Debate Review: Joel Settecase vs Tom Jump

Upcoming Apologetics Events and Course Announcements

Welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host Eli Ayala, and today I have another guest with me, a friend of mine, Joel Sedekes of the Think Institute. If you are unfamiliar with the Think Institute, I would highly recommend that you go over to the Think Institute YouTube channel and subscribe.

Joel's got some great discussions, debates, and just teachings coming from a presuppositional perspective, and so if folks are interested in, of course, presuppositional apologetics, that's just another channel that you can go and check out and benefit greatly from.

So before I invite Joel on, I just want to remind folks that, what's today's day? Today is the 18th. On the 20th, that is Wednesday at 9 p .m., I'm going to be having Anthony Rogers, who is a Christian apologist.

You guys might be familiar with him. He is an excellent defender of the Trinity, especially within the context of engaging Muslims. I'm going to be having him on to discuss the philosophical problem of the one and the many, and so if folks are familiar with presuppositional argumentation, transcendental arguments, when we say something to the effect that the Christian God provides the necessary preconditions for intelligible experience because he answers the issue of the one and the many-ness, how we unify both unity and diversity in the world, we're going to unpack that in more detail, but Anthony Rogers is going to be on to discuss that super interesting topic.

It's definitely not for the faint of heart. We're going to be diving into some deeper philosophical notions, but if you're interested in defending the Trinity and seeing why Christian Trinitarian theism provides the necessary preconditions for intelligible experience and why the philosophical problem of the one and the many is a problem and requires an answer, then you're going to want to check that out.

That is on October 20th, 9 p .m. Eastern. Also on November 18th at 9 p .m. Eastern also. Notice that there are later times because I have kids. I've got to wait till everyone goes to bed. That's how it works around here, but on November 18th I'm going to be having Dr. Jason Lyle on, who is a PhD astrophysicist and a noted presuppositional apologist.

We're going to be talking specifically about the topic of the historical atom. Dr. Lyle is going to interact a little bit with Dr. William Lane Craig's work on the historical atom, and so that's going to be super interesting for folks if you're going to listen in.

Dr. Lyle's an excellent, I've had him actually a couple of times. He's always an excellent guest. Also on October 27th, these aren't in order of course, October 27th I actually have Dr. Douglas Gruthius coming on to talk about the spiritual formation of the apologist.

We'll talk a little bit about the importance of maintaining a spiritually healthy relationship with the Lord when we're engaging in all of this heavy philosophical and apologetic content. I will also be having Joshua Pillows on on October 25th to critique a video entitled Five Stupid Things About Presuppositional Apologetics.

It's an older video, but I'm going to have Joshua Pillows on and we're going to pick apart some really bad objections to presuppositional apologetics. But hey, maybe you're not familiar with these objections.

Maybe when you hear them, they'll sound kind of convincing and you're probably wondering, how could I respond to this? So we'll be addressing those. I also have Toby Sumter coming on on November 3rd at 8 p .m. Eastern.

And then I have, and this is going to be fun for folks, if folks are familiar with David Pullman, who is an Arminian and evidential apologist. He's actually going to be coming on and you guys know David is, if you're familiar with David, he's a very, he's not at all, how can I say this, he doesn't like presuppositional apologetics very much and so he's often very vocal about that in his YouTube channel and as well in the comments and Facebook discussions and things like that.

So I'm actually gonna have David on along with my friend Joshua Pillows to discuss, within the context of a moderated conversation, to discuss the issue of apologetic methodology. And so hopefully that'll be an opportunity for David to kind of express clearly his opposition to the presuppositional method.

And I think this will be a great resource to see how David and the evidentialist perspective and Joshua and the presuppositional perspective interact with each other and I think this will be a great resource for people to go back and listen and kind of really hear what both sides are saying so that there can be more clarity on these sorts of issues.

All right, well that's it for all of my upcoming announcements. My last thing, I'm trying to push my apologetics online course as classes will be starting on November 1st and so you can sign up for PresuppU and learn presuppositional apologetics within the context of a course with me for five weeks.

You can listen to me give lectures on various aspects of presuppositional apologetics. We have done this in the past. It was excellent. We had folks sign up from all over the world and it was a really an awesome experience being able to connect with people and really interact with, you know, folks who follow the channel and just go a little deeper into some of the issues regarding presuppositional apologetics in general and some of the intricacies of what that entails more specifically.

So you can do that. RevealedApologetics .com, PresuppU and register. Classes start November 1st. All right. All right. With all that out of the way, I'd like to introduce my friend Joel Setecase of the Think Institute.

Joel Setecase on the Think Institute and Presuppositional Apologetics

How are you doing, Joel? You are muted, sir.

It's all right. And there we go. You think I'm doing well, man. How are you? I'm doing.

Well. I'm so happy that you could make it today. Oh, no. My pleasure. Believe me.

This is it's always it's always fun when we talk and I learn something every time. So you're talking about this class you have coming up. Man, I would I'd seriously want to recommend to anybody that they take that class.

What night are you guys.

Meeting or when do you guys meet your course? I believe it'll be on two. That's a good question. It caught me off guard. I'll put you on the spot. I'd have to I have to look at the information is actually on the website so folks can look at look there.

But I don't have it in front of me now. That's good. That's good.

So now you're bringing people to the website. Yeah. Go check out the website.

That's right. Yeah. And just for folks to let them know, it's it's introductory, but it's not introductory in the sense that it's kind of just the willy nilly sort of stuff. We do get into issues of metaphysics, epistemology and ethics.

And we talk about the you know, what are the metaphysical groundings of derivational facts and understanding why the grounding of all reality must be a personal God. So we get into some of those deeper issues that I think folks will find very helpful.

But yeah, check out the website. You can find out the details that I don't remember off the top of my head. Thanks a lot, Joel. Man, that's it. I have that's it. You're gone. See, I can't invite someone on the show and then they embarrass you like that.

What's up with that? I'm just kidding. That's good. All right. You're.

Coming on my show next. So we'll see what happens. That's right. That's right. So.

So what have you been up to with respect to the Think Institute? And then we'll jump right into the primary reason I have you on today.

Thanks for asking, man. So our ministry is all about, as you know, helping dads to lead their families in defending the truth of the Christian message. And that's a focus that is it's a it's a really a renewed focus.

It's a honed focus where we're as of late, we're really trying to focus in on families and fatherhood. And, you know, as the father goes spiritually, so goes the family. And as the family goes, so goes the church.

And as the church goes, so goes the culture. Culture, as they say, is downstream from cultists, from the worship. And so we're doing a lot of we're pouring all of our efforts into that initiative of helping dads to lead their families to defend the truth of the Christian message.

And one of the things that we're doing is, of course, we've got our podcast. So you can listen to the Think podcast. You already mentioned the YouTube channel, which is which they can get all that stuff at the Think Institute.

So if you're watching on YouTube right now, the address is is right there, right underneath my ugly mug right there, the Think Institute. And and I actually have the reason why I asked you, Eli, what day of the week your class meets is because I've got a class coming up as well.

It's a worldview class. And that's something that I am eagerly preparing for, where we're going to be diving deeply into how the Bible answers life's biggest questions. And, you know, you and I as presuppositionalists and as apologists, we'd like to talk a lot about how the Bible is the only basis, the biblical worldview is the only basis, not just a good basis, but the only basis for things like logic, meaning, morality, mathematics, all of those wonderful, intangible realities that we take for granted.

But I wonder how many of our viewers could open up the Bible and give chapter and verse where the Bible actually, you know, supports that. And so that's one of the things that I'm really excited about is providing not only that basis, not only that wonderful biblical worldview, but I'm really making it explicit where the Bible teaches these things.

And it's an introductory course, but it's something that that I think a lot of people, I think whatever your level is, I think it'll be really beneficial. And then there's another project that I haven't even talked to you about yet.

It's way too early to talk about it, but I know, I know, I know, I know, man, but let's just say, Lord willing, I'm in talks to join the ranks of R .C. Sproul, Francis Schaeffer, and others who have put some physical heft to their ministries, some place to their ministries.

That's all I can give right now. But, but we're, we're doing, the Lord is doing some amazing things. And I kind of feel like I'm along for the ride sometimes.

All right. Well, that sounds really interesting. And it just came to me. So, so my, my classes will be meeting Monday nights, Monday nights.

Of course, the same night as mine. Great.

Yeah, that's it. November. I just looked November 1st.

All right. Well, I take it back. Nobody joined my class. Everybody go join you guys. Go ahead.

Well, here's the thing, whether they take my class or your class, I hope that people don't listen to this and say, well, I already know presuppositional apologetics. It's actually very helpful to do apologetic study within a more formal and structured context so that you can be better at sharing it with others.

Like someone teaches it to you and you're able to teach it to someone else because we really want to multiply apologists. It's not just, you know, being YouTube consumers, you're listening to podcasts and things like that.

You know, we can talk a lot about the practice of apologetics, but it really doesn't make any difference if we're not actually practicing apologetics in a real life context. And so that means equipping people and then sending people out.

So I do highly recommend, whether it's a Joel's class or my class, get educated, get a formal instruction somewhere. If you're, if you're, you know, if you're too broke, busted and disgusted to do seminary, doing independent courses like these might actually be a good option for you.

And it's a good way to support ministries that you are benefiting from. So, all right. Well, without further ado, the reason why I have Joel on here is to talk a little bit about his debate slash discussion with the atheist YouTuber, Tom Jump.

Joel and I have, well, we have a few things in common, but one thing we have in common is we both interacted with Tom Jump. And I like how my discussion, I was happy with how my discussion went with him.

But when I watched your discussion, I thought you did an excellent job. There were a couple of moments where I thought there was some talking past each other. But, but for the most part, I think you nailed, you nailed down the, the, some very important points that I think, and you, I'm sure you would recognize that he kind of seems to just kind of assert and it seemed as though he didn't have to, you know, give an account for some of the things that he was saying.

How do you think you did? And why don't you share with us kind of the basis of your argument? And then we'll kind of interact with some of the things that Tom, Tom mentioned in the debate or discussion.

How the Presuppositional Argument Works

All right. So how, how, how did I do? I hate answering that question because I never know how I did. I mean, they're like, you know, you, you probably know this about me. I used to be a pastor and I would get up there on Sundays and I would preach.

And Eli, I will tell you this on the, the days when I thought that I did the best, knocked it out of the park. I get back down, talk to my wife. Yeah. How was it? You know, expecting the, you know, let's go here.

Right. Let me have it. Ah, okay. Oh, okay. No, no. My wife's very encouraging. Don't get me wrong. But, but overall the general consensus was, you know, nothing, no great shakes. But then on those times when I felt like I really blew it, people would come up to me afterwards and they'd go, Joe, that was, you know, that was inspired by God or the heavens parted and the Lord spoke.

And I'm like, well, I tell you what, brother, I'll tell you what sister, it wasn't me. It was all the Lord because I was up there hemming and hawing and stammering like a jackass. You know, I wouldn't say that I'd put it, you know, I'd use a little more decorum than that.

But, but as for how I did, you know, in this discussion. Yeah. I. If you want my opinion, which you did, you must, because you asked for it. I think that I represented the biblical worldview faithfully.

I believe that I did. And one of the things that I was trying to do, and maybe you caught this and maybe you think I did it enough or not enough, but, or maybe too much. I wanted to put Tom on the defensive.

Sure. So I wanted, I wanted to provide a context in which he felt as though he needed to justify some of his claims. Sure. He makes a lot of claims. He makes a lot of assertions. And, and I wanted him, I wanted the audience to see at the very least, if even if he didn't, that he was making assertions.

He was presupposing certain things about reality and his own mind and the rules governing reality about truth and about meaning and about logic that he was trying to get away with presupposing them, even though they comport with my worldview and not with his, he was trying to get away with presupposing them while denying that he was presupposing them and attributing them just to the way that things are or some sort of irrefutable, you know, reality, the big R reality.

So he talks quick. And so if you don't pick that up, you can, he gets away with murder in terms of the assertions he makes. Yeah, that's right.

So that brings me to two things that I think I could have done better. And I don't know if you'd agree with this or not. Two things that I think I could have done better. One, there was a point probably halfway through where he wanted to shift the conversation and ask me a bunch of questions, you know, put me on the defensive a little bit.

I think I was so much in offensive mode that I kind of just bowled right over him and just kept him on the defensive. And I did get that feedback back from others. And and and even, you know, if you read some of the comments that people were making during the show, some some of the people and I, you know, some of those comments were pretty vile, but, you know, some of them, well, you know, you know, your problem is,.

Joel, if I'm ugly, for one, if you're if you're mean, you will be called a dirtbag and a mean, hypocritical Christian. If you are nice, your niceness will be suspect and that you have a disingenuous motive.

So literally, I had a discussion with someone and as I was reading through the I don't usually read through the comments, but in this particular instance, I read through the comments and someone said that was the nicest presuppositional list I've ever seen.

And then, you know, I kept I read a couple of things down is like this guy was so obnoxious. I'm like, how can people look at the same conversation and come to completely diametric conclusions? So it's a lose lose situation on that.

And that's why we really shouldn't care what people think about us. We just want to be faithful to the Lord and to do.

But go ahead. Exactly, exactly right. And the other thing that I will say is and I realized this afterwards and this was something that one of the atheist viewers had pointed out, at least I assume an atheist, is that I did not share the gospel with him.

And that was that that was a major miss on my part. And and, you know, I understand the value of what we might call pre evangelism. I understand the value of breaking down the unbiblical worldview. I get that totally.

I understand the value of that. But I need to be about preaching the gospel. So what I've tried to do is I've had atheists follow me over to my channel from that debate. And I kind of view it, Eli, is like, you know, if you were to imagine you were to go out in your backyard and there's, you know, you take a stick and you poke the the hornets nest and then you run inside.

You know, at least a few of those hornets are going to follow you up to your sliding glass door and they're going to start banging on the glass. That's kind of what happened. I think I got some of Tom's viewers over to my channel commenting on random videos, you know, just trying to this guy's an idiot.

So what I've tried to really do is I've tried to really give those people the gospel, because I'm I'm thinking, look, if you're if you're that engaged, you're following me home, so to speak. You're in my house now.

You're going to hear the gospel. Sure. And so, you know, Lord knows if if any of that's going to bear fruit. But that would be the one other criticism that I would have of myself.

And and you do need to understand, too, folks need to understand that it's very easy to see someone like Tom and the people who follow him as kind of, well, they're just a lost cause. Like it's pointless talking to people like that.

When we do apologetics, there is something going on that is unseen, and that is the work of the Holy Spirit. And so you have no idea how God is using the words that you speak in the background, so to speak, and such to bring about his own purposes.

So let us never look at someone like Tom and kind of the people who who tend to follow his his stuff is kind of a lost cause. When the gospel is proclaimed, God, if I can use the language, God works his magic.

And you'll be surprised, you know, at at the fruit that comes out of that. All right. So, well, actually, Richie, thank you so much. I got a super chat. I haven't got a super chat in like a thousand years.

It feels like thank you so much. Four dollars and ninety nine cents. Richie says in the short time I've interacted with Joel, this dude is legit as they come. Super nice, but a firm dude who stands on the truth of God's word.

Well, that's a nice compliment. Excellent. Well, thank you so much, Richie. I appreciate that. Thanks. All right. So please let me let me move on here. I kind of lost track of what I was saying. See, come on, Richie.

You're so you're nice. Super chat threw me off.

You know what, though? Be careful, because Richie's. Richie's a beast. He's like a jujitsu teacher.

And I don't know what his name. Look at his name. It's Richie Torres MMA. That's right. That's right.

You know, this is this is a guy. You just don't mess with Richie. It's like, you know, Richie. Yeah. Is he Hispanic?

Torres, you tell me. Torres. Yeah. Torres. Torres. Maybe it's Puerto Rican. I'm Puerto Rican people. One guy thought I was from Jordan.

Really? Yeah. Do I look Jordanian? You've got you've got a very ethnically ambiguous look. You could be. Is that what Jordanian people look like? You're going to get us canceled. Ethnically ambiguous.

Yeah. Yeah. You got. But I've been told I've got the same thing. Like people are like, what are you like? I don't know what you are. What are you?

Said it said a case. What is that even? Where's that from now?

It's it's said a case here, but across the ocean, it's OK. Set the guys. Oh, so you're Italian. I. Well. And here's the funny thing. I am one quarter Italian, but that's not how I got the name. My dad was adopted.

So my dad happens to be half Italian, half Hispanic. We don't know what kind.

We don't know. He's Puerto Rican. Look at the look at these Puerto Rican. What do you want? Oh, yeah. Yeah. Look at that.

Well, I so I've got a Puerto Rican friend and he he believes that I am Puerto Rican. He says my voice sounds Puerto Rican. But, you know, Puerto Rico is not just it's not just one barrio. You know, there's there's lots of the rolled the tongue.

You like that? That's called Bachelor. That's that's called accommodation. OK, no. Listen, he sounds like me and he's from Puerto Rico. He's got the blue eyes like me, too. OK, so he thinks they can appreciate it.

I don't know. It was French for no, no, no, no. I said that's all I know. She probably laughed.

May be a long time. We have to be careful. People are going to think we're Pentecostal speaking in tongues. So let's get back on. Let's get back on topic. OK, so OK, so there are a couple of things that Tom said.

But before we get to Tom, why don't you lay out your argument? What what is the preset? How do you present the presuppositional argument? And then we'll interact with Tom's position and kind of see if we can identify some things that would be useful for folks to to keep in mind.

The Three-Step Presuppositional Method

OK, so in general, when I lay out the presuppositional argument, what I try to do is I view it in terms of a three step argument. I'm thinking just like big picture. This is how I I approach presuppositionalism.

And Eli, none of this is going to be new to you, of course. But, you know, for me, it's a surprise.

Hey, there are things that we can be familiar with. But when someone says it in their own way, can it can actually shed light in areas that you never really thought of? So I've heard presuppositional arguments presented in a way.

I've never heard them before and actually learned something. So don't sell yourself short.

Yeah, that's fair. That's very fair. So. When I presented, it's step one. So three steps. Step one is. You reduce the unbelieving position to absurdity by going by being. I describe it like being a home inspector.

My wife and I, we've moved. I don't know, seven or eight times in the 11 years we've been married. It's it's it's crazy. I know you just had to move recently. We've we had to move recently about a year ago.

But we've we've bought now we've bought three houses. We've actually purchased three houses. And you want to give me one? Yeah, I didn't say simultaneously.

I'll take one. It's hard to buy a house. We're struggling over here.

Yeah. Yeah. Now we're raking it in at the think institute. No, no, no. No. Please send money. So a home inspector. We've worked with home inspectors, you know, and what they'll do is they'll go down to the basement and they'll inspect the the basement floor, which oftentimes, if it's unfinished, is made of concrete.

And they'll look and know what they're doing is they're they're trying to see if the foundation is sound. And I'll never forget. We were looking for a home in the city of Chicago when we lived there. And we went into this house and it was beautiful.

It was really nice within our price range and a good neighborhood. Jefferson Park. We thought, you know, this is this is where we want to go. This is where we want to be. We go down to the basement and our home inspector.

He gets down in the basement. Ten seconds. He knew this was not the house for us. He told us that he said, you must not buy this house. We said, why? And he goes, this foundation is not sound. And he pointed down and he showed us a crack down the middle of the foundation going from the front of the house to the back of the house.

And he said, this house is not sound. It is only a matter of time until this house literally splits in two. He said, OK, that's a bummer. Are you sure? And he goes, absolutely. This is what I do. He said, OK.

So we left step one of the presuppositional method is that it's being a good home inspector and going down into the basement of your friend or your your roommate or your your family member, your co-workers worldview, going down to the basement and inspecting the foundation and saying this foundation is not sound.

This foundation cannot support the house. What is that foundation? That foundation is the presuppositions, the assumptions. The if you want to say axioms, that's fine. As long as you don't get too specific on what an axiom is, that's fine.

But it's those beliefs that you start with before you go out and make any kind of inquiry about the world. It's the assumptions that you bring to the table. They're your your unquestioned beliefs. And if someone is an atheist, but not just an atheist, if they're, you know, some some form of, you know, a theist or, you know, they have a religious worldview that's not the biblical worldview, then there's some assumption that they have about reality, about metaphysics, you know, what is ultimately real or what or ontology, you know, being morality, anthropology, what does it mean to be man and to be human?

And there's some foundational belief that they have that can't support their conclusions. They can't support the conclusions that they want to reach. So step one is we go down there and we show them, look, this foundation can't hold.

Then we show them the conflict between their fundamental beliefs, their presuppositions and the conclusions that they are that they are reaching. You know, oftentimes that takes the form of something like God is immoral.

Christians are hypocrites. You know, love is love, whatever it may be. The. Their foundation, their foundation can't support that. That's step one. And when I say we're reducing it to absurdity, we're saying, look, look, your beliefs don't match up.

Something's got to give here. You got to give up one. You know, you either got to give up your foundation, you got to give up the roof, these walls aren't going to support it. Step two, then, is we invite them into our house, the biblical house, and we say, now let's do an internal critique.

What I what I never say is we're going to reduce the biblical worldview to absurdity because it can't be done. Instead, I say we're going to do an internal critique, and I bring them down to the basement, I go, look at this foundation.

Look how well poured it is. Look, it's level. It's smooth. It's just beautiful. It's got the epoxy finish down here. I mean, it's just it's gorgeous. Now look at the walls, how the walls support. They stand firmly on the foundation and then they support the rest of the house.

And you've got the main floor and the second floor. We could we could build another hundred floors on this thing. And this house is going nowhere. And what I'm doing is I'm showing them the biblical presuppositions, the biblical foundation.

We're starting with the biblical worldview, and it's supporting all the conclusions that we want to come to. And we're saying there's no inconsistency, there's no illogicality, there's no contradiction here, you see.

And we're doing an internal critique now. Step. So we've we've we've revealed that dichotomy. We've done what Cornelius Vantill, the godfather of presuppositionalism, called pushing the antithesis or, you know, talking about the antithesis.

And then we go to step three. Step three is vital. And this is why I'm kicking myself for not getting there with Tom. And I'm glad you and I are having this conversation. Sure. Step three is when you is when you make your gospel appeal or at the very least, at the very least, your call to repentance.

This is where you say, you know, the same Bible that presents this beautiful, consistent, non-contradictory worldview is the same Bible that says that denying God, who is so obvious now, I've shown you how obvious the biblical worldview is.

That same God says at the heart of that worldview that the reason why you deny him, even though you clearly know him, you know that he's true, is because of the sin that's in your heart, the sin that's in your life, that you don't want to give up.

And that sin is going to keep you from God for all eternity. And it's worse than that. The Bible says that the wages of sin is death. You've heard of hell. That's what hell is. Hell is the everlasting punishment of God.

And I want I want you to avoid that. So thankfully, God tells us how to avoid it. Doesn't let us figure it out on our own. The very same Bible verse that says the wages of sin is death also says that the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus, our Lord.

So if you're wondering how you can be free from your sin, free from your denial of God and and to have everlasting life. It's in Jesus. Does that make sense? Yes, it does. No, it doesn't. If it makes sense.

Does that sound like something you'd like to do right now? OK, then we talk about, you know, hey, would you would you like me to teach you right now how you can receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior?

We talk about the gospel. You know, we go to first Corinthians 15 and however, however far they're willing to go, they're not willing to go. That's OK. But I want to at least lead them to the foot of the cross as much as I can.

But that's my three step process. Step one, step two, and then step three. And really quickly, before you move on, this is the process that the Lord Jesus uses in the gospels. And I've got another course that I that I teach called the apologetics of Jesus and Paul, where I I dig into four examples, four, four examples of Jesus.

One example of Paul, where they use this exact method. It's not always in the same order, but they they reduce the other argument to absurdity. They reveal the consistency and the beauty and the solidity of the truth, biblical truth.

And then they either call to repentance and faith or they simply rebuke for unbelief. And the implication is repent.

Naturalism, Presuppositions, and the Law of Identity

Sure. All right. Well, OK, so I see a problem in what you're saying already, not with the gospel presentation, but with your presuppositional argument. Now, of course, I don't see a problem with it. I'm role playing here, OK?

The problem is and I and this is what Tom says. I'm actually going to. Well, first, let's define Tom's position. He defines his position. He says he says, I'm an atheist, by which I mean that I believe that all of the arguments and evidence that is typically used, you know, by God.

Right. He said, you know, reality is better explained by naturalism. So he's a naturalist. OK. And of course, we need to pull that apart. You know, there are different aspects to naturalism. And naturalism is a presupposition, whether he states it in his argument or not.

OK. When he goes later on to state what is possible or impossible, he can only state those because to state possibility or impossibility would be inconsistent from a Christian perspective. Right. Without grounding that in God who defines for us what's possible and possible.

So he already presupposes a world view in which he allows himself to actually tell us what is possible or impossible. OK. But besides the point, he calls himself a naturalist, as he says here in his statement here.

And then he says this. And this is where I think you fall apart, Joel. OK. You fall apart. Your whole argument falls apart. Well, let me tell you, Joel, I don't have any presuppositions. So here let's let's quote him directly.

He says this in a timestamp here in three minutes and thirty five seconds, I guess, when I started recording. So maybe not be it's not directly to video.

All my best arguments were before that. Yeah. Yeah. So he so he says.

So starting with the preconditions of intelligibility, he says, I don't have any presuppositions whatsoever. My worldview starts with my experience, an experience that doesn't presuppose anything. It's just a direct experience.

And then I can create logic and math and all the other languages, languages, formal languages to describe that experience. And so you don't need to presuppose anything, because no matter what reality is like with or without a God, it's not possible for those things to be false.

So if there wasn't a God, that would still be true, that one plus one equals two and that a equals a. And so to say that you need to presuppose God would mean that somehow those could be false if God didn't exist, which would be impossible.

Now, there are a whole host of presuppositions. And we folks have to be careful when they're speaking with someone like Tom, who will very quickly assert these things with a confidence and then say all the philosophers agree with me.

This is this is not to you know, when someone says this is not debated, this is just accepted. You always have to remember everything is debated. Everything is debatable. OK. And so his statement there, you do need to kind of stop him in his tracks.

Or if you're talking to someone like Tom, stop them in their tracks and examine. All right. When you're engaged in philosophical intercourse, right, in philosophical engagement, everything is worthy of being questioned.

And so I don't care if you can find a million philosophers. If I don't know if there are a million philosophers.

In the world, but if you can find John Frames says everyone's a philosopher.

So that's right. Seven billion of them, at least six, seven billion. If you find four billion out of the six billion who say, I don't have any presuppositions, I don't care if they're experts, they're wrong.