Is Human Reasoning Autonomous?

Introduction to Autonomy, Neutrality, and Presuppositional Apologetics

Welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host Eli Ayala, and today I'm going to be having Seth Bloomsburg, I think it has have on the thumbnail there. I don't have a thumbnail in front of me.

It was some other name, you know the thing with the internet people have like 12 different names. So I don't know why maybe he could explain it to me as to why his name was different there. I didn't have time to to edit my YouTube thumbnails and now he's gone and screwed everything up.

So thanks a lot, man. But today I'm gonna have Seth Bloomsburg on today to discuss the issue of autonomy and Neutrality and these is these terms are very important Not just for apologetics in general, but of course presuppositional apologetics more specifically as you know I have called in the past the ideas of neutrality and autonomy the twin poisons.

I called them the twin poisons of Reasoning they are the things that are kind of baked into all non-christian thought categories and it's actually Because of the lack of understanding that presuppositional is deny autonomous reasoning that many of the criticisms that are launched against the presuppositional method fall flat because Critics fail to see that we reject Autonomous categories now you might be tempted to think that this is kind of an abstract and vague and unimportant topic.

However, I really want to get Seth's thoughts on why this is such a practical thing to understand namely that Autonomous reasoning is really not a thing. It's impossible and it's unfaithful to Christ.

But what are the practical? outworkings of this idea of Autonomy or the denial thereof for the Christian life, you know How does this reflect our intellectual commitment to the Lordship of Jesus Christ?

We're gonna unpack that. I'm hopefully in some detail and hopefully you guys will will be benefited from this discussion. I Cannot overstate this enough the issue of autonomous reasoning is a central issue within discussions on presuppositional apologetics and Rationality epistemology all these sorts of philosophical categories.

And so hopefully you guys who are listening are paying very close attention because I think this is going to be very beneficial and clarifying With respect to understanding the presuppositional approach to apologetics, so Without further ado.

I'd like to bring Seth on to the screen and he will give an account. He will give an apologetic as to why his name was different on Facebook and messed up my whole YouTube thumbnail.

Hello, how are you Eli? I'm doing well. Well, I can explain what the situation was there. So I won't give you the details. But basically I had a Situation where I was had had a concern about doxing and Lukens is actually a family name.

And so I Changed it Temporarily to that and then I realized that Facebook doesn't let me change it back for 60 days. So I had a you weren't the only Facebook friend who was very confused about who I was for a while.

I was like, I'm inviting this guy in my show and it's probably like a hacker who's like I have like some random guy, you know who doesn't know anything about apologetics coming on and ruining the live stream.

Thanks a lot, man.

No worries. No, I'm the real Seth Bloomsburg, but I am I'm sitting down though. So, okay. All right, very good.

Now you said you were concerned with doxing. What's that?

Doxing, Cybersecurity, and Movie Depictions of Hacking

Yeah so doxing is when somebody if you say something typically online like on Twitter or Facebook if you say something that Somebody decides they don't like like, you know, boys can't be girls. Which is a controversial point nowadays, which is just astounding to me.

People will often try to take as much information about you like even things like your street address or your social security number and publish it online and try to get as many people to do mean and nasty things to you and For my profession. I'm actually in cyber security.

I Like to think I'm a little more self-aware about how much information is out there about me and how to protect myself from that kind of thing, so yeah, it was just a Well a little bit of a precautionary measure.

Sure. Okay, so you're in cyber security. That's pretty intense. Okay, cool, man Is it as cool as it sounds it is the one thing I should warn you about though. Is that it is almost always done really really poorly in most movies I Remember I think it was an episode of NCIS or something where they had this situation where you know, the computer was being hacked.

And so this girl hacker who was on the good side started, you know apparently just randomly typing on a keyboard and you know, this computer scoomer was flashing and Doing all sorts of things and then apparently they needed to hack twice as fast.

So the other guy got his hands on the keyboard and started doing things and it's like no, that's not that's not a thing. That's not how it works. In fact, some of the worst cyber security incidents are things that happen over the over a period of several weeks.

So, okay. So the movies get it wrong. Yeah, the TV show that has gotten it the most correct is Mr. Robot, actually I've actually watched it and they actually use real terminal commands and as far as I can tell it's it's pretty accurate to real life.

And oddly enough even in some parts of the matrix were pretty accurate too. Okay.

Within the study of time the philosophy of time I think William Lane Craig said that the movie that got it the closest correct correct With respect to time travel was Bill and Ted's excellent adventure.

Somehow that doesn't surprise me. Yeah, this movies you least you least expect it's like they got it, right? That's actually pretty cool. All right. Well, the philosophy of time is definitely an interesting topic and totally not the topic of this episode so Why don't you tell folks a little bit about how you got into apologetics?

Okay in general then presuppositional apologetics more specifically and who have been your your strongest influence and I would imagine most people who Get into presuppositional apologetics are influenced by the person.

I think you're gonna say but maybe maybe I'm wrong. Or if I'm right, you can go into details. It's always cool to hear what people have to say with respect to.

Yeah, that dr. Bonson has had on many of us so yes, well, dr. Bonson is very much an influence. He's more of a secondary influence though. So I grew up in Moscow, Idaho and I went to Which is where Doug Wilson has his Church, and you know, he started Logos school and he started new sheen st Andrews College, I actually went to Logos from preschool through 12th grade.

Cool. I actually did not end up taking The 12th grade apologetics class for credit which I was thinking about it the other day and I was like I couldn't remember why I don't know if it just didn't seem interesting at the time or I was also taking college classes.

So maybe it got in the way of the scheduling. But I actually kind of hated reading books up until about a year after I graduated high school. Okay, but I've always been really intellectually curious and I I've been recently doing some History interviews with my family and one of the things that they told me that was you know as a as a young child of three or four or five years old that was a little obnoxious was how often I asked the question why and.

You know, you can do it by what standard that would.

The second most often asked a question I had okay, but um. My aunt has this funny story about how you know, I was asking why questions about the you know. We have we have property up in Coeur d 'Alene Lake and They were asking me.

You know, I was asking how you know How does the water level go up and down and they would give me these reasonable explanations and finally my uncle just told me well There's there's a giant bathtub plug at the bottom and that's why and somehow that satisfied my curiosity so I've always I've always been intellectually curious and You know and obviously once you get to your teenage years the college years people start really questioning.

You know, how do I know? What do I how do we know what we think we know and you know, of course. Well, how do I know that other religions are wrong? How do you know the other worldviews are wrong? And it was kind of a gradual process that I just started realizing that I didn't know nearly as much as I should sure.

The first book that I picked up specifically on apologetics was one by Lee Strobel. And I believe it was the case for Christ. Yes, and there was stuff in there was like, okay I I'm kind of on board with it, but there was always Something in the back of my mind where I just thought.

The way he does apologetics is kind of strange to me, but I could not put my finger on exactly why okay and the thing that really fascinated me about presuppositional ism is they actually answer why and I gave very Answer good answers as to why approaches that strobel takes and others take like Sproul.

Don't really actually answer the questions properly, but I'll get into that later. Okay. Yeah, that's interesting. We can explore that a little bit. Yeah, but my first exposure to apologetics really, you know in a way that I really grabbed to me was when I when Doug was debating Eddie Tabish.

Eddie Tabish came to and Moscow and they debated at the University of Idaho and I can't remember if I was at his debate with Dan Barker or not. I remember I'd listened to it and I may have been there a long time ago Yeah, that would have been I think that Dan Barker's that's just a year.

I think that was a year after.

Dr. Bonson passed away a.

Year or two. Yeah, if it was that early then I probably wasn't there. You're probably like Apollo who you. And yeah, I didn't care about I would have been maybe 10 years old. If that's what I'd have to check exactly when it was, but if it was yeah.

I remember listening to the debate between Doug Wilson and Dan Barker and the moderator at the beginning said that Greg Bonson was scheduled to debate Dan Barker like a year ago, but then he passed away.

So.

Gotcha, yes, then in that case. No, I was not present for the debate, but I I Was definitely there for his debate with Eddie Tabish. Okay, I it was it and you know Obviously Doug is he's really good at what he does.

He actually did a conference with Bonson back in the 90s and studied van Til's works. So my interest came from just watching Doug pretty much and then I Didn't have the sophistication to really know that there were different methodologies hadn't didn't really study it and it was around 2010 I think it was where I finally decided you know what I'm gonna learn this stuff for myself.

So I think I What what I did was I got onto Doug's blog and he has a blog post from like 12 years ago at this point I think where he talks about his most his biggest influences and I recognized some of the names like Francis Schaeffer Greg Bonson Cornelius Van Til and I know I wanted to study all the names on there.

But I thought the first thing I want to study is apologetics. So I got Van Til's defense of the faith. That's the very first book on presuppositionalism that I read and I'm I've been told that that The impression I get from many people is that that was probably a bad idea.

Oh, yeah this guy here this.

People like hey, you know, what book should I start reading and I'm like you see this book right here. Not that one. Yeah.

Make that like the tenth book that you're reading. Yes.

My opinion if you're going to start with Van Til if you're gonna start with him in my opinion. This one's the best place to start in my opinion. It's a small. It's a shorter one. I mean, he's got like some little pamphlets here and there that might even be easier.

But in my opinion, I thought this was this was manageable. Educated layperson. Yeah, but defense of the faith you might want to skip that one until you get a grasp on on some of the issues. But good.

Yeah, it was. I found it kind of dense. I could understand most of it, but there are some passages, you know. I talked about Conti and metaphysics and I was like Yeah, okay. Sure. But I I slogged through it and then I just I kind of just went from there.

I read Greg Bonson's always ready. I started it was around the time I started listening to his lectures as well. Because I figured you know may as well. Get now get it both ways. Sure. So gradually I I just learned more and more.

I ended up reading Van Til's Apologetic I read mere Christianity. Read CS Lewis's book on miracles, you know, I started reading a lot of CS Lewis. And finally when I ended up graduating new st. Andrews College in 2016 I actually wrote my thesis as a response.

The title was the failure of Richard Carrier's atheism and Richard Carrier is a somewhat famous atheist. And basically I just took one of his books read through it and my thesis was simply a presupposition list response to it.

I'd love to read that if you still have it. I love I love reading these. Well, yeah.

Yeah, I can send it to you. I was I was actually pretty proud of myself. You know Doug's always such an encouraging guy where guys like actually it was my best work. I mean, you know. Yeah, I sent it to Doug and he's always so encouraging where I was like he the weird thing is like.

When I tell I think if I said that Doug is sometimes too nice almost no one would believe me. But he really is that way, you know, as long as you do something, right? He's like, oh, yeah, you know the good job.

This is great. His. He has a reputation for his class and his classes being kind of notoriously easy. But but I did send it to John frame and John frame was pretty impressed with it. So I was like, okay, I got I got approval from somebody who doesn't even know me.

That's awesome.

Well, John frames an awesome guy. I had the pleasure of meeting him some years back. I remember the first my first time seeing him. His body was hidden behind a stack of books on his. And We had a great conversation and he was a super nice guy.

Now every now and then I try to message him and he's so Generous with his responses, but he's really annoyed these days because he's retired. He's like I'll take quick questions, but like I don't want to get into a long, you know back and forth.

So I I try not to message him anymore because I feel like yeah, he's trying to enjoy the good life now. So yeah.

Well, it's not surprising. I mean for almost any question he gets asked he'd probably be like well Yeah, I read a 300. I wrote a 300 page book on this exact question 40 years ago. So why don't you just go read that?

Well, he um, I Asked him a question and he says I'm only gonna give you a short answer I don't want to get into a long back and forth. And then he gave me the wrong answer. And then he says in the Answer he goes there you went you you made me go deeper than I want.

So I think that was the last time I said, thank you. You got you got to squeeze as much of the juice out of the lemon until it's too late. I mean these guys great thinkers they're getting they're getting up there in age and yeah, you know.

So I'd love to meet him someday. He and I have exchanged emails before. But yeah, he's one of those people where I'm like, I just wish I could have like, you know. Maybe if I find like myself with a week of extra time, which you know, of course might never happen.

But I'd love to just fly down and you know interview him for like an hour. I mean, I would just love to be able to do that. That's awesome but I'm. Yeah, good. Oh, yeah, so that's what I did for my thesis and I and that was yeah, I graduated about five years ago.

So, yeah, my my initial interest in apologetics was Doug's debates. But I I've probably learned the most and learned the most technical detail from Bonson himself and ventil. Hmm and the more the more I've read on the topic the more I'm.

I've become very very convinced that it's it's an extremely important Topic, I think every Christian should study it and You know, I've often thought if I was dealing with a new Christian what and they wanted to know what should I study?

Well, the the very first thing if you have no idea what to study. I mean study your Bible, but Secondarily study apologetics, you know, we can have debates over baptism or pre-mill versus on mill or many other things.

But the primary, you know, my first concern is getting you in the kingdom. And making sure you know why you're there so you can explain it to other people right very good. That's awesome.

Well real quick. I want to say I want to give a quick shout out to some former students of mine. I won't mention their names to protect their identities. But guys, thank you so much for joining the live stream.

Miss you guys, too. Hope you guys are doing awesome. And I hope you like your new teachers. I have no idea. They're awesome, so I just want to give them a quick shout out. All right, well, let's jump into the the details the nitty-gritty if you will and so I kind of entitled this Episode is human reasoning autonomous.

Why don't you define for us what autonomy is. And Neutrality those are kind of popular buzzwords within the Presuppositional apologetic methodology and and why these ideas are important and are often brought up Within the discussions between the different apologetic methodologies.

Ultimate and Proximate Sources of Knowledge

Mm-hmm.

Okay, so I would define it before I define autonomy. I'd have to make a quick distinction and I've the more I've studied the more I found that this is one of the most important distinctions to make into apologetics and that's the difference between a the ultimate source of knowledge and approximate source of knowledge.

And then till would always use the analogy of a diving board if you stand on a diving board. There's a sense in which the diving board is keeping you up. But there's also a sense in which the concrete is keeping you up in the more ultimate sense and In ventile talks about in his books.

Okay. Obviously everyone knows that there's a sense in which you start with just your own knowledge you start with your own sense perception your own Reason, but the question is what is the ultimate foundation that makes that knowledge intelligible?

I mean if if the ultimate reality is that everything's chance Well, then my sense perception doesn't tell it tell me anything, you know. It's just a chance universe. My reason doesn't tell me anything then because the laws of logic aren't actually existent.

They're just random. So the question is not do we do we use our own mind to reason everyone uses their mind to reason? But the question is what is the ultimate standard by which we use our reason? And so autonomy is using any ultimate standard besides scripture.

I think that's probably the quick quickest and Simplest way to to define that scripture or God.

So someone says I start with because this this gets into an issue of People bring it up and I know they're gonna be some sharp people who are listening and be like, oh, wait a second there set. Yeah. So so why don't we dive into this issue of what do we mean when we say we start with Scripture or we start with God or what are we starting with?

Proximate the ultimate starting points and with respect to the ultimate starting point. You said that autonomy is when we start so to speak with something other than Scripture. Do you mean scripture like literally scripture or do you mean the God of scripture?

Why don't you unpack that for us?

Well, yeah, I can adjust that. I would say the worldview of scripture. Okay, because it's not like you can't you know, if you know, I mentioned earlier we have debates about baptism. I wouldn't say that somebody who's credo Baptist, you know, it doesn't have the preconditions of intelligibility or somebody who's pedo Baptist.

Doesn't either, you know, you can have debates about the interpretation. But the the overall worldview is is what's important and I can't remember which book it is. But there's there's a passage in which Vantil says explicitly it really doesn't matter whether you start with the biblical Idea of God or whether you start with scripture itself because they're both involved in one another, you know.

It's a worldview you can be starting with the package. Yeah, you start with a package deal, but not simply a conceptual package.

You're not starting with an abstract Philosophical system you're starting with the assumption of the re the ontological reality.

Of the triune God of scripture. Yeah, it's not just a generic idea of God. It is the triune God that you're starting with. It's not just some scripture. It's specifically the Old and New Testaments that you're you're starting with.

Okay, and so That's that's what it what autonomy is and Neutrality comes in when basically No matter what no matter what everyone has a worldview. They may not be familiar with the terminology. They may you know, if you talk to them about metaphysics, they might say I don't know what that means.

But everyone has a worldview and everyone lives in terms of whatever worldview they have. So it's you know, somebody's saying well you know, I can. You know, I don't have to understand what worldviews are.

I don't you know, I don't have one. Well, that's kind of like somebody saying I Don't care whether I have a heart or a liver or kidneys or not. You know, I just live my life. Well, you couldn't walk around and be alive.

If you didn't have those internal organs and they were functioning properly at some level point. Well taken. Yeah so and So people can't be neutral now you can talk. You know, it might take me a little while if I'm talking to somebody to find out what their ultimate stance is, but there's a one book in which I thought this was pretty clever that Mantel's basically said you can't be neuter.

Being pro-neutrality is basically a contradiction in terms. You're saying you're going to be neutral. Well, then you're pro being neutral as opposed to being against neutral. So even it's almost like even the concept of being neutral is is a contradiction in terms.

So everyone and everyone ultimately starts with you know, they either start with presupposing God's existence or Presupposing that he does they either presuppose he exists or they presuppose that they don't even if they claim that they're being neutral.

So so when you say you're neutral. You can't neutral. Since the claim to neutrality is an inherent bias against positions that say you can't be neutral.

Exactly and that's one of the there's another section. I think it's in survey of Christian Episcopal I Can't remember which book it was. It starts with survey. I think it's survey of Christian Epistemology something like that.

Okay, where van Til talks about how you know, if somebody says they're agnostic like well Who knows if God exists, you know, I'm not sure that maybe there's evidence for maybe there's evidence against even that supposedly neutral position is Definitively anti-theistic because one of the things that Romans 1 says is that all of creation reveals God and it's clear.

So if somebody looks at any fact in creation and says that fact isn't clear That's a definitive statement. It's that the God of the Bible doesn't exist because the God of the Bible is clearly and unambiguously revealed in creation.

So if you even claim that it's not clear That's a definitive statement, but that God doesn't exist.

Why Neutrality Fails in Apologetics and Christian Life

Hmm, okay now We see this idea of neutrality and autonomy with respect to secular mindsets secular philosophies. But of course as you know, and you will be debating a brother in Christ on this topic There are Christians who encourage autonomous reasoning and reason as a test.

Or a standard to judge the truth of the Christian faith. How would you address a Christian who stands on Scripture apparently and argues that no like we do need to be we. We should encourage the autonomous use of Reason as a tool to validate truth claims with respect to Scripture.

Mm-hmm. Well the problem is.

Now I understand why some people might initially think that neutrality is possible. Because somebody might say well We all agree that the laws of logic are true, right? Well Yes, and no there are lots of people and one of Antilles famous slogans was Unbelievers can count but they cannot account for their counting.

Sure. So when I say that unbelievers aren't neutral, you know, nobody can be neutral. Nobody should be neutral. I'm not saying that Unbelievers can't count, you know unbelievers have done some amazingly Good things and sometimes they have an amazingly sharp use of logic that really puts Christians to shame.

One of my favorite Philosophers in fact is David Hume. I've I feel like when I read David Hume I learned a great deal about how to reason properly and consistently like it was. Especially his dialogues of natural religion where he was critiquing some of the theistic arguments.

I was Absolutely shocked at how amazingly good Hume was at reasoning. You know, he had some good points.

But one thing I'm done live streams up. But part of the problem is.

When it comes to brothers who who argue that way. One of the things that I point out to them and there are a couple different ways to approach it what once I've explained what I mean by neutral and what I don't mean my neutral part of the problem is that.

You're almost encouraging. An unbeliever in his unbelief if he thinks that there's any area of life that isn't transformed or doesn't reveal. You know transformed by God or doesn't reveal God's The existence of God he has you know a neutral standing point.

Well, if he can get along perfectly neutrally in this area, why not every other area? Sure. You know God is creator of all things. One of Kuiper's famous quotes is there is no square inch of creation where Christ does not cry mine you know what we're after is a is a Essentially a total conquest where everything is brought under the dominion of Christ and God's Word.

So if you if you allow non-christians to be neutral. What you're allowing them to do is you're you're you're functionally saying God's reign doesn't matter here and that's I. You know if I if I studied history more I think I could you know, I might be able to give historical examples of how this has gone badly like with you know Natural law theory and things like that, but it really does have real-time consequences in people's lives and in the trajectory of nations when They think that there are some areas that you know God that you know, there is no God here.

I mean just look at some of the things being taught in public education. Now, there's a reason we're being taught insane things like Men can menstruate. I mean we got there somehow you know and it's you know, it is because.

No boy, well, they weren't saying it about two years ago, but now they're saying it and you know, all the trans craziness. We got there somehow and it's because I think of evolution. You know, if anything can transform into anything else, well, then men can transform into women.

I mean we transformed into humans from pond to scum pretty much. So it's just time and chance before we can, you know, switch back and forth our genders. So there it has real-time consequences and people's beliefs about themselves social policy science.

So it really isn't just an academic Dispute it's it's a dispute that has you know ideas have consequences.

So now okay, so let's let's kind of make some practical application here. Okay, how is it when you're interacting with an unbeliever or even a believer? What are some clues you look for? To identify when the assumption of autonomy is present.

Now, how do you identify it and recognize it within the context of a conversation with someone? So say for example, let's let's talk with the atheist who says, you know, there's no evidence for God. You know, you guys just believe on blind faith.

What is it that you know, you know how it goes, right? Yeah. What is it that some atheists or some other any unbeliever says that kind of? Hints you to the fact that there is an assumption of autonomy going going on in their reasoning and hence It's important for us as apologists to point that out and exploit that exploit the weakness of that assumption.

Well, actually in just you know, just using that example I can I already can already tell the kind of hostility he has towards God. Justin in that statement I would start out by saying What would count as evidence, you know, if you will, you know from my perspective, you know I think what the Bible teaches is that all of creation every fact every law Reveals God's existence and the atheist comes along and says well.

You know, I don't I don't think there's good evidence for it. It's like okay. Well, what would count as evidence? At that point we're getting immediately into his presuppositions about right, but you know Presuppositions in your worldview affect how you interpret evidence or even what counts as evidence or what counts as a fact in his worldview, so He's kind of already You know showing his cards at that point if he if he asked that if he made that kind of a direct statement sometimes you have to interview on somebody a little more to get them to reveal what their worldview is, but.

But. Yeah, just up front. I would say well, you know, what what counts as evidence in your world, you know. How do you know what's true? How do you know what evidence can prove?

So now I had an interaction with an atheist. I won't mention his name. Private discussion that's that's how a Online apologetics work. You have all this. Yeah, you have the online discussion then you have like the secret private message People.

But here's what here's what he said as we're getting into the topic of the existence of God. Mm-hmm. He says I'm just gonna. He's you know, I told him, you know. Where does he want to start with the topic he wants to discuss and he says I'd like to start with epistemology.

He says quote. Rational belief is a degree of belief that maps to the degree of the relevant evidence. Wouldn't you agree. In other words rational belief is intrinsically gradient for things assessed.

Inductively does that make sense to you.

It makes sense and I I Always try to agree with somebody as much as I can and I. I don't think I would disagree as with what he stated. So far sure. You know induct you can. You can prove truth through induction.

I don't think that that excludes deduction. I don't think it excludes transcendental reasoning. But of course it all depends on how you're defining your terms when you talk.

Exactly exactly. So, um what I Identified there because we're talking about the existence of God I try to anticipate where once I agree with that standard He now wants to press me to that standard as we are applying it to God.

Which I do not apply that standard to God since yeah, we argue for the transcendental necessity of God. And so You know, he writes. Let me say he says belief is not binary when you have a question in front of you You explore the evidence and proportion your degree of belief to the balance of evidence, right?

Well, it depends. Yeah. What you're talking about? Yeah, and at that point I would I would bring in Bonson talked about the Quines book. The web of belief. Sure that that's a fair point, you know, not every belief is exactly the same.

I mean I have he talks about how you know, our beliefs are kind of in the web. There are central presuppositions that you know, they really are binary either God exists or he doesn't. Certain other peripheral questions you like.

What would be a good example. I mean something really peripheral might be something like, you know, you look at your you glance out your window and you think of a bird flew by and. Well, maybe it did maybe it didn't or maybe it was like a you know a toy.

That's a peripheral belief. It doesn't really have in worldview changing impact. You know you could maybe it was maybe it wasn't. So that's a very peripheral belief that you can. You know, you can have that or you cannot have it but something really central like, you know.

Are the laws of logic objective and valid everywhere or does God exist? Questions like that. Well, they really are binary. I mean and depending on what your answer is you can it's going to have enormous impact on the rest of your beliefs.

Sure, so I as I was anticipating that he was going to then apply that standard of God I responded Here's a statement when you have a question in front of you, which I would presume that he's gonna he's about to ask.

He's about to use the idea of the question of God right as to whether he exists or not. He says when you have a question in front of you You explore the evidence in proportion degree of belief to the balance of the evidence, right?

And so I respond this is true with regards to some things. But when we are discussing meta level issues like the existence of God who within my paradigm is the ground of all being It does not apply. Furthermore I assert that the knowledge of God is innate and not presented as a question quote in Front of us to be answered by the use of autonomous reasoning calibrated to the evidence.

My position is that unless the God and he exists categories of reason and conceptions of evidence would be unintelligible. What and what do you think that response?

All right. I think it's fair. I think the only thing you know, I would add it's hard to get into lots of Technical jargon and in Facebook messages and sometimes, you know, just have to leave stuff out.

But one of the things that I I like to point out to atheists is that is not not only does your world view determine? What's evidence and what isn't? You know. Both Van Til and Bonson would talk about how God isn't simply yet another fact in a series of facts, but he's his.

He's the ultimate fact that makes sense of all other facts so. You know all evidence points to God if it's interpreted from you know It was their correct world view and if it's not interpreted from the correct world view you can't prove anything anyway.