Science, Logic and Evidence


● Natural science has many different (and conflicting) theories about the existence of the universe.1  But what they ultimately pretend is not observable, so they are not real science.2   Worse, none of them can be true. That’s because in all of them real science shows that the universe (i.e., all of nature – from subatomic to multiverse(s) and relativity) exists as a series of regressively dependent material events and/or energy.3   Given that, overall entropy,4 and the impossibility of  an infinite regress of dependent events,5  logic shows nature cannot have always existed.6  So, nature exists now only because it began.  Nature could not have begun itself.7  So, only some sufficient ‘whatever’ outside of/other than nature 8  (i.e., supranatural) could have begun nature.9  So, nature’s existence proves supranatural ‘whatever’ exists 10  and has power over nature and ‘natural law’- not vice versa.11  So, there is more to reality than nature.  So, despite the hype,12  naturalism is false.13  Better to think outside that box.

● What is not/is ‘whatever’? Necessarily, ‘it’ can’t have any natural attributes - no matter, no events, and no series - otherwise, ‘it’ would extend rather than solve the dependency problem. Conversely, at a minimum, ‘whatever’ must ultimately be completely independent, enormously powerful, and able to organize that power to supranaturally begin nature.14  As such, unlike the series of dependent events that is nature, there is nothing about ‘whatever’ which could or needs to begin in order for ‘it’ to exist.15  So,unlike nature, the only way ‘whatever’ could exist is to have always existed.16  So, unlike nature, ‘whatever’ could not have ‘come from’ ‘anywhere.’

● Given all that, is ‘whatever’ some sort of God(s)?17  Well, ‘It’ can’t be, e.g., polytheistic or pantheistic gods because they are circularly dependent upon each other, or the universe.  But unlike them and all others,18  a single supranatural monotheistic or deistic God can be ‘whatever’ because each has all of ‘its’ necessary attributes. As such, either One would logically solve the dependency problem if and 'when' ‘it’ choose (much like you chose)19  to do what ‘it’ can do. How would it not? 20

● Some people ignore/deny the above even though they can’t refute it or provide viable alternatives (‘I don’t (want to) know’ is not a hypothesis, or reason, but is often metaphysical bigotry and/or rebellion).21 Others concede deism works, yet reject equally workable monotheism, hating the idea of a God who uses ‘His’ power and right as creator/owner of nature/universe to say and judge how we live,22  much like ingrate ants and termites in your home ‘hate’ you judging them. 23 And so, there is suffering.24

● Now, do either of these two Gods actually exist, or are they merely logic, narrative, and preference? And how can we know, given that humans/science can’t see beyond nature?25 By observing God’s supranatural miracles within nature, largely through Jesus Christ; the alleged only begotten incarnate Son of God.26 Do you doubt that? He proved it - and refuted deism - with instantaneous supranatural miracles seen by thousands of people.27 As such, they crucified Him.28 That and His resurrection three days later29 prove He alone could and did fill the gap between a holy God and sinful human nature.30

The God who made the world, and all things in it… furnished proof [of that and judgment] to all men by raising Jesus from the dead. (Rom. 1:18-32; Acts17:16-36)

● You dismiss such things as ancient myths because they are not natural?31 Exactly! Then why believe them? Because, (a) the supranatural began nature,32 (b) so, naturalism is falsified, (c) all the above about Jesus and more is uniquely fulfilled prophecy,33 (d) many saw the risen Jesus,34 (e) and has continued to live ever since then as proven to millions who've seen His ongoing supranatural miracles,35 and most of all because, (f) if you take Him at His word36 He can prove it to you with supranatural miracles you can see in your life.37 (Predictably, those who won’t believe Him don’t see them.38)

We beheld His glory… full of grace and truth.
(John 1:1-14; 1st John 1:1-10; Miracles section)

● You seeing His miracles with your own eyes,39  plus all the above is far more observed, proved, 40  real and complete than anything anyone has ever seen from the peddlers of natural cosmogony,41 abiogenesis,42 macroevolution43 and other fake ‘sciences' and religions.44 And far better than other so called education,45 obfuscation, mockery, atheism, agnosticism, nihilism, hedonism, Hollywood, perversion, drugs, pot, alcohol, abortion and other satanic ruses. Death, the risen Jesus and His gospel of salvation trump them all. If you want what He offers...

Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you
shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit… He who believes [relies on] the Son has eternal life…
this is eternal life, that you know Him, the only true God, and Jesus Christ who He has sent…
but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, for the wrath of God abides on Him…

Today, if you will hear His voice, do not harden your heart.
(Acts 2:37-40, 13:38-41, 17:16-32; Jn. 3:16-21, 36, 8:31-36, 13:8, 17:3; Mk. 1:15; Mt. 11:25-30; Rom. 6:20-23; 1stCor. 15; Heb. 3:7-19; 1st John)

Copyright: 2017

  1.  E.g., the universe has always existed: in a steady state, or as a multiverse, or is cyclical; or began or ‘came from’ a quantum vacuum fluctuation, or singularity, or big bang, or chaotic inflation, (loop) quantum gravity, or a natural low entropy state, strings, branes, etc.; or “nothing”, or it “just is”, etc., or, they “don’t know” (; [but (some say) they know it wasn’t God]. See fn. 3, and end note iii.
  2.  Real science can show you something over and over again, e.g., chemistry, physics, aerodynamics, etc., unlike fake ‘science’ speculations (especially about the distant past (e.g., the above), which can only be imagined or inferred, not directly observed).
  3. In all the above the universe/nature is at the very least space/time/energy/matter in motion. As such, all events in nature from micro to macro - from sub atomic to multiverse and relativity - whether caused, uncaused, determined, random, etc., all are dependent upon their ‘priors’, without which none can exist. E.g., trees are dependent upon the prior existence of air, water, dirt, sunlight, which is dependent upon the prior existence of our galaxy, which is dependent upon, etc., etc. Even random uncaused virtual particles are dependent upon the pre existence of vacuum energy, which is dependent upon (fn. 6-10)? Stephen Hawking (A Brief History of Time 1988) deflects, “Asking what was before [what ‘caused] the big bang is like asking what is south of the South Pole.” That’s an intriguing word picture (never mind the huge space beyond the South Pole, and the differing cosmogonies in fn. 3), but defining time in such a way that ‘cause’ does not exist until the bang is a circularity which ignores what produced the bang. (He tried to fix that later in 2010; fn. 6, 8) The dependency problem is real, and natural science cannot deal with it (fn. 5, 7, 9, end note iii).
  4. Useful energy available to do work in an isolated system (e.g., the entire universe(s) in naturalism) depletes to zero over time. 2nd law of thermodynamics (
  5. As long as nature (or anything else) is seen to exist as a series of regressively dependent events (fn. 3), it can never account for its own existence, because nowhere within such series is dependency ever resolved - even back to ‘infinity’. That’s why infinite dependent regress “occurs nowhere in the physical world” (mathematician David Hilbert, Nature12/16/14). Not to be confused with mathematical infinities, “which are needed to complete mathematics.” Mathematics may describe and/or predict phenomena, but it does not produce them. E.g., the product of 2x2 is 4, but it is not a material or energy product. Using various relativity or quantum interpretations to dismiss the above as ‘classicism’ ignores cited source/production necessities. (See Oxford mathematician John Lennox in God and Stephen Hawking 2011 especially pgs. 29-32, God’s Undertaker 2009). Fn. 10
  6.  Given fn. 1-4; if nature/the cosmos has always existed there would by now be no stars, galaxies, etc.). Attempts to avoid that with infinite material or energy reversal/cyclical cosmogonies (again) commit the ‘fallacy’ of infinite dependent regress (Google Scholar; the observed 2nd law, R. Mortimer, Physical Chemistry, 2008, pg. 106; A. Vilenkin Many Worlds in One 2006 pgs. 174-177, 203-205; W. Craig Reasonable Faith 2008 pgs.125-150; Creation out of Nothing Copan, Craig 2004.
  7. That which does not (yet) exist is nothing, and nothing can’t be or begin anything. Some Hindus say otherwise, but all observations show that nothing produces nothing. E.g., even ‘new nothings’ fail: Lawrence Krauss’ ‘nothing’ (A Universe From Nothing 2012) is a pre existing ‘vacuum’ filled with energy which ‘virtual particles’ borrow and return as they pop in and out of existence (See Tom Sigfried, Strange Matters 2002 pg.102; Krauss /Craig 2011 You Tube; Google David Albert v Lawrence Krauss). Stephen Hawking’s ‘nothing’ (The Grand Design 2010) is pre existing matter and gravity simply mathematically cancelled to ‘zero’, but like enormous weights balanced on a see saw, that (like Krauss’) is not nothing (J. Lennox – fn. 6). Vilenken’s ‘nothing’ is a preexisting multiverse and physics. All such ‘nothings’ contain unexplained pre existing something(s), and thus are a ‘bait and switch’ which ultimately do not account for anything. Krauss admits his is a “lure” to draw people in (Krauss, Atlantic 4/23/12). “If there once was nothing, there would still be nothing” (R.C. Sproul).
  8. Some people say everything is nature, including God. Well, given that all forms of nature exist only as a series of dependent events, page 1 & 2 show why God cannot be that, so, God cannot be part of nature.
  9. Like falling dominoes, no dependent series can exist unless some sufficient force outside/other than that series makes it happen. But some say the laws of nature ‘break down’ at the beginning, so there ‘causality’/dependency does not apply. Well, since nature, infinity, and nothing didn’t do it, what’s left but the supranatural? (Fn. 5, 8, 19-21; Tyson & Goldsmith, Origins 2003 pg. 44; Vilenkin pg. 204; Scientific American 3/2008 pg. 50; Collins The Language of God 2007 pg. 54-67).
  10. ). On the ‘front’ end, at the very least.
  11. ‘Laws of nature’ don’t produce anything. They are simply human descriptions of how we think nature behaves. As creator of nature/the universe, ‘whatever’ is free to act upon it without being bound by those ‘laws’.
  12. Big bang animations implying cosmic origin merely depict post Bang development, not ultimate origin. Animating that is impossible because natural origin is impossible (see above).
  13. . 13)It and scientism pretend to explain how/why the universe and life exists, but (as noted above) they can’t show you, or access much of other known realities: feelings, thoughts (a brain scan shows neural activity, not content), etc., or one-time events, especially those in the distant past. E.g., no one can show you an always existing uni/multiverse (Defending the Integrity of Physics. Nature12/16/14), Thus, they (and much of what is based upon them) are often (irrational) speculation dressed up in a lab coat, not qualified to say how/why we exist, how we should live, and all of what happens after we die.
  14. As the only self-existent, ‘whatever’ would initially have all the power there is. But that would have to be supranatural power, so asking by what (natural) means 'whatever' began nature misses the point. (pg. 2 above, fn. 15-18, 20, 37)
  15. Here, existence is different from doing. Unlike nature, an all-powerful ‘whatever’ with no moving parts doesn’t need to do anything or be ‘in time’ in order to exist. So if ‘it’ ‘later’ creates stuff (having power), that cosmogony (unlike nature’s gazillions of unexplained dependent parts) is rational and Ockham simple.
  16. Richard Dawkins The God Delusion 2008 mockingly misunderstands (pgs. 102, 161, 174-175, 186, etc.) and does not refute that the only way to avoid the infinite dependent regress ‘fallacy’ is with a sufficient non material ‘cause’ that is eternal in the past and is able to delay and ‘later’ initiate its effects; otherwise, the effect - nature - would also be eternal (shown to be logically/functionally impossible, pg. 1). Only intentional free agency is known to do that. (See Craig 2008 pgs. 150-156; end note xvi; Google Scholar; fn. 10)
  17. Like fallacious God of the gaps arguments (e.g., lightning/thunder are not God, but are natural processes), it is fallacious to use those natural processes to explain the beginning of nature when nature did not (yet) exist. Fn. 8, 16, 41. Here again, appeals to nature and its randomness ultimately don’t explain anything because randomness is a second order distribution function which is dependent upon a first order ‘prior’ generative. (pg. 1)
  18. Multiple ‘whatevers’ (?) are an oxymoron (fn. 14), unless ‘they’ were to hypothetically exist/operate individually /independently in multiple non interactive realms (but not in a multiverse, which is interconnected). Yet as such, we could never see evidence of ‘them’ because they would be nonexistent outside their ‘localities’ and thus totally irrelevant to us, unlike our own must exist ‘whatever’. (Either way, the supranatural is necessary) Plus, if one ‘whatever’ gets the job done why violate Ockham and (like Ptolemy’s planetary epicycles) mistakenly multiply entities?
  19. But without natural antecedents  
  20.  Dawkins says ‘God’ can’t create because ‘He’ lacks mechanism, and claiming ‘He’ does not need one is special pleading. Well, mechanism is a natural quality, not a supranatural one, So Dawkins objection is a category mistake. Mechanism is what causes nature’s unsolvable dependent regress problem (pg. 1). That and the “breakdown” of natural law at the beginning (fn. 9) segues to a ‘special necessity’ that God create supranaturally without mechanism. (see above, fn. 16-18, 22, 41; e.g., John 9:10-34). Thus, Dawkins attempts to confine the supranatural to natural processes is backwards, dysfunctional and an oxymoron (fn.11)
  21. E.g., ‘We don’t know’ (is not a hypothesis); or the ‘Laws of nature (and thus logic) do not apply ‘before’ the Big Bang’(contrary to Hawking (pg. 180), and Vilenkin (pg. 205); or they’re ‘Different’; or ‘Everything came from nothing’; or a ‘Flying Spaghetti Monster’ (itself a series of dependent material events). Such assertions lack definition, specificity and completeness, and have a burden of proof, which they do not supply, and are refuted by evidence cited herein. Worse, they all ignore naturalism’s self contradiction (pg. 1). Resolving that by “working on it” is merely a faith statement which is just as logically/functionally impossible as producing a square circle. Using incredulity, appeal to ridicule, argumentum ad lapidum, ad hominem, and argument from ignorance objections to deny all that is disingenuous.
  22. E.g., atheist Lawrence Krauss admits a now inactive deist God may have created nature, but tellingly mocks accountable monotheism, especially Christianity (2011 Krauss/Craig youtube), apparently on moral grounds: He was terminated and removed from (ironically) ASU Origins Institute for sexual misconduct. (NY Times 3/7/2018; Science| AAAS. 2018-08-04)
  23. They don’t care about you. All they want is to “be who they are” and eat your stuff. Well, even if they deny your (unperceived) existence, and/or your right to judge them, you correctly reason that if they go too far they will wreck your home. And so you stop them. Does not God on ‘His’ planet/universe have even more right to judge us? And doesn’t, e.g., the God of the Bible give us far more warning than we give them? (Rom. 1:18-2:16)
  24. In the beginning the God of Bible, e.g., made a very good earth with no suffering, and instructions on how to keep it that way. So why doesn’t this “all powerful all loving God” (an unbiblical concept) stop the suffering we have now? Because if we are to exist as humans (and not as robots) we must have free will. Suffering comes when humans choose to ignore God (like ants and termites ignore us) and to sin. Sin (like gravity, etc.) has consequences. (Gen. 1:29-31, ch. 3; Rom. 6:23, 8:18-23; 2nd Tim. 2:23-26). What of those who have never heard such things? (See Rom. 1:18-2:16, 8:18-25) How can we be free if God knows beforehand what we will choose? God inhabits all of eternity, so ‘He’ knows what you will choose before you choose it. ‘His’ foreknowledge does not dictate your choice. (Rom. 8:29-39; 2nd Peter 3:8-10; end note ix)
  25. As it would be with ants, it is naïve/hubristic to think reality is limited to what we perceive.
  26. Echad (e.g. Duet. 6: 4, 5) = composite unity; Is. ch. 53 →Mt. 1:20-23; John 1:1-14; Phil. 2:5-11; Is. 7:14, 1st Cor. 1:18-31, Ch. 15; Rom. 5:8-21, 6:23, 8:20-22; Gal. 1:5; Col. 1:15-16; 2nd Tim. 2:26; 2nd Pet. 2:19; Heb. 9:22-28.
  27. 1st Jn. 1:1-10; Jn. 1:10-13, 2:1-11, 7:37-38, 10:27, 11:1-45, 14:11-17, 21:4-6:25; Mt. 2:1-12; 4:23 -41, 9:18-38, 14:15-21, 17:14-21, 16:15-18; Luke 5:23-25, 7:20-23; Mark 5:1-20.
  28. John 5:17,18; 8:24, 58-59; 10:30-33; 20:28; Matthew 27:11-26; Mark 15:1-15; Philippians 2:5-7.
  29. The Resurrection of the Son of God N.T. Wright 2003; Cold Case Christianity Jay W. Wallace 2013, Forensic Faith, Wallace 2017; Gary Habermas (many); Matt. ch. 28; Mark ch.16; Luke ch. 24; John 1:1-13, 3:1-21; 6:35-45, 8:31, ch. 5, 20, 21; 1st Cor. 15:1-9.
  30. “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God… The wages of sin is death… God became flesh in Jesus… and [as the only ample substitute] was put to death for our sins and raised to life for our justification.” Phil. 2:5-11; John 1:1-14, 3:16-21, 8:34-36, 17:3; Gen. 2:15-3:24; Isaiah 53;Mark 10:45; Rom. 1:18-32, 3:23, 4:25 (NIV), 6:20-23, 8:1-32, 10:1-13; 1st Cor. 15; Acts 2:36-40, 13:38-41, 17:16-34; Heb. 3:15, 9:22-28; 1st John 1:1-10; 2nd Tim. 2:26; Luke 13:3,5.
  31. 1st Corinthians 2:14; Romans 8:5-7.
  32. Page 1, footnotes.
  33. Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy 1980 J. Barton Payne; Ancient Prophecies Revealed (500 Listed in Order of Fulfillment) Ken Johnson, 2008.
  34. The Resurrection of the Son of God N.T. Wright 2003; Cold Case Christianity Jay W. Wallace 2013, Forensic Faith, Wallace 2017; Gary Habermas (many); Matt. ch. 28; Mark ch.16; Luke ch. 24; John 1:1-13, 3:1-21; 6:35-45, 8:31, ch. 5, 20, 21; 1st Cor. 15:1-9.
  35. Miracles Craig Keener, 2011; Miracles Eric Metaxas, 2014. Such data is often denied a priori by naturalists. Some concede that miracles could happen, but cling to discredited naturalism anyway. See Miracles section.
  36. Gen. 1:1; 2nd Cron. 16:9a; James; 1st Pt. 2:1-2; Lk. 12:15-21, Chp 24; Eph. 2:8-10, 3:14-4:32; 2nd Th. 3:10-15; Rom. 3:10-24, 6:23, 8:1-17, 10:1-17, 12:1-2; Jn. 1:1-13, 3:1-21, ch. 5, 6:35-45, 8:31-36, 13:8, ch. 9, 10, 14-16; Matt. ch. 4-7, 11:27-30, ch. 13, 20:25-28, 22:1-14, ch. 25; 1st Jn.; 1st Cor. 1:18-21, 2:1-14, 4:20-21, 6:9-10, ch. 15; Acts 2:36-39, 4:7-12, 5:29-32; Ps. 1:1-6, 25:12-14; Proverbs; Ecclesiastes 12; Isaiah. 6:11-12, 30:20-22; Titus 3:3-11; Col. 2:8-9; 2nd Cor. 10:5, 11:3-4; Heb. 2:1-4, 3:7-19, 9:27-28, ch. 10-12, 13:8; 1st Tim 5:8.
  37. No other religions even claim you can see the kind of instantaneous supranatural miracles noted in fn. 28, 35.
  38. Matt. 4:4, 13:58; Mark 6:1-6; Galatians 3:1-5; James 1:5-8; John chap. 3.
  39. Unlike a rock or a toaster, Jesus has a mind of his own, so, seeing His miracles is a function of relationship, not mechanics. E.g., if my wife isn’t talking to me, I don’t conclude she doesn’t exist, I conclude there is an issue that needs resolution. Some dismiss that as anecdotal. Well, contrary to scientism, not everything is mechanical. Personal relationships are anecdotal and real. Luke 10:21-24; Matt. 13:10-23, 58; Mark 6:5; 1st Cor. 2:14; Gal. 3:5; James; John 3:3-36; 1st John 1:1-10. “When you do what the Bible says, you get what the Bible says you’ll get.” See Miracles section.
  40. Webster’s; Proof: “The cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact.”
  41.   Astronomer Carl Sagan famously said, “Extraordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence.” Well, his claim that “The cosmos [universe/nature] is all there ever was, is, or will be” is also extraordinary, but (ironically) has no possibility of any kind of evidence, ever, because it is logically impossible (pg. 1). So, it cannot be observed even in principle, and is refuted by evidence cited herein. So, given that (his) natural “uniformitarian” processes did not begin nature (pg. 1), they cannot be used to say how old nature is. That’s why claiming our big bang [somehow?] occurred 13.8 billion years ago (unobserved. CMB is observed, but it is a post bang event) by inferring backwards from rates only recently observed (which total less than one five millionth of the alleged timeline) is a baseless extrapolation. Unlike Sagan/naturalism/uniformitarianism, Biblical creation (though also unobserved) can logically explain the existence of nature, and why it looks old to some, but isn’t: a universe spoken into existence (fn. 20-22) by God working for six days in extremely accelerated rates of develop- ment and decay (orders of magnitude faster; VSL cosmology? E.g., J. Magueijo), followed by God and nature resting (Gen. 1:1-2:2) at slow uniformitarian rest speed ever since then (or, alternatively The Science of God Gerald Schroder 2009) would mean that once it began nature has existed in two different modes and speeds – work, and rest (rest is all humans have ever seen). Thus, a modern uniformitarian who unknowingly time travelled to the early Garden of Eden would think (e.g.) tall Sequoia trees were hundreds of years old, but could not know they were only say, three weeks old. Deception? It is self-induced by rejecting the above (and its necessity for early functional maturity) in favor of non-starter naturalism, where humans are merely adapted bags of chemicals, and even our best ideas (naturalism, uniformitarianism, evolutionism?) are merely random or predetermined brain states which may or may not have local survival value, but no macro truth. (see Thousands, not Billions De Young 2005; True Origin Archive; Recorded human history is only 5000 years old; Rom. 1:18-32).
  42. Never observed:; (personal topics; creation/evolution);; M. Behe Darwin’s Black Box pg. 154-156; Francis Collins The Language of God 2006 pgs. 54-67; Rob Stadler (see fn. 43). Dawkins says life may have come from aliens (without saying how) but not from God.
  43. Never observed: Dawkins claims macroevolution happens “before our very eyes” (The Greatest Show on Earth, 2009), his best evidence being artificially selected variations observed in dogs and bacteria as they happen (ch. 2&5). But, his dogs remain dogs and bacteria remain bacteria. Ironically, that is evidence for [Biblical] stasis (Gen. 1), not macroevolution. (Moreover, these variations lower the overall fitness of such in natural environments, which arguably is irreversible without cross breeding, e.g., poodles back to wolves). Undeterred, Dawkins says if you add ‘millions of years’ to that it is easy to accept that a fish “could” turn into a human. pg. 82. Well, could and millions of unobserved years are not evidence, they are question begging invalid inferences which ignore his own evidence! “[Macro] evolution is largely a mental construct built upon imagination, because the time scale of animal evolution is immense relative to the time available for observations.” (Bejan & Lorente, 2014 Journal of Applied Physics 116 (4):044901); “In science’s pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics.” From Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution is True, 2009. See also The Scientific Approach to Evolution (What They Didn’t Teach You in Biology) Rob Stadler, 2016; The Greatest Hoax on Earth? J. Sarfati 2010; M. Behe, The Edge of Evolution 2008; Behe’s Blog, Evolution, Jan 11, 2012; Evolution, Still a Theory in Crisis Micheal Denton 2016. There is no abiogenesis or biology without cosmogony, and naturalism cannot explain it.
  44. Others, e.g., Mohammed, Buddha, etc., may give you something to do, but unlike Jesus they can’t show you the power of God or salvation because they are dead (fn. 36). Some people are offended by Jesus and/or salvation, or think they can save themselves. So they do ‘good deeds’ (e.g., Islam), or self diffusion (Eastern religions) or (as falsified above) detached deism. But they can’t save you because they ignore God’s holiness and love. (fn. 30; John 3:16-21)
  45. Fn. 14; 1st Cor. 1:18-29, 2:1-14, 13:12; 2nd Pet. 2:18-22; Matt. 12:43-45; 1st Cor. 4:20; John 8:31-32, 9:10-34, 14:6,11; 2nd Cor. 11:3, 13-15; Col. 2:2-4, 8-10; 1st Tim. 6:3-7, 20; 2nd Tim. 2:15-17, 23-26;; Ecclesiastes 12:12-14; Eph. 4:14-18; Acts 17:16-32.