The impossibility of the opposing position

Book text · 4th, corrected edition 2026

Goal: Demonstrating the absurdity of all alternative worldviews

The Bible shows itself true not merely through its clear structure and divine claim. It also proves itself through all other explanatory attempts failing. Whether someone understands themselves as atheist, rationalist, empiricist, relativist or adherent of another religion: Every non-Christian perspective collapses upon closer inspection. Why? Because it cannot explain its own foundations. It speaks of truth, logic, morality or meaning but cannot say where these things come from. Its statements often contradict themselves. It may seem strong, but it does not sustain itself.

The decisive point is therefore not merely The Bible explains everything but also Without the Bible, nothing can be explained. Or differently: Christian faith is true not merely because meaningful. It is true because all opposites are impossible. Every worldview rejecting God's revelation can exist only by “helping itself” to God's concepts, orders and presuppositions that it cannot itself explain. One could say unbelief lives on stolen thoughts. But it cannot support them. And so it collapses upon itself.

In this chapter we therefore want to do two things:

1. Examine false worldviews We show why particular ways of thinking—such as atheism or relativism—do not work. They contradict themselves and offer no firm ground.

2. Situate unbelief spiritually We make clear: Unbelief is no mere different opinion. It rejects God's revelation and ultimately leads into spiritual emptiness and intellectual death.

The apologetics we apply here is not defensive. We do not duck away. We do not attempt to “rescue” faith through human cleverness. No, we show that only faith in God's Word is sound at all. And that everything else contradicts itself.

3.1 Demonstrating other worldviews' absurdity

3.1.1 Atheism—a worldview without a supporting foundation

Atheism claims: There is no God. The universe explains itself. Everything is supposedly mere chance—a product of matter, time and motion. There is allegedly no Creator, ultimate cause or spiritual source. Only what can be seen, measured or calculated is real.

Yet precisely there lies the problem. Atheism cannot answer life's most fundamental questions. It sees the world but cannot explain why a world exists at all. It lays claim to order, logic, truth and meaning, but its worldview contains no foundation for any of this. It stands on creation's ground but denies the Creator.

A worldview living from what it rejects

Atheism uses things meaningful at all only in God's world:

• Logic: The atheist thinks logically, but where do laws of thought come from in a world consisting only of matter and chance? In a universe without mind, there is no explanation of why logical rules should hold at all. They would be mere brain products and thus relative.
• Morality: Atheists speak of justice, human rights, good and evil, but where do such concepts come from if there is no criterion above humanity? Without God, “good” is merely a matter of taste. Morality becomes arbitrary.
• Meaning: Many atheists search for meaning. But if everything ends with death, with no plan or goal, everything is also meaningless. Every thought, conversation and hope is then merely a brief flicker in chaos.

Briefly: Atheism lives from what it cannot justify. It uses concepts such as truth, knowledge and responsibility, but these concepts have no sound origin within its own system.

Thinking without foundation

If there is no God, why can humanity know anything at all? The atheist believes our thinking results from biology, evolution and chemistry. But then the question arises: Why should such random processes lead to truth? If our brain is merely chance's product, why should we trust it?

Nor can atheism explain natural laws—mathematically precise and astonishingly stable. In a worldview without order, plan or goal, every regularity would ultimately be a lucky hit. Why should one trust it?

Even language loses its hold: If everything is meaningless, our words are meaningless too. Then “There is no God” is merely a noise—like wind in the trees.

Atheism contradicts itself

Atheism often calls itself “reasonable” or “scientific,” but actually leads into a system full of contradictions:

• It uses logic but cannot ground it.
• It speaks of morality but has no criterion.
• It searches for meaning but believes none exists.
• It thinks but often does not believe in a mind.
• It speaks but has no explanation of meaning.

This shows atheism is not merely unbiblical. It is impossible. Not because Christians consider it false but because it contradicts itself. It is a house without foundation. A system without origin. A view of the world “borrowing” its concepts from God's world but denying God.

Anyone rejecting God loses not merely the Gospel but the possibility of thinking meaningfully at all.

3.1.2 Empiricism—knowledge without foundation?

Empiricism says: Only what we can observe and measure with our senses is real knowledge. Everything supposedly must be supported by experience, by what can be seen, heard, touched or checked in a laboratory. This sounds reasonable at first glance, since we constantly use our senses. But empiricism fails against its own foundation.

Can experience ground itself?

The Scottish philosopher David Hume captured the problem over 250 years ago.³⁴ He asked a simple but profound question: How do we know the future will work like the past? Why should the sun rise tomorrow merely because it has always done so before? Why should water boil at 100 °C tomorrow too? Why should a cause have the same effect next time?

Our answer is usually: Because it has always been so. But this is no proof; it is an assumption. And precisely this assumption is the problem. For saying “The future will be like the past” already presupposes what we actually wanted to prove. This is an error of thought, circular reasoning.

Hume calls this the “problem of induction”: All science based on repeated observation builds on the idea that the world behaves regularly, but this idea itself cannot be observed or proved. It is pure belief, and belief without foundation.

Empiricism claims: All knowledge comes from experience. But it cannot explain why experience should be reliable at all. It assumes:

• that nature is ordered,
• our mind can recognize this order,
• natural laws continue and do not suddenly change.

But why is this so? Empiricism owes us an answer. It cannot explain the foundation of its method—it must simply presuppose it.

It believes in order, reliability and lawfulness, but within a worldview allegedly consisting only of chance and matter. It thereby stands on a foundation it cannot explain.

Faith under a false flag

The empiricist often says: I believe only what I can see. But in truth they believe in many things one cannot see:

• That the world is knowable.
• That our thinking is reliable.
• That natural laws always hold.

These convictions are no empirical observations—they are presuppositions without which observation would make no sense at all.

The problem is therefore not experience itself but attempting to make experience the only source of knowledge.

Only the Bible explains why experience is possible

The Bible says: God created the world in order and sustains it through his powerful Word (cf. Gen 1,1; Heb 1,3). He created humanity as a knower, capable of observing, thinking and understanding (cf. Gen 1,28).

Only for this reason is science possible at all:

• Natural laws hold because God is faithful.
• Knowledge is possible because we are God's image.
• Language, logic and meaning are stable because grounded in God's being.

Empiricism, by contrast, lives from presuppositions it cannot itself explain. It tacitly “borrows” them from the biblical worldview and uses them without knowing where they come from. It builds a house but has no foundation.

A worldview without explanatory power

A purely empirical worldview—reducing everything to sensory data and measurability—can observe many things. But it does not know why there is anything to observe. It can explain how things happen but not why there is an ordered world in which meaningful research is possible at all. This therefore also holds of empiricism:

It is not merely incomplete but destroys itself.

For a model of knowledge unable to explain its own foundation is no sound model. It remains on the surface but has no ground on which it could stand securely. Empiricism is a castle in the air.

3.1.3 Rationalism: Overburdening the finite mind

Rationalism says: Truth comes not from experience but from thinking. Humanity supposedly needs only its mind and can know everything important through logical inferences from universal principles. Revelation? Superfluous. Experience? Secondary. The mind alone supposedly suffices to understand the world and God.

This sounds noble at first glance, like praise of reason. But closer examination makes clear: Rationalism overburdens humanity and overlooks its limits.

Limit 1: Humanity is finite

The rationalist thinks their mind can “think its way upward” to highest truth. But humanity is no god. Our thinking is limited, our knowledge incomplete, our logic prone to error. How can a finite, sinful mind arrive at absolute truth from itself? The Bible warns precisely against this:

“professing to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1,22)

A tool—and the mind is no more—must not consider itself the architect. Humanity can know, but only because God reveals himself.

Limit 2: The rationalist, too, needs an axiom

The rationalist claims: Everything is justified through logical thought. But they, too, begin with presuppositions they cannot justify further. For example:

• That logic holds.
• That their mind works reliably.
• That clear concepts are possible.

But where do these things come from? Rationalism falls silent or circles in a circle. It pretends one can float on scaffolding without firm ground. But logic needs content, not merely form. And this content must be true; otherwise even correct inferences do not help.

In other words: The rationalist, too, lives from an axiom—a starting point they cannot prove. The decisive question is therefore not “Who thinks most sharply?” but “Who begins with the right foundation?”

What, then, is biblical rationalism?

The biblical worldview's internal logic can also be called biblical rationalism.³⁵ But this does not mean reason takes God's place. On the contrary, the Bible itself is the first principle sustaining itself. It is the foundation from which all thought must proceed.

Reason has its place within this, but not as judge over God. It is a tool given by God. A helpful tool, but one working rightly only when struck by revelation's light. Reason is not the light; it is merely the mirror. And a mirror shows anything only when light falls on it. This light is the Bible. It shows what is true. Reason can recognize this, but only if guided by revelation.

Cheung therefore calls his approach “biblical rationalism.” The Bible is the self-attesting foundation. From it an entire system can be derived: What scripture says is true. What is logically inferred from it is also true. Everything contradicting it is false. This is rationalism, but not a human, supposedly self-determined rationalism beginning with the mind; rather, a biblical rationalism beginning with God's Word and subordinating reason to it.

Briefly: Biblical rationalism means recognizing scripture as light and using reason as mirror. Reason serves but does not rule. The foundation is God's revelation alone.

Rationalism without God? A house without ground

Rationalism without the Bible is like someone wanting to pull themselves from a swamp by their own hair. It explains much but not why explanation is possible at all. It uses logic but does not know where it comes from. It builds a system but without foundation.

It places the mind in God's position. But anyone making the mind the measure of all things makes themselves a god. And this ends—as always—in contradiction:

• If my thought is the source of truth, my error is also omnipresent.
• If I need no revelation, there is no corrective telling me when I am wrong.
• If I acknowledge God only when I understand him, I am the measure, not he.

The Bible teaches us something different:

“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)

God is the source of light; the mind is merely a recipient. Thinking is not wrong, but it must happen in humility. Only someone thinking under scripture thinks rightly.

3.1.4 Relativism and pluralism—when doubt destroys itself

Relativism

Relativism is our time's worldview, not in books and theories but in everyday life, school and social media. One hears it everywhere:

“That's your truth—mine is different.” “Truth is subjective.” “Who can know what's really true anyway?”

Sounds modern. Sounds open. Sounds tolerant. But listening more closely, this attitude collapses upon itself. Anyone saying “There is no absolute truth” themselves says something absolutely true. That is the contradiction. For if truly everything is relative, so is this sentence itself.

The self-contradiction: Relativism refutes itself

Relativism's core thesis is: “There is no absolute truth.” Yet logically this very sentence already claims absolute truth. If correct, it holds always and everywhere—thus absolutely. It thereby contradicts itself. Anyone saying “Everyone has their own truth” actually already makes a universally valid statement and thus lives the opposite of what they assert.

Logically, only two easily examined possibilities remain:

➞ If the statement is false, absolute truth exists.

➞ If true, it is simultaneously false because it itself claims an absolute truth.

Thus relativism destroys itself the moment it is uttered.

The disguise: Relativism as escape from responsibility

Relativism is often no philosophically considered position but a convenient excuse:

“If everything is relative, I need not change.” “If there is no absolute truth, no one can tell me I'm wrong.” But this is no real tolerance; it is escape from truth, from responsibility and ultimately from God. The Bible names this attitude:

“For God's wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of people who hold the truth in unrighteousness;” (Romans 1,18)

Relativism is not neutral but rebellion against God's truth. It is therefore not modest but presumptuous.

Pluralism: Everything is true, and therefore nothing

Pluralism sounds somewhat friendlier:

“Every religion has part of the truth.” “All paths lead to God.”

Yet this, too, is a hidden claim to absoluteness. Anyone claiming all religions are equally true must stand above them, like someone seeing the entire mosaic while everyone else sees only a piece—but how does this person know that? Who grants them the right to judge everyone else?

The pluralist says: “No one has the whole.” But actually claims: “I have the whole, for I see they are merely parts.” This is no modest perspective but a claim to omniscience dressed in humility.

The biblical alternative: Truth with love

The Bible is entirely clear here:

“...your Word is truth.” (John 17,17)

Not one truth among many. Not a suggestion. But the truth revealed by God, eternally valid, binding for everyone. Yes, this sounds exclusive, and it is. But only someone knowing truth can live genuine tolerance. For:

• Anyone knowing what is true can meet the person in error with love.
• Anyone knowing no truth has only opinion, and opinion disputes but does not save.

Relativism talks much but supports nothing

• It contradicts itself.
• It evades all responsibility.
• It confuses arbitrariness with freedom.
• It demands respect but has no respect for God.

The relativist says: “Everything is permitted.” Yet this leads not to freedom but nihilism³⁶ (the conviction that no ultimate meaning, truth or values exist): Ultimately only power counts—not truth, love or grace. Christian faith is different:

“and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8,32)

Not because we are right but because God has spoken.

3.1.5 Islam—revelation without foundation

Islam claims to possess divine revelation: the Quran. It presents itself as God's final and perfect message above the Bible, corrective and conclusive.³⁷ But closer examination reveals a deep problem: The Islamic claim of revelation contradicts itself.

The Islamic revelation paradox

The contradiction with the Bible

In several passages the Quran says that God revealed previously—to Moses, David and Jesus. The Torah (Taurat), Psalms (Zabur) and Gospel (Injil) count in the Quran as original revelations of Allah (cf. Surah 3:3; 5:46).

Yet Islam simultaneously claims these scriptures were corrupted. The customary explanation effectively says: “The Bible was originally true, but humans altered it. Allah therefore had to send the Quran as correction.”

But precisely here the epistemological dilemma begins. If revelation can be corrupted—what then? The Islamic argument destroys its own foundation:

• If earlier revelations could be corrupted by humans,
• then the Quran, too, is not automatically secure.
• For: What was possible for people then would also be possible for them today.

Muslims often cite Surah 15:9: “We ourselves have sent down the reminder, and we will surely be its guardian.” But they thereby demand trust in a God who, according to their own doctrine, did not preserve the first revelation. Why then believe everything is different this time?

The Quran stands on the Bible's ground and saws it away

The next problem is the dual attitude toward the Bible:

• On the one hand, the Quran needs the Bible to legitimate itself: “Allah also revealed previously”
• On the other, it rejects the Bible to place itself above it: “It is corrupted.”

But both together do not work. The Quran relies on the Bible while simultaneously undermining its credibility. It thereby cuts off the branch on which it sits. And a worldview destroying its own foundation cannot offer reliable revelation. This is called the revelation paradox: Islam claims to be divinely revealed but itself undermines the principle of reliable revelation.

A God unbound by truth?

But that is not all. Many Islamic theologians—particularly in the Ashʿarite tradition—teach: “Allah is not bound by logic or reason. He can do what he wants—even contradictorily.”

This initially sounds like freedom but is a massive problem for knowledge, for:

• If God can contradict himself,
• then every revelation is potentially irrational.
• Then nothing can be known certainly, including the Quran.

An omnipotent God who is not reliable and truthful is no foundation for knowledge, but a riddle, arbitrariness. And arbitrariness cannot ground truth.

The Bible does not know this problem

• The Bible does not contradict itself, because it originates with the God of truth (Tit 1,2).
• It condemns every falsification while simultaneously saying that God preserves his Word (Ps 119,89; Mt 24,35).
• It needs no external confirmation, for it is self-attesting.³⁸

Only the biblical model of revelation gives certainty: Because God himself is faithful, his Word is reliable.

What remains?

Islam claims revelation but saws away its foundation. It needs the Bible but denies its intactness. It trusts Allah but allows no reliable access to truth. Islam thereby loses precisely what revelation is meant to provide: certainty, clarity, truth.

What remains is a faith without foundation. Only God's revealed Word—the uncorrupted Bible—sustains with eternal certainty.

Only a God who is truth can give truth

Truth needs a reliable origin

What does this mean?

➞ Truth is not simply what God currently wills.

➞ Truth is what God is.

If God's will were the only thing counting—if he said this today and its opposite tomorrow—revelation would be nothing more than a whim. Now yes, now no. Now light, now shadow. Such a “God” would be unpredictable, contradictory and entirely unreliable. We could then never know whether his words would still hold tomorrow. But truth needs more than power. It needs a being truthful by nature. And precisely this is what the Bible says:

“in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised before eternal ages,” (Titus 1,2)

“...your Word is truth.” (John 17,17)

Only a God true in his being can reveal reliably at all.

A will without being is merely noise

In classical Islam—particularly the thought of Al-Ghazali or Ibn Taymiyya—Allah is often described as pure will.³⁹ He supposedly can do what he wills, independently of logic, morality or inner being. Even natural laws are allegedly merely expressions of his momentary willing. The problem:

• A will without fixed being reveals nothing enduring, binding or explicable.
• It can say A today and B tomorrow.
• It is like an oracle, not a voice.
• It does not speak; it causes noises.

But revelation needs more than power. It needs clarity. Truth. Faithfulness. Only someone with a fixed being can also speak reliably.

The price: Knowledge becomes impossible

What are the consequences of such a conception of God?

• Logic is uncertain—because Allah could change it at any moment. Perhaps 2 + 2 will equal 5 tomorrow.
• Morality is uncertain—because Allah could constantly redefine good and evil.
• Language is uncertain—because Allah could simply reverse meanings.

Such a “God” destroys all foundations for knowledge. He can guarantee no stable world order and therefore no reliable revelation. But if nothing is fixed, no knowledge is possible either.

And no communication. And no truth. The result is religious skepticism under a divine banner.

A self-contradiction in Islamic argument

Islamic apologists defend the Quran with logical arguments. But they commit a fundamental error: They use logical principles their own conception of God does not actually permit.

A voluntarist God can change logic's laws at any moment. Why then should we believe arguments remain valid today? To argue, one must believe in an ordered, stable, true universe. But precisely this Islamic voluntarism cannot guarantee. It tacitly borrows presuppositions from the biblical worldview.

The Christian alternative: A God who himself is truth

The Bible is entirely different:

“Every good gift and every perfect present comes down from above, from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation nor shadow of change.” (James 1,17)

“Jesus says to him: I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14,6)

“For with you is the fountain of life; in your light we shall see light.” (Psalm 36,10)

The Bible's God is immutable (Mal 3,6), truthful (Tit 1,2), rational (Jn 1,1—Logos) and capable of revelation (Heb 1,1-2). His revelation is therefore:

• coherent, because originating in one mind.
• reliable, because given by a faithful being.
• understandable, because intervening in language and history.

Summary of section 3.1

3.1.1 Atheism: Living on stolen ground Atheism claims the world can be explained without God—yet it lives from presuppositions it cannot explain: logic, morality, order, meaning. It denies the Creator but uses his tools. Its thinking is thus parasitic: It taps into God's world to deny God—an epistemological self-contradiction.

3.1.2 Empiricism: Blind faith in regularity Empiricism stakes everything on sensory experience but cannot justify its method's foundation—induction. That the future proceeds like the past is an unproved assumption. Experience itself thereby becomes a matter of faith. Anyone believing only what they see must believe without knowing why they can believe. Empiricism lives from an axiom it cannot itself supply.

3.1.3 Rationalism: Thought's self-deification Rationalism relies on pure thought while misunderstanding humanity's limits. It needs axioms it cannot ground itself and elevates the finite mind to the source of all truth. But without divine revelation, logic too remains empty. Only when reason submits to God's Word does it become a reliable tool. Thinking without revelation is thinking in fog.

3.1.4 Relativism and pluralism: Collapse within their own claim Relativism claims no absolute truth exists and thereby contradicts itself. It demands tolerance and ends in intolerance. Pluralism attempts to distribute truth among many voices—but only someone standing above all can assert this. Both perspectives expose themselves as logically incoherent. Only God's Word is objective, absolute and sound.

3.1.5 Islam: Revelation without certainty of revelation The Quran recognizes the Bible as prior divine revelation—but simultaneously declares it corrupted. Islam thereby saws off the branch on which it sits. If earlier revelation is corruptible, there is no guarantee for later revelation. And a God able to contradict or abrogate himself offers no epistemological security. The voluntarist Allah destroys the foundation of logic, morality and truth and thereby the possibility of knowledge at all.

Reflection questions for section 3.1

3.1.1—Atheism: Living on stolen ground

• In which discussions have you noticed atheists arguing morally or logically although their worldview actually does not permit it?
• What do you think about calling atheism “parasitic,” appropriating cognitive tools it cannot justify?
• Why is it epistemologically important that meaning, logic and morality cannot arise from nothing?
• Which biblical statements make clear that denying God is not neutral but an expression of rebellion (cf. Rom 1,18-21)?

3.1.2—Empiricism: Blind faith in regularity

• How would you explain to someone why science cannot work without assuming regularity?
• Have you had conversations in which people presented scientific knowledge as “the only truth”? How did you respond?
• What does it mean for your own faith that scientific work, too, ultimately rests on an act of faith?
• Why is it liberating for Christians to know the world is ordered because an ordering God sustains it (cf. Heb 1,3)?

3.1.3—Rationalism: Thought's self-deification

• Where is there danger today of making human reason the measure of all things—including within Christianity?
• Why is it dangerous to treat logic as the “ultimate authority” instead of seeing it as a tool under God's revelation?
• How does the image of light (Bible) and mirror (reason) help you situate your own thinking rightly?
• What does it mean practically that true thinking is not autonomous but “thinks God's thoughts after him”?

3.1.4—Relativism and pluralism: Collapse within their own claim

• How would you approach someone saying, “Truth is different for everyone”?
• Why is it so important to show relativism's self-contradiction—not from arrogance but love of truth?
• In which situations have you experienced pluralism's supposed tolerance turning into intolerance?
• How does John 17,17 (“Your Word is truth”) help you in an environment rejecting absolute truth?

3.1.5—Islam—revelation without certainty of revelation

• Why is it problematic if a religion claims earlier revelations were corrupted while simultaneously basing its own on them?
• What does it mean epistemologically if God is not bound by truth—as in Islamic voluntarism?
• How would you gently explain to a Muslim that their conception of God destroys the foundation for true knowledge?
• Which biblical verses show you that God reveals reliably—not arbitrarily but from his true being (cf. Tit 1,2; Jas 1,17)?

3.2 Why unbelief offers no foundation for knowledge

Unbiblical worldviews are not merely false—they are impossible. They fail not only in application but already at the beginning. For without the Bible's God, no sound foundation for knowledge, morality or meaning can exist. What they think they offer they borrow—unconsciously—from the biblical worldview. But their own foundation does not hold.

3.2.1 No knowledge without a divinely revealed axiom

Real knowledge—in the biblical sense—is more than opinion, feeling or probability. It is true, justified knowledge in an ordered universe. And this universe originates not in chance but in a rational, truthful God.

But anyone claiming knowledge needs truth. Anyone claiming truth needs an immutable criterion. And every criterion presupposes an ultimate authority. Only, where is this to come from?

The Bible alone claims to be this authority. Not because people find it persuasive but because God himself speaks in it.

“All scripture is breathed out by God...” (2. Timothy 3,16).

It therefore stands above every other criterion: not examined but examining, not assessed but assessing.

All other sources—reason, experience, feeling, intuition, culture—are wavering, limited, subjective. They can give indications but no ultimate certainty, for humanity is limited. Its perception is fallible. Its thinking is dependent. Human knowledge can therefore never be absolutely certain in itself. Only when God himself speaks do we have a basis for knowing anything with ultimate certainty. And precisely this he does in scripture. It is no mere contribution in the stream of opinions; it is the criterion against which everything else is measured.

This leads to a simple but radical alternative: Either one begins with God or with humanity. But if humanity is the measure, there is no measure left. Only a circle of opinions without a center remains:

• Knowledge becomes opinion
• Truth becomes mood
• Logic becomes agreement.

Unbelief wants

• Knowledge, but without source.
• Security, but without foundation.
• Logic, but without Logos.

But this does not work. Anyone wanting knowledge must return to the source. And this source is neither nature, culture nor feeling but God's Word.

All attempts to ground knowledge without revelation end either in silence—because one recognizes one can say nothing certain—or in contradiction—because one nevertheless makes truth claims without a criterion for them.

Therefore:

• Only the biblical axiom holds.
• Only if God is presupposed as ultimate truth is secured knowledge possible at all.

3.2.2 The mind is created—not autonomous

One of modern worldview's deepest errors lies in a simple but consequential assumption: The human mind is autonomous. Thus independent, self-sufficient and the ultimate criterion of truth. This idea permeates philosophy, science, politics and unfortunately also many areas of Christian theology. It makes the mind an oracle. The creature a judge. And humanity its own god.

But the Bible speaks differently: The mind is created. This means:

• It is not source but recipient.
• Not master but servant.
• Not criterion but tool.

A created mind can

• not produce truth, only receive it.
• recognize but not define it.
• bear witness but not generate it.

Anyone elevating the human mind to the highest principle commits an error of thought with spiritual consequences: They cross the boundary between Creator and creature and make reason an idol.

This is no mere misunderstanding. It is rebellion, for if the mind is to be the ultimate authority, nothing exists against which it must be measured. It becomes judge over everything—including God. And precisely this has been the core of every human revolt since the Fall:

“And the serpent was more cunning than every beast of the field that YHWH God had made; and it said to the woman: Has God really said: You shall not eat from every tree of the garden?” (Genesis 3,1)

But truth is not what humanity considers true. Truth is what God speaks.

“...your Word is truth.” (Jn 17,17)

Truth exists before humanity recognizes it because grounded in God himself. Therefore:

• Anyone truly wanting to know must listen.
• Anyone seeking truth must submit to God's Word.
• Anyone wanting knowledge must acknowledge their thought as received—not autonomous.

The Bible portrays humanity differently from the spirit of the age: not neutral, objective or independent but created, fallen, accountable.

“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)

This is no marginal note but a diagnosis. Apologetic thought therefore begins not by appealing to autonomous reason. It begins with exposure: Without God, no human can think reasonably. For every logic, argument and piece of knowledge presupposes something unbelief cannot justify:

• an ordered world,
• reliable categories,
• truth and meaning.

This is biblical apologetics' strength: It places not the Bible under human judgment but humanity under the Bible's judgment. And precisely therein lie truth and hope. For only someone humbling themselves will know. And only someone knowing will believe.

3.2.3 The glasses of worldview—why no neutral facts exist

Many think: “I simply see the facts—entirely objectively.” But this is untrue. There is no observation without interpretation. Everyone wears invisible glasses, glasses of basic assumptions rarely questioned but constantly used. These glasses are called worldview. They determine what we perceive, what we accept and what we reject.

Facts are never merely facts. They do not speak neutrally to us; rather, we interpret them. And how we interpret them depends on our presuppositions. Bare facts would be uninterpreted facts and therefore silent facts.⁴⁰

A naturalist sees the sunset and thinks: “Light scattering.” A Christian sees the same sunset and prays: “The heavens declare God's glory” (Ps 19,2).

The data are identical, the interpretation fundamentally different. Why? Because the glasses differ. One sees world without God, the other world in God.

Every worldview acts as a filter. It determines:

• what counts as a fact at all,
• how this fact is situated,
• what meaning it has,
• and which conclusions are drawn from it.

Serious discussions therefore begin not with data but with axioms—the basic assumptions supporting everything. It is a battle of glasses. And many do not even notice wearing them.

In Eine Frage der Logik, Jason Lisle emphasizes that there are no “raw facts” existing entirely neutrally and independently of interpretation.

All facts must be interpreted—and this interpretation always happens in the light of a particular worldview. Evolutionists and creationists therefore have the same data before them but draw completely different conclusions because they look at reality with different “glasses” (basic assumptions).

A striking quotation summarizing Lisle's main thought reads:

“We have the same facts available. But what we make of the facts is influenced by our worldview. Creationists and evolutionists therefore interpret the same facts in different ways. This point cannot be emphasized strongly enough.”⁴¹

Anyone saying they argue “only from facts” overlooks the decisive point: Their facts, too, stand under glasses. They simply have not recognized which.

Precisely here axiomatic apologetics begins. It reveals:

• On which glasses does a worldview rest?
• Which axioms shape thought?
• And: Can these axioms even explain what “fact,” “logic,” “truth” or “meaning” is?

For facts do not interpret themselves. They need a framework, an overarching view giving them meaning. Only one worldview offers a consistent, divinely guaranteed framework: the Bible.

Other systems collect data but cannot explain why these data are valid, binding or interpretable at all. They use logic, morality and knowledge without being able to explain their origin. They see, but through broken glasses. Therefore: Anyone rejecting God's Word sees facts but never in their true light. For every fact belongs to God; every meaning comes from him. Without revelation, darkness remains. Without God's Word, opinion remains. Without divine glasses, truth remains conjecture, not knowledge.

Knowledge is never neutral. It is always believing—either serving truth or deception. Humanity is no uninvolved observer but a creature under authority. Only someone recognizing their glasses and orienting them to God's Word can truly see.

3.2.4 Consistency is necessary—and fulfilled in scripture alone

A frequent objection is: “But there are other worldviews coherent within themselves too. If a system has no internal contradictions—is that not enough?”

Regarding the first sentence, we say: No, there are no other coherent worldviews. We show that the biblical worldview is knowledge's necessary prerequisite, and all unbiblical worldviews are therefore demonstrated false.

The second sentence is often used as an objection to the biblical worldview. It says: Consistency is necessary but insufficient to prove a worldview true. The answer here is: Consistency is necessary and sufficient because there can be only one true worldview. A truly consistent worldview is truth's hallmark. All false systems sooner or later expose themselves through self-contradiction and lead into nothingness.

A distinction is needed here: Consistent constructions certainly exist—dreams, fairy tales or novels. These may be narrated coherently within themselves, but they are not worldviews. Why? Because they simply presuppose fundamental things such as truth, logic, morality, the universe's lawfulness, love, justice, language, human value and dignity without grounding them. A worldview, by contrast, must claim to explain reality as a whole. Precisely here all extrabiblical systems fail. For no alternative worldview is consistent down to the fundamental level. All shatter against their own presuppositions. They use concepts such as logic, truth or morality but cannot explain where these come from. Anyone consistently questioning further ends in skepticism—admitting one can know nothing truly. Yet precisely this one then knows certainly, thereby falling into self-contradiction. Such a worldview collapses upon itself and therefore cannot be true.

The emptiness of opposing systems:

• Atheism wants to think logically but has no origin for logic.
• Moral pluralism wants to judge morally but has no criterion for good and evil.
• Pantheism speaks of unity but does not explain why reason exists at all.

A seemingly coherent system can therefore be empty of content:

• It can use concepts but not justify them.
• It can argue but not explain why argument is valid at all.
• It can speak but not say where meaning comes from.

But the Bible supplies precisely these presuppositions, for example for:

• Logic, because God is rational (Jn 1,1).
• Morality, because God is holy (Lev 19,2).
• Language, because God communicates (Heb 1,1-2).
• Truth, because God cannot lie (Tit 1,2).
• Knowledge, because we are created in God's image (Gen 1,27).

All other systems may discuss, but cannot justify why discussion should have meaning at all. Their logic is formal; their foundation empty.

To summarize: Not every internally coherent construction is a worldview—but every true worldview is consistent and sound. Only one worldview unites both: formal coherence and metaphysical soundness. And this applies only to the biblical worldview. For only it begins with the one who himself is truth (Jn 14,6), in whom all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden (Col 2,3).

3.2.5 Only the Bible explains the possibility of knowledge

After analyzing several countermodels, the result is unambiguous: Only the biblical axiom supplies a sound foundation for knowledge. All other worldviews—atheistic, empirical, rationalist, pluralist or religiously alternative—fail not merely in their content but already in the possibility of knowing at all.

The dispute over presuppositions

Axiomatic apologetics reveals: The battle over truth is first a dispute not over answers but over presuppositions. The non-Christian wants to know but cannot. For without the true triune God there is no order, meaning, truth or redemption. Yet they use precisely these divinely groundable things: to think, argue, even deny God.

They rise against the giver with borrowed weapons. This is no neutral style of thinking but spiritual insurrection dressed in intellect. Humanity lives from presuppositions it simultaneously disputes. It stands on creation's ground and denies the Creator—whether disputing his existence or replacing him with a false god (cf. Rom 1,18-23).

The Bible explains what others merely presuppose

Scripture shows not merely redemption's path but explains why knowledge exists at all:

• Knowledge: “The fear of YHWH is the beginning of knowledge” (Prov 1,7)
• Language: God spoke, and we are created in his image (Gen 1)
• Logic: “In the beginning was the Logos”—God is reason itself (Jn 1,1)
• Regularity: “Seedtime and harvest, cold and heat ... shall not cease” (Gen 8,22)
• Morality: “For I am holy”—you therefore should also be holy (Lev 11,45)
• History's meaning: God has measured out the times—nothing is accidental (Acts 17,26)

Only the Christian worldview supplies the presuppositions for thinking, understanding and judging to be possible at all. Knowledge presupposes order, and order presupposes an ordering mind. This mind is no abstract idea but a person: scripture's triune God.

Truth needs an origin

Truth presupposes a criterion, and a criterion needs an ultimate authority. This authority is God's inspired scripture alone, for:

• humanity is limited,
• its thinking fallen,
• its perception fallible.

But scripture is inspired by the infallible God. It offers not opinion but certainty. It is no contribution to truth; it is truth's source.

Without the Bible—no truth

All unbiblical systems inevitably end in:

• relativism (everything is a matter of opinion; there is no binding truth),
• skepticism (one can actually know nothing truly),
• self-contradiction (one's own claims cancel each other out).

They speak of truth but cannot ground it. They use logic but do not know where it comes from. They demand morality but without criterion. They seek meaning but without source.

Unbelief wants to know—without believing. To think—without receiving. To judge—without submitting to God. But it thereby contradicts itself.

Anyone denying the true triune God loses not merely the Gospel but also the possibility of recognizing truth at all. The Bible is not merely true but the prerequisite for anything to be true at all.

Summary of section 3.2

3.2 Why unbelief offers no foundation for knowledge Unbiblical worldviews are not merely false in content but structurally impossible. They fail not only in application but already in presuppositions. Without the Bible's God, there is no sound ground for knowledge, morality or meaning. What unbelief claims it tacitly borrows from the Christian worldview—without being able to justify it.

3.2.1 No knowledge without a divinely revealed axiom Knowledge requires truth. Truth requires a criterion. And a criterion requires authority. This authority is divinely inspired scripture alone. All other sources—reason, experience, feeling—are limited and subjective. Only when God himself speaks do we have ultimate certainty. Unbelief wants knowledge without foundation—but anyone seeking the measure outside God loses every measure.

3.2.2 The mind is created—not autonomous The human mind is no origin but a recipient. It can recognize truth but not define it. Anyone making it judge over truth crosses the boundary between Creator and creature. The Bible teaches: Fallen humanity is not neutral but hostile toward God. Apologetics therefore begins not by extending advance trust to reason but by exposing its dependence. Only someone submitting to God's Word can truly know.

3.2.3 The glasses of worldview—why no neutral facts exist Everyone interprets facts through their worldview—their “glasses.” There is no observation without presuppositions. Facts are never neutral but always interpreted. The question is therefore not whether one wears glasses but which. Only the biblical worldview supplies a framework justifying logic, morality and knowledge. All other glasses are broken: They use concepts they cannot justify.

3.2.4 Consistency is necessary—and fulfilled in scripture alone Consistency is not merely a feature but truth's hallmark. Fairy tales or novels may seem coherent internally but are no worldviews because they merely presuppose fundamental things such as logic, morality or truth rather than grounding them. Real worldviews must explain reality as a whole—and precisely here all extrabiblical systems fail. They shatter against their own presuppositions and lead to skepticism and self-contradiction. Only the Bible supplies the foundation of logic, morality, language, truth and knowledge. It is therefore the only truly consistent and sound worldview.

3.2.5 Only the Bible explains the possibility of knowledge The Bible explains not merely what we know but how knowledge is possible at all. It grounds language, logic, order, morality and meaning. Only scripture offers a coherent origin of truth—because it comes from the one who is truth itself. Unbelief contradicts itself: It wants truth without source, logic without Logos, knowledge without revelation. But only someone acknowledging God's Word as starting point can think, speak and know meaningfully at all. Therefore: The Bible is not merely true—it is the prerequisite for anything to be true at all.

Reflection questions for section 3.2

3.2.1—No knowledge without a divinely revealed axiom

• Why does every form of knowledge need a fixed criterion, and why can this criterion not be human?
• In which conversations or areas of life do you notice people claiming “knowledge” without naming its origin?
• What dangers do you see when knowledge is grounded in experience, feeling or intuition instead of God's Word?
• What does it mean to you personally that the Bible must not merely be examined but is itself the examiner of all thoughts?

3.2.2—The mind is created—not autonomous

• Why is it important for your conception of God that the human mind is created not independently but receptively?
• In which theological or social areas do you encounter “autonomous thought,” and how can you address it?
• What does placing the mind under God's Word mean—including in personal faith?
• How does the biblical understanding of humanity (Rom 8,7; Gen 3,1) help you see through modern errors about the mind?

3.2.3—The glasses of worldview: Why no neutral facts exist

• How has your view of “facts” changed since understanding that all people “see” with a worldview?
• Which “glasses” do you frequently encounter in conversations or media, and what do they lack compared with the biblical perspective?
• What does it concretely mean to let God's Word examine and shape your own glasses?
• How would you explain to someone that no “pure facts” exist, only interpreted reality?

3.2.4—Consistency is not truth

• Why is a worldview “seeming logical internally” insufficient, and how do you recognize whether it truly holds?
• Which seemingly consistent systems have you encountered, and how do you recognize their emptiness?
• How can the difference between formal logic and true metaphysics help you discuss “other truths”?
• What does it mean to you that the Bible is not merely consistent but also metaphysically sound?

3.2.5—Only the Bible explains the possibility of knowledge

• What things does unbelief use while simultaneously being unable to explain them, and how can you make this clear in conversation?
• How does Proverbs 1,7 (“The fear of YHWH is the beginning of knowledge”) help you understand genuine knowledge?
• How does logic, morality, language and meaning originating in God's being affect your thinking and life?
• Why is saying “The Bible is not merely true—it is the prerequisite for truth” spiritual clarity rather than arrogance?