Educated 19 Year Old Muslim Challenges Matt Slick | Apologetics Live 0021

Show Introduction and Listener Support

This is Apologetics Live with Matt Slick and Andrew Rappaport, part of the Christian podcast community.

All right, we are live, Apologetics Live. Glad that you are with us tonight. We have with us Matt Slick, our resident apologist from CARM .org, Christian Apologetics Research Ministry. Good place to go for your apologetics questions.

And that's what we're here for. We're here to answer your questions, any questions that you may have. The link to join is at apologeticslive .com. You go there, there is a link to join. Join on in, ask your questions, and we will seek to answer them.

And Matt, before we get too far into the program, let me read an email that we got today. We got this over at Striving for Eternity. Someone who started donating, I think she may have been donating to both you and I, to both our ministries, but she gave this to Mrs. Rappaport.

And it says, and so Mrs. Rappaport gave it to me. It says, it is just a tiny token, this is speaking about a gift that she gave to the ministry. She said, it is just a tiny token of my appreciation of what you do online via YouTube.

I am a great fan of Matt Slick and Andrew Rappaport's apologetics program. I've learned a lot watching them. Sadly, there is nothing similar here in Poland. I am happy I can benefit from what you're doing there in the US.

Poland is a Catholic country, and we, and there is more and more atheists and secularists too. Basically, we are a few years behind the Western countries in terms of worldview. In general, there is almost no biblical Christianity, so we produce no such content in Polish on YouTube or on radio.

By watching you guys, I can prepare myself for what is coming tomorrow and in the few years. God bless you for that. I love, I love watching Andrew and Matt's interactions and their brotherly love. It's an entertaining community overall.

I invest in my local church here in Poland, and this is what I feel like doing at the moment. I just wanted to encourage you and let you know that your work has global reach. Matt, you and I are able to encourage someone over in Poland.

Praise God. Yeah. Also with that, I guess we should, for folks who are watching on YouTube, you can do what's called a super chat. That's where you donate during the show. If you put a comment in there, we will read it.

There's no comment there, but Kat B just gracefully gave $5. The super chat goes to CARM. Anyone that donates there, that money will go to CARM .org. That doesn't come to Striving for Eternity, just so you know.

There's another $5 one from, I can't read it, someone Navitimer. Navitimer1884. Thank you. Thank you, Kat. Thanks, Navitimer. And so, folks, if you have questions, the way to join in is to go to Apologetics Live, click on the link to join the Hangout, and that will be how you can ask your questions.

We try to watch the chat also, but we don't always get to those questions. So, Matt, you used to be a Catholic, right?

No. Someone said that or something like that. I was alluding to that on one of the Facebook posts. I said, nope, I had to correct them. I was never a Catholic.

But you seem to hate the Catholics, they say. No, I don't hate Catholics. You must have been Mormon, right? Don't hate Mormons. But then why do you speak out against them?

As I have told people before, it's a theological issue. Roman Catholicism is false. Mormonism is false. That's it. And it's a purely theological issue. And so, thanks, Jason Manning. And so, what'll happen is people will misrepresent me, and that's often the case.

They'll say, oh, you hate Catholics. No, I don't hate Catholics. I hate Roman Catholicism because it's damnable. And that's it. I'm going to propose that which leads people to hell. That's all.

So, let's give you a chance to explain that a little bit more. There's a difference between Catholics and Catholicism. What do you see as the difference? And why do you, can you like Catholics and not like Catholicism?

Oh, yeah. I've had Roman Catholic friends, and we've hung out and done stuff. You know, I had atheist friends, whatever. It's the theology that I'm concerned with. And so, like a traditional Catholic says, so God, Matt admits he's never been a member of God's one true church.

You know, it's just, this guy doesn't have all his theological paws in the litter box. But Catholics

Okay. What fallacy is that that he just did? I'm not even sure, actually. It's a form of begging the question. It's not he starts with

Oh, well, yeah. He's doing that. He's assuming it, which isn't the case, but yeah. And so, I don't hate Catholics. And people say, oh, you hate Catholics. No, I don't hate Catholics. I hate Roman Catholicism.

I hate the theology. And I say that to people on the radio. I'll say it regularly. Folks, I'm against Roman Catholicism. I'm not against Roman Catholics. It's the Catholic theology that I'm against. I was never a Catholic.

No Catholic beat me up, and I got to resent resentment or something. No, it's purely a theological issue. So, there you go. That's it.

Yes. And this seems to be a thing on social media these days is that you can't just disagree without having some reason why you were hurt by someone to disagree or something like that, or the argument that you must have some reason for pointing out that you disagree with someone.

Yeah. And people say, well, what reasons have you got? And I go, karm .org slash Roman hyphen Catholicism. Click. I've done my research. I've written a great deal on it. I've compared what they teach against Scripture.

I've gone to Vatican website. I've looked at their documents. I've gone to the catechism. I've looked at Trent. I've got Trent documents in different forms on my computer. I do my research. I've got catechisms from the Catholic Church, different ones.

I've gone through and looked. Ott's book, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. I've got Vatican II documents in paperback form. I do my research. That's all it is. And now there are some Catholics who are real buttheads.

That's true, but that doesn't mean Catholicism is true or false. So, the thing is, it's just a theological issue. Roman Catholicism is apostates in the service to the Antichrist. It's leading people to eternal damnation, teaches idolatry, teaches synergistic soteriology, which means you have to cooperate with God in order to be saved.

You're saved by good works. It anathematizes the gospel. It's just a false church, and everybody should abandon it and leave that great whore of theological.

Adultery. That's my position. I wish you would really just make it clear what you think. Well, I could say it much stronger. Yeah, you have at different times. Yeah. Yeah. Now, there seems to be, and I don't know if you've noticed this, but just seems recently, the Catholics kind of went on like a 20-year quiet period.

I don't know. Maybe it's with this new Pope or what. I don't know that all of a sudden they're coming out of the woodworks and starting to want to debate again and promote Catholicism.

Well, in order to debate Catholics, you have to understand the nuances of definitions and the shades of meanings in those definitions that they will play with while they're debating. That's very necessary to understand some things.

Over the years, the past few years, I've had a lot of discussions with a lot of Catholics in a lot of areas. Any weak areas of my knowledge have been, as far as I'm concerned, plugged. Of course, there's always more things to learn.

What one Pope said, I don't know. The basics of what the Catholic Church teaches is there's some good and there's some bad. It teaches the doctrine of the Trinity, the hypostatic union. That's good. The physical resurrection of Christ.

That's good. Then it quickly departs from those and promotes the goddess Hilary, even though they say she's not a goddess, but functionally she is, and changes the grace of God into works. I'm working on an article on that.

Does the Roman Catholic Church change God's grace into man's works? The answer is yes. I've said it over the radio and I've said it here and other places that I believe, and this is my opinion, I believe that there are demonic forces having free reign in the Vatican and are somehow, someway communicating their false doctrines to the clergy there and getting disseminated down to the Roman Catholic Church of the people to further their damnation.

I believe that. Can I prove it? No, but that's what I believe. I do so based on the fact that the Roman Catholic Church teaches so many flaming heresies. Why else? It's not from God,.

So it has to be someplace else. We'll give a shout out to Navitimer, I think it was 1884. He says, Catholics claim they give us the Bible, yet they don't even follow it. So sad how they are misled in their abuse sacraments and heretical beliefs.

Thanks a lot, that's right.

Question from the Atheist Caller

Now, there's a guy inside here, he said, Andrew, I understand that you're hoping a Catholic will be on the show to debate Matt on some particular theological issues. I want to give you and Matt the opportunity to question me about views if you care to.

So who is this guy?

This is the guy that in the chat, they named him, was it, I don't even remember what they called him, a bald, angry atheist, I think was, but this is John the Atheist. Oh, okay. So yeah, let's go, let's first go in order.

We'll just see, I'm gonna unmute Matt. Kat, see if she has any questions. She didn't say she had any, but you're unmuted if you want to ask any questions, Kat.

Kathryn. Oh, thank you, Everson. No, it wasn't a question as much as one of my favorite scriptures is 1 Corinthians 13. And I know why I enjoy that, and I was just wondering why the two of you, like, what is your take on that?

How do you interpret that? I mean, it doesn't seem like it's a big, moving scripture, but just, you know, what it is, you know, you think that it's speaking to us, or to you guys in general?

Everson. Well, it says, but now faith, hope, love abides these three. The greatest of these is love. Well, I believe it. I don't know about Andrew, but, you know, I believe it. Love of a good lunch? Everson.

No, he doesn't love me. No, no, no. He outsmarts me and buys my lunch for me, dinners and things like that. It makes me look bad, feel bad. Oh, obviously, he doesn't know what that verse means. So, you know, he's got issues.

Roderick Yeah, actually, I think. Let's play something that was said on the council. Let's play this.

Was Andrew the one that helped you get the podcast back up?

Yeah, he did get the podcast. He didn't help me. He did it.

Don't you think you owe him a dinner for that? Oh, no, he didn't.

That's right. Roderick. That was a good one from the guys at the council.

It was all in fun. They don't know. I've been telling the story about Manti because you had been outsmarting me, and I hate to admit it, but it's true. Outsmarting me on different things. And so you weren't feeling particularly well one night.

We're coming back from Manti. I went to McDonald's. And so, you know, I go, okay, I'm buying my own stinking dinner. Get out of here. And try to buy yours, but you already paid for yours. So, okay. And so then I put my card in.

I can't believe I did this. Put my card in, and I did whatever I had to do. Or I did something, but I was mocking you. I was. I was mocking you. You're not buying my dinner. Ha, ha, ha. I do all the thing.

The lady gives me the number, and I give me a cup, you know, and I go over to get my iced tea, whatever it was. And she goes, hey, your card didn't go through. And you're right there next to it. I go, no.

So, you whip out your card. You put it. I go, no. I couldn't.

Get back in time. So, it was funny. There is a Bible verse that perfectly answers that what happened there at that McDonald's. Pride goes before the fall. Yeah, that's true. That is true. You were just gloating, and your card didn't.

I was. I was gloating. Yeah, you were over getting soda, and Nathan is like, Matt, your card didn't work. It was like slow motion. I'm running over,.

And I'm like, oh, okay. It was pretty funny, though. I really got a big kick out of it, because this is what happened. Even though the joke was on me, it still was pretty funny. So.

We had probably one of the best people in the order behind the counter. She was great. She was ripping on me. Yeah.

So, this atheist guy's in there. I don't know what he wants to talk about. He wants to talk.

About subjectivity and objectivity. I remember that now. Yeah. This is a gentleman who had to take calls from his wife. So, Kat, do you have anything for us tonight or no? Well, no. I just.

Asked about your take on the scripture, but it sounds like John might have something far deeper. So, we can tackle that later if you want. It was just opinions. We'll try to go in order, but.

Yeah. So, I guess I will. If you don't have anything, let me turn up Marco's volume and add him in here. So, Marco, you can unmute yourself. How are you doing, Matt?

All right. How are you doing? I'm doing great. I got the grace.

Good, man. So, what do you got? You got your rum DNC hat on? Is that what you got there?

No. It's just a party picture that I have with my wife. Okay. I was going to ask a question regarding to your article that you have why Jesus was baptized. Yeah. I'm kind of confused into the relationship between Jesus being a high priest under the order of Melchizedek, but you're saying that He had to go through all this, the sprinkling of the water, the 30 years old of age and everything.

It seems like that's by the law, but Melchizedek came before the law. So, I'm trying to understand if He was a high priest under Melchizedek's lineage, then why does it have to require the law?

He was born under the law of Galatians 4 .4, and He had to complete the requirements of the law. He came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. Matthew 5 .17, I think, made under the law of Galatians 4 .4.

So, under the law, He was obligated to do those things that the law required. In order to enter the priesthood, He had to fulfill the Old Testament requirements. He said in John 5 .39, the scriptures are about Him.

So, therefore, we look in the Old Testament, we see that the sacrificial system was typological about the true sacrifice of Christ and the priesthood of the Old Testament's representative of the true priesthood of Christ.

So, when you look at it that way, then everything falls in place. So, He was just fulfilling the Old Testament laws. And when John the Baptist said that Jesus needed to baptize him, Jesus said, no, let us fulfill all righteousness.

Fulfill refers to the law. So, He had to fulfill that law. That's.

What He came to do. All right. And I had another question about marriage theology. I heard you saying that you were going to speak about marriage theology one day. Oh, the theology of marriage.

Yeah. Do you speak Spanish? Yes, I do. Yeah. I'm going to tell you, you mix your verbs. Tomorrow night, I'm going to practice my Spanish. Okay. Yeah, I'm going to teach on that tomorrow night. I'm working on the outline and things like that.

So, I'll be doing a thing, and then I'm going to work on it and get to release it in a book form, if it's okay. Because there's a lot to it. It's going to take me an hour and a half to.

Two hours to go through it. In our church, there's a lot of people that have marriage problems, and I'm trying to help people out, and I would like to learn a little bit about the theology.

They have. Well, what church do you go to? Where are you? Right now, I'm in a church.

Called International House of Prayer. Where? Okay, so then? It's in Elizabeth, New Jersey. Oh, okay. Did you say the International House of Prayer? Yes. It's a church. Yes, the IHOP.

That's bad. Yeah, I heard a lot of things. Yeah. That's another topic. Regarding the marriage thing, the way I do it is when I teach this, and let me say how I got to this point of doing it this way. Please understand, I am not saying my way is the right way.

If you don't do it the way I do it, it's not right. I'm not saying that at all. Not at all. It's just that over the years, as I've done a lot of counseling on that couch back there with people in different places I've lived, I've counseled people.

The first time I ever did this, I was talking to a guy in Escondido, California. He and his wife were having problems. His wife wasn't there, and he came over early. She's going to be there an hour later, and we're just talking.

I was listening to him discuss some things, and it occurred to me he didn't understand a certain theological principle about marriage. He said something else, and I thought, again, it's another issue, but it was theological.

I said, let me lay something down for you. What I did was, I didn't even know I was doing it, but I started teaching theology about the Trinity and marriage stuff. I just gleaned over the years reading the Scriptures for about 15 minutes, 15, 20 minutes.

When I was done, I hadn't even addressed the issue of his marriage problems. Literally, he said to me, oh, now I see what I'm doing wrong. I'll never forget that. I'm like, what? He goes, yeah, because, and the light went on.

That was an accident. Over the years, what I've done is that. What I'm going to do tomorrow night is start off with what marriage is. It's a three-way covenant. Then I'm going to go into the Trinitarian basis of marriage.

I have to talk about God, the nature of God in that, and what marriage is as a reflection of the character of God, and then how God set things up in Genesis in marriage. What it is, Adam and Eve, we learn what the design of marriage is there.

A lot of people don't know what's in it. Then the effect of the fall on marriage. It's men and women. I'll get into the New Testament requirements of husbands and wives and their roles in marriage, and then the applications of it in various issues of marriage.

I'll deal with things like conflict resolution, the true nature of love, resentment, self-justification. These are things that I've learned that people have in marriage conflicts. They have a deficit and a misunderstanding.

The deficit is they don't understand what love truly is and forgiveness truly is. They don't relate it to Christ sufficiently. The misunderstanding they have is that they have a right to be angry about a wrong suffered by them from their spouse.

I go theologically into the issue of forgiveness and redemption that is in Christ. We don't have that right to do that. I talk about these things in the issue of confession. This is the basic kind of a thing that I do.

It's a theological premise that must be laid and then go into the issues of redemptive work. Later on, if that makes sense. It makes sense. I would like to hear more,.

But that was it, Matt. I'll let you deal with John. Before you go, Marco, I'm in Jersey,.

So if you want to talk more in depth on some of the things with marriage and other stuff,.

You could feel free to reach out to me. Sure. Through where? Through your website,.

Strivingforeternity ?strivingforeternity .org. You could just shoot me an email,.

Andrewxstrivingforeternity .org. I'd be happy to get together with you. Thank you, Andrew.

Objective Morality, Solipsism, and Atheism

All right. Well, I'm going to add John in. Let's see. His volume is up. John, welcome back. Thank you, Andrew. Thank you, Matt.

Can you get closer to your mic? Is that any better?

Much better, yes. All right. Your phone is off. Your wife's not going to call.

Hopefully not going to call. I let her know. Now, I said before I got a hard cut off of A30. I pushed that back a little bit. I'm going to need to leave in about 20 minutes or so, but I understood you had some questions, or you wanted to interrogate me on my position, and you didn't get the chance to do so.

I don't remember. I know Andrew had some questions, too, but I thought you...

Yeah, Matt, to refresh your memory, and I'm looking for my notes, actually, because I did have notes from that, but Matt, he was talking about objective morality. Yeah, I remember that.

Yeah, but I already dealt with it and showed him that he's trying to make everything subjective so that it doesn't have any true meaning. The problem is that God is the ontological essence of truth. Truth is that which conforms with the mind of God.

He's absolute and immutable and eternal. Then morality is the reflection of his character, which is absolute. To say it's subjective to him as though it could be something else is not correct. It's absolute and necessary by his nature and his essence, and he reveals that to us.

Then it's an objective reality to us, and we are obligated to follow it, especially atheists, because if you don't, then you will never know the need for redemption in Jesus Christ who rose from the dead, and you're going to go to hell forever if you don't repent of your great sin and rebellion against God and your, no offense meant, your arrogant justification of your atheistic morality in an attempt to exclude God.

Your machinations won't accomplish that.

Okay. Yeah. You have any questions for me or anything like that? I mean, I can rebut if you want, but I just want to give you the last word because you didn't get that opportunity last time.

Whatever. I mean, you want to talk more, ask something. If you don't, we move on to somebody else. That's fine. You are lost, and it's not me condemning you. It's not me mocking you. You're in a state of rebellion against the true and living God.

You know that there's moral absolutes. We talked about it. You contradicted yourself about the issue of it's always wrong for anyone to torture babies to death merely for their personal pleasure. You said yes, and then you tried to defend your inconsistency.

But because you're an atheist, your mind is given over to the judgment of your hostility towards God. And the judgment is found and revealed in Romans chapter one, verses 18 through 31. You should check it out.

Oh, I've checked it out. I'm very familiar with the Bible. I was raised in a sort of Christian home. Not exactly. I'm sure you're well familiar with the kind of upbringing I had, knowing your ministry against Mormonism.

Mormonism is just a cult. It's just a cult. It's a cult that's loosely based upon biblical Christianity.

Yeah, it's a major non-religion or non-Christian cult. But what I meant by it's just a cult is in the sense, theologically, you are not exposed to the truth. You're exposed to legalism, false gospel, condemnation of the truth, a God from another planet, alien theology, because he's from another planet.

It just screws with people's brains. And as is often the case with Mormons, unfortunately, because Mormonism teaches not to look at facts, not look at evidence, not look at scripture, but look at feelings.

You know, James 1 .5, you know, if you need the alacrism of the mask of God, you know, this testimony thing, I bear my testimony to you. Joseph Smith is a true prophet. The Book of Mormon is a true book, et cetera, on Testimony Sunday.

And so when you found out Mormonism was false or however it worked with you, as is typical with Mormons, not to say it is what happened with you, but it's pretty typical that they become atheists because their hearts have been betrayed.

And so they judge truth by their feelings. So they turn to their feelings, the same thing led them astray in order to determine another truth. It's completely inconsistent, but that's what.

Happens. I would say that that might be what happens for some people. That's not what happened in my case. Okay. But, you know, I definitely can agree with you. That definitely does happen with people.

I would take issue with your mischaracterizing my position with respect to absolute morality, but we already went over that. I don't think we need to go over that again.

Well, you wanted your idea, if I can, if I understand it correctly, is that the idea that God's morals are subjected to himself, so therefore it's subjective. And then you want to.

Say all morality is not absolute, right? That's correct. It's by its very nature of what it is. It cannot be anything but. So all morals are subjective, right? That is correct. Okay.

So the statement that all morals are subjective is a moral statement, isn't it?

No, that is a statement. That is a truth statement. That is not a moral statement.

So does truth carry morality value when we're talking about morals? No, it doesn't. It doesn't. So when we talk about truth as a moral truth, there's no moral value, because even though we say you're saying all morals are subjective, that has no moral value in it.

That's correct. Okay. Wow. So a statement about morality doesn't deal with morality.

It doesn't deal with any kind of judgment of value. Yes, it does. Yes, it does. Absolute.

Values versus subjective values. You're saying there's no such thing as absolute moral value.

That's a moral judgment. No, it's not a moral judgment. It's simply an evaluative judgment. It's. Does this correspond to reality or not?

So the Christian God is infinite and absolute and eternal, and the Christian God reveals morals based out of his character. So therefore, those morals are absolute and invariant,.

And you're obligated to follow them. I understand that that's the position, and it may actually be true that I'm obligated to follow them. It may be that, I mean, certainly from the Christian doctrine, they are absolute and universal.

They apply to everyone.

Except God, apparently. You just completely don't understand the issue yet again. They apply to God as if there's some principles that God himself must be subject to. You don't understand the Christian issue.

The Christian issue is their revelation of his character, of his essence, of his nature. That's how he is. It's what he is. He reveals morality based out of his character. He's not subject to those things.

He just is that. It's a wrong statement on your behalf to say that.

Okay, and I can definitely understand your position there. I agree that if it's something that is, you know, part of his character intrinsically, then it's not something that he would be subject to any more than any part of character that you might have, you would be,.

You know, subject to. It's just simply who you are. Right. Therefore, since he's the ontological source of our morals, all morals, all absolute morals exist because they reflect their absolute in his character and their objective to us, correct?

I would disagree with your characterization.

Of them being objective to us. That was a big issue I had with your terminology.

Well, it's your terminology that's the problem. Objective means it's not dependent upon our subjective belief or existence or anything like that. They're objective morals because they rest in the character of God who is independent of us.

We're contingent upon him. He's not contingent upon us. And so therefore, by definition, the morals that come from him are.

Objective to us. And I would disagree with that characterization of objective, but again,.

I think we're just retreading old ground there. Yeah, well, that's what objectivity means. And the fact is that what you want to do is you're trying to control God and the truth concerning God by your definitions the way you want them.

Actually, no, I disagree. I'm not.

Trying to control God at all. I'm simply trying to determine what the truth is without presupposing as Van Til and Greg Brunson and you do, that God is and God has these characteristics and.

God is the ontological source of all truth. Do you presuppose evolution is true?

No, I don't. Do you believe evolution is true? I am inclined to think that it's probably true, but I don't know. On what evidence? Upon the evidence that the scientists who have investigated evolution have presented.

Again, I wouldn't... Have you tested the evidence? I have looked at some small portion of the evidence.

So have you tested all evidences, looked at all evidences? Oh, of course not. So it's an issue of faith. You presuppose that they're honest. You presuppose that the evidence is true. That's where the interpretation of the facts is at.

Everybody has assumptions. You do that. As a Christian, I assume God's existence, and when I do, everything makes sense. If we assume your position, things don't make sense. Nothing makes sense from your position, your atheistic position.

And I would definitely disagree with that. You come from a position where you're looking for certainty, and as apologists like Van Til found, you can't get certainty unless you presuppose an ontological absolute truth in God.

And even then, that's from my position, from what I can understand about how we think, how we make the decisions, how we understand things. Even that is an error. We can't simply presuppose and actually arrive at any kind of deductive truth.

We can't? How do you know that? Again, this is not something that I know in an absolute certainty way. So you presuppose it, then? No, it's something that I believe as a matter of induction.

You presuppose it. Induction is based on subjective experience.

That's correct. And so I don't presuppose it. I base it upon my experience. So it's more like what you call a methodological...

So you trust your experience to judge God's existence?

I trust my experience to judge anything that is presented to me. So if, for example, God were to present himself in some way to me in some manner that I can't deny that that's actually God, then I wouldn't have any reason to deny that.

But to my experience so far, that hasn't been the case.

So you judge all things by your own subjective experience?

I would say absolutely everybody does, whether or not they will admit it or...

I asked you about you. You can't speak to everybody. You don't know how everybody is. So you can't project your personal experience upon everybody and say, that's how everybody else is because that's how I am.

That's a fallacy of logic. I asked you specifically about yourself. That's what you do, though.

It's not a fallacy of logic. It's simply a statement based on induction, again. No. This is the way I believe, and this is the way I think. I look at the way other people think, and because we're all human beings, we seem to think and acquire knowledge the same way.

And so in absence of any evidence to the contrary, then that's where my position resides.

Well, so what you're doing, what you're doing is...

Matt, can I have to speak over? Matt, just so you know.

Okay. So what you're doing is you're using your subjective experience to determine absolute truth.

Again, I'm not determining absolute truth. I'm determining probabilistic truth, what seems to me most likely the case.

So most likely. So what's most likely probable is what you experience.

The conclusions that I arrive at are what I determine to be most probable based on the information I have. But that's a big reservation. It's like, I don't know everything. I can't know everything. I'm limited by the subjectivity of my experience.

And there's no way for me to know.

Everything. So if you don't know, and you're limited by your own subjective experience, then you cannot project onto anybody else any valid truths based on your personal experience.

I can't project any kind of absolute certainties, but I can say, okay, based on what it seems other people are in general, human beings like myself, and based on how I understand that I learned things and how other people have told me they learned things, specifically neuroscientists and other people who are involved with, you know, how do people learn, that this is most likely the case.

I mean, if there is other evidence that can be presented to me that makes more sense, which answers better the questions of how people learn, then I would accept that. But to this point, I've not seen that.

So what you just said, you don't project any, you don't believe in absolute truths because it's all subjective experience, yet you are sure there's no, there are no objective truths. So that is an absolute.