(Advanced Presuppositional Apologetics Discussion): Eli Ayala & Matt Yester

Presuppositional Apologetics as a Biblical Method

All right, welcome to another episode of revealed apologetics today. I have a guest a friend of mine. His name is Matt yester. He is. Would you identify yourself as like an online apologist a lay apologist or just an apologist?

Okay, okay.

All of this like doing online dialogues and stuff like that. And how about you know, Matt's like on the karma discord. We got a discord out there for people to check out. They find links to that I think on the current website and we have really good fruitful conversations there.

Do the teachings and stuff like that? Okay, it's just my theology right now. So just start getting started on that. So I think a lot of people are interested in that. So but yeah, just a Conversation with a lot of a lot of different different people and over like a decade so yeah, yeah, yeah and you.

You do presuppositional apologetics. That's a methodology that you adhere to.

Yep. Yep. Yeah, I wasn't but You know was very intrigued with the creation evolution debate very early on and. But once I became reformed and things really changed there it was a whole paradigm shift, okay.

All right. Um, and so I I've been doing apologetics for a really long time. I grew up in church. So and I always I always enjoyed theology. My family always sat around arguing about something, you know.

I grew up in a pen. I grew up in a Pentecostal Church. So the arguments were usually why can't we do this or why is this wrong or why is it a sin? Very kind of a very. Sometimes it came across kind of like a very legalistic context.

So we would argue about like can Christians drink wine or like what's wrong if I pierce my ear, you know. Like stuff like that. But we often went into some deep stuff and and I always was geared towards like those kinds of discussions.

So later on in life Apologetics was something that was an easy move to make in terms of being my focus now people who know my story. There's a broader story there that I don't want to get into. But I too am a presuppositional apologist.

I think it is a the biblical model for defending the faith and it is a An apologetic methodology as you said before we started recording that flows from our theology.

And I.

Want to ask this question and hear what you say in a little bit. But as Calvinists you and I are Calvinist we would we would probably make the argument that our presuppositional methodology flows from a very distinctly reformed perspective and.

Some people who look at presuppositional ism from far away. Don't see it as a necessary aspect like hey, I can use tag and I'm not a Calvinist. And so hopefully we can talk about that later on but that's not that's an interesting point.

That some people might be interested in hearing about. So for people who are kind of like listening to this and saying like, okay presuppositional apologetics I think I know a little bit about it because I've I've seen someone like Saiten Bruggenkade online or I've maybe listened to a Bonson debate or something, but I'm unclear on some stuff.

How would you define? Presuppositional apologetics to the person who's never. You know, it's never heard of presuppositional apologetics.

Worldviews as Networks of Presuppositions

Well.

Presupposition is a basic fundamental assumption or basic starting point. It could be you know, a lot of people lay out, you know, they have they're not even aware that they have presuppositions unless Preston I go.

Oh, oh I do have these underlying beliefs that then undergird everything else that you know flows out of them in A network as Bonson lays out what a worldview is a very succinct definition. The worldview is a network of presuppositions.

By which everything else they're not proven by the means of natural science that by which even science is employed. And they're not demonstrating that means but they're that by which everything else is interpreted and interrelated.

It's a system. It's a worldview system. Therefore it's not one thing in isolation from one another these things these beliefs come in clusters. But ultimately because you'll have a lot of Atheists just non-believers, you know Agnostics whatever let's say well, I believe this I believe this I believe that and I just got a plethora of like fundamental properly basic beliefs.

Okay, so you have a plethora, you know, you have a many but what unifies them? Yeah, you gotta you. Otherwise you have no unity between them. There's no coherence between them. Plurality. Now we press the issue a little further in the nature of the case or only one.

Maybe fanciful term your transcendental ultimate. So it's an argument from the location of ultimacy to everything else. We experience and pre-position for our experience.

So so you would say a presupposition is an elementary assumption that is not itself Validated by empirical means or anything like that. We do not appeal to something more fundamental than the presupposition to validate the presupposition.

They're our starting point. Would that be right? Right and to prove it transcendentally and you do demonstrate that by the impossibility of the contrary. It's a transcendental argument because if you had if you have the truth, let's say worldview has the truth.

I know other people think Christian's false, whatever, but if someone does have the truth, how would they prove it to you? And they prove the other truth. Well, you got to show, you know, just Oncological epistemological and ethical necessity that's what we argue from the Christian God because you know, he's the truth in life and fathered by through him and All the treasure was of the knowledge are hidden in him.

He created all things so from the strict stringent worldview of biblical Christianity. We can't argue outside of that on any new fashion. So because the the unbeliever can read the Bible to and they can see if someone's wavering from that ago Here it says Jesus Christ create all things all treasure wasn't knowledge hidden him, you know.

Yeah, yeah, you can't you can't waver on that too much before they just kind of call you out on that. So yeah Christian Distinct and consistent.

Apologetic. Yeah now now like we just said before where when we do a presuppositional apologetics. We are not our worldviews come in or our beliefs rather come in clusters. So we start with like a system we don't argue for the truth of the Christian worldview as as Cornelius Vantill said.

And those who Kind of know the conversation we're having at least they're all somewhat familiar with it. They will know. Vantill is a very prominent figure when we talk about issues of presuppositional ism.

He said that we do not argue in a block-by-block fashion. Maybe you can unpack that for people and and explain what it means. For the presuppositional is not to argue Block by block. And why we must argue system versus system.

Christian system of thought the Christian worldview. Versus the non-christian worldview. Can you unpack that a little bit? Sure.

System Versus System: Ontology, Epistemology, and Ethics

Yeah, we talk about system in a cluster of beliefs that you just can't think about one thing one thing only without other concepts. No other thing being Associated with that such as a system with just basic the three branches of philosophy.

That's what we lay out as a worldview.

Of.

Metaphysics or ontology. The very nature and essence of reality. The things in reality. Different types of ontologies. Distinctives between the two. How do you get knowledge from that? Ontological grounding.

And once again, you can't talk about one without the other being brought in because you're making knowledge about ontology. Yet your ontology has to ground how you know things. These things are unhappily reciprocal.

Relationships. You can't divorce one from the other and just look at. I just want to talk about ontology in a vacuum impossible. That's what I'm talking about. Epistemology in a vacuum impossible. That's what I'm talking about.

Ethics and vacuum. They're all well, Matt.

What if someone says well, I believe in logic. You believe in logic. Why don't we just start there? So I assume logic you use logic. Let's argue logically to the truth of our conclusion. What's wrong with with that?

Well, they think it's epistemically neutral, but that's a con game. That's God's logic and we have to think his thoughts after him. It's the only way we have the capacity to do that. That's part of our worldview.

And that's the only way we can actually utilize it because we reflect his thinking. They think it's just some abstract ethereal notion. Somehow derived from the material universe or whatever. They want to posit that if they ground that as the ground of all reality then now from pure abstraction.

Did you get? A physical universe.

So so are you saying that? The unbeliever often assumes that logic the laws of logic are the common ground between us. So is it isn't our isn't that kind of a neutral ground between me the unbeliever and you the Christian?

I mean we still we both use logic. Why can't we why can't we just start there? Is it what's wrong with that?

Let me use analogy and you know what my favorite analogy is. All right got a piece of paper here. Okay, right here you can you have one right in front of you. Just picture in your mind just thinking separately about it.

Got a piece of paper here.

You know with horizontal lines just draw a line down the middle of it here. We're gonna split it in half for the Christian on one side. But the unbeliever you're talking about from any worldview system on the other side.

Now that middle line represents an antithesis between the two worldviews in principle. They don't agree on anything.

Okay, okay, I know what antithesis is so before you continue there, why don't you explain. Explain to people what what you mean by the middle line of the page. One side of the page the Christian worldview.

The other line of the other side of the page is the non-christian world view and you said this line down the middle is the antithesis.

Between them. What do you mean by that? Oh Christians lay it out his worldview.

In.

Categories within that and his whole worldview system as a whole the whole Christian worldview system. It's the whole house built. That's what we start with. The young believer was put his on the other side or a few bricks.

Maybe they might assert but they're in direct contradiction Systematically as a whole to the Christian worldview now. Today they got those bricks from our side of the page and we that's the point of the demonstration to show that they want to assert these bricks On their side of the page, you know logic uniformity of nature.

Maybe some moral absolute something like that or you're morally indignant about something and We show that they got those bricks from the other side and they only really have a right to even assert those because they don't make Systematic cogent sense in their worldview when pressed to the location of all intimacy.

And they is plurality is the ultimate and it's got to be necessarily one. They can't Ground that then they're making baseless assertions. Anyway, they're not grounded in anything and it's just Matt cogency.

It's almost like a want to assert a plurality of like foundational ism Isolated little bricks, but I go you I'm at the assumed. There's a relationship between What you know ontology logic. Morality things like that.

They know there's a tie that binds but I go what is that tie that binds them together? I think of these things are radically disjuncted each other. So the Christians laying on his thesis the opponent lays out his antithesis.

He's the opposite of What the worldview is asserting it's telling totally different routes, even though we'll say I assert logic. He asserts logic, but the foundation is absolutely radically different.

So would you so would you lay out on the side of the page? So you have the Christian worldview on one side of the page you have. And I think I remember you telling me this before in a different conversation.

You have the Christian on the one side of the page the non-christian on the other side of the page and you have this line of antithesis dividing the two and. Say you both assert logic. You put logic on the top of the page this item of Human experience is up for debate and then you ask the question.

This is why I like the paper analogy. Which side of the page? Can account and ground? The specific item of human experience. Whether it be logic. Whether it be science. Whether it be history. Whether it be philosophy and.

Then that's when you argue system versus system. Which system can couch and make intelligible. The specific item of human experience. Is that how you would go about it? Right? Yeah, that would be.

Symbolic logic would be any P. It's just called P. T equals any intelligible experience that the person does not doubt. That's just I can't doubt that that that exists and I think I have the transcendental grounding for it.

So I go good now get a bait. We've both got a worldview laid out. It's called Q. So Christian laid out his Q. So we got the Christian will be laid out all side of the page fill up you fill it up. All the biblical data revelational knowledge stuff like that and revelational epistemology.

And then the unbelievers gonna bring his particular world. Not all atheists are alike. They can all different schools of philosophy rationalism empiricism. Pragmatism, you know, they'll throw out all kind of wonky stuff.

They're not all. You know cookie cutter, you know atheists not all all empiricists or strict empiricists like him was or something like that. There's that's why it's good that if you're at least picturing in your mind if you're like an audio debate.

We're having a front face-to-face dialogue. You're doing it in your mind. You're picturing it you know and you just viewing it as you know, two sides of page and dialectical tension with one another and.

You know you're doing in we get to the internal critique there though and external not to do an external critique. But it's doing internal critique which is valid. Keep that focus on there so you can catch when someone tries to make an external critique and keep you from doing it as well.

So so so what's the difference between again people who need to understand? This is vitally important because a presuppositional method is a worldview apologetic where notice that there's nothing. We've said that has appealed to specific evidences in favor of one view over the other.

We have not appealed to look there's design although that has its place. We haven't appealed to an uncaused cause of the universe which has its place. Why don't we in the presuppositional method? appeal to some of the arguments that we're familiar with when we read a book on apologetics like the Cosmological argument the teleological argument the moral argument the argument from religious experience.

Arguments for the the historical reality of the resurrection of Christ all have their place and presuppositional is can use them. Why don't we appeal to them? As directly as say those who hold to a more classical apologetical approach.

By the way boss laid out when he's laying out different types of proof you put in four classes. You could have pragmatic proof empirical proof rationalistic proof transcendental proof. The only those first three only makes sense within transcendental framework because that is the overarching.

Because it's an ultimate argument. That's probably I mean, that's the thing that people need to grasp. It's a it's an ultimate argument, especially arguing for God's existence as well and demonstrating that.

That would take precedence there because that is the framework by which even Rationalistic deduction and empirical induction would even be intelligible.

Mm-hmm. So so so the transcendental argument for God's existence is usually not laid out in some of these traditional formulations. Say for example, you take something like the cosmological argument, which is or the kalam cosmological argument.

Which is typically laid out at a deductive form. So whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore the universe has a cause. So you have two premises that if true lead to a conclusion.

What you're saying? Is that a transcendental argument is so ultimate. It is trying to. It's not trying to prove God's existence By laying out premises. Rather it's trying to show that the Christian system itself is the necessary precondition for deductive arguments themselves.

Syllogisms. Utilize. We're saying what even grounds that right? So so and so.

The way the transcendental argument has been formulated Popularly, especially by someone like Greg Bonson the proof for the truth of the Christian worldview is that if it were not true? You couldn't prove anything at all.

Is that that's the idea wrapped up in what you just said right that the Christian worldview is the precondition for even proof?

Correct. How's proof intelligible and that's a standard of proof where we lean upon there? So he's going transcendental proof is the ultimate now the other very mitigated because you know in the history of philosophy.

We really get the crux of things, you know at Kant. He's at the rationalistic empirical device. Those guys have been Crippled with a jar for quite a while there for Kant they both led to skepticism. He's got to try and meld or what?

He's the first we use a form of a transcendental ordinance strictly epistemological. He had no ontological browning for anything it was metaphysical agnostic when it came to the numeral realm. It was just do you divide metaphysics up in two categories.

The numena couldn't know anything about the only deal with the phenomena you experience sense perception and. That the mind is active and imposes, you know Time and space predicates and even inserts causation causal principles like that.

Even though it may not exist in reality, but the mind just has to think that way. He's just thinking on strictly Epistemological mind grounds here just saying the mind has to think but he didn't prove all mindset.

So that way you just prove that his mind has to think that way. But he's at the crossroads. They're saying well. Rationalist, you know when they have these innate ideas that they were just axiomatic but the problem there that led us radically three.

You know, listen, we'd use a pretty popular ones Descartes Spinoza and life it. He said we take the rationalist perspective. These are just self-evident truths and eight ideas. And we got radically three different metaphysics one's a dualist the other one's a monist.

You know dualist holds it. There's two aspects of reality. There's two types of ontology bonus. Believe there's only one essence or one ontology and then lab notes was an absolute pluralist. So who's right that leads to skepticism.

David Hume drove empiricism into skepticism. You know well before Kant there and that awoken caught from his dogmatic slumbers. Mm-hmm, but we got to save rationality here. We've got to save objectivity.

He didn't actually accomplish his job to the end of subjectivize all science because everyone's just got to deal with the phenomena. Sense experience being taken in. Yeah, but he's trying to answer was.

Since.

The rationalist deductive methodology led to Skepticism and then the empirical approach Hume drove that into the ground that leads to skepticism. But he's saying well they had their they had their place.

How they even intelligible even at the place they actually have intelligibility. What what epistemology can ground or what is? Transcendental to these methodologies being employed you can't call them epistemology because epistemology is a falter.

You can have to have an epistemology by which these certain methods which are mitigated and very. Let's say They only did have their limitations. Widen scope they're not the ultimate broad-reaching can answer everything, but they have their place on certain issues.

Well, okay, what epistemology ground these different methodologies now take that even as a Christian approach from a revelational epistemology. We can't account for deduction and induction From a worldview, but those are methods being employed.

They're not epistemologies on our epistemology is a revelational very ground for our knowledge. Being creating them on the day, but therefore we can employ a certain methods, but we don't call them epistemologies.

I'm not a holistic theory of knowledge. They're just they have application in certain points and in the realm.

The Nature of a Worldview and the Limits of Neutrality

Let's back up for two seconds for again.

I.

Anticipated this discussion to be at the more higher level which I'm glad we're talking about these things because I know that people who Are familiar with the methodology and want to go a little deeper this is going to be helpful.

But just to throw a bone at me. At the person who's kind of like man. I subscribe to your podcast. This one's different than the other ones, you know.

Yeah.

Let's define our terms. When we talk about a worldview we're talking about a Network of presuppositions a network of assumptions in terms of which all of reality is interpreted. They are they are our intellectual glasses through which we Filter the world and we interpret the world through these lenses.

That's our worldview. Worldviews are generally composed of three foundations. People have categorized them differently, but I'm going to use the three basic foundations of every worldview. So I'm just defining the basics and then we'll return back to our discussion.

Worldviews are made up of metaphysics epistemology and ethics. Now Matt has been using the term metaphysics and he even a Even described the philosopher Immanuel Kant as a metaphysical agnostic. And so that terminology can be a mouthful and give someone a stroke as they're listening.

But.

Metaphysics metaphysics simply quite simply. It's a it's a scary word that has a very simple meaning. Metaphysics asks the question. What is real? What is the nature of reality? Epistemology asks the question.

How do we know what we know? How do we know anything about anything? Okay, and Ethics deals with how we should live our lives right right and wrong these sorts of things. Okay. Now this is important to presuppositional apologetics because every claim that someone makes presupposes metaphysics that reality is a certain way and Epistemology that we could know the truth about reality or how we come to know what we think we know.

That's right and so When we're talking about using a presuppositional method and saying for example when we popularly formulated the argument that the proof for the for the truth of the Christian worldview is That if it were not true, you couldn't prove anything at all.

What we're saying if we're using this worldview language of metaphysics epistemology and ethics what we're saying is that unless the metaphysic? the theory of reality unless Reality is what the Bible says it is.

Then a person couldn't know Anything their epistemology wouldn't work because their epistemology is not coherently connected to a broader Theory of reality out of which the things we claim to know would even make sense.

And so that's why it's important to understand these foundations. So when Matt Referred to Immanuel Kant as being a metaphysical agnostic. Basically Immanuel Kant Was agnostic he says I don't know the nature of reality.

The metaphysics, I don't know that.

Because is the thing on Zik. It's you could not know the thing in and of itself. That's right.

Right now when it would now without refuting Kant because Kant can be easily Refuted if you grant that those premises then there's trouble for Kant. We won't go there. But I think it's important to lay that groundwork to understand what a worldview is what it consists of metaphysics epistemology ethics and if we don't want to use those words worldview consists of a theory of what you think reality is a Theory of how we come to know what we know and a theory of how we should live our lives.

Everybody whether you're an atheist and agnostic a pragmatist. Everyone has a view on those things whether they acknowledge it or not. Presuppositionalist wants to show that whatever the unbelievers metaphysic epistemology or ethic Do they hold it together in a consistent way and can it ground the particular instances of human experience?

Simple there with three Categories, which are just branches of philosophy now some people focus on one branch of philosophy and that's their whole life. You know that some people dedicate philosophers.

You have one. They're in epistemology. They got one little mitigated theory or whatever. They're not doing it in a whole this systematic fashion like the grand philosophers were doing but let's go. Okay, we lay out three points there now.

Let's take a little bit more broad with the same three-point system now. Let's go to a four-point in that World view it also has to answer the meta narrative. So that I learned from John frame he lays it down in his history of Western philosophy.

That all the world views you got to answer some more questions as well. The only about those categories, but four more as well. Nature of origins. Why man has problems in this world? What's his solutions and where things go?

Now that's the from the secular view I use secular terms there. From the Christian perspective we talk about the the doctrines of creation fall. Redemption consummation of all things to the other world.

He's got their views of these things, too. Not only of just metaphysics epistemology and ethics, but the whole course of history. It lays on a meta narrative that's over top of that, you know, the stringent three categories there we laid out.

So that's even something more broad to bring it more broad in scope of saying it gets more involved here. Because these sorts of issues are gonna come up in dialogue. You can think about the you know, three points and then four points.

Just remember that three points three point worldview four point meta narrative origin nature of origins. Our doctrine of creation. That's what the Christians gonna argue from the fall. Well, they. The person is gonna say well, why are there problems in the world the world is not ideal there's problems people are disagreeing we're debating.

There's bad things going on why they have to account for these things. Christian fall. Simple nature of man, you know. We're in simple rebounding against God redemption. The you know secular viewpoint of the Christian viewpoint obviously the gospel faith in Jesus Christ.

You know saves us from our sins. Is that bro resurrection? Yeah, things like that. We bring up but from the our worldviews, you know, just take pick an atheist. So my head you go well someone like Plato or some of these philosophers.

Plato Hegel didn't really put the philosopher on the pedestal. Well, obviously the philosophers gotta be the philosopher king people just need to be educated. We'll solve the problems and just educational just solve the problems, you know, or we've used that education because semi from.

And that can be internally critiqued as well. And then where are things going final consummation of all things?

See what I like about that what you just said right there the Greeks. Aristotle, right. What. Plato. How do you fix? This problem. Education. But. You see now you get to the foundation. Well education presupposes a foundation out of which of that education is coming from.

And so the presupposition list is gonna do well to not argue about. Well this form of education is better. Well that form of education is better. We go straight to the foundation. What worldview are you standing on when you promote a specific education that you think is the remedy for man's problems?

Yeah, and and if it comes out of a worldview that's incoherent and cannot ground itself cannot stand then that worldview is not sufficient.

To answer man's problems. White blood of the system. Pumping into the system. We go right for the jugular. That's right. Well, where's it pumping from? Yeah, where's it? Where's this life like coming from?

Well, okay that order. That's what your main focus is. Look for the underlying presuppositions. People's assertions. Say why would they assert that. Well, okay. Fundamentally, it's not just one assertion in a vacuum.

We already know there's a system around it. There's other interpretations of other things and other things that are on stated premises that need to be, you know laid out.

Well I mean.

I want to get back to the first point you brought up when you're laying out the worldview or the two sides of the page I like your phrase showing your cards. Mm-hmm your hand. We show our hand and the opponent shows theirs and say, all right now, let's tussle.

We'll see which one has a world flush, you know. Just that's pretty much the media of media argument. They're just using analogy, but you know, you got it to lay it out and the Christians very forthright just laying out our world.

We say all right. What do you have you can test against this? And not only do you have to have something substantial from your own view? But you also have to internally demolish your opponent, which we do from our side to it.

We are can stand it with a stand internal critique. As long as we're not strong man and stuff like that, but that's usually you know Toss aside anyway, because strong man's aren't really attacking us.

But then we can just deal with the cards that they've been laying out and say, all right. Let's make some systematic cogent sense. I've you can't I don't see how you have a cogent systematic worldview.

It just leaves gaps and You don't have systematic cogency. So that's what we're also looking for as well. So it's not cogent and the also ontological.

Well.

Ontological metaphysical and ethical grounding for these things and that's copied the location of all for the sea, which a lot of people would Just assert as well. There has to be a ground of all being there has to be.

Maybe they would search. There's absolute truth. Maybe you can't know maybe no one can know but there there has to be it. But they get this big, you know circle with a question mark inside of it. That's where the Christians like we know that we know what that is Trinity Father Son Holy Spirit one God one being three persons.

I created the world and all things in them and Created us in his image or to bear that image. So we got we got an answer from there. We're arguing from the transcendental henceforth. They're guarding from things experience.

Try and go.

Right, right when you start with your own finite self. There's no way to make the leap to understand the nature of the metaphysic the nature of reality now. The unbeliever or whoever might disagree with the Christians conception of reality, but If the Christian worldview is true then it makes sense that we can know the nature of reality because the Metaphysic the only way that that one could know the metaphysic is that they know it comprehensively and there's one within our worldview that does.

Christianity is a revelatory religion so that we could not know the nature of reality. Unless the one who knows all things tells us now the unbeliever doesn't have to believe that. But it makes sense within our system on our side of the page as you if you were if you will it makes sense.

For us to say we can know the nature of reality because God has revealed it. That doesn't mean we know everything. But we know the metaphysical context in which the discussion can even make sense, which we call you know the foundation of Reality where we would call the ontological Trinity the triune God is the metaphysical context in which Everything within human experience human beings themselves and everything actually makes sense to begin with.

All right. Okay, so we hit the half-hour mark. Here's the thing. I don't know how much space is on my phone. So if we record this and and it's really long, I don't want to be on to unable to record it.

So we're gonna keep going. We still have plenty of time, but I want to shift gears.

Common Misconceptions About Presuppositional Apologetics

And.

Ask you some questions in regards to common misconceptions about the presuppositional method. Now, of course, we've been all over the place. Which is what I wanted. I wanted to kind of a free-flowing conversation.

But I actually have someone I told people because I'm gonna be interviewing Chris bolt from choosing hats on Saturday.

A few times.

Yeah, yep, you're.

I'm sorry.

I think I ran to him on discord. Maybe earlier in the year or something like that. I had a quick thing where I just left bag. Oh, yeah, we said the you know the way I like to lay it out there. I said, yeah, it's just before you on the contrary, right?

Right? So I'm gonna be talking to him on Saturday.

And so I asked people if they had any questions to send me some questions now so far I only just have a couple but I want I wanted to take For you to have the opportunity to answer some of these which I think which I think are great.

I think this person is a Christian and So I've shared the post that I was gonna have an interview and discussion on presuppositional apologetics with with Chris Paul. And of course, I shared it in a group where people no one there's a is a precept.

You know that they're kind of classical guys and they all think precept is bunk. So I figured let's tackle some of the common misconceptions to show that even if they don't hold to this precept methodology There are answers to what they think are, you know, these insurmountable issues that precept methodology can't address.

Okay, so question number one and I think this is an important question. Is there an example in Scripture of presuppositional apologetics being done by presuppositional I mean Assuming and not arguing for if there goes the fallacy there the truth of Scripture and of God's Existence.

Okay. I'm not done with the question. But look at the faulty assumption the faulty assumption is that presuppositional is don't argue we just assert. There's a problem there so so is there an example in Scripture a presuppositional apologetics being done by presuppositional I mean Assuming and not arguing for the truth of Scripture and of God's existence.

Because I see many times where God himself points to the work He has done in the world as evidence that he should be worshipped. Jesus points to the signs he performs. He doesn't just say believe the Old Testament.

Okay, why don't you address the faulty assumptions in the question? But then charitably answer the question in terms of well. Are there examples of the biblical you a biblical use of a presuppositional methodology?