Apologetics Live Post Debate Review

Apologetics Live

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

00:37

All right, we are live apologetics live This is going to be a little bit of a different set up if you can't figure it out

00:46

I'm not in my usual location. I hope the audio in all is gonna go well But to let everybody know a little bit different here

00:55

We are if this is working well, and I'll check later. We should be on Facebook Twitter and YouTube all at once so Hopefully that is

01:09

That is going to be working well So let us know if you're watching on any of those so that we know where you're watching and if you can hear us, okay?

01:18

We're gonna be I'm in New York City Trying to get out of this coast.

01:25

I'll be headed out to California for the truth matters conference and Okay, we got thumbs up from Twitter cool.

01:32

So we know someone's there This is gonna be the first time we could do multiple streams, and so I don't know how well it's gonna be working

01:42

We're gonna test it all out. Let me bring Eli in and Hey Eli, how are you?

01:50

I'm doing well good well We're gonna be having a little bit of fun tonight.

01:57

I hope Tonight we're gonna be reviewing a debate that you did on The gospel truth

02:06

Show or network or whatever there they are they do a bunch of debates and so That hopefully is gonna turn out well or that debates already over so that did turn out well

02:18

But we hope that for folks here that enjoy the post debate discussion So Eli real quick.

02:25

Why don't you just introduce your ministry that you work for real quick for folks? No, yeah, well my name

02:32

I have an apologetic ministry called revealed apologetics, which tries to emphasize the presuppositional method

02:40

I think it's the biblical method Taught in Scripture as to how we are to defend the faith

02:45

I work for the historical Bible Society as well And I blog for them and do Facebook videos and things like that so if people follow me on Facebook they'll see me put up little five -minute videos addressing some theological or apologetical issue and That's that's it.

03:02

I work a little bit with Well, I used to I guess I used to answer emails for Matt slick

03:08

But I'm unable to continue that at the moment. But uh, yeah, so I got my hands in a couple of things

03:15

I am in middle school high school teacher at a Christian private school and I teach the Bible classes there and I teach apologetics for the seniors and My interests are obviously systematic theology,

03:28

I like philosophy and I like met issues of methodology so this debate that I just recently did was my first moderated debate and I just had a recent debate with a man by the name of negation of P He goes by that name and that can be found on my podcast revealed apologetics and it can be found on YouTube on my real apologetics

03:54

Page there I was invited by modern -day debates to have that one and I think it went extraordinarily well And so people can really benefit from the presuppositional method in practice

04:02

By giving that one a listen okay, so And folks just let me let me know those in the chat if you can hear me

04:13

Okay, if you could hear Eli, okay, because I don't have my regular setup to be able to check the levels

04:21

So I want to also make sure we could play I'm gonna let me know that I want to play a little bit of the video and See that we will because we're gonna start with your opening the full thing then we're gonna play a clip of His opening and when you tell me to stop we'll stop that and then we have a short clip of the cross

04:47

Examination that we're gonna interact with. So I want to first I'm gonna start with your opening and Folks if anyone wants to join you just go to apologetics live .com

04:58

You'll be able to join us there. And if you want to get in on the discussion

05:04

Let us know what you think of the debate. I hope you all watched it I put it out early and mentioned that you may want to watch it there.

05:11

So I If anybody can't hear the audio when we hit the video, you'll have to let me know

05:18

Because I won't be able to know otherwise Because I don't have my regular setup so So, I don't know how this is gonna work.

05:28

We I actually got here Eli to New York City about 30 minutes before we had to start

05:36

Were you in a hotel or something? No, I'm at I'm at an undisclosed location in New York City I'm At and my in -laws house my sister -in -law's house and they live close to the airport

05:51

So we'll we'll head out to the airport and head out to California a Saturday I'll be out preaching with Ray Comfort on the boardwalk or on the here

06:01

They're hunting to beach at about 11 15 11 30 Sunday will be at church with John MacArthur Like yeah, just a regular

06:11

Sunday um So we'll get to go to Grace Community Church on Sunday Monday.

06:18

I will be doing some Filming there at Living Waters. They got a new project. They're working on and I'll be

06:24

I'll be there for about six hours doing filming They're gonna pepper me. They got about 60 questions for me to rattle through and so I have from 830 in the morning till like 2 or 3 in the afternoon to get through them all and and then

06:39

Tuesday, we'll get a tour of grace to you and After that Wednesday starts the conference

06:45

So we will then be at the conference then I fly up to Redwood City, California.

06:51

That's up in San Francisco area I'll be preaching there at a Grace Baptist Church in Redwood City on on Sunday, and then

07:01

I come home to relax. Yeah, what's the conference about? Truth matters.

07:06

It's about truth that matters Okay 60 questions like that So, yeah,

07:23

I I'll have to see oh by the way, Donald Jacks here was was saying

07:28

I'll put this comment up that he had That I was blaming you for being late, but he knows better.

07:35

Is that true? Was I ready and what was

07:40

I ready at 8 o 'clock or and you were not in here Well, you were you were ready.

07:47

I was ready That's what I said that I was waiting for you and he's of course blaming me.

07:54

All right so let's let's I want to play the opening and Of this if you guys can't hear it then let me know right away because dead air won't be fun

08:05

Actually, were you guys were you able to hear the intro music are you talking to me?

08:11

Yeah, or anybody in chat You did not Okay, so that could become a problem so Wonder what

08:24

I might be able to do to fix that While I'm here real quick, like guess what

08:36

I could do is change my speaker This may not sound as good as we would like But I'm gonna play it off the we might get some echo, but I'm gonna do this and Eli can you still hear me?

08:57

Yes, sir. Yes. Okay. Just check and make sure we might get some feedback Some echo, but I'm gonna try to play it

09:06

Well, let me let me first play Some people Donald Donald Jack says he didn't hear the the intro

09:13

I guess So let me play this and at least it'll play through my microphone. I'll pick it up It'll just we'll have echo.

09:20

So I'll play the intro here To the first I think it's 10 minute was a 10 minute introduction

09:27

So here is let me share screen Where is

09:38

It's great when you know your setup and then you move to a different location, right? All right.

09:45

Here we go. I Wonder if because we're sharing screen if this is gonna work that the sound will work fine, but Let's hit play.

09:59

Of course. Now I hear nothing Now he's back it up tell me if you are you hearing that Eli I Can't hear the video

10:12

Okay All right, let me pull this out all together now, we'll hear

10:27

So here's here is Eli's opening statement and I'd like to define the terms of this debate as I see it does

10:38

God exist and for me as a Christian theist I deny the existence of any other God other than the

10:44

Christian one And so I'm gonna be defending typically Christian theism today where I do not believe that any non -christian be coherent and not without detrimental philosophical problems once the details of these competing deities and or worldviews are fleshed out and I do not find the non -christian worldview systems to be rationally defensible as I find them unable to provide the necessary preconditions for intelligible experience and By way of kind of a quick summation

11:08

I do not find non -christian worldview system to be defensible and that they either have internal inconsistency problems or if we grant their hypothetical truth such systems can

11:18

Be shown to undermine human reason and experience now to the nature of the debate as I understand it

11:24

We need to be very careful since when we're engaging in debates over the question of God's existence

11:29

There is all too often the naive assumption that we can proceed in a tit -for -tat back -and -forth discussion

11:34

Over individual pieces of data facts or evidence when in reality this debate is not an issue of facts absent of a worldview context the debate between the

11:43

Christian and the Skeptic or the Christian in any other form of the non -christian position is really a debate over worldview systems

11:49

And so if my opponent desires to discuss any particular point I will politely remind him that any particular point of contention will only and can only have meaning and coherency

11:59

Within a broader worldview context I do not believe that we can discuss any particular fact in some sort of Neutral worldview independent passion and since my worldview foundation is in diametric opposition to any non -christian foundation

12:11

I'm gonna take issue with the interpretation of any particular point of contention Taken on its own for since we both will be operating from different worldview perspectives different paradigms

12:20

If you will it becomes foundational to this debate as to which position has A worldview context out of which the intelligibility and coherency of any fact is possible

12:29

So in quick summary, this debate is not over evidence per se Although I believe that my position has both evidence and a worldview context in which something like evidence even makes sense

12:39

But rather our debate is one over competing worldviews We're debating competing systems of thought and I having a

12:46

Christian worldview and Chris having a non -christian worldview now there may be a temptation from the skeptical perspective to suggest that since they're taking the negative position that there is therefore no

12:55

Requirement to put forth a defense but rather the task is merely to evaluate the validity of the Christians position

13:01

I'd like to point out that while I am happy to Admit that I am taking the the positive position and making the positive assertion that the

13:11

Christian God exists I would also point out that Every non -christian perspective has explicit or implicit positive assertions of the falsehood of the

13:20

Christian worldview For instance if the skeptics position is to suggest that they do not know if the Christian God exists

13:26

This itself is implying the Christian worldview is false Since an important assertion of the

13:31

Christian worldview is that in a very profound sense all men know that God exists Now the skeptic is free to reject this idea of all men knowing

13:38

God in some sense, which I would imagine Chris would But by rejecting this

13:44

Christian proposition He is saying in essence that the Christian worldview is false And if this is his position then we will need to engage in some intellectual sparring over worldviews or again if the skeptic wants to take the tact of discussing particular facts that are neutral or he wants to take the tact that it is

13:58

Even possible or even appropriate to come to these issues in a neutral fashion He again would be implying the falsehood of the

14:04

Christian worldview, which teaches that there is in fact No neutrality or on the Christian worldview. Every fact has its meaning in the ultimate definer of fact, which is

14:12

God himself So every fact is what it is because God has created these facts to be what they are

14:17

And hence if someone defines a fact that is contrary to how God has sovereignly defined that fact Then I would argue that the person redefining that fact contrary to God's definition is wrong and does not understand that fact truly so in essence my point here is that no fact is

14:33

The nature of this debate is not over piecemeal issues, but rather over worldview systems which themselves give particular facts their meaning

14:40

But the question then becomes whose worldview can provide the necessary preconditions for intelligible experience for this

14:45

I now turn to the nature of my particular argumentation So as I have elucidated thus far the nature of this debate

14:53

Is that a worldview against worldview principle against principle system against system having competing systems or worldview perspectives?

15:02

Are we relegated to a standstill unable to push the debate any further since whatever fact the skeptic brings?

15:07

I'm gonna interpret in light of my worldview and every fact that I bring he's gonna interpret in light of his well I don't think that this is the situation that we're just at an immovable standstill

15:15

I think we can break this apparent standstill by demonstrating the truth of one's perspective Transcendentally, so the nature of my argument for God's existence is transcendental in nature for those who may be listening

15:26

What do I mean when I speak of transcendental arguments? Well, when we speak of transcendental arguments, we are in essence asking what are the pre conditions?

15:35

That is to say what must be the case in order for something else to be the case An easier way to understand this would be something to the effect like I'm standing on the floor in my house, you know

15:45

For instance It's for my being able to stand up in my living room Well among other things the beams upon which my house is built

15:53

Need to be under the floor holding everything up if the beams aren't there then I wouldn't be standing but here

15:58

I am standing up So the beams need to be there So that's just a simple example to kind of get the idea of transcendental

16:04

Argumentation asks what must be the case in order for something else to be the case if we use the examples of the laws of You need to understand that Transcendentals are proven by the impossibility of the contrary

16:16

So suppose someone rejected the laws of logic the transcendental necessity of the laws of logic are clearly seen and that even in denying them

16:24

One needs to presuppose them in order to deny them in other words the transcendental necessity of the laws of logic are

16:30

Demonstrated by the impossibility of the contrary deny them and you demonstrate their existence in your very denial since your denial necessarily

16:37

Presupposes them in like fashion my argument is proof of the existence of the God of Christianity is that Exists one could not prove anything at all

16:46

If one denies the Christian theistic worldview, I would argue that such a denial would reduce the non -christians perspective to absurdity

16:52

Now again, the temptation will be to suggest that my argument is merely an assertion But to think such fails to recognize the nature of my argument and the nature of transcendental arguments in general

17:02

Remember the transcendental Argument for God's existence is an argument and it is my job in this debate to make good on my argument

17:10

And I'm gonna try my best to do so so what is required of my opponent today if my argument is

17:15

That the proof for the truth of the Christian worldview is that if it were not true one could not prove anything at all

17:21

What my opponent must do is to lay out his own worldview and demonstrate that given the truth of his own worldview outlook

17:26

He can save knowledge science logic meaningful history Rationality induction and in essence intelligibility and given the very nature of my argumentation

17:36

Chris is not relegated to merely stating his lack of belief if that's his position again I will let him speak for himself and only responding to why he thinks my view is insufficient

17:45

The very nature of my argument requires the responder to show his hand and lay out his own perspective worldview and engage system versus system

17:53

In essence what ground is Chris standing on what is his worldview foundation and is that foundation coherent and consistent and does it provide the

18:01

Necessary preconditions for intelligible experience. What is his worldview? What does he believe about the nature of reality?

18:07

What does he believe about how knowledge is gained? What does he believe about of our lives and in about these things consistent with each other?

18:15

What becomes especially interesting is what is his epistemology? How will he address these issues? He could go the rationalist route everything that's true must be coherent.

18:23

But how does he avoid the traditional problems with rationalism? He can go the empirical route We sent knowledge comes through sense perception and experience

18:30

But how does he answer the issues that are inherent within empiricism or he can combine the two and go the way of Kant?

18:36

But then that perspective I would argue has its own problems again. I don't want to speak for Chris So we're gonna wait and see what he has to say and from there engaged in Worldview interaction, but for now,

18:47

I think this is sufficient to lay out the issues at hand. And so for now I can see my time All right, so that was your opening

18:58

Let's go through your opening and because you put a lot into that and Of course, there's someone in chat who is saying that you shifted the burden of proof

19:08

I don't know I don't know if that's someone who is a professing atheist and therefore they're upset if you shifted the burden of proof which is what they like to do, but But yeah

19:20

So let's let's work through your opening bit by bit for folks And if anyone wants to join in and engage with the the debate

19:29

Post debate discussion give your thoughts We'd be happy to engage with that.

19:34

So You can go to the to apologetics live comm. There's a link to join there. So although we may have found

19:42

Eli was finding he upgraded his iPad and The upgrade may not be the new iOS version may not be the best for For joining.

19:51

I don't know but but yeah, so let's let's walk through it. I you know walk through why you You laid out your opening argument the way you did

20:01

Mm -hmm. Well, I really wanted to avoid the skeptic hiding his position and so when the skeptic hide their position it becomes very difficult to actually debate both sides of the coin since When a skeptic successfully hides their position, then it's only your position

20:20

That's being attacked and the other person's position is hiding safely away and so the nature of the transcendental argument is that it forces the

20:29

Skeptic to actually show his hand that in other words You can't respond to the transcendental art

20:36

Unless you show your hand since the claim of a transcendental argument Is that the truth for the of the proof of the

20:42

Christian the truth of the Christian worldview is that if it were not True, you could prove anything at all. Well, how could you answer that argument?

20:50

Well, you're gonna have to lay out your worldview and show that you can have a foundation for proof given your own principles

20:55

That's the very nature of the argument. So It's not shifting a burden of proof rather.

21:01

It's showing that in in a worldview versus worldview situation Everyone has a burden of proof and so I laid it out in that way

21:13

So that it was set up at the beginning that he would not just sit there and disagree with everything

21:19

I'm saying but not actually Put forth his own case since since what what was

21:24

I arguing for? Which world do you provide the preconditions for knowledge which world you make sense out of the debate?

21:29

We're about to have and so I follow very closely Greg Bonson structure and then added my own twist and emphasis towards the middle and end parts of My opening statement, but I really like in Greg Bonson's debate with Gordon Stein how he laid out the issues

21:44

You know, it's an issue the world view an issue of in Interpretive grids.

21:50

We're not just talking about neutral facts facts are interpreted in light of worldview perspectives, and I think a lot of people

21:57

Miss that they just assume that we can just argue about individual facts and it doesn't really matter because we kind of just generally agree that these

22:05

Specific things are what they are and we can interpret them in various ways I Wanted to highlight that you have to not be neutral in these kinds of discussions

22:16

And so that's the reason why I structured the opening statement the way that I did All right

22:23

So I mean the thing I think the thing that I usually find with this Topic right?

22:28

The topic was does God exist? and Typically what

22:35

I find is someone that professes to be an atheist or agnostic as you said, they usually don't give you their position which

22:43

Chris actually did It made it very good, yeah

22:52

But typically what they want to do is just kind of sit back avoid and just say oh you have the burden of proof you

22:59

Have the the way they'll do it and say well, I'm not a I'm I can't prove a negative Right, and so they put the burden of proof on you which in this case technically

23:10

Yes, you did have the burden of proof because you're taking the affirmative right, and I think

23:19

The that was wrong about the person I said maybe an atheist he says not an atheist just a fan of logic

23:26

But I think what you did was, you know by by laying it out. The real question is

23:32

He's gonna make an argument that God doesn't exist or to his best to his knowledge. At least God doesn't exist and yet really

23:41

The case you're making is well to even make that claim requires Immaterial transcendental things to have this discussion in the first place

23:53

Which is the burden he I think he does have when he denies God to have to say, okay How can you have these transcendentals which is why

24:01

I think you went that way for some people that may not understand that maybe Transcendentals are a little bit of a new topic for some folks

24:08

Maybe we should spend a little bit of time and folks if you want to join by the way You just go to apologetics live .com

24:13

and you can join in the discussion. You can ask questions You can give some challenges and then later on if you have

24:20

If you have open any other questions after we get done with post debate you we can discuss those as well, so just go to apologetics live .com

24:28

to join us and Either engage in this conversation or ask us any questions that you have

24:34

So let's get into transcendentals first off what I'd like you to do in since you're not having as much of a 10 minute time window here

24:43

We have a little bit more time. Can you explain for folks? What a transcendental is and then why is that so so important in this discussion?

24:55

Right one. Well instead of just talking about transcendentals in isolation. I want to talk about Transcendentals in the context of an argument.

25:04

What is a transcendental argument? Because it's a unique argument and and as one of the commenters

25:11

Was suggesting that I was shifting the burden of proof. I wasn't I welcome the burden of proof but I don't want to pretend as though I'm the only one with a burden because we are

25:21

Doing worldview versus worldview and I'm arguing that my worldview is the necessary pre provide the necessary Preconditions for intelligible experience so if the if the unbeliever disagrees with that then the very nature of the argument is that they actually

25:40

Provide a foundation for their own worldview. All right, because that is the nature of my argument.

25:45

Okay, so Just throwing that out there now transcendental arguments ask.

25:50

What are the preconditions for something? In in the case of my opening statement, what are the preconditions for intelligence to experience?

25:59

What are the preconditions for knowledge? What must be true in order for knowledge to be possible and That question really is challenging whether one's worldview grid is

26:12

Coherent in the first place to even offer an argument in favor of something or against something, right?

26:19

so if the worldview is unable to hold itself up and that person has no foundation because they are working through a

26:27

Defective grid so to speak a defective paradigm, right? So transcendental arguments ask, what are the preconditions?

26:33

What must be true in order for knowledge to be possible intelligibility to be possible science to be possible?

26:39

coherency of history to be possible and I would argue that Atheism doesn't have it atheism does not have a leg to stand on if we grant the truth of a theism

26:48

Regardless of what manifestation of atheism one wants to hold if someone wants to qualify and say well not all atheists believe the same thing

26:54

Granted any atheistic perspective I would argue lacks the preconditions for intelligible experience now in my opening statement

27:02

That I highlighted the point that that is not a mere claim. I'm not just saying atheism cannot

27:08

I am willing to interact and show that my worldview can provide the preconditions and the nature of my argument is that it requires the atheist to show that he can provide the necessary preconditions and From the debate if you watch the debate he holds to An atheistic perspective.

27:28

He's a pragmatist in regards to knowledge and even admits given his own perspective That we can't know objective truth.

27:35

And so right right. There you go I know he knows a bunch of things but given the truth of his own perspective

27:40

He can't know the things that he says he knows and there lies the inconsistency yeah, and I think one of the things that I notice with debates like this is

27:53

You first have to have common ground. You're gonna try to say, okay, we're gonna discuss whether God exists we you have the burden of proof to prove

28:01

God exists and I'm gonna argue as I did in the debate that we'll do a review of when

28:07

I get back from, California I argue that immaterial entities any immaterial entities cannot be a product of of pure chemical reaction therefore they require an immaterial source a

28:21

Transcendental would be an immaterial entity and so the issue is you need to have a you need to have some common ground in the debate.

28:32

Otherwise you talk past each other and Which happened more in my debate on the gospel truth channel than yours

28:41

Banjo real real quick Common ground is not neutral. Correct Right, yeah, why don't you explain the explain the difference between Neutral ground is and then

28:54

I'll explain why I said common ground. Yeah. Well when we talk about Reality, we could look at a fact in a neutral fashion and then go from there

29:03

It almost presupposes the reality of brute facts kind of these Uninterpreted facts.

29:08

They just are they just Self and Cornelius Van Til who is really the father of presuppositional apologetics

29:16

He said in regards to brute facts brute facts are mute facts facts don't speak

29:21

Right in order to understand the fact that needs to be interpreted within a worldview System, right?

29:27

And so we do not speak about individual facts as though they could be understood Independent of a world view.

29:34

So that's why I don't discuss the resurrection in isolation I don't

29:40

I don't discuss miracles in isolation miracles resurrection thoughts of science or whatever are always and only can be discussed within a framework and so I want to highlight that I have a

29:53

Christian framework and therefore I can make sense out of these things if you have a Non -christian framework say in a mystic framework

29:59

I would argue that given that framework the things you think you know about those specific facts

30:04

You don't know if your framework is true. If atheism is true, then you can't know the things you think, you know, and not a claim

30:12

That's the challenge. That's the transcendental challenge prove me wrong by putting forth an atheistic metaphysic epistemology ethic a coherent system and then make sense out of Individual facts and I would argue it can't be done alright, and so the reason that I said common ground is because I'm not trying to I'm not arguing that That we have a neutral position that we can get to but in in having a any kind of debate we have to have some common way of saying how we're gonna argue in other words a lot of Times you get into these debates what you hear from people is they're gonna say well

30:58

I want you to prove that God exists using science right and and right there we're gonna have a category error because Science is the study of the material world

31:12

God is not material. He's immaterial Therefore using science can never get you to be able to prove

31:19

God Which is why I think they like to do that They like to do that because it automatically puts them in in kind of a winning position now the flip side

31:29

You you try to use science to prove something like George Washington was the first president

31:38

You can't do that from the scientific method why

31:44

Because we can't produce that reproduce that or observe that You'd use history, right?

31:50

So that's a different branch of study From science, so they always want to appeal to what you have to use science the scientific method and yet What we end up seeing is the scientific method never seems to be

32:05

Challenged in the fact that you can't use that for studying a whole lot of things Definitely can't use that for the study of the immaterial world

32:14

Yeah, and I think Science when you say prove to me scientifically again. Now you're now you're laying out your epistemology.

32:21

So do you think You know, do you think all knowledge comes to scientific proof if you believe all knowledge comes through scientific proof you're laying out your epistemology

32:29

But that epistemology does not provide the preconditions of intelligibility because given the truth of epistemology

32:35

It's false. If it's true, it's false. If all knowledge comes through scientific proof Which scientific proof did you use to demonstrate that all knowledge comes through scientific proof?

32:43

It's it's literally contradictory and the word proof should not be in the same sentence as science and science is not a proofing

32:51

Discipline. It is a pragmatic discipline as show the atheist cosmologist Sean Carroll said that science doesn't give us truth

32:58

It gives us theory that work right when people say science is always changing and new information is coming in that presupposes that whatever conclusion you already came to was not necessarily true because more information

33:11

You can fix it and and and rearrange your theory and then posit something else. So and that's not a bad thing

33:17

That's that's a good thing about science I understand that but you can't give science the role that it can not

33:23

Hold namely getting to absolute truth Science itself presupposes a worldview context in which the very method itself makes sense and I would argue

33:34

You that in an atheistic worldview I mean if you want science to be your epistemology within an atheistic worldview

33:40

I would say that that itself is inconsistent given the principles of atheism regardless of what kind of a ism you want to hold to You know,

33:48

I really enjoyed what we once had on this channel on this show Someone came in and was challenging

33:55

Matt Slick on on this and he said all things Everything can be proven by science by the scientific method and Matt just sat there and just with all seriousness said

34:06

Can you prove that statement using the scientific method? And the guy just didn't even tell for mentally possible.

34:13

Hey, well, he missed it He totally didn't realize that Matt saying okay, but you know this to be true and the guys like yes, okay

34:20

Prove that using the scientific method and the guys like we wouldn't use science to prove that he said

34:27

But you said you could prove everything by this Like the guy didn't even recognize that when you say

34:34

Everything can be proven by scientific method that includes that statement itself and It just like right right over his head

34:43

Right and I and I would argue that you can't prove anything Scientifically the science is not involved with proving in the sense of absolutely you can come to conclusions

34:55

I'm sorry, so science disproves science doesn't prove Right you you can right you can you

35:03

Go ahead No, but you can use science so you get a hypothesis you come out with a hypothesis.

35:11

Here's what The science would say With or assume and then you use science to attempt to prove the hypothesis wrong

35:22

Now if you can't it's assumed to be true right now. There's certain and that's simplifying it very much

35:30

But Eli dropped out Don't know what just happened to Eli. We'll see if he can come back in That's Always good.

35:42

I like the technology when it works. Here's Eli We're waiting for him to come back in There you go.

35:52

Now. He's coming in slowly. There we are. Sorry. So I lost you there. Sorry about that Now I got to get the car.

35:58

Here we go. So there's Jay Jay Harry who was the guy saying he's a lover of logic. I Agree with Eli on this point.

36:05

So there you go He was disagreeing with or saying you had the burden of proof or you're shifting proof, but now he agrees with you

36:10

So that's good. So Before you drop that. Oh, we're talking about science improving.

36:16

So so go with that. Go ahead with what you were saying Well, I was saying that science doesn't engage in proof in the sense of getting us to an absolute certainty about anything

36:27

It's pragmatic. So you deal with theories that that work if you say prove to me

36:33

Scientifically and you're saying that you know by proof you mean getting to certainty then you're you're you're using science in an inappropriate way

36:40

And I think smart atheists understand that atheists who do science understand science is not getting you to certainty

36:47

And that's why theories can change new information comes in And science is something that is in constant flux and that is not a detriment to science

36:56

That's a that's good If you understand science in the proper sense as a pragmatic discipline, not so much a knowledge a certain knowledge gaining discipline and you know for Let's get into and we're gonna play

37:10

Chris's opening in a bit and y 'all tell me when to stop but because I know there's some things you want to interact with it, but This is the first time you're doing a formal debate

37:22

There was some prep work you did I want for folks who maybe have never done a debate last week we had a debate here on apologetics live with a

37:34

Baptist and a Lutheran and The Lutheran Rob had never done a debate before And so they're the first time doing a debate can be a little bit nerve -wracking

37:49

Let's talk about some of your prep for this and what you were hoping to achieve with your opening before we go to his opening yeah, um,

38:00

I Don't know. I don't know how other people prep I know a lot of people read or listen to stuff

38:06

I'm a audio learner and so I listen through list I learned through listening and I learned through discussion.

38:14

So I actually had a lot of help from Matt yester. I know you you know Who he is? Now you can do it

38:20

Matt. Yes there. Yeah, so, you know who Matt yester is and we talk on the phone. Oh Cool, so we we talked for hours on the phone and we pick apart

38:29

You know how to critique different perspectives and things like that and he's helped me immensely I I learned through discussion and debate with folks who already agree with me and so we kind of role play and That's really the way

38:44

I kind of prep. I also did listen to some of his his videos and things like that To see what you know if I can find something and he was a little difficult

38:54

I didn't I didn't know where to look in terms of finding the things I knew I wanted to bring out of the bait um

39:01

Unlike the guy that I just recently debated. He actually had a the guy negation of P He had a critique on YouTube of presuppositional apologetics

39:09

And so that was helpful because it dealt directly with the perspective I was coming from but sometimes, you know

39:15

The people you're debating might not have something that addresses specifically what you're looking for and so you just need to listen to see if you can kind of glean and then

39:23

Take some of those ideas and throw them into the you know Into the mix with someone who can role play with you and kind of figure how might

39:31

I answer this? How do I address this? I had a discussion with the Atheist youtuber

39:37

Tom jump and Tom jump really was an inspiration for me

39:43

Setting up my my opening statement the way that I did because jump is very elusive now.

39:49

He's a nice guy I mean, we had a great discussion, but he's elusive in the sense that he doesn't often take his own position out, right?

39:56

He will have these Hypothetical positions that he would posit as well. What about this? What about that and it can be very difficult to pin down and so when after my discussion with him

40:05

I wanted to avoid Person with which I with whom I'd be debating.

40:10

I wanted I wanted to avoid the This issue of hiding one's perspective so I framed my opening statement so that the only way to Respond to my argument was that you showed your hand in other words if you didn't show your hand if you didn't tell me your worldview you're not addressing my argument because my argument the only way to Respond to the argument is that you present your worldview.

40:33

That's why that's why the argument goes like this The the proof for the truth of the

40:38

Christian worldview is that if it were not true You couldn't prove anything at all. Now the atheist like well, that's ridiculous.

40:45

All right, great now Understand that is not a mere assertion. It is an argument.

40:51

It's a challenge I'm saying that my worldview provides the necessary preconditions for intelligible experience

40:56

You don't agree with me then show me that your world you can provide the necessary preconditions for intelligibility See, so the only way you could answer it is to lay out your worldview and show how your world you can provide the preconditions for intelligibility, right so the very nature of The argument forces the the unbeliever to actually show their hand and that's a good thing

41:16

It's not a sneaky Technique to shift the burden of proof. It's it's a good thing because then both views are out in the open

41:25

There's no hiding and we can compare both worldview side by side to actually address which one actually accords with reality and so that's the reason why

41:34

I set up the Opening statement the way that I did and when I was preparing for that. Those were the kinds of issues

41:40

I discussed with Matt and other people as I was prepping So There was someone that had a comment in here from Twitter that said

41:52

Christianity is so obvious Does not even need apologies. I think someone may not understand what the word apologetics means

42:01

So let's let's address that Apologetics doesn't mean to make an apology for Christianity.

42:08

It is a defense of the faith That's that's what a Apologetics in the in the

42:16

Greek means when we we see that epilogue, uh, it is the idea of Oh, oh, they're now saying

42:25

I mean apologetics but it doesn't I I'll say that it does need we do need to be able to To defend the faith to be able to defend what we say and I think that's that's

42:39

I mean, that's what this whole show is about right we come in we take challenges and we give a defense of the

42:45

Christian faith, so They were trying to be funny

42:52

Okay. Well because people do come from that perspective like Christianity is obvious. We don't need to defend and Whereas this person is probably joking.

43:00

There are people who who are not joking and think that's the case, right? And we got to be careful when we say that Christianity does not need you know

43:08

We don't need to engage in apologetics Then you're actually refuting yourself since Christianity teaches that we are to engage in apologetics, right?

43:16

So you don't want to refute your own your own position. That's why when we talk about worldviews We're defending the world one of the prerequisites for defending your worldview is actually understanding the tenets of your worldview

43:27

Which include the biblical mandate to always be ready to give a reason for the hope that's in you And as Jude chapter 1 verse 3 says that we are to contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered

43:38

All right, so you want to eat should we go to his opening? Sure. Okay.

43:43

So just you just let me know Where's a good stopping point here?

43:50

Now clearly right before you even get started, right? Clearly you could see that he is a gamer

43:57

Why are all these why are all these guys that want to debate? Why are they all like gamers now, by the way in his opening?

44:03

I think it was in his opening or when he introduced himself He admits that this is what he does full -time is his his

44:10

YouTube streaming of his gaming and stuff I I'm still trying to figure out how you make a living at playing games and having others watch you

44:22

I know there's some people that made millions of dollars at it but I Don't know.

44:27

It just it looks like he may be in mom's basement Just say it like it's like you look at his room everything is is like from childhood

44:37

It's just like I was what I feel like this. Well, don't poison the well, don't poison the well

44:43

And we don't want to commit the genetic fallacy that because no Argument I'm not saying his argument is really nice guy.

44:51

We had a Okay. All right. I'm just saying what is it about? Hey in his defense in his defense ready?

44:58

Okay, I'm gonna get personal here. You see you see I'm wearing a nice collared shirt ready? Boom. I'm wearing my pajamas

45:11

People might think like oh how proper he looks he's so well -spoken I'm wearing look at these things and you can just get the cat get the the screen there.

45:19

These are Christmas trees So we don't want to judge someone by appearance because then

45:25

I would yeah no, I Mad all the time because he wears that what's that stupid

45:31

TV show that everyone watch it Walking Dead. He wears a Walking Dead sweats He'll have a nice shirt on and then he stands up and walks around.

45:39

It's like, okay, you got a nice shirt now But but the point I was just saying is like I don't know what it is about people that want to debate

45:47

Christian I was just on Schuyler fictions Show and I'll tell you son his audience is gotta be

45:56

One of out of all the shows I go on That's got to be his audience is like as soon as I come in and it's like Oh Christian Automatically, I'm lying.

46:06

I mean it was iron the irony. We're talking about Islam okay on an atheist show an

46:12

Atheist and a Christian are both agreeing about things on Islam But I'm the one creating straw man arguments and line and I'm like, right well, but yeah, he just said the same thing

46:23

Yeah, I was on Schuyler's show once and I found him to be very disingenuous

46:31

I answered his questions. He interrupted me and I was eventually we got into a good a good amount of content

46:38

But eventually he kept interrupting me and I said, you know what? I think we're done here because you're not gonna let me talk

46:43

And so once I stepped off he did an after show and was saying how I couldn't answer his questions

46:49

I was scared and blah blah blah. So it was very disingenuous. So I do try to avoid those those sorts, but Jay, Harry is is busting on me saying there's

46:58

Christian gamers. Not all gamers are atheists. Come on I know I'm a gamer before we just had this show.

47:04

I was playing my Nintendo switch you guys gotta grow up, but But see there is a difference about a guy.

47:11

I mean when you look at the background here, I mean, you know It's just everything is I don't know.

47:16

It just to me. It looks like childhood I thought it was cool.

47:22

I he was a really nice guy. I like that I thought he was a nice guy And I will admit

47:27

I see his chair behind him and I'm like I got to get me one of those chairs I Keep using these air of these.

47:37

I keep using these I want to get those headphones I keep using these air pods and the battery keeps dying So I need to get something that plugs into the sides lucky.

47:44

I don't have that problem Yeah, no he I would I was at Costco and I sat in one of those gamer chairs man 600 bucks, but he was comfortable

47:56

You got 600 bucks So but all right, let's let's play this clip from him and And see what his opening was very brief argues that what is useful

48:15

Is ultimately what we end up working with As a result if we're looking at science pragmatism would argue that for the purposes of science we would use instrumentalism which is the view that concepts and theories are

48:25

Useful instruments and progress of science cannot be couched in terms of concepts and theories somehow mirroring reality

48:33

They have to work on an instrumental basis and are used for the purposes for the amount of time that they are required there

48:39

When it comes to things like metaphysics Some pragmatists like John like John Dewey were empirical thinkers

48:47

So it really depends on what you get there on where pragmatism has issues. Is that it is sometimes

48:54

What's the best word for it? Sometimes it works against itself But also pragmatism was literally built on three people not agreeing to each other about what pragmatism

49:04

Yeah, I would stop in there right there as well. Yeah That surprised me that he admits that because the whole point of my argument is to show which worldview provides the preconditions for Intelligibility and he admits right at the beginning that pragmatism works against itself

49:22

And you'll see if you watch the rest of the debate It does work against itself because on the one hand we can't know objective truth

49:29

We only use what's useful and then he continues to make objective truth claims, which is the internal inconsistency there

49:36

Yeah, I mean once once you're gonna try to argue for a system and and say one system is better than the other and can be used to prove the others wrong and Then you say that the system within itself destroys itself

49:53

Or does it always work? Then you can't use that. You know, the argument just collapses on itself and I was actually

50:04

I mean, this is pretty early in his opening I was actually shocked when I heard him say that and and I want to give credit to Chris because most guys that hold to his position would never admit that and He does a lot of debate.

50:19

So maybe that he has been it's been pointed out and Because it's been pointed out over and over again.

50:25

He doesn't want to He just doesn't want to go in and address that But I was

50:33

I was Pleasantly surprised that he admitted it and and then I think that also helps to set the tone of the cross -examination because all of a sudden now you don't have to try to Prove that because he's already admitted it and and that just like prior for like, you know, okay in your cross -examination

50:51

You probably had all these notes that went. Okay. We'll just push those to the side Because he didn't need them anymore

50:57

You know, right it's no longer an issue because He's already accepted an argument you wanted to prove

51:03

Right and for those who are looking or are listening to this episode here to get tips on doing a politics

51:09

That that's a helpful tip once someone admits Inconsistency then your job always is just to bring them back to that inconsistency every time they are, you know

51:21

They're making a you know, for example, there's a point in the debate in the cross -examination Which will go over where I ask him, you know in your world you can you have objective truth?

51:29

He eventually admits that you can't and so what's my job? My job is not to memorize 50 ,000 other arguments or whatever

51:35

I want to relentlessly make him can be consistent with his worldview

51:40

If your worldview says we can't know Objective truth then we need to point out every single time someone makes an objective truth claim because that's a problem.

51:48

That's Contradictory in other words, it's to say that given the truth of your worldview

51:54

Hey, your epistemology says we can't know objective reality We don't have the preconditions for intelligibility right or knowledge.

52:02

You can't make knowledge claims So he was his view proved my point that his world

52:08

We didn't have the preconditions and that's and my job throughout the debate was just to point those things out every time he would make

52:13

Statements. So just from an apologetics, you know Strategic perspective you want to look for inconsistencies and then pound those inconsistencies

52:23

With gentleness and respect pound them to powder. Don't let that person You know

52:29

Get away from that now if he wants to back up and correct his position or maybe clarify fine

52:34

But once you see those inconsistencies, then you go straight for the jugular because that's where the root of the problem is for the unbeliever

52:41

Yeah All right, let's let's play a little bit more of of this with him

52:56

Inconsistencies are inherent to the inner bakings of pragmatism and I don't see a problem with that as long as it gets the job done

53:01

It's useful Okay, so the

53:10

Inconsistencies are part of the inner bakings of pragmatism That's not but that's not the issue that may want to stop but that's okay in other words if Inconsistencies is useful then use them.

53:25

I'm sorry, but a worldview that says inconsistencies are okay is

53:31

Proving my point. You don't have the preconditions for intelligibility and that is irrational

53:36

I mean that respectfully towards Chris's position It's irrational and contradictory and this is precisely what the

53:42

Bible says in regards to the wisdom of man Pragmatism is just one manifestation of the many options that men have concocted and that's why the

53:52

Bible says the fool Says in his heart there is no God that's not name -calling. It's not making fun of someone

53:58

It's really just pointing out the folly of a position that has nowhere to plant its feet

54:03

And that's why as Christians we want to stand firmly and uncompromisingly upon the firm bedrock of the

54:10

Christian world They are given to us in Scripture because we want to be faithful to Jesus in our apologetic

54:16

We don't want to defend the honor of our Lord Jesus by arguing upon a foundation that moves away from The foundation that Jesus has has provided for us in Scripture.

54:27

And so this is an issue of consistency Don't be ashamed that you're a Christian Don't be ashamed that you're standing on the

54:33

Bible stand on the Bible because it's the very wisdom of God Stand off the Bible step off the

54:38

Bible step up that worldview and you're gonna be relegated to adopting some form of man -centered philosophy

54:43

Which pragmatism is just one manifestation of and obviously a logically absurd yeah,

54:50

I mean I I Think that the position once he says It's okay

54:58

Because it gets me to what I want Right. There is the the realization that what he's doing is begging the question

55:08

You know, yes, and he he's he's doing it by confirmation like confirmation bias because he's gonna say it works

55:15

To get the conclusion I want and as long as I conclusion I want comes out.

55:21

Hey, it's okay And the assumption is the assumption is that it must be it has to be that way because there is no way to Access objective truth.

55:32

So he has to take that position because he's committed to the assumption that whatever is objectively true out there

55:38

I have no access to it and then he will point out but neither do you he makes that statement later

55:43

Everyone has no access everyone's in the same dilemma. Now, how does he know this? Again his epistemology doesn't give him the proper equipment even though that is the case and that's the problem.

55:54

It's just contradictory left and right Yeah. All right. Should we play a little bit more of him? Sure. All right it's moving on to My position on God, so if we're talking philosophical

56:12

Philosophically speaking then I have to label myself like an agnostic I don't have a choice if we're talking colloquially then

56:18

I'm perfectly fine labeling myself an atheist under say the lack of belief position anything like that But again, it depends on which side of the coin we are arguing for hard philosophical definitions

56:29

Or if we are arguing for more colloquial or as I would say useful definitions Okay, so here's here was the thing

56:37

I had with this. He says we're more useful definitions but How does he define useful and My guess is useful is defined by if it works to the conclusion that I want

56:53

Right, so I'll change the definition if I need to because you and I have experienced this with people that profess to be atheist

56:59

They just change the definition of atheist right instead of taking a position. There is no

57:04

God They realize they have to defend that so they just say that they lack a belief in God and therefore they should don't have to Defend anything because they're just lacking the belief.

57:14

Well, well that doesn't help when you're arguing with a Christian Since if you're going to try and take a position to alleviate the burden of proof

57:24

You don't succeed when saying I lack belief to a Christian Because to say

57:30

I lack a belief is to implicitly say the Christian world views false and that's a knowledge claim

57:36

I want to bring out because the Bible says all men know that God exists such that they are without excuse now

57:43

He doesn't have to affirm that he can say well, I think that's ridiculous You can think it's ridiculous But the fact that you say you lack belief is actually an implicit contradiction of the

57:54

Christian perspective And since you're debating a Christian we need to talk about that And so show me that the claims to knowledge that you have

58:02

You can do it within your system and you're not you're not having to borrow from the

58:07

Christian system because The fact is you need to borrow from the Christian position

58:13

Which means you can't have knowledge without the Christian God, of course, there needs to be more hashed out there but that's along the lines of where I would kind of Touch the nerve so to speak.

58:24

So Jay Harry from From YouTube it says this to you like Eli knows his stuff.

58:30

I saw him on MDD the other night I might not agree with everything but nice job

58:36

So it's always good to have someone that doesn't agree with you saying that you do a good job

58:43

Thank you. So let's let's return to our friend here Whichever one you want to use perfectly fine with me.

58:53

I go into the atheist. I'm accepting the laws of logic Because it is through laws like that like the law of non -contradiction

59:00

That I start to have issue with the way God is presented at least in the standard Christian worldview

59:06

Insofar as the term standard Christian worldview even has a coherent meaning just as there is no atheist worldview

59:13

There is no agnostic worldview I would argue that there are at least 40 ,000 Christian worldviews and probably more depending on how many individuals there

59:22

I was waiting for him to finish that sentence because I was gonna get into that. But yeah, yeah

59:27

There's no you know, if you want to come if you want to comment on the amount of Christian worldviews

59:32

He he just mentioned there. I actually wanted to comment briefly on this a notion that atheism is not a worldview.

59:39

Yeah The fact okay, let's let's deal with a couple things. There's three things that I saw there one

59:45

He claims that atheism is not a worldview, but he admits that there's different views of atheism

59:51

We would might say different worldviews, but then he applies the worldview to religion and says that there's 40 ,000 of them

01:00:00

Making it sound like well, there's way more than there are views of atheism. I Think that we would we could probably show there's plenty more views of atheism than just atheism and agnosticism but let's first start with the first premise is

01:00:20

Atheism a worldview because this is what so many professing atheists try to do is say well, I don't have a worldview

01:00:26

What's a worldview that worldview is a religious thing. So what's a worldview Eli?

01:00:32

Hey, well I usually give two definitions of a worldview one very simple and then the more technical definition because I think the technical definition really brings

01:00:40

Out the the meat and potatoes of what constitutes a worldview So surprise surprise a worldview simplistically speaking is a view of the world.

01:00:49

Okay It's a way of seeing the world. That's I mean, that's just a simple, you know We all have worldviews because we all have different ways.

01:00:56

We see Reality now the more technical definition I would say that a worldview is a network of presuppositions in terms of which all reality is interpreted

01:01:05

And I think the key issue there is that a worldview is a network of presuppositions Everything that we believe is connected to other things.

01:01:13

It's impossible to believe one thing independent of other things and so it's a it's a system of A worldview system a way a grid so to speak lend a lens through which you see and interpret everything in human experience

01:01:27

Okay. Now if you want to say atheism is not a worldview I would say it is and if you highlight the fact that a bunch of atheists believe all sorts of different things.

01:01:37

I'll say Okay, let's assume there are more than one atheist worldview They're all worldviews, right?

01:01:42

And they are a view of the world that negates the truth of Christianity because Christianity doesn't believe in atheists you see, right?

01:01:50

There are no atheists within the Christian worldview So if you say you're an atheist then you are having a particular view of the world namely

01:01:58

You're viewing the world in which you're viewing the world in a way in which Christianity is false Well, you're viewing the world in a way that everything that we see is the product of pure material chemical reactions

01:02:13

Okay, so you have a worldview that denies anything that's Outside of the natural world we'd call supernatural, but you're also denying the immaterial you're denying

01:02:25

Anything that's not physical. So what there were what they rely on is to say Well, everything is a product of chemical reactions when you have love that's that's a chemical reaction

01:02:37

When you know something that's the product of your brain But you what I always do with them is asking.

01:02:43

Okay, what about the laws of logic? And they'll say that's just that's product of the human brain people Came up with laws of logic.

01:02:51

They created it what some will say some are more honest and say they did that human brains discovered it

01:02:56

But the reality is laws of logic exist without a human brain I mean get rid of every human brain and does the law of non -contradiction still exist?

01:03:06

I mean before there was a human before there any humans in the universe Could the universe have existed and not existed at the same time and in the same way the answer is no

01:03:17

Therefore humans didn't create logic they did discover it, but it came from the mind of God and It's an immaterial thing it's not something you can physically touch feel taste or see

01:03:32

Right, and so this is where I think they have a problem now the the 40 ,000

01:03:38

Christian worldviews is just you know, that's that is I think that he is not giving a number that he thinks is realistic

01:03:46

He I want to give him some Credibility say I think he's not credibility, but I think he's he's he's exaggerating to try to make a point

01:03:55

But the point is to is undermined by the fact that he doesn't recognize what a worldview is when he denies he has one

01:04:04

Okay I mean he does admit there's many different views of atheism and there are and There's there'd be just as many if we organized atheism

01:04:16

There'd be just as many views of atheism as there are views of Christianity if You built it if you let it take time to organize

01:04:26

Well, I did learn it funny. They had a church an atheist Church. I don't know if you if you heard this

01:04:32

I think was in Texas. They organized an atheist Church in less than a year. It's split Years Yeah, that's hilarious

01:04:52

Yeah, and I think it's important to highlight too. I would take issue with the you know

01:04:57

There's that many Christian worldviews. Obviously, the difference is between denominations within orthodoxy is not at all.

01:05:03

It's not As diverse as one might think right we make a distinction between essential doctrines which unify and not essentials

01:05:10

Which are things that even scripture allows for us to disagree over so you want to categorize that as a different worldview

01:05:16

I I don't see that as being a different worldview since within the Christian worldview There is disagreement is allowed in certain regards.

01:05:25

So there there's a careless Way of going about that in passing and of course the diversity of different denominations has no bearing as to whether Christianity is true or not

01:05:34

So mentioning that really doesn't touch the truth of the Christian worldview And I don't think he was using it in that way, but just yeah in that point

01:05:42

Yeah, and I think I mean, you know my position there's only two religions in the entire world man -made and divine and so When we look at it that way at how do we get right with God and atheism would fit into this?

01:05:56

They would deny God and yet they still have a standard for doing good works You know, every man -made religion is a moral a system of morality.

01:06:05

It's doing good It's trying to earn righteousness. And so what you end up having is with every man -made system

01:06:12

It is a system of works Christianity is the only one that is a divine system where God does all the work where we get right without by what he did and yes there might be

01:06:23

Baptists and Presbyterians and Lutherans and different groups within there that we would disagree with that have a man -made system

01:06:30

But in those three that I mentioned and more we would agree on the essentials that God did a hundred percent of the work

01:06:37

We've done none of the work and we have a biblical religion or a divine religion, right?

01:06:44

All right. Let's get back to our friend here Sorry, it takes me a little bit to switch this up here

01:06:54

If There were one coherent Christian worldview Then we wouldn't have a series of no true Scotsman fallacies idling each other over the last few thousand years

01:07:02

Okay, I had to stop there. I knew it was gonna be quick. I forgot where that wasn't there. All right

01:07:08

You know, they bring up the no true Scotsman fallacy all the time Let's first deal with what this fallacy is and why?

01:07:16

multiple denominations of Christianity are not a no true Scotsman fallacy a No true

01:07:21

Scotsman fallacy is when someone claims that Well, the way that it comes about is and I forget the exact Thing that happened, but it sounded like you know, no no

01:07:33

Scotsman would you know eat something? I forget what it was Say say let's say trout okay, no

01:07:42

Scotsman would eat trout and someone points to a Scot someone that's born in Scotland and he's

01:07:47

Eating trout and the person says well no true Scotsman would eat trout. The idea is that you're you're claiming a

01:07:56

That not someone's not a true something in this case It's not a true Christian if they don't agree with your position completely, however

01:08:06

What is a true Scotsman? Someone with a Scotsman citizenship. How do you know?

01:08:12

Who has a Scotsman decision? There's there is a way to measure that right? So a true Scotsman is someone who's born in Scotland or immigrated to Scotland and what has been approved for citizenship

01:08:23

So once you have a way of defining What makes something a true?

01:08:30

Citizen in that case or in our case a true Christian then it's not a true

01:08:36

Scotsman fallacy to say sorry, here's the definition and you're not measuring up to the definition

01:08:42

So in Christianity, we do have a definition that comes from God's Word It's not you and it's not

01:08:50

I who make it up It's from God's Word that defines what a Christian is. It is someone who has repented of sin

01:08:58

Converted to Christianity who've received the gift that Christ has so they recognize their sin

01:09:04

They recognize that their works don't save them They recognize what Christ did on the cross is the work that would set them free of the guilt and of the the consequences sin that Christ paid that on the cross and his payment is

01:09:20

Something they have to accept. So what they have to do is it's a turning of her mind It's a change in our thinking from trusting ourself and our good works to trusting what

01:09:29

Jesus Christ did What we have that so now when I compare to someone and they say well

01:09:35

I think I can work my way to heaven. Well, that's not a true Scotsman fallacy because right?

01:09:41

They know what the standard is and they're not following that. It's there is the definition and When I had my discussion with Schuyler fiction

01:09:52

This issue came up where I said that God can't make mistakes or something like that and he says well, that's just your view

01:10:00

You know that you're saying that that's your version of Christianity. Maybe other Christians Disagree with you and I'm like, all right, so give me one example where someone is a

01:10:09

Christian and thinks God can make mistakes If you think God is not perfect, then you're not a

01:10:15

Christian because you're not worshiping the God of Christianity No Christian affirms. God can err because you know, he can make a mistake or something like that a

01:10:26

Christian is someone who's ultimate Standard for faith and practices

01:10:31

God in his word Right, and so when somebody says well,

01:10:37

I think culture can define can interpret God's Word Then you've given up the

01:10:42

Bible and you're not a Christian, right? When you're sitting there and saying well God can make mistakes

01:10:49

Then you're not a Christian You know or at least or at least you are a

01:10:55

Christian who's ignorant ignorant Maybe shown in Scripture that you know This is what you know, the

01:11:00

Bible teaches certain things about God that we need to affirm to accurately understand him. All right, let's continue you know and Folks if you have questions, you're more than welcome to come on in here and challenge us or ask questions about this

01:11:14

Otherwise, we're just gonna keep going with the openings as far as God the

01:11:20

God of the Bible is denoted as a God of love before we can get into this conversation about what a God of love Means we have to figure out what type of love we're talking about because the biblical version of God Is going to argue that his version of love would be what we would call a got a love which would be unconditional love

01:11:36

For anybody who's an unfamiliar with the term of God I would say that that is the type of love that is most coherent and most often given to God My problems with that though are that unconditional love would denote certain things

01:11:50

For one it would denote that people that he loves he may not commit genocide against I know that it's the common

01:11:57

Played out trope to go to the flood, but unfortunately it is in the Bible So I'm gonna have to go to it It's hard for me to square the circle of a all -loving being that would actually commit genocide against all of the creatures, especially

01:12:08

Okay, so we got to deal with that because this comes up a lot. He he's bringing this up in the sense of He's talking about love and Then he brings up issues of justice

01:12:23

Right, he brings up the flood. Well, why did the flood occur? Well, it's very clear in the Bible why the flood occurred

01:12:29

It was a justice against sinful mankind they were doing they were sinful and a judgment came the reality is if God was loving and Just he would kill us the very first time we sinned.

01:12:44

That's what justice declares He's long -suffering and letting us continue as long as we do but it's a category error he makes here and I don't blame him for this because he does recognize the right definitions of love

01:12:57

But I don't think he understands the Bible well enough in Christianity well enough to be able to differentiate between justice and love

01:13:07

Yeah, I think and even Christians make this mistake is we tend to overemphasize one attribute of God over against other attributes of God Yes, it's true that God is love, but he's not only love right if he's only love

01:13:21

Then it would be inconsistent for him to do all these other things if love is all that he was right

01:13:28

Well, maybe I maybe I can retract that there's some technicalities that we'd have to make there But the point of what

01:13:33

I'm saying is a balanced view of God is that he is loved but he's also good He's also holy. He's also righteous.

01:13:39

He's also just and And according to the Bible God doesn't take crap

01:13:45

Basically and the Bible said I will no longer Strive with man So it's not this this man is just hanging out doing whatever they're doing and God decides to wipe them out

01:13:55

God strove with man and because God is all knowing as well He knows when it is the proper time to cease driving and to execute judging you might not like it

01:14:04

You might not agree with it. You might say if I were God, I'd do something different But as Matt Slick would often say there is a

01:14:10

God and you're not him Complaining about it doesn't refute the existence of God you have some young children.

01:14:16

I'm sure you've experienced This is almost every other parent has when you have to punish your children.

01:14:22

Have you ever heard you don't love me? Well, yeah, that's true too, right

01:14:28

But that's exactly what he's doing He's he's like the child going well, you don't love me if you don't do what

01:14:36

I want and and it's a wrong definition love No, the parent does love the child That's exactly why they're punishing the child to train them and protect them from a greater harm later in life

01:14:49

You know Yeah, and I think we addressed that issue later on Right never gonna get we're never gonna get to that.

01:14:57

Yeah. All right, let's We'll go because we're gonna we want to make sure we get time for the

01:15:04

That other clip that we have Okay, this being is all -knowing and all -powerful which means that they not only

01:15:12

Had other options available to them being all -powerful They also knew what these options were because they are all -knowing and because they are on the benevolent

01:15:20

They would be behoven to act on these other less cruel notions and yet they didn't so obviously one of these trades isn't there either they are not all -powerful and they had to choose one of the more violent routes or they are not all -knowing and could not conceive of one of these less violent routes or they're

01:15:35

Not all -loving in which case the violent realm may have even seen to be a beneficial one at that case denoting some type of catharsis

01:15:42

Okay, real quick or yeah, or God is all -knowing and knew precisely the the method of judgment that he used was just the right one

01:15:51

Exactly. That's an option too Right, maybe it's the one who's all -knowing who knew something that he in his finite mind didn't know

01:16:01

Right. There's that there's a third option. So, all right That is called the fallacy of the excluded middle.

01:16:09

He excludes another the the other option that answers it Alternatively there is also the problem of hell

01:16:18

However, my particular issues of hell will always be contingent on the type of hell that the

01:16:23

Christian is asserting as I do not know What Eli's version of hell is I do not know if this is an annihilation concept or if this is more of a hey

01:16:32

You're gonna be burning forever like the standard Baptist teaching. I know that he's a Calvinist Okay, we'll stop there just to give a to let folks know who haven't watched the whole thing and I'll give a link in the notes in the show notes for this but the the fact is is that and I think the show know the link this is already on apologetics live comm

01:16:57

But the he you do discuss you to do end up discussing hell The issue that he has is he doesn't like hell he doesn't like the idea of being punished

01:17:07

Well, and no child likes the idea of being punished. No criminal likes the idea of being punished. And so So what

01:17:14

I mean the issue isn't whether you like it and if you don't like it, it doesn't exist But that was ultimately his argument with with hell now.

01:17:22

He pushed it off to the intro in the opening But that was his argument. He doesn't like it.

01:17:29

Therefore it God can't exist The thing though is it's like okay if if God exists wouldn't he be just and if he's just wouldn't he have to punish sin

01:17:43

You know All right, let's continue with him But I do not know

01:17:50

I have not heard yet his particular variant of hell So I cannot bring the hell argument in Unless I know what his version of hell is so I will go ahead and have to skip over that for the time being

01:18:00

Back to the type of love God has God's love is best described as unconditional love or agape He is the embodiment of love and somehow created things like the global flood and hell

01:18:10

But again, I'm not gonna bring up hell in detail because I do not want to speak for Eli's view on hell without knowing what it is

01:18:18

However, this does lead us to some problems at least as far as I'm concerned if God created everything

01:18:23

Which if we're to accept the Christian worldview and work within it, you'd have to accept that he did create everything There is no start without him being a first cause

01:18:31

We have to accept that. He also created evil. This is supported by the book of Isaiah, but if God is all -knowing

01:18:40

Of any of his actions would lead to evil. It's creation. We're leaving having to an type of evil

01:18:48

If you knew I'm sorry, I'm laughing at one of the comments Yeah, if we grant that he's on mission, we have to the

01:18:53

Pokemon then any action that he takes Can be considered evil, I don't think consequentialism works.

01:19:00

Okay, since you're laughing we might as well read the comment Yeah, I was

01:19:07

I was laughing to just quieter he's Atomic apologetic says irony denies

01:19:13

God's existence, but believes in Pokemon That's not nice,

01:19:20

I don't think he believes in Pokemon, but Pokemon are really cool. Yeah Pokemon, oh my goodness.

01:19:28

These things could totally relate to me as well. Yeah at any rate. I'm giving away my Let's talk a little bit about what he said, though Did he say

01:19:38

God can did he say the part yet or he says God can create God created all things

01:19:43

God created evil Therefore God is evil. Is that the argument he made just then? Yeah.

01:19:49

Yeah, I think he makes that It's not here. It's just after here So, okay, let's play it just a couple seconds here good we'll play it let him say the argument there

01:20:04

As a moral framework for most people because most people do not know what the end result of any of their actions will be

01:20:10

This is one of the reasons why in a court of law for instance intent is only one part of an equation That's how we determine motive sometimes

01:20:16

But a lot of times we will argue things based on what the consequences of actions were as well as with the intent

01:20:21

With God the intent is not part of the equation only the consequences and the reason for that is because God Regardless of intent knows what the consequences are.

01:20:30

He is in a privileged position to know the consequences of any and all Actions moral other up moral or otherwise.

01:20:37

Okay, so let's deal with that because that that's the thing that many make They they accept that he is all -knowing

01:20:46

But they reject that he knows more than them And that's really his argument if God is all -knowing

01:20:54

He must know what people are gonna do and therefore he has to be responsible for what we think is unjust

01:21:03

Right, and that's that's the argument he's making and yet if God is all -knowing

01:21:08

Then he must know that what he's doing is right Right because he knows what we don't

01:21:16

Right There's another fallacy in his argument though a couple of sentences earlier where he he said something to the effect if I'm remember correctly

01:21:24

I'm not sure if he's gonna say it or he had say it his argument was something along the line that God creates all things

01:21:30

God can create only that which is consistent with his nature and so God creates evil and so therefore

01:21:36

God is evil something to that Effect. Yeah, I remember God created good

01:21:43

Therefore he must be all good. It's the absence of good. That's evil Therefore the real problem he has is

01:21:52

God is good and it's the rebellion of God That's evil. So when you deny

01:21:57

God that is what is evil not God Right, because and it's false to say good well it's he sets up a false dichotomy to say that God creates evil as if He didn't create good then

01:22:16

Right, it's also a fallacy to say that God can only create that which is consistent with nature God, I mean

01:22:22

I was talking to Eric Hernandez He's been on the show a couple of times and we were talking about that He as well God created horses, but that doesn't mean he has a horse nature

01:22:30

You mean you know what I'm saying? So that premise is false to begin with and so if that premise is false his conclusion doesn't follow among the many other issues with his argument

01:22:40

Yeah All right, let's let's see more what he's got to say here Depending on your particular ethical framework

01:22:53

Yahweh's actions necessarily create evil because consequentialism is the only way that we could really judge him because he knows the consequences of his

01:23:00

Actions again for his position unlike anyone else For God to create anything That thing must be within his nature.

01:23:07

Well, we know that God can create evil. He's Things that necessarily led to evil and he knew that and he had the power and I would assume with omniscience the creativity to do otherwise and actively chose not to This means that creating evil is within God's nature

01:23:21

If creating evil is within God's nature. It must also then follow that evil is within God's nature

01:23:29

If evil is within God's nature the idea that he's omnibenevolent Must necessarily be discarded

01:23:34

This is a particular omni trait that can no longer hold The only way that I could find to escape it now remember his goal is to prove that God does not exist

01:23:44

Right. He's he isn't doing that He's proving that he doesn't like the

01:23:51

God of the Bible But he's not proving God doesn't exist Well, I think what he's trying to do is to provide an internal critique that given the truth of the

01:24:00

Christian world Do you that there's an inconsistency? He's just failing at it because he's not accurately representing the

01:24:06

Christian worldview So I think what he's trying to do there is what he's supposed to be doing he's just failing at it because I think his knowledge of what

01:24:14

Christianity teaches in regards to God the ontological essence of evil as Deprivation not a positive, you know something right because he's not understanding those categories.

01:24:25

His argument is failing So I think he's doing the right thing but saying the wrong things. Yeah, he's doing the right thing to a strong man

01:24:32

Well Yeah, all right This is to somehow judge

01:24:41

God by a standard of morality that one does not know Either by arguing out of the youth of row dilemma that all goodness stems from him in which case

01:24:50

How can we even consider God good even some even something like divine command theory considers itself ethical subjectivism?

01:24:57

Or we can argue that God is separate from good and that he adheres to good in which case we found by it

01:25:03

I recognize this is probably not Eli's position Eli's position is more than likely going to be that that good necessarily stems from God Necessitating that God would be above any of these laws

01:25:14

I would argue then that if this means that we can never judge the moral character of this being whatsoever Then how can we in how can we call him good?

01:25:22

We can't call him Now here is the brunt of his position he thinks

01:25:31

That we need to have the ability to judge God Yep, and that's not the

01:25:38

Christian worldview if you're frustrated that you can't judge God welcome to Christianity You do not you do not judge

01:25:45

God you accept him on his own say so and if you reject what he says Then your perspective your worldview will be reduced to absurdity

01:25:53

Yeah, so we do not judge God as a we stand over him and that that's you know

01:26:01

That it needs to be understood and that says that that is the this right here was the main part of his argument

01:26:07

Right because everything he's doing is to set up how he could judge God and God fails his judgment

01:26:15

God doesn't exist because of his standard Yet, what does he do? He sets himself up as the standard, right?

01:26:22

All right, but it would be quite useful for him to believe in God because of the possible benefits

01:26:29

Right, yeah, maybe he can ground objective truth, that's that's quite useful Should we

01:26:37

Do you want to go on with the rest of his opening or you want to go to that other clip that we had?

01:26:43

Let's go to the other clip because I think the other tip really gets to the heart of Yeah of his problems within his worldview.

01:26:49

I think so. Let me bring that clip up and I'll share that Because I think that that will be helpful for us

01:27:05

So you should I play this in its entirety, I think it's only like three minutes long, right?

01:27:10

It's like three and a half minutes. Yeah. All right. Let's play this in its entirety You said you are a pragmatist, right?

01:27:31

Yes. Do you believe in objective truth? I Believe that the concept of objective truth can be useful

01:27:39

Do you believe there is something? Do you believe that there is objective truth? I have a definition of truth if that will work for you

01:27:47

Do you understand what I mean when I say objective truth? Perhaps you could clarify Okay, I think objective truth deals with something that is true independent of our personal opinions

01:27:59

Or something is true independent of what we think about and there's something out there that's objectively truth Do you believe that there is objective truth?

01:28:06

And do you believe that it's possible for someone to know that objective truth? So for somebody to know an objective truth that actually would fit into my personal definition of truth my definition of truth in general is

01:28:21

If something well, hold on best say my definition truth is that which comports to reality my definition of knowledge is a belief

01:28:30

That comports with reality if you believe so if we have a Venn diagram Truth is on one side belief is on another where truth and belief

01:28:38

Collide is where knowledge is at least in my personal worldview if you believe something and it happens to be true Then you have knowledge

01:28:44

Is there any way that someone could have access to what is actually the case so that they believe things that are true and that? They can know them to be objectively true within your

01:28:53

Within my worldview perspective Strangely enough so within pragmatism something being

01:28:59

Objectively true as in something something having ontological value, correct? Is that how you would define this?

01:29:07

I would say that's something to be objectively true. We are believing something We have again

01:29:12

I would I would define truth as a justified or knowledge as a justified true belief Can we have beliefs that are true and we have justification for believing they're true and those reflect the objective reality?

01:29:27

so Justified true belief from what I understand and correct me if I'm wrong

01:29:32

But justified true belief basically takes the Venn diagram that I have Where you believe things and true things are on one side knowledge is in the middle and it adds a third piece to the

01:29:41

Venn Diagram where there is a justified side. So anything that is justified and Believed and true becomes knowledge

01:29:50

So can we have access to Objective reality such that we know it on your perspective of pragmatism and epistemological view of pragmatism.

01:30:00

I Would agree that we don't actually have access to Objective reality everything that we see everything that we perceive is filtered

01:30:09

Okay, so if that's the case then would you say that your worldview system?

01:30:14

Lacks the preconditions for intelligibility since every world you would have to have some forms of truth or something to undergird a foundation for knowledge

01:30:27

All right, so there we have that So, let's let's talk about that clip now

01:30:36

Andrew did you notice? Now I mean this with all due respect For Chris because I really

01:30:43

I'm not saying this just to be you know He was a nice guy and I really did enjoy that conversation. But in this particular interaction, did you hear?

01:30:51

The dancing the tipping of the feet trying to run around the issue. You knew precisely

01:30:57

What I was asking and that so I eventually he probably realized I was not gonna stop asking that question

01:31:04

And then he bites the bullet and says we cannot know objective truth Yeah, and once he did that you went right back to what your opening statement was

01:31:13

Because that just showed you that in a debate you gave an opening you said this is gonna be what we'll prove tonight he then

01:31:23

Basically just lost the debate at that moment because that's why you that's why you went back for folks

01:31:29

Who may not pick up on it? That's why you went back to what you said in the very opening So you're saying that your worldview doesn't have?

01:31:37

The necessary, you know, it's like okay. Well now done The debates now over right?

01:31:43

No, I know at that picked up on that. I don't know. I I think he

01:31:49

Did I think he understood but he didn't realize the bait was over. I think he realized he was stuck

01:31:55

Well, he's not gonna walk out He's well if he was gonna be honest he'd concede the point and say okay, yeah you won, right

01:32:04

But he's not gonna do that But I think that's when he got stuck Did he realize that the debates over and he just lost

01:32:12

I don't think so I think he just thinks I'm stuck and I got to figure a way out of this Right, and and I think at that point that was the key for me once I got him to say that that's where I that's

01:32:24

What I wanted him to say. That was the point of my line of questioning and Again not to trap anyone.

01:32:31

I really wanted to show given your worldview. That's where you are. Excuse me. That's where you are

01:32:37

I mean if you're an atheist and you're not a pragmatist hold to some I would argue that's still where you are if you are an atheist

01:32:44

But once he made that statement then all I needed to do was remind him of that statement every time he

01:32:50

Lists a bunch of facts that we know through science and any claim that any claim that he makes

01:32:58

We're not gonna go over the closings, but there is a Marlon asks him a question about doesn't

01:33:04

God have a right to lay down the hammer and judge people and so He gave a kind of a long -winded answer on the nature of justice and all that other kinds of stuff

01:33:16

And I said listen, you're asking you're asking Chris. What does he think about this?

01:33:22

Doesn't God if he exists have the right to lay down the hammer Well, Chris could only answer that question in two ways

01:33:28

He could answer it from within my worldview in which case he would have to admit God does have a right laid down the hammer or he could answer it from a visit within his own worldview

01:33:38

Which he just admitted he couldn't know anything to be true as in regards to what he might say regarding that and so he doesn't

01:33:44

Contribute anything to the session given the truth of his perspective. And so again once you give up knowledge objective truth

01:33:52

You can't make knowledge claims and be consistent at the same time Yeah Yeah, so I mean the thing is is that and and this is what happens when?

01:34:05

when in a debate You kind of realize sometimes you got stuck I mean, he's the more experienced debater and yet It seemed like he wasn't as prepared

01:34:18

I think he's done a bunch of debates and probably thought he can handle this and you came in at a different different perspective different angle and he wasn't ready for Yeah, I I'm not

01:34:28

I'm not sure. I just Even if you are prepared for it, I don't see how you can get around Given your position getting around, you know, whether you're prepared or not

01:34:38

Obviously, we hope people are prepared and they take the topic seriously. I don't want to You know guess as to how prepared he was.

01:34:45

I mean that's my position But I think the clarity of the absurdity of his view is brought out especially in that particular clip

01:34:53

And so I kind of hope I try to drive that point home throughout the rest of the debate Yeah, so any any other points that you wanted to discuss

01:35:02

I mean no one's come in to to have any discussion on the on the debate anything that that you think we we should talk about or Or point out because I think that that closing clip kind of sealed the debate quite literally

01:35:18

Mm -hmm Well, I mean, I guess I want to encourage people that I want people to recognize like just in the opening statement there is no shame in Putting forth the

01:35:31

Christian worldview on display and saying I'm arguing for the Christian God and I think a lot of people are intimidated by unbelievers.

01:35:40

And so they adopt various methods that are employed within unbelieving circles like Neutrality and and different philosophical positions that we could hold because we want to be respected with the people

01:35:54

You know by the people that with we're interacting with and I think we need to remember that we're not doing

01:36:01

Apologetics to impress people. We're not doing apologetics in a way that you know, the unbeliever will find acceptable

01:36:07

We're doing apologetics in the way that is laid down in Scripture and I and it doesn't matter people laugh at you

01:36:13

It doesn't matter people think it's ridiculous We need to be very conscious of the fact that in order to even coherently lay out a position

01:36:22

We need to be standing on the firm foundation of God's Word. There is no shame in that and You have the advantage because you're standing on the very wisdom of God And there you have it.

01:36:34

So I think you know now next week. We're not gonna have a show We're not gonna have an apologetics live show

01:36:41

Because I will be at truth matters conference in California and So we will not have one next week the following week

01:36:49

We plan to do is to take a look at a debate that I had on the gospel truth channel and that debate

01:36:58

Well, I'll let you guys talk to yourself. You were just talking to yourself Andrew I I was gonna

01:37:04

I was gonna say I will let the audience decide whether there was actually a debate that occurred there

01:37:09

I You know, yeah I Do want to say folks to go check out our

01:37:16

YouTube channel. Make sure you subscribe I give the I get the link is there a

01:37:21

Short link there is if you're watching on on the channel then right now then fine But if you go to bitly bitly .com

01:37:31

slash Y T SFE it's short for YouTube striving for eternity go check out the channel we just put out a

01:37:42

Video basically it was Justin Peters myself and Jim Osmond and We basically discussed

01:37:56

Well Beth Moore, we've discussed Beth Moore's recent comments that she made with Justin Peters and it was something

01:38:06

You want to listen to especially you have friends or family or yourself who listens to Beth Moore because she basically came out in Defending the indefensible.

01:38:17

She came out defending what is anti -biblical And she does it in a way that she tries to pretend like she's debating a or taking a biblical position

01:38:27

While she defends the unbiblical one And so you definitely want to go to the YouTube check that out check out the rap report podcast on the

01:38:36

Christian podcast community You can find that at strivingforeturning .org or Christianpodcastcommunity .org

01:38:43

But any on any app that you have you can subscribe to rap. That's rap with two Ps rap report

01:38:49

This week on Sunday, we will drop an episode that Jamal Bandy of the prescribed truth podcast and I did

01:38:59

Dealing with Amber Geiger this Dallas police officer who?

01:39:05

Was sentenced to 10 years in prison. There's been some Talk about racism and injustice with it

01:39:14

We're gonna address that but then we're gonna deal with something that in all the conversations and all the media, you know

01:39:20

The podcasts I've heard on it. I have a very different take than anybody else on What may be the cause of some of this problem and I think it's something we that we as a nation must address and It's not gonna be one of racism.

01:39:36

It's not gonna be one of justice injustice type things But in a way it could be injustice, but what really caused this people are trying to say it's racism

01:39:46

There's something else that I think caused this and you're gonna need to listen to the

01:39:51

Andrew rap reports rap report To hear that so make sure you subscribe So no show next week but the weekend after we're going to We're gonna be back on doing another post debate.

01:40:06

I'll put it up earlier so you guys can watch that and we can discuss that Hopefully there'll be a lot more of you that come in for discussion