An Argument for Evidential Apologetics

Are you saying that someone a believer can go sleep with a prostitute and it wouldn't be right or wrong because he's not under the law. Anymore is so. If if he sleeps with a prostitute, but has faith in doing it, then it's okay.

Yeah, it's okay. Okay. I.

I'm gonna ask this again because I want to make sure that I heard you correctly.

Yeah, it's okay. It would be. As long as you have faith on you can do that. We can wait. Wow, okay.

You're saying that as long as we have faith. Whatever we do in faith is not sin.

Yes.

We are live politics live here to answer your most Challenging questions that you have about God and the Bible. If you think we can't answer your most challenging questions. Well, what you do is go to Apologetics live .com.

Scroll down to the stream yard icon a little duck icon there and click on that join us. Make sure you give permission to your browser to use the microphone and camera.

Well.

You if not you could just use the microphone if you don't want to be on camera and join us and Just remember one thing when you give me some really really really hard question and I go, I don't know. Just remember I don't know is a perfectly good answer.

I'm your host Andrew Rappaport. I'm the executive director of striving fraternity and the Christian podcast community of which this well right now We're doing a live stream, but this becomes a podcast and it is a proud member of the community.

Evidential Apologetics and the Month’s Apologetics Series

So We are here tonight. We're doing a series this month Going through different approaches of apologetics, I Don't have any of my co-hosts in yet, but I think some of them may be coming in later. But I do have a guest and he's going to talk about.

Well.

Evidential.

Apologetics and.

So what we're gonna do is we're going to go through and look at different views. We've already looked at the classical Apologetic approach.

The biblical.

Apology, I mean a presuppositional Apologetic approach. I was looking backstage to see if my Guest here's was laughing at that one. But but it is the truth and then and then his view the. Am I tipping my hat folks?

Yes. And then at the end of the month for a spooky episode. We will look at the cumulative approach to apologetics. I won't be here for that one. Drew will come back and fill in for me on that one. So let me bring in.

Mr Daniel McAdams, sir. How are you? Doing great. How are you today? I am better than I deserve. You are with six twelve ministries. Why don't you introduce yourself to my audience. Because they probably never heard of you unless they listen to the When we were on Adams podcast all talking about our different approaches.

They might have heard your voice there but in case they didn't why don't you introduce yourself let folks know a little bit about you and Your background. How you know the short story how you became a Christian what your ministry is.

Sounds good. Well, good evening. Everybody. I'm Daniel McAdams. I am with six twelve ministries. That's my personal apologetics ministry I live in Jefferson City, Missouri and Six twelve ministries it deals with biblical inerrancy the paranormal occult and countercult Apologetics a little bit about my background.

I grew up in a Christian household but just out of high school I got involved in the paranormal and walked away from the church at that time and Just dove with both feet into the paranormal and I tried to Call myself a Christian while doing that.

But the further I got into the paranormal the further I walked away from what a Christian is and after about a decade I found myself being a Christian by name only and more of a a new age Buddhist somebody spiritualist and that's when God called me out of the paranormal in 2019 opened my eyes to the truth behind that and Since then I have been serving him in ministry doing apologetics talking about the truth behind the paranormal.

I also Serve in my church at Grace Community Church or Jefferson City I preach and teach there on occasion and help out in a bunch of different ways and I represent the evidential apologetics method and I'm excited to be here on the podcast with you guys and here with Andrew.

Evidence, the Bible, and the Purpose of Apologetics

Yes, so I mean maybe later on the show folks if you want to ask questions about the paranormal and chasing ghosts And things like that. Dan you may know a thing or two about that, but we want to make sure we get to the main topic.

So. You know that that's important. So, you know, especially because you know, I know he needs to be corrected. Oh, I'm sorry Much I preach too much too much is right. Yes. It's that's my presupposition coming out.

Yeah, we were telling lots of you know before actually even on on Adam's show we were doing a lot of jokes. About you know, you you and your evidence me my presupposition. So I'm sure we're gonna have a lot of fun tonight.

Absolutely.

Want to give a shout out here to Fatima who is saying I've been learning biblical hermeneutics via SFE. So that stands for striving fraternity because I'm gonna debate Andrew on cessationism. Ha ha ha.

Well Fatima I will say Mike I Don't think she's gonna debate me but there is we we are getting closer to a date. Michael Brown and I have been spent some time talking this week. And so we're thinking early next year What we're gonna do instead of a debate because as we started talking it was well We just we just had way more information that both of us want to try to tackle and a debate format isn't gonna Really be allowed to cover it.

There's gonna be time factors. So what we're thinking of doing is I'm gonna fly down to him and We're going to go into his the studios. They got set up there and do a long-form discussion like a three four hour discussion on cessationism continuation of gifts.

Less.

Less debate format because really all we're gonna do is remove the time in them and the moderator and I said to him I said that's dangerous getting two Jewish guys in a room to try to stay on topic. I said we're gonna have to have somebody in the audience going account how many rabbit trails we do.

It's a Jewish thing this what we do so he laughed and it was like, yeah, I think you're gonna you're right so. Now I got to see what I see this one comment and I may be out of context, but Jesse said Wow, me too Daniel.

Amen. So I don't know if that was don't know if he came out of the paranormal As well or not. I mean, so Jesse's an evidentialist. Came came out of that to like came out of evidential so and came to the truth.

Yeah, I like that point. Yes. All right. All right. So this I'm assuming is someone, you know. Why won't this pop up go on show the all right, let me see if it shows Buddhist. This says oh he came out of Buddhist.

Okay. He Hugh Hugo Helm says Daniel McAdams is a faithful brother so.

Hugo now we have our differences and our debates on Facebook, but love you.

Iron Iron, I like him because I see dot precept. Hugo is my friend. All right, so let's get into the discussion. So first thing I'd like you to do for the audience we could is just give an overview of What is evidential apologetics?

Well, it's all in the name really it says it right there. Evidential apologetics is about using evidence. Evidences that Really challenge the unbeliever because all the evidence is on the the Christian side.

There is nothing in all creation that Doesn't side with the believer and as evidential apologists We can bear bring the entire weight of this evidence to bear on the unbelieving position. And as I define evidential apologetics.

Evidential apologetics on the foundation of God's Word brings the full weight of all the evidences of God's creation conscience and history to bear to prosecute the unbeliever and show beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christianity is absolutely true and that the unbeliever has no excuse to not believe all creation conscience and history.

Loudly and boldly proclaim the existence and glories of God thus to deny him is absolute foolishness.

Okay, so Let's start with some with Something that people will accuse Evidentialists. Some evidentialists and for some it's actually true, but I don't think it will be for you. So do evidentialists ignore the Bible and just look at science?

Yeah, that is that's a claim I've gotten before that. Evidentialists set the Bible aside to try to find a neutral ground with an unbeliever but as a Christian like I that's foolishness because the Bible is absolute truth and it's Only from the Bible that we know that all of creation conscience and history is on our side.

So to put the Bible to the side is putting aside the foundation of our faith and As an evidentialist, I don't want to do that. I want to stand upon the Bible because the Bible contains the gospel and the gospel is the power of God unto salvation.

The evidence isn't going to save somebody. A person's worldview is not going to save them. It's the gospel is going to save them. So I as an evidentialist will stand upon the biblical gospel foundation to show that unbeliever that all the evidence Supports me and does not support them.

That way we can get back to the Bible and get back to being able to Have that gospel presentation.

And there you go folks. You see that he's actually a presuppositional. There you go.

Positions borrow from the evidential position for that.

I.

Mean it's there are and I think you're right that there are some people who will make the accusation. Because there are some people. Well known people. Mmm. Should we name names? William Lane Craig very well known for his debating skills.

And his evidential apologetics who believes that he can argue to God without a Bible and and so I'm. Saying that say this is that's the sort of thing where as a presuppositionalist and even as you're hearing from Daniel We would we would be against.

So.

I'm bringing that up right in the beginning Daniel because I want to get that out of the way as we further discussion because some People will hear evidential Apologetics and just go. Oh, you're like William Lane Craig.

Right.

You know Frank Turek would make the same argument for years. And then he comes out with a book stealing from God and and suddenly makes a presuppositional apologetic approach. So but I do I have I don't have as much of an issue that and I do know someone a Presuppositionalist who?

Used to say evidence is sin. I would have an issue with that. But from your perspective, what is the purpose of evidence? Why why do you use evidence? In your apologetic style.

Well in Romans 1 verse 20 We are told that for since the creation of the world his invisible attributes his eternal power and divine nature Has been clearly seen being understood through what has been made so that they that are unbelievers are without excuse.

We're also told in my favorite verse in the Bible Psalm 19 1 the heavens are telling of the glory of God and their expanse is Declaring the work of his hands. So the Bible already tells us that the evidence points to God.

So as an evidentialist We just bring that to bear. We we don't go outside of Scripture. We don't put Scripture to the side. We take what Scripture says points to God and we point people to God with that evidence.

Distinctions Among Evidential, Presuppositional, and Classical Apologetics

So.

You're trying to and I want to make sure I word things properly. By way for folks who don't watch this live and and get in the chat. I mean the chats always fun I don't even know half time. You guys are very chatty tonight because I'm seeing more comments or guys.

Knowing that I can I can keep up with it. I don't have my my co-hosts here to go through and star things for us. So we bring things up, but I do want to remind folks to share this. Since you're watching live, please do us that favor.

That's how others can know about it. So We have a bunch of people from all literally all over the world Watching so we do appreciate that. I do have to mention the one thing that's for my regular audience Daniel I forgot to mention.

I have a thoroughly filled bookcase behind me. Or not.

Anything about that, but I know.

Yeah, if I show you there's the stacks are on the floor there for me to to ship out. Actually, if I turn like this, you can see stacks of books that are waiting to be shipped out. And so I am selling my library.

If folks want to see what I have just go to my Facebook. My wall on Facebook. It's public. So I don't even get there. Send me a DM and. But all those commentary sets that used to be here are now officially gone so I'll have to put something else there so.

Yeah, that's why it looks so empty. So Kathy's saying Andrew selling his books. Yep. And Kathy, I don't think you're all that far. You. You know, you can. It's it's October. It's Pastor Appreciation Day.

You can pick up a library for your pastor.

I.

Should we should mention that. By the way it is October is Pastor Appreciation Day. So I do hope that you are encouraging your pastor. What I may actually do is put a put out. I have an episode on Encouraging your pastor and so that is one that maybe I'll put on the on my rap report podcast.

Maybe I'll drop that again. Just so you guys could go and encourage your pastor this month.

So.

Let's get back to discussing Evidential politics. You're using the evidence. If I understood what you're saying It's not that you're. You're tossing the Bible and just looking at evidence as if evidence is superior to the Bible.

It sounds like you're saying that. You're trying to take the evidence of what you see in the world. Now, are you are you taking that evidence to try to convince someone that God exists that? God is real.

Or are you trying to use that or let me ask you a different how are you using that evidence?

Depends on the context of the situation depending on how the person that I am interacting with Like what their their hiccup is what their their problem is or what they're challenging me on. I'd like the Bible Doesn't try to prove the existence of God.

God exists and It's clear that he does exist. So as an evidentialist, I don't see a reason to prove that he exists, but I Always try to get back to the Bible in in my approach because like I said earlier the Bible is what contains the gospel message and if somebody is against Christianity then they are also going to be against the Bible because you cannot separate the Bible from Christianity.

So a lot of the the issues that people have are they reject the Bible because they don't believe the Bible is true and most any argument that you have will boil down to how they view the Bible sue. So with the evidence historical evidence Supports the Bible the creation evidence supports the Bible.

Conscience supports the Bible and When you can get the non-believer To see that all the evidence is on the Bible side. And yes, that does sometimes involve critiquing their worldview doing the internal critique as Jason Lyle puts it.

And that's the beauty of evidential apologetics is you're not just relying strictly on the evidence. But the evidence is what you primarily bring to bear and you can use that to critique somebody's worldview.

You can't critique somebody's worldview without a reason why or evidence why that person's worldview is false so even Presuppositionalism relies really really heavily on evidence as well so you can bring that evidence to bear to critique their worldview to show them where it's faulty and to show them how all the evidence that They think might support their side actually doesn't.

But supports the Bible. So I mean you're sounding like a like a closet presuppositionalist. I'm just saying so let me ask. Let me then ask you this. What is what would be your understanding of the differences between presuppositional apologetics and Evidential.

Because what you just said there was exactly what a presuppositionalist would say. So, how do you. What would you see. And let me expand it. What would you see as the distinctions between? Evidential apologetics presuppositional projects and classical.

Apology, that's a really good question, I think with Presuppositional apologetics relies a whole lot more on logic and trying to have a logical critique and Dismantling of the other person's position that then brings in the evidence once they get that the unbeliever to Kind of start questioning their worldview.

It's more worldview based that that argues the worldview before they move on to the evidence and then they'll bring the evidence Into it after they establish.

The.

Impossibility of the Contrary and that logical argument just the name disappeared from my head. A lot of non-contradiction. Yes, basically how like I see. And the train of thought left the station without me and I need to get back to it.

Maybe because you you're really a presuppositionalist and you're you're struggling.

Classic classical response. Yeah, well evidential one. With presuppositionalism I see as relying a whole lot more on logic now falling back on logic because yes.

Yeah, and I was gonna. I shouldn't interrupt. So I'll wait. I'll wait with that. Go ahead.

Falling back on logic and using logic as a precondition of intelligibility which I see as ultimately the foundation of the presuppositional approach the precondition of Intelligibility. And I know that precept uses a lot of evidence.

I know some preceptors will like you say reject evidence of sin. But that's an extreme approach that you don't see very often. So I I do understand that precept uses a lot of evidence as well in their position but I think the foundation of the precept argument is more logic.

And Arguing the preconditions of intelligibility the evidentialist approach relies on the evidence and uses the evidence that is all around us to challenge the non-believer and to Show the validity of the scriptures and show how all the evidence is not in their favor.

But all the evidence is in our favor. And then with classical apologetics like as Matt said when he was on the show and in the the roundtable we had. It's a two-step approach really where the first step seeks to establish the existence of God that they then move on to the evidential side of things to use the evidence to show the The existence of God and how the evidence only supports the Christian theistic position.

Okay, so now.

Were you able to watch last week with Dan craft at all? I was not okay. I was watching a flu.

No, that's okay. I just the reason I asked was You you heard my view. I wanted to see if you'd hear someone else's but It it sounds like you know, one of the things that Dan and I both kind of critiqued is that there is some philosophy with some of the Will be a good word.

Maybe that the high-minded Presuppositionalists like the Bonson Bantill and That group where there's a lot of philosophy in the way and and what you were really arguing against was that view. Which wouldn't be the view of priests up that that I would I mean I I believe in that but that's not how I would Argue, I wouldn't go in and be arguing that way.

I argue from the Bible. And really would argue, you know, so I when you say That it's depending on logic. Do you believe that? Evidential arguments don't depend on logic.

No, I just. From an evidential side, it's not establishing the preconditions of intelligibility of which logic is essential for it's. Using the evidence that we see. That we have all around us in creation history and conscience.

Yeah, but most of the priests up pre suppers that I know do not Don't get into discussing. You know Neutrality or You know The intelligibility, you know.

Just.

It's that is necessary to understand the what presuppositional ism is. But it's not how we would approach a discussion. If we're if we are using presuppositional apologetics you know, I that's why I say I think you're almost a closet pre supper because We we would I mean the presuppositional ism would just start with the fact that we we have the God in the Bible or as I say that to the two presuppositions that I hold to is God exists he has spoken and.

So.

Those are things I'm not going to debate. I'm not gonna I'm not gonna put those aside. Or try to prove those things those are the presuppositions. Those are the starting points. Because as you said, I mean nothing else makes sense if we don't start there, so.

So, yeah, I'm just saying that say. Like it might be good to engage with more Presuppositionalists. I mean even you mentioned Jason Lyle Jason will When he's explaining what presuppositional apologetics is explain that but then what he'll end up doing is when he's actually evangelizing or Doing apologetics.

He's not getting into all that philosophy. That would be the difference.

With it.

All right. And I do like I see in the comments. Fatima said the evidential apologetic is more empirical in discussion. It is very much empirical and forensic in how it it approaches the evidences and discussions with with the unbeliever.

Yeah.

She says evidential apologetics is more empirical and discussion approaches while priests up in classical or more Ontological. And and I I argue this I know that you'll push back on me Daniel. That's okay.

I.

Argue, this is that classical is more of a philosophical approach to apologetics evidential is generally a more scientific approach to apologetics and Presuppositional is more of a biblical approach meaning not saying it's like the others are not biblical saying that it is the one that you start with the Bible and.

And all your arguments are coming out of the Bible not Not necessarily the world. Now as we said I use evidence all the time to show that the unbelievers worldview doesn't make sense. But I don't use that argue but right.

So what what is apologetics rights. It's a defense of the faith. So I don't use the evidences to prove the faith is real. I use the scripture. I Can see evidences after someone saved but if I'm talking to an unbeliever, I said I argue from Scripture not from What I see in the world out.

I'll use the things in the world to show. You know, oh you believe that everything came from nothing really? You know, I just just had this discussion with a PhD physicist. Not too long ago where he was like, well Andrew you have to understand that it really wasn't nothing.

That nothing was was something I said, what was the something he's like, what's just nothing. And I felt like going you're you're really really intelligent man, does that make sense to you right. So, yeah, so let's deal with some some and I know there's more questions than I was able to Star, but I'll try to get to it.

So let me put this one up for you to respond to. Jesse says evidentialists give the unbeliever an excuse. The the presuppers shut the mouth.

How it is an interesting way to print it. I do know that both evidential and classical often get that accusation that we give them an excuse not to believe.

But.

That's not the case. We're not giving them an excuse not to believe even in presuppositional ism. The the person that you're debating against can decide that they still feel confident in their worldview even if it is.

Absurd and.

We'll use that as an excuse that you're just trying to push your worldview on me that I disagree with and It still gives them an excuse somebody who doesn't want to believe it doesn't matter How how hard you critique their worldview how much scripture you use how much evidence you bring how much philosophy you use behind it?

Somebody who just does not want to believe is gonna find any excuse that they can even well It's just nothing and I'm gonna believe in nothing Rather than be held accountable to this God that you want me to be held accountable to you so every single apologetic approach an unbeliever is always gonna attempt to find a way out of it find an excuse not to believe and As far as shutting the mouth Do we need to do that in love and evidence can do that too if somebody's Arguing incorrectly.

Well, there's no evidence that Jesus Existed. Well, they might be arguing from just a couple things that they heard that their their mom the dad say their college professor saying Because they're not a Christian they go.

Oh, there's no evidence that Jesus exists. Well as an evidentialist you can bring up not You bring up the biblical account and you show from the biblical historical account that Jesus existed then you can move on to the early church fathers and show that their their Testimony is consistent that there's a lot of Evidence that supports what the gospel says to from the Christian side of faith but then you can also bring the attacks in from the unbelievers and the The secular world that also talk about Jesus existing and living alongside pilot and show that argument that Jesus doesn't exist is Observed because the Bible proves it we have early church history that proves it and you even have secular history That shows that Jesus exists.

So the evidence when brought to bear properly can also shut the mouth of an unbeliever.

Biblical Evidence, Worldview Critique, and the Role of the Gospel

Okay, so Jesse goes on to say Evidentialism treats the unbeliever as if he's a believer. And then he realized he didn't finish he said oops. Because he wanted to finish he says uh, lest we'd be wise in our own eyes.

He goes I did that wrong. So Do you believe that evidentialism treats the the unbelievers if they're a believer?

No, I.

Believe as an evidentialist. I treat the person I'm talking to as somebody who is also made in the image of God and Being made in the image of God. I know that person Has a conscience they do know right and wrong.

Although they choose to suppress that as Being made in the image of God I do know that they understand at least a basic logic and reason because they wouldn't be able to function in life without that and As being made in the image of God, I know that God has put eternity in their hearts as well so I treat them as somebody who is Made in the image of God that I need to lovingly Confront because that's a big step in apologetics that a lot of apologists fail to realize is that we have to do apologetics With meekness and grace and in love you don't just bash the other person and tear them down.

We have to do it firstly from a position of love, but primarily from a position that exalts Christ. We have to set Christ apart as Lord in our hearts before we can even engage in apologetics. So from that point of view, I understand that every person is made in the image of God and thus They have a conscience.

They have eternity set in their hearts and they can Basically reason and use logic as well. And thus I try to use the evidence to show that hey This evidence supports the Bible this evidence Doesn't work for you this evidence Always showing that the Bible is true and that you're a sinner who is Dan's in need of salvation and Jesus Christ.

And and so Jesse says That is priest up. Yeah, I mean this is the thing is so I I think that you you and I said this on Adam show. I think that Both you and Matt were making what I would argue is presuppositional arguments quite a bit right.

And so Matt not so much with the two-step approach, but when we we get into it They see so Fatima says right Daniel. It's not just shutting the mouth but softening the hard heart. The I guess the thing I would say with that though.

It's it's not us who softens the heart. It's that's the work of God. So that right this is this is and I think you said this it's to get to the gospel. People when we think apologetics, I think the mistake is that some people think They got to figure out the right arguments.

And if they just give the good arguments people will get saved and.

I.

Do think there's a lot of people in the evidential camp. That do think that way not all which gets into a question I want to ask you is What we would there what would you see as the different kind of camps within?

Evidential apologetics. I mean I mentioned clearly there's a difference between you and William Lane Craig. You're saved and he's not. Oh wait, did I just get myself in trouble?

This is a Calvinist. One of us is not.

Well, he's definitely that okay. So, let's change that one of you is a Calvinist and one of the one of you in a reaction to Calvinism believes in determinism far more than any Calvinist does. Because that's what you know, he's a modalist and what modalism is is the idea they want to get away from.

Their view of.

Terminism of Calvinism. So what do they do? They say well, we had our freewill choices and God just looks through the tunnel. You know what? Everyone's choices were gonna be and then he picks a world that gives him the greatest glory.

But the question I always ask people this is okay, but can we do anything other? Like can we do anything other than that in that world? We're in that world. Can we now that God's chosen that one can can we do anything other than what our freewill choices were?

And they'll always go. Well, no, well, then it's determined God picked it. We can't do anything else. You could say it's free will but it's only free will if the other worlds are actually possible. But they're not so it's now determined.

So, yep, absolutely.

So.

To get back to your question. Different camps you see. I I do see the the purest camp. Where you have the purest evidentialist that relies only on the evidence and they think that they can argue their way through any debate or through any unbelievers defense with just the evidence alone.

And I think that a lot of people who don't understand apologetics when they hear evidentialism think that that's just the only way to do evidential apologetics. And I know that I'm not the.

The.

Classical evidential apologist I'm more of a More little Precept. What I'm looking for just disappeared. I'm unorthodox in my my evidential approach that some will accuse me of and I have to laugh because on the the roundtable that we had like I got accused of being Classical.

I got accused of being precept. I got accused of being cumulative and I I just want to say I think that's the beauty of evidential because as an evidentialist you can use the evidence of philosophy if you need to.

You can use the evidence of Logic. You can use all these different evidences. Evidences aren't just a a scientific thing per se. It doesn't have to be like that Fossil behind me it. You can use the philosophical evidence as well.

And you can use the biblical evidence most importantly.

And.

So I see you have the purest camp, which is just evidence evidence evidence. You have the more the softer camp like what I would consider myself.

That.

Starts with the evidence. That's our foundational approach. That's our primary approach, but we will use like the presuppositional arguments as well. To come alongside our approach. It's a a tool in the evidential toolkit rather than our foundational evidential apologetic method.

So I think that's why I why you guys can think I'm a preceptor because I do use that as a tool in my evidential toolkit using some of the presuppositional methods, but Other than that, I haven't really known many other evidential apologists.

I know Gary Habermas is I know your buddy Greg Koukl is that was a that was a pleasant surprise to learn the other week that he was a Evidentialist as well. And then I know a handful of others. So arguing and talking evidential methods isn't what I usually do when I engage in apologetics.

So.

Uh, Greg would be a classical Woody. Yeah, that's that's what he has told me in the past now. Maybe he has changed but he would he would be classical, but he I got names mixed up. And he means he does lean evidential times two.

So yeah. So so let me ask you what do you think. What is the strength of.

The.

Evidential apologetic approach I.

Think that's what I have already Said and I'll reiterate it again. It's the fact that creation declares the glory and existence of God and We are made in the image of God and thus all the evidence We can bring to bear as a Christian to show the unbeliever that they are in need of salvation.

So then what do you think from a internal critique of your own position?

What would be the weaknesses of evidential politics? I think the weakness of evidential apologetics is that it can be easy to slip into relying on evidences and forgetting to get to the Bible and the gospel and Getting caught up in arguing the little fine details of a certain evidence or a certain certain view on some evidences and when you when you fall into that then you've lost the the end goal of apologetics and now you're focused on winning an argument and Convincing them that your view of this this evidence is correct and they're wrong and then you kind of spiral out of control.

Yeah, I mean so if we if we take a look at the different views though, I Think that you're right when the in the purest sense right. The if someone's just arguing. Oh, well, let's just argue evidence and they forget about the gospel.