselves cannot possibly be proved by the same methods. One would simply presuppose and employ precisely what one first wants to prove, and this is circular reasoning. Here, too, an axiom stands at the beginning, a basic assumption not derived from another proof. It is simply believed.

Similarly with the sentence: “I believe only what my senses show me.” Behind it lies the belief that our senses reliably reproduce reality. But whether this is actually so cannot be proved with the senses themselves. It would be like checking whether a ruler measures correctly by using that very ruler. Here, too, belief in the reliability of the senses precedes every proof.

Or take the sentence: “I doubt everything.” This position, too, rests on a silent assumption, namely that constant doubting is the best path to truth. But whether this is really correct cannot be doubted without contradicting oneself. Even the most radical doubt therefore stands on a belief already there beforehand. Thinking comes only afterward.

The decisive question is therefore: On what is this belief grounded? Does it hold not only regarding knowledge and understanding but also when life becomes hard and death approaches? Here lies biblical thinking's particular strength: It takes seriously that humanity was created from the outset as a believing being (cf. Romans 1,21). Thinking is never simply a neutral calculation but an expression of an inner orientation—either toward God or away from him. The question of the axiom is therefore not academic but deeply personal and existential: On what do you ground your convictions? Who or what determines what you consider “true,” and why?

For the Christian it is clear: God's self-revelation in Holy Scripture is their principle. “Your Word is truth” (Jn 17,17) is not merely a beautiful theological confession but a clear answer to how humanity can arrive at true, firm knowledge at all.

Anyone not acknowledging God as the first author of their thoughts will be forced to put themselves in God's place. But this is the core of all self-deification of human intellect—a path leading not to life but into pride's dead end and ultimately to perdition.

1.1.2 Worldview as an ordered system of basic assumptions

A worldview is no loose jumble of opinions but an internally coherent system. One can imagine it as a house: The axioms form the foundation on which all further elements—arguments, values and interpretations—are built. Every worldview has a center from which its logic, morality, view of the world (cosmology) and view of humanity (anthropology) emerge. It may be contradictory or illogical, but it always remains structured.

Worldviews operate according to an inner system—even when the person advocating them is entirely unaware of it. An atheist, for example, who simultaneously speaks of “human dignity” or “justice” although their materialist worldview offers no sound foundation for these lives within a contradictory system of axioms. Precisely here axiomatic apologetics begins: Anyone recognizing a worldview's basic assumptions can examine whether they fit together at all and where they actually lead humanity in thought and life. The Bible describes precisely this condition:

“because, knowing God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but became foolish in their reasonings, and their uncomprehending heart was darkened:” (Rom 1,21)

Imagine a worldview as a house:

• The walls are your opinions about morality, science, politics and life.
• The roof is your feelings, decisions and convictions in everyday life.
• But everything rests on a foundation: your axiom, the deepest conviction from which all further thought proceeds.

This might be, for example:

• “There is a God who reveals truth.”
• “Only what I can measure is truly real.”
• “Humanity is the measure of all things.”

This foundation is not simply one of many opinions. It is the source from which all other conceptions are shaped.

If a person thinks logically and consistently, their entire worldview will always rest on this foundation. But if this first thought is false, the whole building begins to shake, even if it seems stable and impressive at first glance.

The epistemological core is: Worldview is axiom plus consequence. It begins with a basic assumption and unfolds from it a view of everything further concerning God, the world and humanity, what knowledge is and how one attains it, and so on. Whoever knows the axiom knows the starting point. And whoever knows the starting point can assess the entire system.

A false axiom corrupts the entire view of everything. It is like a crooked cornerstone in housebuilding or a damaged seed: What emerges becomes crooked, unstable or contradictory.

This has concrete effects in everyday life:

• In logic: Anyone believing that logic is merely a human invention or a mere evolutionary tool for survival has thereby abandoned its universal validity. Logic then holds not because it is true but only as long as it seems useful. But if logic does not hold always and everywhere, it cannot securely find truth either. Not even the claim that logic is an invention could then be reliably justified. In this light, every argument against the Bible's truth loses all foundation and every claim to validity.
• In ethics: Anyone believing morality is merely a human invention must consistently relativize every demand for “justice” or “human rights.” What counts as “good” today may already count as “outdated” tomorrow. Where there is no ultimate truth, morality becomes negotiable and the stronger prevails.¹² Every moral objection to the Bible thereby lacks any foundation.
• In science: Anyone excluding God from the outset often expects too much from science. For science works with individual observations and attempts to derive general rules from them. But observations are always limited: One cannot see every case—neither the countless past cases nor those yet to happen in the future. In the present,

one always captures only a tiny segment. Individual observations can therefore never supply proof of a universal truth. Even having seen a thousand white swans does not prove that the next is not black. This is called induction. Induction can never supply certain truth, only conjectures. Science therefore always remains uncertain and provisional. It can describe what it presently perceives, but cannot prove that it must always be so or why it is so at all. Real certainty requires God's revelation. Without it, humanity sees much but knows nothing with ultimate certainty.

• In everyday life: Anyone believing humanity is only a chance product of nature will sooner or later relativize love, hope and meaning too. Why still believe in marital fidelity if everything is merely the outcome of biological drives? Why work for justice if everything ultimately ends in cold nothingness anyway once the last sun has gone out? In such a view, human life loses every genuine value and every inalienable dignity, becoming nothing more than a transient biological phenomenon. Anyone suffering finds no real comfort in such a worldview, only empty exhortations to hold on.

If the first thought is false, the last will not lead to truth either. A false axiom—a false beginning—produces a false worldview. And a false worldview leads to false convictions, decisions and ultimately a false life.

Therefore: What you believe first determines how you see everything else. Or figuratively: If your glasses are crooked, the whole world will appear distorted, however honestly and closely you want to examine it:

“but if your eye is evil, your whole body will be dark. If then the light within you is darkness, how great the darkness!” (Matthew 6,23)

1.1.3 Every person believes first, then thinks

The modern world celebrates the “thinking person” who critically questions everything and simply believes nothing. But the truth is: No person thinks first. Everyone believes first and begins thinking afterward.

Before you reflect on something, you have long internalized certain convictions: about what really exists, what counts in life, what is good and evil and whether truth can be known at all. You did not find these convictions through proofs. They are the starting point of your thought.

Even the famous sentence “I believe only what I can examine myself” already presupposes things that are not proved but must simply be believed:

• You believe in logic: If you doubt something, you assume a difference between “true” and “false.” Without this principle, every doubt would be meaningless.
• You trust your mind: The very act of doubting presupposes that your thinking fundamentally works. If you question your mind entirely, you cannot even formulate this thought anymore. For to say “I doubt,” you must already think and thus trust your thinking. Anyone radically doubting the mind contradicts themselves by destroying precisely the tool they are currently using.
• You rely on your memory: If you doubt something, you must be able to remember what you doubted yesterday or five minutes ago. Without functioning memory, you could not even complete a single thought.

You thus see that radical doubt fails against itself. It must build on precisely what it allegedly doubts. The Bible describes this attitude very aptly:

“because, knowing God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but became foolish in their reasonings, and their uncomprehending heart was darkened:” (Romans 1,21)

No person lives “neutrally.” Everyone first decides what they want to believe, then uses their mind to defend this decision.

• Anyone saying “I believe only what is proved” thereby already believes in a foundation for proofs they cannot themselves prove.
• Anyone rejecting God believes instead in another “authority”—usually their own mind or science (that is, the current state of error).

The question is therefore not whether you believe but what you believe and why.

And this directly affects your life:

• In arguments: Many people demand “justice,” but if honest, they would have to admit that they have no fixed criterion for what should be just.
• In dealing with suffering: Without God, only the explanation “Bad luck” remains. There is no comfort, no deeper meaning in suffering—only chance.
• In life decisions: Why be faithful, make sacrifices or act selflessly if “it makes no difference in the end anyway”? Without firm faith in God, morality becomes a matter of taste.
• In raising children: Anyone teaching their children “You need only be true to yourself” takes the firm ground from beneath their feet. What if they later lose themselves within themselves?

Unbelief is therefore not merely a false conviction—paradoxically, it lives from what it simultaneously rejects.

Humanity can deny God only by using things that would not exist without God:

• They argue—with borrowed logic.
• They contradict—with borrowed language.
• They demand justice—with borrowed morality.

They live as though objective truth, clear morality and genuine meaning existed—while simultaneously claiming that all this is merely “a matter of opinion.”

This is precisely what makes biblical faith so strong: Faith in God's Word is no escape from thinking—it is the prerequisite for being able to think, speak and live meaningfully at all.

Anyone rejecting the Bible's starting point loses not only the Gospel but also the foundation for meaningful conversations, reliable logic and true knowledge.

Or figuratively speaking: The unbeliever builds a house, but must steal its stones from God's storehouse.

Jesus says:

“Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.” (Matthew 12,30)

1.1.4 Unconscious axioms in everyday life: illustrative examples

The question of axioms initially sounds abstract and theoretical. But in truth it concerns every person—every day. For axioms operate not only in the lecture hall but when shopping, in the classroom, at the sickbed and in conversations about the news. Every person lives with certain basic assumptions about what is “normal,” “right” or “reasonable”—long before consciously defining such concepts at all.

A simple example: If you hear in the news that a small child has been brutally abused, you automatically react with horror, anger or deep compassion. Even though no one first had to prove to you:

• that morality objectively exists,
• that this child is more than merely a “biological organism,”
• or that “injustice” is not merely a feeling but really wrong.

Why is this so? Because you naturally presuppose that some things are truly wrong—independently of what cultures, societies or individuals currently consider “right.”

In everyday life, people naturally live from presuppositions they never proved but simply assumed:

• that human life is valuable,
• that justice is more than an opinion,
• that truth exists.

And precisely this shows that everyone lives from a particular worldview—consciously or unconsciously.

If someone says “Every person has dignity,” this is not merely a nice opinion. This statement presupposes a deeper basic assumption: that humanity is more than a random collection of atoms. Dignity is not something one could measure or calculate like blood pressure or height.

We thus move onto another level—a level going beyond the purely visible and measurable. This is precisely what metaphysical means. “Meta” means “beyond,” “physis” means “nature.” A metaphysical statement therefore refers not merely to what can be observed or weighed but to a fundamental truth about being itself.

The sentence “Every person has dignity” is therefore a metaphysical statement: It makes a claim about humanity's intrinsic value that is not explicable from genes, chemistry or natural laws but rests on a deeper reality.

Here the decisive difference appears: The biblical worldview can justify this statement: ““And God created humankind in his image...” (Gen 1,27). In Christian faith, human dignity is no arbitrary assertion but grounded in humanity's being God's image.

In a materialist worldview, by contrast—that is, the thought that humanity is only “matter plus time plus chance”—this dignity cannot be objectively justified. There it remains an empty claim without foundation. And yet: Even someone claiming humanity is merely one animal among many lives differently in everyday life:

• They love their child as though infinitely valuable.
• They are outraged by injustice as though there were an absolute “right” and “wrong.”
• They mourn a loved one's death as though there were more than mere biological processes.

Here a central contradiction exposes itself: On the basis of their worldview, the atheist must say: “A human is only a heap of atoms.” But they live as though humanity were infinitely valuable. Their unconscious axioms—what they truly believe in their heart—contradict their loudly proclaimed convictions.

This is biblical apologetics' strength:

The aim is not to “defeat people intellectually” but to help them honestly recognize their basic assumptions. One could put it this way:

• “You say humanity is meaningless, but you treat people as though they had God-given dignity.”
• “You argue against God, but you can argue only because the God who makes logic, truth and meaning possible exists.”

The Bible describes precisely this phenomenon:

“Answer a fool according to his folly, so that he will not be wise in his own eyes.” (Proverbs 26,5)

We show people where their thought leads if taken truly seriously. And precisely there it becomes visible: Without God, ultimately nothing remains but absurdity, contradiction and emptiness. Humanity lives in God's world even while denying it. They breathe God's air, argue with God's logic and live from values making sense only in a world created by God. Rebellion against God is not merely sin. It is also intellectual self-destruction.

These internal contradictions appear not only in theoretical discussions but very practically in everyday life. People profess with their mouths that there is no God and no absolute values, but when real injustice, suffering or personal impact is involved, they speak and act as though a higher truth and genuine moral criterion did exist after all. Such a moment can be a valuable opportunity to disclose the hidden contradiction lovingly:

A practical example conversation

Scene: Conversation during the lunch break

Colleague (atheist): “Honestly, watching the news makes me lose faith in humanity. What happens to children—it's just sick! They should lock the perpetrators up and throw away the key!”

You (Christian): “I absolutely agree. What happens in the world is truly terrible. But I must also say your outrage surprises me... You say you're an atheist and believe humanity is simply a highly developed animal. How can you say something like that is really wrong and not merely your personal feeling?”

Colleague: “Why? These are completely normal moral values! I don't need a God for that.”

You: “I'm not disputing at all that these are completely normal moral values. Quite the opposite! My question is which worldview can even explain the existence of—as you say—completely normal moral values. As a Christian I believe humanity was created by God as his image. That means God is the model and therefore also the criterion. Briefly: God is good, and humanity therefore should not be evil. This gives me as a Christian a criterion that never changes and binds all people everywhere. But you believe—to put it a little bluntly—that a human is a randomly evolved flesh robot. Could ‘normal moral values’ then be anything other than randomly evolved illusions?

Colleague (thoughtfully): “Well, it's just my opinion. I don't want anyone to hurt me, and I don't want it done to others either. Besides, we agree on it as a society.”

You: “But you just said yourself that it shocks you—regardless of what others think. That it's really wrong, whoever does it or whatever country it happens in. You react that way because deep in your heart you know: A human life has value—a value you cannot measure but cannot explain away either. And this is precisely what the Bible says: Humanity is more than matter. People have God-given dignity. That is why injustice hurts so much. Without God only this explanation remains: It's all chance. But honestly—can you really live that way?”

This example shows how in everyday life you need not discuss “axioms” abstractly but can begin directly with people's experience. You make their unconscious basic assumptions visible and lovingly confront them with biblical truth.

1.1.5 Axioms and the idea of the first principle

The question of the “first principle” is not merely a topic for philosophers—it concerns everyone. Aristotle already recognized: One cannot prove everything. One must begin somewhere.¹³ If everything first had to be proved, proofs themselves would also have to be proved again, and their proofs too... It would be an endless chain without a beginning. Every act of thought therefore needs a firm starting point—a proposition no longer justified but from which everything else is assessed. We call such fundamental convictions axioms. And the decisive point is: Every person has such axioms—consciously or unconsciously.

Examples of such first principles include:

• “My reason works reliably.”
• “Only what I can measure is real.”
• “Humanity is the measure of all things.”
• Or: “There is a God who has revealed himself.”

These basic assumptions determine what you even consider “knowledge” and how you interpret the world. The Bible states this point clearly:

“Sanctify them through the truth: your Word is truth.” (John 17,17)

For the Christian, the Bible is not merely a book for matters of faith but the foundation for all thinking and knowing. It is the criterion against which everything else is measured—including logic, morality, science and the question of life's meaning.

Why does logic exist?

➞ Because God, the Logos, is an ordered, rational God. (Jn 1,1-3)

Why does morality exist?

➞ Because God is holy and has given us his criterion of good and evil. (1Pet 1,16)

Why does meaning exist?

➞ Because God is a speaking, communicating God. (Heb 1,1-2)

The Bible explains not only religious questions but the conditions of knowledge itself. Only if God exists and reliably reveals himself can humanity think, judge and live meaningfully at all.

The Bible does not ground itself through something else outside itself but attests itself as the highest authority. Why? If nothing is higher than God's Word, the Bible cannot be measured or proved through something else, for every other measure would already be subordinate.

And precisely here is the decisive point: If someone attempts to prove the Bible with scientific evidence, archaeological finds or historical plausibilities, they unintentionally place something else above the Bible. They essentially say: “I believe the Bible because science confirms it.” But science has thereby become the actual criterion—no longer God's Word.

To many this sounds pious and wise. But in reality it shows: One believes the Bible not because of what it is but because another system confirms it. One tests sunlight against a flashlight.

Anyone arguing this way may mean well but has already left the biblical Christian worldview. They have changed their axiom. Instead of beginning with God's Word, they begin with human criteria: reason, experience, science. But the Bible does not seek examination like a theory in a laboratory. It speaks with divine authority. It is no object of proof—it is the criterion through which everything else is examined.

It is therefore not merely dangerous but contradictory when Christians think they must make the Bible more credible through external confirmations. Anyone doing so says: “I believe the Bible only if archaeology, natural science or historical research gives me a thumbs-up.” But faith does not ask: “What does the world say?” Rather: “What has God spoken?” For how could something created, limited and fallible be the criterion for God's eternal, holy, infallible Word?

But this does not mean we must despise or ignore natural science, archaeology or experience. Quite the opposite. The better path is not to justify the Bible through them but to show that they would not even be meaningfully conceivable without the biblical Christian worldview.

We turn the tables: The Bible does not need science to be credible—science needs the Bible to be possible at all.

Why? Because only the biblical worldview supplies the presuppositions for meaningful research and thought:

• Reason: Because humanity is created in the image of a rational God, the Logos, people can think, distinguish and judge. Only because there is a divine order to which our thinking responds is logical thought meaningful at all.
• Natural laws: Because God created an ordered world, we can observe regularities. Belief in an “order of nature” makes sense only if there is a giver of order.¹⁴
• Experience: Experience presupposes a stable self, a reliable environment and an ordered principle of cause and effect—only the Bible supplies all this.
• History and archaeology: Historical research makes sense at all only if truth exists beyond human interpretations. If everything is merely subjective or constructed, no binding statements can be made about the past.

The Christian does not build a house from mutually distrustful “faith” and “proofs.” Rather, they show: Because God's Word is true, logic, research, history, language and morality are possible at all. They look at the world and see within it the Creator's traces, confirmation of the Word sustaining everything. Or as Hebrews 11,3 says:

“By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by God's Word, so that what is seen did not come into being from things that appear.”

Not: “Through science we believe in God's Word.” Rather: “Through God's Word we understand the world and everything within it.” This is the biblical path honoring God: understanding the world in the Bible's light rather than testing the Bible against the world. This is biblical authority's basic idea: The Bible is not true because it has been proved. It is the criterion through which everything else is judged.

The Bible is the axiom. All thought begins either with God or the creature. There is no third option. The Bible is therefore also competent to answer worldview questions. It supplies the foundation for all thinking, judging and understanding. Its authority is not derived but original. It is the first principle (axiom)¹⁵ and as such is not subject to examination but examines.

Can axioms be proved?

This is the decisive point: Axioms are unprovable. They cannot be derived through other preceding statements. If they could be proved this way, they would not be the beginning but themselves merely a step within a longer chain of argument. An axiom is an axiom precisely because it is the point from which everything else proceeds. Attempting to justify it would require relying on something else, which would then be the actual axiom.

This does not mean, however, that axioms are arbitrary or that one cannot recognize which axiom is true. It means only: One cannot “prove,” that is, derive it logically from earlier premises, because it is itself the first premise. We prove our axiom by showing that it simply cannot be logically denied. Oshea Davis makes this point sharply:

“Now, there are some who are very hesitant—or rather—deny that any first principle can be proved or shown to justify itself by demonstrating that it is a necessary presupposition of all thought. [...] A person saying that no first principle of any worldview can be proved asserts this from their own worldview, which itself cannot prove that its first principle or axiom is true! This is a truly self-contradictory sentence. [...] For their statement to be true, it would simultaneously have to be false. This means: They cannot prove that no first principle can be proved—for they assert it from an unproved first principle, and precisely for this reason their system of thought forfeits the right to make this statement or claim any knowledge at all! [...] At this point this person has removed themselves from the debate, for they have nothing to prove, no knowledge they could bring against me, my worldview or any other worldview. Because they have an unproved first principle, nothing remains for them but skepticism. But skepticism denies the law of noncontradiction, and their system of thought is therefore false!”¹⁶

What does Davis mean by skepticism as a system of thought denying the law of noncontradiction and therefore being false? Imagine someone saying: “I know that nothing can be known.” This may sound humble and clever, but it is internally contradictory. For if you know that nothing can be known, you apparently do know something after all. You have thereby just refuted what you assert. This is precisely radical skepticism's problem. It says: “I cannot know anything with certainty,” but to say this it must be certain it is correct. Why is this logically impossible? Because such thinking asserts “X” and its opposite “Not-X” simultaneously and in the same way: “I know something” and simultaneously in the same sense: “I know nothing”.

This violates the law of noncontradiction, which says: A statement and its direct opposite cannot be true simultaneously in the same sense. (Example: “The apple is entirely red” and “The apple is not entirely red”—both cannot be correct at the same time in the same way.) The radical skeptic undermines the foundation of their own thought. Their worldview therefore cannot possibly be true, for truth cannot contradict itself.

The modern world often tries to manage without a first principle or replace it with “reason”, “empirical inquiry” or “experience.” But all these attempts fail at self-grounding. For reason cannot justify itself, empirical inquiry already presupposes assumptions of order, and experience is subjective in principle. Ultimately only revelation as the ultimate criterion or relativism remains.¹⁷

This chapter's goal is therefore not to supply an additional argument “for the Bible” but to show: Anyone not beginning with scripture has no sound epistemology and therefore no foundation for proofs at all. The question is not whether one has a first principle but whether it is the right one.

Summary of section 1.1

1.1.1 What is an axiom? An axiom is a starting point of thought that is not proved but accepted as self-evident. It is a worldview's basic building block—comparable to a foundation supporting everything else. Without axioms, no person can argue or recognize meaning at all. Axioms are not arbitrary, but they cannot be justified through anything other than themselves—otherwise they would not be axioms.

1.1.2 Why everyone has axioms Every person—consciously or unconsciously—lives from certain basic assumptions. These influence what they consider true, how they judge and what meaning they attribute to things. Even everyday statements such as “Every person has dignity” presuppose an axiom—for instance, that humanity is more than mere matter. Anyone morally outraged, for example, lives from an axiomatic understanding of humanity they have usually never questioned.

1.1.3 The myth of neutrality The notion that one can argue neutrally is an illusion. Every person already brings a worldview—whether they want to or not. Anyone professing neutrality hides their axioms but does not replace them. Neutrality is therefore not merely impossible but often a strategic deception to escape the biblical criterion. Attempting to argue toward the Bible from “neutral ground” effectively means replacing God's Word with human authority—which scripture itself exposes as spiritual error.

1.1.4 The Bible's critique of axioms The Bible itself says that humanity builds either on sand or on rock, and unambiguously names this rock: God's Word. Statements such as “The fear of YHWH is the beginning of knowledge” (Prov 1,7) show that knowledge begins not with autonomous reason but with submission to God's revelation. The Bible permits no epistemological neutrality. It claims not merely to be true but to be the criterion of truth.

1.1.5 Axioms and the idea of the first principle The idea of a first principle is not academic but necessary for life: Everyone begins somewhere—with an ultimate authority they question no further. Aristotle called it the “first principle.” Modern examples include: “Only what I can measure is real” or “My reason is reliable.” The Bible names God's Word as the only sound first principle (Jn 17,17). Only if God is who he says and speaks as he speaks can logic, morality and meaning exist at all.

Reflection questions for section 1.1

1.1.1—What is an axiom?

• What distinguishes an axiom from an ordinary conviction or opinion?
• Which axioms shape your own thinking and acting in everyday life?

1.1.2—Why everyone has axioms

• Which deep basic assumptions do you recognize in others—for example in discussions, media or education?
• Why is it important to become aware of one's own axioms?

1.1.3—The myth of neutrality

• Which arguments oppose the idea of a neutral starting position in thought?
• In which situations have you experienced apparent “neutrality” that was actually a hidden worldview?

1.1.4—The Bible's critique of axioms

• What role does God's self-revelation play in our understanding of truth and knowledge?
• How do you inwardly react to the biblical statement that humanity builds either on sand or on rock?

1.1.5—Axioms and the idea of the first principle

• What is your personal “first principle”—the point where your thought begins?
• Why, from the biblical perspective, can only God's Word be a sound first principle?

1.2 The unavoidability of axioms and why neutrality is a myth

Many imagine one could think purely objectively and neutrally—as though our mind were an uninvolved observer merely sorting the “facts.” But this is an error. No one thinks in a vacuum. Everyone sees the world through particular glasses—a deeply rooted fundamental understanding determining what they consider true. We have called these basic assumptions axioms. They are the starting point of all thought, even if often unconscious.

Especially in science, ethics and media, we frequently encounter claims of neutrality: The aim is to “treat all worldviews equally” or “follow only the facts.” But closer inspection reveals: This alleged neutrality is itself already a confession—usually to humanism or naturalism. Anyone saying “I believe only what I can see and measure” has already decided that God and miracles are excluded. This is no neutral ground but a worldview with its own axiom: “Only the natural is real.”

This insight is decisive for apologetics. For Christians are often accused of arguing “in a circle” because they ground the Bible in the Bible. But the atheist does precisely the same, except their starting point is, for example, reason or experience, which they likewise cannot prove without themselves presupposing it. Thinking is always circular in this sense. The only question is which foundation supports this circle.

Anyone professing to argue neutrally actually conceals a spiritual decision. This concerns not merely logic or proofs but authority. And a Christian attempting discussion on supposedly “neutral ground” has already lost. For this ground is not neutral—it is godless. The Bible says clearly:

“because the mind of the flesh is hostility toward God; for it does not submit to God's law, nor indeed can it.” (Rom 8,7).

“Neutrality” is therefore not merely a myth—it is deception. The true battleground is not the “marketplace of arguments” but the axiomatic level. And there the Christian stands not on wavering human understanding but on the solid rock of God's revealed Word.

1.2.1 Neutrality—a beautiful appearance?

Neutrality is a popular ideal of our time. Particularly in school, politics, media and science, one often hears: “We only want to consider the facts,” “We judge objectively” or “We treat all perspectives equally.” But closer examination quickly reveals: These statements, too, already build on certain basic assumptions. They are not neutral. They merely pretend to be.

Example: Science

If a natural scientist says “Only what can be measured, seen and repeated is scientific,” this initially sounds sober and objective. But in truth a deeper conviction—indeed an axiom—already lies behind it: the basic assumption that only the natural, visible and material really exists. God is thereby excluded from the outset. This is no neutral starting point but a worldview.

Imagine a biologist reading the biblical statement that Jesus was born of a virgin. He says: “That's biologically impossible, so it never happened.” What really happens here? The biologist does not judge on evidence in the narrower sense. He was not there, cannot repeat the event, and there is no video recording. He nevertheless rejects the Bible's testimony. Why? Because he has an axiom categorically excluding miracles in advance. His framework of thought allows only natural explanations, so every supernatural claim must be false, however credible or ancient the testimony. His axiom is therefore: “Only what is explicable through natural laws may be true.” This is no conclusion from the data. It is a presupposition with which he approaches the data. And this presupposition excludes God and his supernatural action from the outset—not because it was refuted but because it does not fit the system. A leading evolutionary biologist once put this very openly:

“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that contradict common sense is the key to understanding the real conflict between science and the supernatural. We side with science—despite the obvious absurdity of some of its constructs, despite its failure to fulfill many of its grandiose promises of health and life, despite the scientific community's tolerance of unsubstantiated ‘just-so’ stories—because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. [...] And this materialism is absolute, for we cannot tolerate a divine foot in the door.”¹⁸

Example: Ethics lessons

Schools, too, often say they want to teach values without favoring religion. But precisely this is itself a worldview statement. It presupposes that moral criteria can be justified without God. This is no neutral attitude but an ethical decision: God's revelation is replaced with human feeling—often unnoticed.

In many schools, ethics or sex-education classes teach: “Everyone should decide for themselves what is right for them—as long as no one else is harmed.” At first glance this sounds reasonable and neutral. But a clear axiom actually lies behind it: “Good is what feels right to the individual and does not directly harm others.” This axiom does not come from the Bible but rests on a secular view defining humanity as an autonomous, self-determining being.

God's creation order, as revealed, for example, in Gen 2 or Jesus' statements about marriage and sexuality (Mt 19,4-6), is thereby not merely unmentioned but systematically excluded. This creates the impression that this secular perspective is “neutral” because it makes room for all life choices. But this is a fallacy: For divinely revealed morality is excluded because it counts as “religious,” while human self-determination is declared the “general norm.” This is no neutrality; it is worldview dressed as ethics.

Example: Media

If the news says “For Christians, abortion is wrong; others see it differently,” this sounds balanced. But between the lines stands: Truth is a matter of opinion. Everyone simply has their view. Yet this, too, is an axiom—the basic assumption that no objective truth exists. Here, too, there is no neutrality but a worldview presenting itself as neutral.

Guests on a television talk show discuss abortion. The moderator summarizes: “Opinions differ. Some say: Abortion is murder. Others say: It is the woman's right. Everyone must decide for themselves.” What happens here? The moderator pretends to mediate neutrally. She wants to patronize no one but “accepts all opinions.” Yet precisely this is already a position, an axiom: “Truth is relative—there are no universally binding moral criteria.” Anyone speaking this way places all perspectives alongside each other as though equally valid. But the question of objective right and wrong is thereby no longer asked at all. This is no neutral starting point but already a decision for a worldly perspective in which morality is considered relative.

The biblical counterpart is clear: Unborn life is willed and protected by God (Psalm 139,13-16; Jeremiah 1,5). Whether a human may be killed is no “matter of opinion.” It is a question of guilt or justice. The supposedly neutral position says: “Everyone according to their conscience.” But God says: “You shall not kill.” (Ex 20,13) What thus appears as “balanced journalism” is actually a decision against objective divine truth—disguised as neutrality.

No person is without presuppositions

Humanity never thinks without a foundation. Everyone builds their thought on a particular foundation, consciously or unconsciously. We call this foundation an axiom: a fundamental conviction no longer itself proved but from which everything else is assessed. Our thinking therefore begins not with pure logic but with the heart. With what we place our trust in. Every person believes something and thinks only afterward.

This means: Thinking is never merely a matter of the head. It is always also a question of worship, whom one trusts and whose word one hears. In the Bible it is clear: Humanity lives not neutrally but either in devotion to God or in rejection of his authority. Even if not always conscious, every position has an origin.

Axiomatic apologetics: Where everything begins

When two people discuss faith, the subject is not merely arguments or proofs. Far more fundamental is the question: Which axiom underlies thought? Who even decides what counts as valid evidence? The atheist believes only what they can see. The Christian trusts that knowledge is possible because God has revealed himself.

Here axiomatic apologetics begins. It does not first ask “What do you believe?” but “Why do you believe your criterion is reliable?” It shows that everyone argues from their axiom. There is no “outside”—no neutral vantage point from which all worldviews could be measured.

The actual question

The decisive question is therefore not “Who has the better evidence?” but “Who has the better criterion for assessing evidence?” Anyone rejecting the Bible does not stand neutrally but places another axiom at the top, such as their own reason. But why should precisely this criterion hold? What grounds its authority?

Biblical apologetics reverses the perspective. It does not defend God's Word before humanity but places humanity and its criteria before the light of God's Word. For only God's revelation can ultimately say what truth is, what is good and what may count as evidence.

1.2.2 Objectivity exists only with axioms

A frequent error is imagining one can argue entirely neutrally as long as one sticks to logic and data. But this is an illusion. Every argument presupposes a criterion, an axiom determining what counts as meaningful, credible or provable. Without such a firm starting point, meaningful thought is not possible at all.

An axiom is no theory first proved but a fundamental conviction with which one begins thinking at all. It is like a house's foundation: One does not see it directly, but everything rests on it. Whether someone articulates it or not, everyone has such basic assumptions.

Example: The empiricist (knowledge comes through observation)

A student says in philosophy class: “I believe only what can be supported by experience.” Sounds objective. Yet this statement itself is no result of experience but a philosophical decision. Empiricism assumes that perception is reliable and natural laws stable. But neither can itself be proved from experience.

The famous skeptic David Hume put his finger precisely on this sore spot: first, whether our perceptions are reliable at all, and second, justification of why natural laws should be stable. Hume showed that although experience regularly confirms that natural laws hold, we can never prove that they are valid always and everywhere. He therefore considered every testimony to a supposed exception—such as a miracle—inadequate, since according to his logic it could never be strong enough to outweigh nature's “lawfulness.” At the same time, he made clear that empiricism (that is, knowledge comes through observation, experience, perception) itself builds on presuppositions that cannot be empirically proved at all.

The so-called uniformity of nature—the assumption that the world will work tomorrow as it does today—must be presupposed before experiences can even be interpreted or evaluated. When we say we have “learned from experience,” we mean that we infer what will happen tomorrow from what we saw yesterday. A child burned by a hotplate expects the plate to be hot tomorrow too. But why may they expect this? Only because they already assume beforehand that nature behaves regularly. This so-called uniformity of nature—the assumption that the world will work tomorrow as it does today—is the prerequisite for experiences to teach anything about the future at all.

And here lies the critical problem: This assumption itself cannot be proved through experience. For as soon as one argues with experiences (“it was so yesterday, so it will be so tomorrow too”), one already presupposes nature's regularity. One thus attempts to prove precisely what one already tacitly assumes—a logical circle. Empiricism therefore ultimately leads to skepticism: Neither our perceptions' reliability nor natural laws' stability can be empirically justified from themselves. Rather, experience already presupposes a basic assumption it cannot itself supply. Briefly: Without belief in nature's regularity, experience is blind—and this belief itself cannot be proved through experience. It therefore cannot itself be confirmed through experience. Hume thereby ultimately led empiricism into skepticism: If neither perception's reliability nor natural laws' validity can be empirically secured, empiricism lacks a sound foundation.¹⁹

This makes clear that the experiential thinker, too, trusts first and examines afterward. Their thinking stands on an axiom, even if unwilling to admit it.

Why everyone thinks in a circle, and why this is not wrong

Christians are often accused of grounding the Bible in the Bible, which is circular reasoning. But someone saying “I believe only what reason confirms” does precisely the same: They posit reason as the ultimate authority and use it to confirm itself. They therefore also build circularly, merely on another foundation.

But this is no error; in fundamental questions of authority it is unavoidable. Hebrews 6,13 shows this very clearly:

“For when God gave Abraham the promise, because he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself.”

If there is no higher authority, only recourse to oneself remains, whether with God or humanity.

Circularity cannot be avoided, but its foundation can be examined. The Christian's axiom is God's revelation—an eternal, transhistorical Word sustaining itself and explaining reality. The unbeliever's axiom is human-made and ultimately dependent on something unable to justify itself. The decisive question is therefore not “Who argues neutrally?” but “Which starting point is true, sound and explains what exists?”

Anyone professing to think entirely without presuppositions deceives themselves or others. There is no argument without a starting point. Objectivity does not mean freedom from axioms but recognizing and confessing one's axiom and examining whether it bears truth.

Analogy: The compass

Imagine two hikers standing on a mountaintop wanting to find the right way into the valley. Both hold a compass. One says: “My compass points north, so I'll go that way.” The other replies: “Mine points somewhere else—that's my north.” But who is right cannot be decided through discussion, only by whether the compass is correctly aligned to north.

So it is with thinking: Every person has an inner compass—an axiom telling them which way to go. But not all axioms point to truth. The question is not whether one follows an axiom but whether it leads one astray or to the goal.

The Christian's compass is God's revealed Word. It does not orient itself to us, but orients us.

1.2.3 The naturalist's faith—why no one manages without axioms

Secular naturalism—the conviction that only nature and the measurable are real—often presents itself as especially objective. No religion, no dogmas, no presuppositions. Only what can be seen, measured and proved counts. Such, at least, is its self-presentation.

But closer examination quickly reveals: This thinking, too, rests on faith—only rarely admitted. For before the naturalist begins observing, they simply presuppose certain things:

• That only material things exist
• That the universe can explain itself
• That the human mind is reliable and functions independently of God

Again these are no conclusions but axioms, basic assumptions standing at the beginning and not themselves proved. The naturalist therefore believes in nature as a whole just as a Christian believes in the Creator. The difference lies in the naturalist calling their faith “science.”

Yet they, too, must believe before they can know. For before anyone observes anything at all, they must trust that their senses do not deceive them and the surrounding world is intelligible. But these are precisely the questions a David Hume—himself a skeptic—left open: How do I know my perception is reliable?

The empiricist claims to believe only what they can see, but their entire thought stands or falls with things they have never seen and simply assume valid. Briefly: They, too, have axioms. They, too, believe. Only not in God but in themselves and a closed system in which God may have no place.

And precisely this is the actual point: The naturalist does not simply say “I believe in reason” but in truth: “I do not allow God to speak.” This is no neutral starting point; it is deliberate exclusion. A decision against revelation. Naturalism is therefore itself a dogma, a belief system appearing valid only within its own boundaries.

The Bible describes this thinking as rebellion: Humanity uses gifts such as logic, language and natural laws but refuses to acknowledge the giver. It claims autonomy, complete independence in thinking, and declares its own reason the highest authority. This is no sign of open-mindedness. This is self-deification.

The naturalist, too, believes—and radically

Axiomatic apologetics makes precisely this visible: Every person has an axiom, even someone professing to follow “only science.” The difference lies not in whether someone believes but in what. The naturalist believes in a system without origin, goal or person behind it. The Christian believes in the God who created all this and reveals himself intelligibly. The question is therefore not who believes but which faith sustains.

1.2.4 Why “neutrality” is no honest offer

Many Christians think it fair and wise to enter a “neutral conversational level” with those thinking differently, arguing on a shared basis of reason, logic and experience without immediately appealing to the Bible. This sounds friendly and open. But precisely here the problem begins, for neutrality does not exist.

Everyone brings an axiom, a fixed starting point from which they think and judge. The atheist can begin only with humanity and appeal to its use of reason, experience or science detached from God. The result can be called worldly or human wisdom or the “word of humanity.” The (consistent) Christian, by contrast, relies on God's Word and therefore reason guided by God. From there they interpret every experience and have a foundation for scientific research. But no one stands “just in the neutral middle” between two opposed worldviews arising from two fundamentally different axioms. Anyone claiming this deceives—often even themselves.

The idea that one could “stand in the middle” in worldview questions and decide entirely neutrally which perspective better fits the facts initially seems fair. It sounds like objectivity, openness and unprejudiced thinking, but precisely this is an error.

In truth, everyone brings a fundamental conviction, an inner foundation on which their thought builds. Even what someone considers “evidence” or not is always assessed through these glasses. Anyone professing neutrality thereby claims: “I look at the world entirely objectively and decide only from the facts.” But this is untrue. For how someone assesses facts always depends on which basic assumptions they bring, what they consider possible, what they exclude and what they believe.

Example: The feeding of the 5000

A biblical account such as feeding the 5000 (cf. Mt 14,13-21) makes clear how strongly interpreting the same story depends on the particular foundation. Everyone brings their own presuppositions, and these determine what they see in the text.

• The Bible-believing Christian says: “Jesus performed a miracle here. He really multiplied bread and fish supernaturally. He is the true prophet, the greater Moses, indeed more than a prophet: the Son of God.” (Cf. Mt 21,33-46)
• The atheist rejects this: “It's a fairy tale—things like that don't happen. The story was probably invented or exaggerated.”
• The liberal Christian with a naturalist worldview says: “It wasn't a miracle. Jesus wanted to convey a moral message: The people were stingy and all had something with them but didn't want to share. When Jesus set an example, they followed—the actual miracle was the change in their hearts.”
• The Muslim says: “Jesus performed the miracle, but only with Allah's permission. He was a great prophet but not God's Son. The miracle shows his humility and role as messenger—nothing more.”

Four completely different interpretations of the same narrative, each resting on a different foundation.

This shows: There is no neutral ground. Everyone wears glasses, presupposes an axiom, builds on a foundation, applies a fundamental criterion and accordingly judges what they hear and see. Even someone claiming neutrality has long stood on a particular foundation. They simply do not call it that. And precisely for this reason, “neutrality” is no honest starting point but a hidden position.

Anyone professing in discussion to want “simply to follow reason” or “let only the evidence speak” has usually long decided which voices they do not want to hear and which interpretation is excluded. What is needed is therefore not pretended neutrality but honest clarity: The Christian grounds their thinking in God's revealed Word, openly stands by it and has no reason to be ashamed of this worldview unsurpassed in explanatory power.

Nor does the Bible permit neutrality. Jesus expressly says:

“Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters” (Matthew 12,30)

“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or cling to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.” (Matthew 6,24).

Anyone claiming neutral ground exists therefore contradicts the Bible and has thereby already made a worldview decision against scripture. Such a position is neither logically tenable nor biblically legitimate.²⁰

Neutrality as a strategic deception

The demand for “neutrality” is no honest peace offering but a tactical maneuver: The Christian is to lay aside their fundamental axiom—the Bible's truth—to argue apparently “on equal terms.” In reality, however, they are thereby forced to adopt the opponent's blasphemous, humanity-glorifying axiom, namely the belief that truth, knowledge, logic, morality and science are possible and sound entirely without God's revelation, thus detached from the biblical worldview.

But this ground is not neutral. It is directed against God's authority from the outset (cf. Rom 8,7). There the non-Christian determines for themselves what counts as “reasonable,” “proved” or “moral.” The Christian has therefore lost before the conversation even begins. Anyone wishing to discuss on “neutral ground” must first take God's Word out of play. Yet precisely this is the decisive error: The Christian lays down the sword, the only tool that truly convicts, penetrates and saves (cf. Heb 4,12; Eph 6,17). They thereby renounce the spiritual weapon God himself gave to destroy strongholds of thought (cf. 2Cor 10,4-5).

Why the foundation counts, and why attempting to argue “neutrally” fails twice

The Bible is God's Word and therefore truth (Jn 17,17). We will see that for precisely this reason it cannot be logically denied. For it is the necessary starting point for everything we can say about truth, logic, morality, knowledge, science and argument at all.

Anyone denying it saws off the branch they sit on. Only two possibilities remain:

• Either an attack on the Bible unintentionally presupposes its truth and thereby refutes itself.
• Or it entirely abandons the foundations needed to argue, justify or criticize meaningfully at all, and fizzles out.

For “The fear of YHWH is the beginning of knowledge” (Prov 1,7), and in Christ “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden” (Col 2,3). He is not merely truth in person but also the true light that enlightens every person coming into the world (Jn 1,9).²¹ This light is the Logos's light, the gift of reason and intellectual cognitive capacity given to every person at their creation. But this light can be understood rightly only if not separated from the revealed Word, but recognized in its divine origin: the eternal Son who himself is the Word (Jn 1,1).

Biblical thought therefore begins not with proofs but reverence, not methodological openness but the confession: God's Word is truth because God is truth.

This means: Without God—more precisely, without the biblical worldview—one can ground no truth, justify no logic, establish no morality and secure no knowledge. Anyone nevertheless claiming one can have all this without God builds on an axiom of lies. They tacitly presuppose what they simultaneously deny: that all these things somehow “work” in a godless world nevertheless.

For the Christian, this is a lose-lose situation

Even if a Christian “proves” that the Bible is true or God exists on this alien foundation—the axiom of human self-determination and independence—they have actually lost. Why? Because they thereby say: “The Bible is true but unnecessary, for I can argue outside the Bible to show it.”

This means:

• The Bible is no longer the criterion but an object of examination.
• God's Word is no longer necessary but merely useful.
• Revelation is no longer a prerequisite but one option among many.

And thereby—even achieving the “right” result—one has undermined the Bible's authority. One has practically proved one does not need it to arrive at truth and that God is not fundamentally important.

Anyone accepting the wrong foundation ultimately loses even when they “win”! A proof resting on a self-contradictory foundation cannot be logically sound. And even if it “works,” it merely shows: “I do not need God's Word to recognize God's Word as true.” This is the opposite of biblical apologetics. The Bible-believing apologist therefore says: “I do not prove that God's Word is true but begin where truth is possible at all: with God's Word.”

A question of faithfulness

I remember a formal debate at a university in which two professors faced each other, an atheist and a professing Christian. Both were rhetorically strong, both scientifically versed. But what shook me was the Christian professor's behavior: He argued purely evidentially, entirely avoided appealing to scripture and put God up for discussion like a hypothesis.

After the debate, I approached him. I asked why he had not made clear that God's existence is not a matter of probabilities or empirical probability calculations but the necessary prerequisite for every form of logic, truth and science. His answer? “I trust the power of knowledge.”

I was stunned. For precisely this is the cardinal error of purely evidentialist apologetics: It assumes the natural person can know objectively if only given enough evidence. But this is not biblical; at best it is ignorance, at worst practical unbelief toward scripture's clear statements.

The Bible teaches unambiguously:

• The unbeliever suppresses truth in unrighteousness (Rom 1,18).
• Their mind is darkened (Eph 4,18).
• They are not neutral but oppose truth (2Tim 2,23-26).
• Without spiritual life they are incapable of knowledge in the biblical sense (1Cor 2,14).

Anyone thinking one can “convince” the unbeliever through proof on their terrain therefore believes not scripture but a humanistic view of humanity.

The atheist has no cognitive problem solvable with arguments. They have a heart problem solvable only by repentance and revelation. Every apologetic refusing to build on God's Word is therefore ultimately disobedience to the God whose honor one wants to defend.

If we withhold God's Word in conversation—whether to seem polite, avoid frightening the other person or remain “on equal terms”—we thereby leave our actual foundation. And what happens then? Without scripture we no longer speak with the authority of the one who created heaven and earth but attempt to argue on a human basis, at the same level as the non-Christian. We thereby say: “I play by your rules. I prove God to you without appealing to God.” But this is impossible and unbiblical. God cannot be negotiated “neutrally.” He is the Lord, not a topic.

If we abandon our axiom—the Bible—the conversation partner tacitly takes the lead. They then decide:

• What counts as “evidence”: Only what the five senses can experience. Revelation? Does not count.
• What counts as “logic”: Only what can be derived without faith in God.
• What is called “true”: Only what everyone can verify, but not what God has said.

They thereby impose their axioms without having to name them, while you have abandoned your axiom, the Bible. The conversation now runs according to their script, not God's. You then no longer argue with the sword of the Spirit (Eph 6,17) but without divine weapon, divine foundation or divine power.

Romans 8,7 says it clearly:

“because the mind of the flesh is hostility toward God, for it does not submit to God's law, nor indeed can it.”

There is no neutral mind, no worldview-free terrain on which one “seeks truth together.” The natural person does not want to acknowledge God's truth (cf. 1Cor 2,14). They want to be the judge themselves, not the accused. And if we stand on this “neutral” ground, we unintentionally cooperate. We then enter a discussion in which God must first apply for admission to be allowed to speak. But God is no thought among many. He is the source of all thoughts, the criterion of all truth and the Lord of every conversation.

Anyone arguing without the Bible's truth hands the opponent not merely the playing field but also the right to determine what is even permitted on this field. The opponent then effectively says:

• “By all means argue, but only with means that leave God outside.”
• “Prove your worldview to me, but without your foundation.”

And the Christian? They often agree out of a need for harmony or desire to be “heard.” But in reality they have already vacated the spiritual ground. It is like a soldier fighting in an enemy camp—in the opponent's uniform, with the opponent's weapons and under the opponent's command. For anyone laying aside God's Word surrenders its authority, renounces divine revelation and replaces it with human criteria that cannot even acknowledge God's truth (1Cor 2,14). Anyone discussing this way can only lose, even if “winning logically,” for they have left the field of truth. And truth is no point within a chain of argument. Truth is a person: Jesus Christ.

The axiom trap

What the unbeliever unspokenly demands in conversation is actually very clear: “Lay the Bible aside and argue according to my criteria—autonomous reason, subjective experience and relativist morality. In other words: Think as though God were not the criterion, acknowledge knowledge only when God's truth is excluded, and follow a morality making itself judge.”

The demand for supposed neutrality sounds like fairness, openness, objective exchange and above all neutral ground where both parties begin from equal presuppositions. But in reality it demands abandoning one's own axiom—commitment to God's Word—and exchanging it for the axiom of human autonomy.²²

And precisely at this point axiomatic apologetics says a very clear no, for every person has an axiom. There simply is no worldview-neutral starting situation. If the Christian abandons their axiom—divine revelation—they stand spiritually naked, disarmed, without orientation or protection through God's armor (Eph 6,10-17). They have not then simply chosen a “different approach” but abandoned from the outset the foundation they are actually meant to defend (Jude 3; 1Pet 3,15). From the biblical standpoint, this is not merely a strategically fatal error. It amounts to an act of disobedience, relativizing Jesus Christ's universal authority and ignoring his claim to lordship over thought and argument.

In 2Cor 10,3-5, Paul states precisely what you defend apologetically and in terms of worldview: spiritual warfare at the level of ways of thinking, not merely external arguments:

“For although we walk in the flesh, we do not wage war according to the flesh; for the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly but divinely powerful for destroying strongholds; destroying reasonings and every lofty thing raised against the knowledge of God, and taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.”

This passage is a central text for axiomatic apologetics. It makes clear that we conduct no “neutral” discourse on a human level but spiritual warfare. Our weapons here are to be not fleshly, thus no purely human thinking and wisdom, clever rhetoric or tactical maneuvers, but God's power for destroying strongholds. Intellectual bastions resisting the biblical worldview are meant. Paul speaks of reasonings (logismoi), systems of thought, chains of argument and worldviews standing against God's truth. These are not embraced or adopted on “neutral ground”—they are destroyed.

“Taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ”—so commands the one possessing all authority in heaven and on earth. This commission applies primarily to us Christians. For only if our own thought submits to Christ can we fulfill this command at all. Our thinking must not be detached from God and self-determined but subject to Christ. When the Lord Jesus Christ speaks—whether condemning theft, murder, lies and blasphemy or revealing world history's great lines in creation, Fall and redemption—it is law. It is truth. Not because we understand or agree but because he is God.

The Bible also compares this with housebuilding:

“Everyone therefore who hears these words of mine and does them, I will compare to a wise man who built his house on the rock;” (Matthew 7,24)

Jesus himself makes a fundamental principle clear here: The rock is his Word. Anyone building on it stands firm even in the storm of spiritual confrontation. The biblical worldview alone supplies the sound foundation for understanding, knowledge and rational thought, because it anchors truth's origin, criterion and meaning in God's revealed Word.²³ But anyone building on sand—on a use of reason detached from God, worldly wisdom or a seemingly neutral experiential basis—will see their house fall.

Truly scripture-bound apologetics therefore begins not with human assumptions and speculations but on the firm ground of the divine axiom, self-revelation in scripture. Truly Bible-believing apologetics seeks no supposedly neutral ground. It begins deliberately on divine self-revelation's firm foundation, thus the axiom that the Bible is God's Word and must therefore be the starting point of all thinking and arguing. Axiomatic apologetics sees Holy Scripture as the criterion of everything we think, believe and say. It does not say: “Let's begin with something simple we can both agree on.” Rather: “Wait—who actually says your criterion of truth is even valid?”

This question is no distraction but the key. For it leads back to authority. Who determines what truth is? Who may decide what is a good argument? Who determines what “reasonable” or “rational” means? The believer confesses: Only God. The unbeliever thinks: I myself.

And precisely for this reason it is unwise to begin somewhere in the middle, for there is no middle. There are only two starting points: God's Word or human autonomy. Revelation or rebellion. Rock or sand.

Fight not with alien weapons but with the sword of the Spirit

The apostle Paul calls us to tear down edifices of thought raised against the knowledge of God and take every thought captive (2Cor 10,5). This concerns not only obviously anti-Christian ideologies but every conception, worldview and approach to thought that does not acknowledge Christ as Lord over thinking.

This means: Jesus is Lord not only over heaven and earth but also over logic, proof, argument and knowledge. No thought is neutral. No argument is independent. Every thought belongs under his obedience.

What does this look like in practice?

1. Begin every conversation with a clear confession of the Bible

You need not justify making God's Word your starting point. You are no guest on alien ground but stand on God's promise. Say, for example:

“I do not believe in God because he would be the most plausible hypothesis. I know God exists because the Holy Spirit himself attests this within me, as described in Rom 8,16. Of course I know there is a difference between having knowledge and proving this knowledge to someone.

But that is precisely why I begin where everything must begin: with the God so fundamental and necessary that nothing can be grounded without him. The proof of God's existence is that without him there can be no proofs at all. The Bible is therefore my highest authority, and from it I assess everything else.”

2. Raise the question of authority early

If your conversation partner says they rely on reason or natural science, do not first ask for evidence; instead ask about truth:

“How do you even know what is true?” Or more directly: “Against what do you measure whether something is true or false?”

This question targets not individual arguments but the foundation of their thinking. It leads directly to the axiomatic level and thus the point where it becomes clear: Everyone believes first and judges afterward.

3. Expose your counterpart's axiom

Make clear that the skeptic, too, “believes”—only not in God but in themselves. In their senses. Their reason. Natural processes. But precisely their axiom is the problem: The use of reason detached from God's revelation leads to a worldview seeking to explain everything without God and thus ultimately reducing everything to blind, random matter. In such a worldview humanity is merely the result of chemical processes, and its thoughts are nothing more than a byproduct of processes in the brain. But if thinking is merely chance, there is no reason to trust it—for either truth or logic. Such thinking saws off the branch it sits on.

By contrast, the Bible reveals a worldview not merely permitting reason but grounding it. Humanity is created in God's image, capable of thinking, distinguishing and knowing because God is the source of order, truth and logic.

Therefore: “You presuppose your reason—I presuppose God's Word. The difference is: My foundation explains where reason comes from. Yours undermines it, for according to your worldview you are a biochemical machine reacting to external stimuli, and everyone thinks what they must think.”

4. Do not fight with borrowed weapons

Anyone attempting to justify God without God has already lost the battle. For they thereby lay down God's sword (Eph 6,17) and enter an alien battlefield—with rules intended to disarm them. They then argue no longer as a Christian but as a functional humanist, and this is spiritual unfaithfulness. It means abandoning faith's foundation to defend it under unbelief's conditions. But we defend truth not through methodological neutrality but through spiritual faithfulness.

This means you must not agree to argue “neutrally” first with reason and experience and bring God's Word into play only later. Without God's Word there is no legitimate reason and no objective experience.

You must make clear to your counterpart: “I bear witness to God not because I think I can prove him like a thing outside himself. I bear witness to him because fundamentally everyone as God's image knows he exists. He himself has spoken, and without biblical revelation, proofs, truth and logic are possible at all.”

Anyone first wanting to prove God to believe in him acts like someone wanting to see light before acknowledging the sun. But the Christian says with Psalm 36,10:

“For with you is the fountain of life; in your light we shall see light.”

The biblically thinking apologist therefore fights not with borrowed weapons but with the sword of the Spirit, that is, God's Word. As governing authority, not an exhibit of evidence, it alone may judge all other claims.

5. Draw the line clearly but gently

A Christian must not dissolve into the fog of supposed tolerance in discussions. Anyone confessing God's truth must also state it—kindly but firmly. For our commission is not to gain agreement but to bear faithful witness (2Tim 2,24-25; 1Pet 3,15).

If you say “Without the biblical worldview (the biblical axiom), there is no sound foundation for truth, logic or morality,” say it clearly, not from arrogance but obedience to the Lord, for: We do not dispute to conquer; we speak to honor. We engage in discourse not to be proved right but because Christ is also Lord over the world of thought (2Cor 10,5; Col 2,3).

You are not called to hide God's Word behind methodological diplomacy to make it sound more credible. You are called to confess it as what it is: the sword of the Spirit, living and effective, penetrating to the division of soul and spirit (Heb 4,12). Clear witness is no lack of love but an act of spiritual faithfulness. For light must shine, not negotiate with shadow.

Practical application: Begin with the foundation

If you speak with an atheist, agnostic or relativist and they say “Let's talk entirely objectively, but please without the Bible,” you must not evade but answer kindly and firmly: “Wait! If you reject the biblical worldview, what is your foundation for objective truth? How do you attain certain knowledge?”

These questions are no distraction but the decisive point. For in their thinking, humanity claims to judge God, but in reality stands under God's judgment itself.

“Shall the faultfinder contend with the Almighty? Let the one who corrects God answer this!” (Job 40,2)

No one thinks without presuppositions. Everyone judges from a standpoint, namely with an axiom they no longer themselves prove. You therefore must not begin the conversation halfway along but at the starting point: Whose foundation holds at all? Who has the right to define truth? Whose authority stands at the beginning?

The Bible leaves no doubt:

“The fear of YHWH is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.” (Proverbs 1,7)

“[Christ,] in whom all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden.” (Colossians 2,3).

You must begin there—not later but immediately. For if you leave the conversation partner's foundation untouched, you build on sand where you are meant to be placed on rock.

Summary of section 1.2

1.2.1 Neutrality—a beautiful appearance? No one thinks without presuppositions. “Neutrality” merely hides one's own axiom and grants the counterpart power to define “proof” and “logic.” God's revelation is thus tacitly replaced by human criteria. The actual dispute lies at the axiomatic level, not in collecting data.

1.2.2 Objectivity exists only with axioms Objectivity means not freedom from axioms but faithfulness to a true foundation. Every engagement with “facts” already presupposes criteria, such as the senses' reliability and nature's uniformity. These assumptions cannot be empirically justified but are believed. Without a fixed axiom, argument dissolves into relativism.

1.2.3 The naturalist's faith—why no one manages without axioms The naturalist claims objectivity but lives from unproved presuppositions: Only material things are real, reason is autonomous, natural laws stable. This is no result of data but the framework interpreting them. This shows: Unbelief, too, believes first and interprets afterward. The question is not whether one believes but in what.

1.2.4 Why “neutrality” is no honest offer Demanding “neutral ground” pressures Christians to lay aside scripture as criterion while the opponent retains their axiom. God's Word is thereby made the accused instead of the judge, and the conversation runs by alien rules. Biblical apologetics openly confesses scripture's axiom and confronts opposing criteria clearly and gently. The decisive question is: Which foundation coherently explains truth, logic, morality and knowledge?

Reflection questions for section 1.2

1.2.1—Neutrality is a myth

• Where do you encounter claims to be “neutral” in everyday life, and which axiom lies behind them?
• Why is “Only what is measurable counts” already a confession rather than a neutral starting point?
• How does Rom 8,7 help you understand why “neutrality” is spiritually impossible?
• In which conversation have you yourself unconsciously entered “neutral ground”? What resulted?
• Formulate in one sentence: How does a biblical concept of objectivity differ from a secular one?

1.2.2—Objectivity exists only with axioms

• Which axiom do you practically use when assessing “evidence”?
• Explain to a layperson why an axiom is a foundation rather than a result.
• Hume's point: Why can nature's uniformity not be empirically proved without presupposing it?
• Where in everyday life do you rely on “tomorrow is like today,” and why is this an act of faith?
• How would you fairly show an empiricist that they, too, “believe before they know”?

1.2.3—The naturalist's faith

• Name three unspoken beliefs of naturalism.
• Why is “reason without God” ultimately self-undermining within the naturalist framework?
• Where do discussions show “science” functioning as replacement revelation?
• How would you explain that the naturalist is not axiom-free but believes differently?
• Which biblical alternative grounds the reliable use of human reason?

1.2.4—Why “neutrality” is no honest offer

• Why does the Christian already lose by laying aside God's Word for “neutral ground”?
• Explain: “Even when you win, you lose”—why does victory with alien weapons confirm the wrong foundation?
• How do Mt 12,30 and Mt 6,24 illuminate the impossibility of a worldview middle ground?
• Formulate your 1-sentence guiding principle for why the “marketplace of arguments” misleads without the axiomatic level.
• What does “taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2Cor 10,3-5) mean in practice?