Theology, Apologetics, Other Stuff

Opening Banter and Upcoming Calvinism Conference

Welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host Eli Ayala, and today we're going to kind of keep things general. I am going to be having Matt Slick of Karm .org joining me to talk about apologetics, theology, and other stuff, and so we're going to be covering possibly a wide range of topics.

I do want to encourage folks who will be listening in, if you have any questions or comments, please feel free to throw your question there in the comment section and preface your question with the letter Q or the word question.

So highly recommend that you do that if you want Matt and I to cover some of your questions. Now Matt is not here right now, so we're hoping he's gonna connect in just a few moments, otherwise I'll just be, you know, flying solo here, but hopefully he'll sign in just a few moments.

So before we jump in, just a quick reminder, on January 21st we will be having our Epic Online Calvinism Conference. I will be speaking alongside Dr. James White, Dr. Guillaume Bignon, Scott Christensen, and Saiten Bruggenknecht, and we're going to be covering various aspects of Calvinism.

One second here. All right, yeah, just got a message from Matt. He'll be joining in just a few moments. But yeah, so you guys definitely don't want to miss this Epic Online Calvinism Conference. If you are interested in presuppositional apologetics, the presentations on the Epic Online Presub Conference is available for a reduced price on the website revealedapologetics .com, and you can purchase those.

It's a good way to support Revealed Apologetics financially, and of course reserving a spot for this Calvinism Conference is another way of doing that. And if you're unable to support Revealed Apologetics financially, then you can definitely support us through your prayers and by writing a positive review on iTunes if you follow the podcast there, as well as liking this video and sharing it.

So all of the generic YouTube, you know, social media type things, those actually help a lot. So I would appreciate the likes and the shares. All right, well, a couple of things also. I want to, perhaps you guys can share in the comments, if there is anyone you'd like me to interview, a topic you'd like me to cover, I have been super blessed to be able to interview really every single scholar that I have read and have been interested in, who I've had the benefit of actually having on the show, for the most part.

There may be some other ones that I still wish I could interview, but I've had some great guests. I've had Doug Wilson on, James White, I've had Scott Olyphant, again, with a great emphasis on like the presuppositional stuff.

I've had Frank Turek on, and many, many others. And of course, I've had Matt Slick on before as well. But I'm looking towards the new year and thinking, well, who should I interview this time around? And so I would definitely appreciate suggestions and things like that.

So let me know in the comments. That will be very helpful to me, and it'll kind of give me something to shoot for in the new year. All right. Okay, so let me just, let me see, Facebook Messenger. Here we go.

That's Matt trying to connect. And he'll be joining us in just a moment. This is the fun thing about doing interviews. I usually connect with my guests 10 minutes before to do kind of like a quick audio visual, make sure everything's in line.

And if they don't connect early, I get nervous because, you know, sometimes people forget emergencies happen. And so I'm about to do a show with a guest, and they don't show up. So that has happened before.

So, you know, that's how it goes. But again, I don't have time to edit my videos. So everything I do is live. And so if it's awkward, and I have to kind of, you know, wing it, that's the way to go. All right.

So as we are waiting for Matt Slick, I just want to give kind of another update. I've created a lot of outlines on presuppositional apologetics that I've used, whether in presentations or teachings and things like that.

And I'm thinking about releasing them on the website as part of like a blog article. So kind of just instead of writing an article, just sharing some of my outlines, maybe folks will find that helpful and useful in some way.

So I have an outline here I'm looking at called a list of objections to presuppositional apologetics. And I cover a wide range of objections. For one, I cover the ontology and epistemology objection. So presuppositionalism confuses ontology with epistemology.

I've got information there that is super helpful. Presuppositionalism is fideistic, right? It's just making an authority claim, you just have to believe by faith, and there's really no way to defend it.

Presuppositionalism is just making kind of a bare authority claim. I have some notes that kind of interact with those sorts of things. So that will be, hopefully I'll release that sometime early in the new year, I'm going to organize some of my notes and things like that.

So hopefully that will, you know, that will be useful to you. There is an interesting thing. If you guys check out the YouTube channel, The Wise Disciple, The Wise Disciple, excellent YouTube channel, I highly recommend you go over there and subscribe.

The host there is Nate Sala. I've had him on my show, and I've been on his show before. And I had like almost a two hour discussion with him on, as we were commenting on the debate between Greg Bonson and and R .C. Sproul.

And so, you know, we ended up talking for like two hours. And so he released those videos, that big discussion in two parts. And so you can check that out over at The Wise Disciple. But I also have the raw video and I'll be sharing it on the channel as well.

So if that's something that is interesting to you, then that should be released real soon. All right. Well, Matt Slick is in the room now. And so I'm going to invite him on the screen with me. And again, just real quick, the Epic Online Calvinism Conference, January 21st, it'll be from 1030 in the morning to 430 in the afternoon.

You don't want to miss it, you could sign up for that at revealedapologetics .com. Click on the presub you drop down menu and you can RSVP your spot there. You will not want to miss that. All right. Well, without further ado, I'd like to introduce my guest, Matt Slick.

Discussing Trinity, the One and the Many, and Presuppositionalism

How's it going, man? It's going. How are you doing? I'm doing all right, man. You're super busy. So I appreciate you coming on. I kind of asked Matt last second earlier today.

Yeah, a little wife time. We had a little talk and she, you know, because she has, she's suffering. She's in pain. So we just spent a little time with her. That's all. So got in here a little bit late and that's it.

No big deal.

All right. Well, I was asking the I was asking my listeners, who should I interview next in the new year? Someone who I haven't interviewed. So I got a couple of suggestions here. The reformed rookie says John MacArthur.

That'd be nice. I'd love to interview him before he dies. I know that sounds terrible, but he's super old. Do you know how old John MacArthur is right now? I don't know. I hope he's not as old as I think.

Yeah, that would be that would be nice. Someone here suggesting David Wood on the problem of evil. That'd be fun. Alyssa Scott. Did you convert Nate to presuppositionalism? We're working on him. It's he's this close.

OK, this close. But he's definitely have tickled his interest. And he's reading up on some Van Til and Bonson to try to get a firmer grasp on the method. And he will hopefully come to conclusions on that.

That'd be pretty cool. But definitely working on that. So, at any rate, let's jump right in. Charlie Spine. Charlie Spine. Isn't that a.

Friend of yours, Matt? Yeah, he's the guy who read me the quote from Joseph Smith that got me started studying apologetics. There we go. Let's give let's give it up.

For Charlie Spine. Matt Slick would not be here right now if it hadn't been for Charlie Spine. That's pretty cool. You can blame him. Yeah, no, that's right. Well, I'm sure atheists will blame him. Like, look, look what you've done to us.

Right. So, yeah. So we've been friends for a long time, Matt. And we often refer to the fact that our phone calls have been very, very interesting. Unfortunately, many of them have not been recorded. So I figured, you know what?

Let's talk about theology, apologetics and other stuff. And we can kind of blab about a bunch of things that I think folks will find useful. So is there anything currently now that you are studying, that you're researching, anything of theological or apologetical interest that will be interesting to talk about tonight?

Well, I guess if I'm studying, I don't know if it's going to be interesting. But I've got a thought on something. I was actually going to run this by you. So now is a good time as any just to see what you think.

All right. So I don't know. Just see what you think. And others can talk about this, too. And you'll see where I'm kind of stretching things a little bit here and there. So we know that God's a necessary precondition for intelligibility.

All right. So I was reading something, and it was one of those light bulb moments, you know. In Romans 1 .20, the divine nature of God is clearly seen. Well, what is that? His divine nature, Trinitarian.

All right. Well, I started thinking about this in other areas. So I get the impression that existence, apart from God, there's three realms, that there's the realm of the material, the realm of the spiritual and the realm of the conceptual.

OK. So I think that's fair because they're spiritual, the angels, the demonic forces. God himself is in that. There's the material realm, which is what we dwell in, but the conceptual realm also with universals and things like this, transcendentals and, you know, thinking.

Well, it occurred to me that that's a trinity of realms and God's a trinity. So I'm thinking about I'm just thinking out loud. OK, I'm not saying that all this is all right. OK, what about this? All right.

So in the material realm, we have time, space, matter. That's three. And time is past, present, future. Well, that's three. Space is height with depth. That's three. And matter, solid, liquid, gas. That's matter.

OK, so that's pretty easy. And so I think it works in the material realm. But then I started thinking about the spiritual realm. How is God's nature necessary or the precondition for the spiritual realm?

Is it Trinitarian? So I started thinking there's three, it seems to me, there's three areas or categories in the spiritual realm. God. Man. Angels. OK. And I can't think of a fourth category because God is separate than the other two, but man is a different creature than the angelic realm is.

Now there's the animals, but that's not a spiritual category. Well, could it, would you say that.

Everything that is not man or God is angel? Would you make a distinction between angels and spiritual beings like living creatures in heaven? Would you equate them with being angels? Could they be a category, a different category of spiritual entity?

You mean like djinn? No. The Bible speaks of the living, living creatures. I don't know if. Powers,.

Principalities, things like that. That's angelic. OK. So the angelic realm. Some people.

Make that distinction that there's angels and then there's this category of, you know,.

These living creatures, just a spiritual living creatures. Well, djinn? No, not the djinn. What's up with you and the djinn? Because I don't know of anything in the Bible that says anything other than there's an angelic realm.

There's God and there's us. We're all spiritual. So I don't know of anything that would be other. Just in Islam, the djinn, whatever those things are made of fire, stuff like that, you know. So all right.

And I start thinking so God is within the spiritual realm. God, man, angels. God is Trinitarian. And I lean towards in humanity. I lead towards dichotomy, dichotomy instead of trichotomy. But trichotomy fits nicely that we are as people, body, soul and spirit.

OK, and in the angelic realm, this is where I got to do some study, cherubim, seraphim and all the other categories of angels. OK, I don't know if that's legit, but I'm writing this stuff down thinking about it.

Now,.

Here's where we get more interesting. OK, well, you said seraphim, cherubim and the archangel.

Archangels. Yeah. OK, that's right. Thank you. How'd you miss that one? I'm just going through stuff. And I knew there was a third. And all the other ones. No, I knew there was another. I couldn't think of it.

Archangel. How could I think of that? Well, then how are the demonic forces? They would be just regular angels. Go home, Matt. You're drunk. How about that? OK, maybe I will. All right. I can go home.

She's joking around. Go ahead. I'm sorry. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That bothered me. Yeah. What was that? That really bothered me. Just to imply that I was drunk.

She's just messing around. She's just light hearted. I think she's a Christian. She loves when you come on and things like that. I don't think she meant it in any serious way.

Yeah. Go home, Matt. You're drunk. Yeah, I don't know. It just didn't strike me well. I take that very seriously about drinking, about your cognizance.

And I'm sorry about that. I'm sure she didn't mean it. And I'm not just saying that. She's usually very polite. And I think she's a believer. She looks forward to learning and ask good questions. I don't think she means that in any insulting way.

OK. So then in the conceptual realm, we have knowledge, reason and ethics. Those seem to be the three main categories. Let's say those three again. Knowledge, reason and ethics. OK. Well, we get into are there three areas of knowledge, material, spiritual, universals was conceptual.

And in reason, deductive, inductive, abductive. I don't think it's all that simple. And in ethics, normative, metaethics and applied ethics. So, you know, I need to talk to some people who are far more knowledgeable in these categories to see if there are three main categories or not.

What I'm doing is searching to see if there is such a thing as a trinity being the necessary aspect of all existence and all forms, shapes, everything for logic, for thought, for existence in every single realm and every single subcategory of the realm that the trinity is necessary.

This is what I've been thinking.

About. Matt, I think you're touching on something that has been a focus of the work of John Frame is his tribe, his tribe, perspectivalism, as I have here about the normative perspective. I can show you this.

He breaks the he breaks these issues into. I don't know if you could see that. It's really hard because the light. But he's got triangles here and he breaks this down each categories into like these three elements.

So we talk about knowledge. He talks about normative, you know, situational perspective, existential perspective. He kind of breaks these elements up into threes specifically, I think, along the lines of what you're trying to say.

And that's kind of what he's known for. I mean, tribe, tribe, perspectivalism is something that John Frame has really written a lot about. Maybe you're touching on that without knowing.

That you're touching on that. Well, he taught us that in seminary. OK, so I remember tripe perspectivalism, but so none of that is in my mind. I did come up with the name or the word tripe perspectivalism when I was going through this thinking, I wonder what John, I call him John, what he means by that.

And so, you know, it's been so far gone. I graduated in 91. That's I don't even remember it. But I thought, I wonder if he's got something on that. But that was just passing. And so. The reason I was talking, I was thinking about this is there's another reason.

You see, if the realms that we exist in material, spiritual, conceptual and the necessary precondition for all of them and all that matters within them is God himself, then the unregenerate, the ungodly, those who deny their trinity are going to have to explain those realms from a non-trinitarian perspective.

Now, within this, we're going to get into the issue of the one in the many. And which I think is very important, and I think trinitarianism solves the problem. So this is what I was thinking about, because the unregenerate seek to imitate God and replace God with man-centered ideas or false theologies.

They want to expand their own knowledge, they want to create their own ethics, they want to create their own life. Now, this issue of AI, I've been talking to some people about it. I talked to a PhD candidate in AI security, and they run a think tank in Berkeley.

I said, hey, invite me out sometime. I won't come there to preach and teach. I just want to be up flying the wall. And we had a long conversation, a couple hours over the phone, took a lot of notes. And he was explaining to me what AI is, and basically think of complex algorithms that are arranged in a programming situation that has the ability to be manipulated by programmers who then tweak the results to get better results from what they want to be.

So algorithms are capable of seeing patterns inside of large quantities of data. So anyway, we get into all that. But AI is a form of man's attempt to create life. And what's interesting is that they want to create life, but man also wants to destroy it.

Because in the womb, women are, they're becoming killers. And they will say that, no, it's my body, my life, my, me, me, me, me, not other. And what they're doing is justifying killing. And the unregenerate join in, in that philosophy of death and of killing.

So they kill, they kill the innocent, and yet they want to create life. And I'm seeing this pattern as the imitation of God and the realms that belong to God, the unbelievers are trying to take over. This is what, this is the whole thing I'm starting to think, is this what's going on?

Because also think about this, truth is what corresponds to the mind of God. What does an unbeliever do? He defines his own truth. So gender confusion, marriage confusion, the very nature of absolutes is up for grabs.

You see on the news media, truth is a commodity. Truth is just something that is to be sold, misrepresented, whatever it is, because that's what they do. And so they don't have the ultimate being God's nature.

So they have to do it themselves. And so that's what they're seeking to do in their imitation of God. And the goals of it is their own knowledge, their own.

Ethics, their own sovereignty. Okay, and so you're identifying these three things, these elements of three, as a reflection of verse 20 in Romans chapter 1 verse 20, for his invisible attributes, namely his eternal power and divine nature, divine nature encapsulating his triunity.

And that you see that there are these kind of groupings of three in creation that reflects his triunity, and these things can be applied to the various things that you've discussed there, there are elements of three in, and that the unbeliever tries to account for them independent of the.

Triune God who grounds them. Is that what you're saying? Yeah, and one of the things I'm wondering about is whether or not I'm pushing it too far. What I'm doing is just thinking out loud and wondering and putting things out on paper and outline and wondering through them and run them by people like you and others who have some experience and knowledge and categories and thinking and patterns and philosophy and logic and scripture.

And so, God is a Trinitarian being who's the creator of life and the revealer of truth. And Satan works through his servants and tries to get them to be the creator of life and the dispensers of truth.

We know that what mankind is doing is trying to replace God, but it struck me that the categorizations of the actuality of how they're doing this is far more profound than I really was thinking of before and trying to get my hands on it to see if there's something else in it.

Because what I'll sometimes do is get an idea and I don't know if there's something at the end of the road, but I'll go down the road for a while. And about 50 of the time, I discover something new, for me new, and I see something in a different light.

And the other half of the time, it's just a dead end. It didn't really go anywhere. Sure. Because you and I have talked about stuff like that. Well,.

I think what you're doing is just trying different applications of human experience that have some reflection in these oneness and manyness aspects. I don't know if you have Rush Duny's book, The One and the Many.

Are you familiar with Rush Duny's book? He has a book about the problem. So he talks about ways in which unbelieving philosophies try to account for, say, the relationship between an individual and the state.

So you have the one individual and the state, this kind of corporate body. And so you have this category of government, categories of justice. And he's trying to find these applications in, say, human society.

And I think what you're touching on is simply just various applications of that tension between oneness categories, manyness categories, and asking, hey, is there something to this? And I think that's 100 right.

The very fact that you utter sentences about justice, about height, length, width, and past, present, future, everything you're doing, the entire human experience, is going to reflect oneness and manyness categories, which is just a feature of reflecting the triune God who grounds it all.

And I think what you're doing is something that requires further development by Christians. We know that the triune God grounds oneness and manyness, but what are the different ways in which we can make real-world application showing the connection of how the triune God grounds this feature of human experience, that feature of human experience, this feature of human experience?

So I think you're touching.

On something that's very important. Yeah, and part of it is the issue of, as Christians, we can provide the Trinitarian basis for the justification of material, spiritual, conceptual. We can make sense of it if we presuppose the Trinitarian essence.

And the unbelievers can't. And so I'm thinking in the back of my head that if I could understand the former very well, then I can understand how to undermine the latter very well. The latter being their ungodly attempt to imitate him and replace him, and to show that ultimately they have no bearing or foundation in all those categories.

That's what I'm trying to work on, but I don't know if I'm intellectually capable of it.

Well, I think you're simply touching on the point that we as presuppositionalists and those who argue transcendentally are always trying to make, and that is without the triune God, who's the metaphysical foundation, who reveals, that's the epistemological foundation, the unbeliever cannot account for intelligible experience.

And you're basically getting at that. When the unbeliever tries to, he needs to then bring the many of human experience and the oneness of human experience together in a unified fashion, and he's unable to, because he lacks the epistemological and metaphysical tools to make sense out of the creation which he finds himself.

He can, but he's also, as Romans chapter one says, he's suppressing the truth and unrighteousness. So he must function in oneness in many categories, but deny the ontological and epistemological foundation for those.

So you're doing a certain application of what the broader presuppositional and transcendental project is trying to do in the first place. So yeah, I think it's helpful.

So, I mean, if I could share my screen, I could show you and see the, how about that? I just thought of that. And then, like I said, I'm just thinking out loud. You and I have done this on just phone calls for two hours at a time, where it's like, hey, what about this?

Think about this. And let's see, let's try this. And while you're trying to get that up there, the problem of the.

One of the many seems very abstract and difficult for people to follow. But the reason why I tried, I started talking about it on my channel is that it was a very underdeveloped and not very much spoken of aspect of presuppositionalism and how it relates to the transcendental argument.

So I'm glad you and others have been trying to talk about it much more because I think there is a gold mine of information and lots of apologetic application if we can get a grasp on it and learn how to contextualize it in meaningful ways in discussions and debates and things like that.

So are you.

Trying to share the screen? Yeah, I will a sec here. Along those lines, I think I've got a good paragraph on doing the one in the many. Okay. So maybe we could work over that as well. Okay, so I have something on the one and two here.

Yeah, just let you guys know, Alyssa, it's okay. Life's been very, very, very, very difficult lately. A lot of things are going on.

So just a lot of stress. Yeah. Did you catch, Matt, what she thought you were saying? And that's why she said it. Did you read that? Oh, she said that because you were talking about gin and she was thinking gin.

Oh, man. It wasn't a big deal. That's a good joke. Alyssa, it is a good.

Alyssa. That's a good joke. I wish I would have gotten that. Sorry about that. That was nice.

And she says, I was joking because he was talking about gin, which is. I didn't get that. I didn't see that. The gin that he's talking about, Alyssa, is J-I-N-N, and it is a category of being within Islam that is neither human nor angelic as this being made of fire.

That can be either. I think they're either good or bad or something along those lines. So that's what she was thinking. So it was a good joke, but I mean, I didn't want you to, you know, I'm sorry that you took it that way.

And that's no worries. But there's been, let's just say there's been a great deal of stress and strain. There's some major changes happening at CARM and there's some financial issues. My wife's her brother's wife is deteriorating quickly.

We've got issues with my daughters, our daughters. It's just, you know, it's whatever it is. And so I just got to learn to deal with it better.

So there it is. You can see the screen. Okay. Let me share that. And folks, while I'm getting this up on the screen here before he jumps in again, if you're thinking of supporting apologetics ministries, I mean, I know I've asked for support, but if it was a choice between supporting revealed apologetics and supporting CARM, listen, I'm nothing in terms of what I learned.

I would know more than less than half of what I know if it hadn't been for CARM's ministry. So if you really want to be, look for a ministry to bless in the new year, I would highly recommend you go over there to CARM .org and give support.

You know, Matt is, he's getting up there, although you, although I have to say you look good for your age. I'm not, I'm not, you sound young and apart from the white hair, you actually don't look that old, man.

People just, just for fun. I know people know how old I am.

Let me go to the big, let's do the big screen. Hold up. Let's see.

So I want people to type in how old, how old do I look? And then I'll tell you how old I am. And if you know how old I am, don't say anything.

I wanted people to get the full screen, Matt. Slick experience. You don't look that bad, bro. You look fine.

Oh, someone already, someone already said it. Yeah. I just turned 66.

Listen, Matt, if there were apologists trading cards.

Very old, takes a lot, God's full truth.

If there were apologetics trading cards, I would, I would pay lots of money. I would pay lots of money for Matt Slick with a beard instead of Matt Slick without a beard.

There's a reason for that. There's a reason for that. Someone challenged me. So at least my husband can grow one. Then everyone in the room went, Ooh, so I had to grow one. And that's what that was about.

Listen, Matt Slick with a beard is a much more valuable trading card than Matt Slick without a beard. And James White with hair is not as worth, is not worth as much as James White without hair. So there's different values here.

Maybe that's something we should apologize for.

That would be fun. Apologetics trading cards. And you have to send them to each person. They have to sign them. That'd be kind of fun.

You got William Lane Craig with beard, without beard. You got who else? You can make it happen.

But anyway, go ahead. Let me share your screen. Dude, you just saw me this summer. I look 58. Thanks. All right. So you can see on the screen, this is just what I was working on. I do this in Microsoft OneNote because I can do it my phone.

Sometimes I go to bed and I'll work on it in bed just to think. I do all kinds of stuff. As you can see, I have all kinds of categories and things. I'm always working. The three, the three. Well, just, you know, material, you know, the material world right there, the spiritual world, the conceptual realm that is.

Yeah. And so anyway, I was thinking because the unbelievers, and this is just early thoughts, the, uh, what they seek to do and their goals and their methods. And, uh, and then some questions. I haven't even looked at this as I was thinking about it.

What I like to do is go through something and then think about, then not think about it, go back to it two weeks later when I'm told to do something else and then go, oh, that's bad or, oh, that's good.

And so the methods are science and not realizing it's philosophical foundations that use rationality apart from God. Therefore, they cannot account for the universal laws of logic. So they cannot ground their reasoning, you know, just thoughts.

Questions. Can they link fact, all facts and experience backward to the causal chain of events to an ultimate cause? Uh, if they say they can, then what's the ultimate cause? Personal, impersonal, you get into this stuff, you know?

So there's just some of the thinking, because if I can find out, for example, I was thinking a, uh, an atheist says blah, blah, blah about something. Maybe it fits under this category. And if it does fit under that category, then there's, I want to be able to put questions and analysis under here so that I can go to it quickly.

And a lot of people don't know. You see me do outlines. Yes. And so I do outlines. I would convert this to an outline on Word and then work with it as well so that I can have something to work with. Anyway, this is what I'm thinking.

This is what I'm, it's, I don't know if it makes sense or not.

No, it makes, it makes perfect sense. And I think it's, it's one of those things that require more work. And finding those different applications there. Now, now, now I could, I could conceive of someone making another category.

So if you have like a, a third, you know, one, two, three, someone might say, well, you have, have you considered this other category? And then, and then there goes your three category model. However, what doesn't go is oneness and manyness category.

So no matter how many categories you have, whether it's three or five, you still need to make sense out of unity and plurality. And you're going to need an ontological grounding for that.

So yes, absolutely. So let me open up something. Since we're talking about the one in the mini, I'll open up my, my file on. Okay, let's see. I got so many windows open. There we go. So this is my file on apologetics.

Biblical apologetics is 87 pages. So let's see the one in the mini. And so what do you think of this? What is the ultimate nature of reality? Here we go. If the ultimate nature of reality is one thing, monism, then there are no distinctions between objects like chairs and trees because they would all be one thing.

This leads to incoherence and undermines truth values as they relate to particulars. Right. And that needs to be expanded, but I can, it's like, that's exactly correct because everything's one. How do you have distinctions by which you can draw a contrast, but which makes true statements?

Yes. So on the other hand, if plurality is ultimate, which is called atomism, then we've lost unity and coherence between particulars and reality becomes a set of unrelated items. And this also undermines coherence and truth values.

Right. So I think that's a good, easy way to deal with the one in the mini. And then I want to get into illustrating it a little bit differently with people. And so you can see I'm working into areas here, physical reality comprised of, and logic and marriage is comprised of single unit, two individuals.

One of the many politics is single government with many particular subsections, families, a single unit with multiple members, church, a single unit, multiple members, you know, just society. So we see the one in the mini everywhere.

And so I was thinking about this as well, because the one in the mini is everywhere, one society, particular individuals. Everything is reflecting the one in the mini, everything. And it's ultimately justified in the very nature of God.

Yeah. If folks are interested in this, I actually have an interview with Dr. Verne Poythress called How the Trinity Explains Everything. So you're right. It touches on everything. If creation reflects its maker, then obviously its maker is going to be required to have a proper understanding of creation itself.

So I'm going to listen to that because he's good. Yeah.

And Brant Bosterman, I have multiple discussions with him. I mean, when I had Brant Bosterman on, it was the first time he had been on YouTube in years. And I thought I was just going to have him for like a couple, you know, maybe like 45 minutes.

We had a two-hour discussion, and it is one of the best interviews that I had in terms of explaining and expanding on this very issue, especially as it relates to like giving a transcendental argument for the existence of God and the role of the one in the many and how that plays within a transcendental argument.