50 Presup Questions Answered

Welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host, Eli Ayala, and welcome to my 50 presub questions live stream.

That's right, you heard it. I'm going to be tackling 50 questions relating to presuppositional apologetics.

And so I've collected 50 questions and I have categorized them from easy to more advanced.

And I'm going to try my best to plow through some of these slowly.

And the goal is to do this without losing my voice. Okay, that's the goal.

I want to get through all the questions and I'm going to be talking softly so that I maintain the vocal cords, okay?

Because as a teacher, when I speak and when I'm teaching, I tend to project my voice and so I speak louder than normal and that can lead me to losing my voice.

So I'm going to try my best not to do that as I go through these questions. And so I collected 50 questions and categorized them from kind of introductory to more sophisticated.

And then I've collected some practical application questions too. So hopefully this will be useful for folks as you are maybe grabbing a cup of coffee or whatever you do to listen to live streams like this.

I have this guy right here. Now this doesn't look that fancy but you can't see where in front of me,

I actually have a cup warmer. So it keeps my coffee hot. There's nothing worse than doing a live stream.

Let me see here. I'm hearing, I don't know. If you guys let me know if the audio is okay, yeah.

Oops, sorry, let me do this. All right, sorry about that. Yeah, so I have my coffee here. There's nothing worse than doing a live stream and then my coffee's cold and I'm kind of just like, oh my goodness.

Yeah, someone's like, I'm grabbing water and frozen Butterfinger. Frozen chocolate bars are actually pretty delicious.

So yeah, so this is my way of staying alive and getting that nice warm coffee in my system so that I can do this, okay?

So 50 questions, I've never done this before. Well, yeah, today was my last day of work and so I'm now officially on summer break, okay?

And so I guess I was feeling ambitious and so I was like, you know, let me do a 50 question, you know, 50 pre -sub question live stream.

I was going to do 100 but then I was like, bro, you need to relax, right? Don't be so ambitious.

The summer's just getting started. So, and I don't know if anyone would sit here and watch me try to plow through 100 questions.

So I'm not sure if anyone's gonna wanna sit there and watch me go through 50, but here we are.

So that's what I'm going to try to do. All right, well, before I do that, I would like to kind of make my brief little kind of cool announcement that I had hinted to in my

Facebook posts, if folks follow me on Facebook, but my second apologetics course is complete and it is ready to order.

So if in the description of this video, you can go straight to my website, PreSupU and you could enroll in my newest course, which is entitled

PreSup Applied. Now I know there are folks who are aware of the fact that I did some recordings with Apologia under the same or similar title.

And so in Apologia, the courses that I did at Apologia were awesome, by the way. They were professionally produced.

It looks gorgeous. Definitely more fancy than what I can do here. But each of the lectures that I did there at Apologia were about 20, 25 minutes long.

However, the course that is now ready to be ordered if folks are interested, each of the lectures are about an hour, a little bit over an hour.

So there's a lot more information there and I have the PowerPoint presentations and once those courses are purchased, that's all yours to use for your own study and even to use and to teach to others.

So that's kind of my announcement. Folks were wondering when am I doing another course.

So here it is. It is completed and ready to order. So the link is in the description to this video.

I also have plans to continue creating course content, okay, like specific courses.

So my next course, I'm working on a presuppositional systematic theology course, okay?

And I'm working on a answering objections course.

So the course will be around five to eight maybe, depending on how things work out, lectures on or presentations on how to respond to certain objections to the presuppositional approach and of course,

I go into more detail. So then just simply responding, you know, in more than what

I present here when I'm answering a quick question, okay? So there you go. All right, so there you go.

If you're looking to support Revealed Apologetics, you can sign up for my course. Once you sign up, we will send the material to you within the next day.

So you'll get the material there and be able to access the videos and all that jazz. All right?

Well, okay. So without further ado, okay, someone said, you can do part two with the other 50 questions.

You know, let me know in the comments, do live streams like this help where I kind of just plow through questions.

I want to be able to be as useful as possible. So I don't wanna do stuff that, you know, folks aren't interested in.

I know that there were some people who wanted to see me do more response videos. I've been working on something. So real quick, so before I get into my questions,

I'll let you know what's coming up, all right? I do have plans to respond to a video which posits the idea that the existence of God is impossible due to the incoherence of the concept of divine omniscience, the idea that God knows all things, okay?

So I'm doing a video on that. There is another video. I think this might be the next one. This is,

I think this might be a useful one. I'm gonna be doing the apologetic implications of self -deception, okay?

So Greg Bonson wrote his doctoral dissertation on this topic of self -deception and its apologetic implications.

And so I know a lot of people, presuppositionalists, often refer to this dissertation because they kind of don't know how to explain the details.

They just point to it to say, hey, Greg Bonson spoke about this issue and he explains it in there. So I can't really explain it.

I'm gonna take the time to explain the apologetic implications of self -deception along the lines of what

Greg Bonson wrote in his doctoral dissertation. And so hopefully I can present it and give practical examples of what that looks like and what we mean when we say that the unbeliever is self -deceived and all of the psychological aspects to that and the theological aspects to that.

I'm going to be explaining that as well. I'm also doing a video in response to an interesting comment

I got on the death of the transcendental argument. Someone presented the idea that a unicorn can be the preconditions for intelligibility.

So I'm going to respond to the unicorn transcendent, the transcendental argument for unicorns, okay?

So that's gonna be a fun one. I've also got planned a video to talk about universals and particulars.

For those who are more philosophically initiated, you'll know what I'm referring to there.

And I'll be talking about Van Til's rational irrational dialectic. And I might be doing a video also related to Francis Schaeffer.

So those are the things that are coming up. And so hopefully folks will find those interesting.

And there you go. All right, well, let's jump right in. And if you're wondering, why does he talk so much?

He can't just jump into the content. Well, we're live. So I try to talk a little bit so that people can kind of gather in, in terms of people watching.

So, but there you go. Okay, so there you go. So you got a lot of videos coming up. You could sign up for my new course, which is available.

Link is in the description. And here we are. So we're gonna jump right in. So the first question, and again, as you'd imagine,

I can't spend too much time on each of these, but I've collected 50 questions and I'm going to offer quick responses to each of them.

And, you know, we'd have to move along. Otherwise we'll be here all night. All right, which some of you a little crazy and you don't mind that.

And every now and then I will stop and I'll do one of this, one of these joints here. All right.

Okay, so the first question that we're going to be covering is a basic, super basic one. So someone asks, what is presuppositional apologetics?

Okay, now there are different ways that you could define presuppositional apologetics. If you wanna go the

Vantillian route, okay. Vantill defined presuppositional apologetics or apologetics, the way he defined just apologetics is very much in line with presuppositionalism.

He said that apologetics is the vindication of the Christian philosophy of life over against the non -Christian philosophy of life.

And that simple definition, I think has in it all of the basic nuggets that constitute a presuppositional approach.

So apologetics is the vindication. So Vantill believed that we could vindicate, we can demonstrate the truth of the

Christian worldview, the Christian philosophy of life. So presuppositional apologetics involves a demonstration of the

Christian worldview, okay? So apologetics is the vindication of the Christian philosophy of life, okay?

So philosophy of life is just a fancy way of referring to worldview, okay? And so another important aspect of presuppositional apologetics is that it is a uniquely worldview apologetics, okay?

It is defending an entire system of thought, not simply individual isolated facts that are a part of kind of Christianity in general, okay?

And it is defending specifically Christian theism, not a generic theism or anything along those lines.

And so also apologetics is the vindication of the Christian philosophy of life over against the non -Christian philosophy of life.

So another important aspect of presuppositional apologetics is this idea of antithesis. There is a clashing of worldview.

So there's the Christian philosophy of life, and it also acknowledges that the non -Christian has a philosophy of life as well.

So presuppositional apologetics deals with colliding worldviews that are in opposition to each other, okay?

Bantill often defined the situation like this. He said, there's only two worldviews, the

Christian worldview and the non -Christian worldview. Now, in one sense, that is true, okay? But in another sense, obviously we know that there are many variations within the non -Christian worldview and so forth.

But just the gist of what he was getting at makes sense, okay? So it's the vindication of the

Christian philosophy of life over against the non -Christian philosophy of life, okay? Basically, I like to define presuppositional apologetics in terms of a scripture that I think is super helpful in kind of explaining, okay, presupp, at least in my opinion, okay?

Psalm 36, verse nine says, for with you is the fountain of life. In your light, we see light.

In your light, we see light. I think that phrase right there captures beautifully the presuppositional approach, that only within the light of God's revelation can we see things truly, okay?

And that's basically what we're arguing, right? That the Christian worldview provides the only necessary precondition for intelligible experience, knowledge, and science, and philosophy, history, so on and so forth, okay?

So that's how I would define presuppositional apologetics, all right? So that's successfully answered.

Let's see here. Do -do -do -do -do -do. I've successfully answered the first question.

Now, I do see some questions in the chat as well, and I wanna get through these 50. If I'm still alive and my vocal cords are still functioning,

I will try to get to some of the questions in the chat, so I do apologize, so you just bear with me. All right, question number two.

What are presuppositions, and why are they important in this apologetic method? That's a good question, right?

So what are presuppositions? Presuppositions are elementary assumptions. They are foundational beliefs that are assumed at the outset of any reasoning process whatsoever, okay?

They're the things that we take with us to the discussion, okay? Presuppositions are so important because they are fundamental assumptions that impact how we interpret the facts, the evidence, so on and so forth, okay?

They shape how one interprets evidence and even experience itself. And so within the presuppositional method, okay, the

Christian worldview, we argue, provides the necessary presuppositions for rationality, science, morality, so on and so forth.

And we would argue that without Christian presuppositions, okay, you can't make sense out of human experience, and of course, the unbeliever is not gonna agree with that, and so we're going to clash with the unbeliever and engage in worldview analysis and worldview defense, okay?

So a presupposition is an elementary assumption, a foundational belief, and it is important because the reason why the unbeliever interprets evidence and facts differently than the

Christian, the reason why we come to different conclusions with respect to facts and evidence for or against any position, is that we have different presuppositions or fundamental assumptions, okay?

All right, let's see here, let's see. So that's question number two.

Question number three, how does presuppositional apologetics differ from classical and evidential apologetics?

Okay, so this is a really good question, okay? You could answer it in a number of ways, okay?

So this is how I like to show the differentiation between the different apologetic methodology.

So evidential apologetics and classical apologetics are what I like to call a bottom -up approach.

So they work their way up through various arguments and things like that and appealing to various evidences.

They work their way up to the conclusion that God exists, precept or probably exists or something along those lines.

The presuppositionalist or the presuppositional method is a top -down approach. We start with the truth of the

Christian worldview and argue down from there. Now, this is not simply saying that the Christian worldview is true because I'm saying the

Christian worldview is true, no. This is where the transcendental argument comes in. We start with this necessary presupposition and then we argue that if this worldview is rejected, then you lose the foundation for all of the other things you think you could have, any kind of philosophical argumentation, appeals to history and evidence and all those sorts of things.

So basically, we're arguing that the Christian worldview must be true in order for anything else to make sense.

Now, again, that's the claim. How do we justify that claim? That's where the transcendental argument is going to come in, okay?

So presupp is a top -down approach. We start with God and his revelation and we argue that without that, can't make sense out of anything, classical apologetics and evidential apologetics work their way up to the conclusion that God most likely exists.

And there's often an appeal, especially in classical apologetics, there's an appeal to natural theology and the arguments that are typically associated with that discipline or that domain, arguments like the cosmological argument and the variations within the cosmological argument like the

Kalam or something like that. The teleological argument, arguments from design, moral arguments, those sorts of things, okay?

Now, philosophically, there are different philosophical underpinnings of each of these methodologies.

For example, the presuppositional approach is undergirded by a kind of transcendental thrust.

The way that we argue is typically indirectly and we argue by the impossibility of the contrary.

And that's different than say, the philosophical underpinnings of classical apologetics, okay?

There is almost kind of a form of rationalistic emphasis in classical apologetics and this is manifested in the utilization of things like various deductive arguments, arguments that come in the form of kind of premise, premise and conclusion.

The famous Kalam is a great example of that, okay? And then evidential apologetics is more kind of empirical based, okay?

There's a great emphasis on empirical evidence, historical data, arguments for miracles, these sorts of things that are used to argue for the truth of Christianity, all right?

Okay, that is question number three. Question number four, question number four, this person asked, what role does the concept of the noetic effects of sin play in presuppositional apologetics?

All right, so that's a good question. This is, again, noetic effects of sin, we need to define that.

So the concept of the noetic effects of sin refer to the impact of sin on the human mind and its ability to reason, okay?

So within presuppositional apologetics and Christian theology, especially within the reformed context, this concept is important because it explains why non -believers reject the truth of the

Christian worldview. And so according to this concept, sin affects every aspect of human thought and leads to a suppression of the truth about God.

And this suppression results, and this is key, it results in the adoption of faulty presuppositions that are hostile to the knowledge of God.

And so the presuppositional apologist is gonna argue that only through the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit can one come to rightly understand and embrace the truth of the

Christian worldview. And so therefore the noetic effects of sin underscore, and this is important, it underscores the necessity of the

Holy Spirit's work in the disciplines of apologetics and evangelism, okay?

And so again, when we're doing apologetics, obviously the impact of sin upon the mind is gonna play into it.

There's the natural man is at enmity with God. And so this is where it is also connected to this idea of the myth of neutrality because man is impacted in his mind due to sin.

He's going to have a bent away from the evidences that God has provided in creation and internally in these sorts of things, okay?

So the noetic effects of sin is a very important theological concept that is related to how we confront the unbeliever and how we interpret the reasons why the unbeliever adopts faulty presuppositions, okay?

Contrary to what he knows in his heart of hearts, okay? Now we'll unpack that more in a future video concerning the apologetic implications of self -deception, but that's kind of in a nutshell there.

I hope that that makes sense. All right, question number five, how does the transcendental argument for God or tag function within presuppositional apologetics?

Now, okay, so that's important. So presuppositional apologetics, the centerpiece of presuppositional apologetics is the transcendental argument.

Now, you don't always have to use a transcendental argument when you're doing presuppositional apologetics, but it is a central, pardon, it is a central argument within the methodology, a central principle, okay?

And so basically it asserts that the existence of God is the necessary precondition, okay? God and his revelation is what must be the case for the very possibility of things like knowledge, logic, moral absolutes, these sorts of things.

And so tag or the transcendental argument for God's existence functions by challenging the unbeliever to justify the preconditions of intelligibility within their own worldview.

And so on the other hand, the apologist is gonna argue that only the Christian worldview with its presuppositions of the triune

God and his revelation and so forth provide those necessary preconditions, okay?

For example, when talking about things like logic, we would say that the laws of logic are reflections of the consistent orderly nature of God's mind, okay?

And so we can account for, say, abstract conceptual laws. Mr. Unbeliever, how do you account for those?

And of course, we need to kind of open our ears because unbelievers don't just say, well, I guess I can't account for that.

Well, some people do, but you need to listen because they're going to have their accounts of, say, abstract conceptual laws or morality, and we're gonna have to engage in kind of an analysis there that is gonna be important to be able to engage in, okay?

Just simply saying that the unbeliever cannot account for these things is not the argument. We need to actually engage with their attempts to actually give an accounting or a justification for the things that we're saying they cannot give a justification for, all right?

All right, question number six, okay? How does one effectively engage in presuppositional apologetic dialogue with an unbeliever, okay?

Now, everything depends on the nature of the conversation that you're having, right?

Everything's gonna depend on the nature of the situation. First, I think an important thing when you're engaging presuppositional apologetics is you want to be very aware of the unbeliever's presuppositions, all right?

You wanna try to understand the foundational beliefs of the non -believer, okay?

And this comes through asking questions, all right? Asking them questions that expose their metaphysic, their theory of reality.

Ask them questions that help expose what their theory of knowledge is, okay? Now, this is important because some unbelievers are not aware of their own metaphysical assumptions or their epistemological assumptions or the ethical assumptions.

It's your job to help the unbeliever become epistemologically, this is what

Van Til said, epistemologically self -conscious. We want them to be self -conscious, aware of their own undergirding philosophy that maybe they never thought about it before.

Maybe you're gonna talk to someone and you're gonna expose what their theory of reality is and they're gonna say, well, I never really thought of it that way.

I guess I have assumptions about the nature of the world and I suppose that does impact why

I'm disagreeing with you, Mr. Christian. Exposing those things are super, super helpful in conversation, okay?

So ask questions that help expose the underlying philosophy that the unbeliever is holding to.

We also wanna challenge the consistency of those presuppositions. We wanna show how the unbeliever's presuppositions actually fail to provide a coherent basis for things like knowledge or morality or science in your day -to -day discussion.

You're probably gonna be able to do this more easily when talking about morality, okay?

So for example, on the one hand, someone will say, well, I don't believe God exists. Maybe they're a naturalistic atheist, materialistic atheist says all that exists is matter in motion.

And then on the other hand, they might make certain moral assertions and then you're gonna wanna press that for consistency.

Well, wait a minute, if you say that we're matter in motion, how do you make sensitive things like objective morality, something along those lines?

You can show the tension from what they assert, their philosophy of life, and then kind of their theory of reality, and then their theory of ethics and what they believe about right and wrong, show that they don't fit together, they don't comport with each other, okay?

So you want to identify the non -believer's presuppositions. You wanna challenge the consistency of their presuppositions.

You want to present the Christian worldview. Don't just critique, don't just tear down, you need to provide that which will replace what you've torn down, okay?

And so we want to be able to present the Christian worldview in all its consistency and objectivity, okay?

And so that's the opposite, that's the other side of the coin of presuppositional apologetics. You know, it's often said that presupp is only good to critique, but then when you're gonna offer a positive argument for Christianity, then you rely on classical argumentation or evidential, that's not true, okay?

Providing a positive defense of the Christian worldview is just as presuppositional as critiquing the consistency of the unbeliever's worldview, okay?

So you want to present the Christian worldview, okay? And I think this is important too, but also we wanna rely on the work of the

Holy Spirit. Remember, when we're engaging in apologetics, we want to acknowledge the fact, this is very challenging for people because when we give arguments and when we quote unquote destroy, if we grant for a moment that you've destroyed the other person's perspective, you might become frustrated with the fact that the person isn't crying uncle, okay?

Don't be frustrated, be patient, right? Have those conversations and talk with them.

And we are speaking and giving argumentation, but we're doing it knowing that the

Holy Spirit goes with our words, right? And ultimately the job of convincing and converting is going to be the work of the

Holy Spirit, okay? And so I think that's an important aspect of engaging in apologetics is also trusting the results or trusting

God for the results, all right? Okay, question number seven, what are some common objections to presuppositional apologetics and how can they be addressed?

Okay, so the most common objection that I hear is that presupp is circular, okay?

And when this is typically presented, it's often hugely misunderstood and misrepresented.

It is, there is an aspect of circularity to presuppositionalism, but it is not circular in any fallacious sense.

And this is why I always make the distinction between making a differentiation between the presupposition of an argument and the premise of an argument.

And so typically we are accused of, you know, giving a circular argument and that's just false, okay?

For example, circularity in argumentation involves having the conclusion stated in one of your premises.

So if I were to give like a deductive argument, you know, premise, premise, conclusion, a circular argument, a fallaciously circular argument will have the conclusion in one of the premises and no presuppositional argumentation, no presentation of tag, transcendental argument, commits that, none.

Now I presuppose that my worldview is true, but obviously I do. Who doesn't presuppose their own position is true?

But a presupposition is different than a premise in an argument. Also when presuppositionalism is accused of engaging in a fallacious, you know, maybe committing kind of begging the question or a

Petitio -Principi fallacy, okay? Remember these accusations are appropriate when using them and applying them to direct argumentation where you have premise, premise, conclusion.

But traditionally the presuppositional, the transcendental argument is understood as an indirect argument.

And so for at least when Van Til presented his argument, he didn't present it in kind of the traditional premise, premise, conclusion fashion, okay?

And so you can't say, you know, the conclusion is in one of the premises because it's not typically presented in a specific premise.

Now you can present it with a premise, premise, conclusion, okay? And I've done that before.

I've given a transcendent, a deductive argument with a transcendental premise and so forth, okay? But you don't have to do it that way necessarily.

You don't necessarily have to do it that way, okay? So we are often accused of circularity. Here's one that I'm gonna have to say is accurate.

This is an accurate criticism for a lot of people. Presuppositionalists, presuppositional apologetics is accused of arrogance, okay?

So people would say that it comes across as arrogant or dismissive of other viewpoints. Now this is important.

I want you to pay attention to this. Now this criticism, that presuppositional apologetics is arrogant must be clarified because you want to make a distinction between presuppositionalism and presuppositionalists.

There is a difference between a method and the people using the method, okay?

And I would admit there are people who use the method who are very arrogant in the way that they employ the method.

And of course, yes, and presuppositionalists are infamous for this, especially within the context of online interaction.

So I could admit there that is a valid criticism, not of the method, but of people who use the method.

And I think that is something that we can do better in addressing, right?

I can control the words that come out of my mouth and I don't have to come across a certain way, right? As 1

Peter 3 15 tells us that we are to always be ready to give a reason for the hope that's in us if anyone asks, doing so with gentleness and respect.

That part is also a biblical apologetic. We can't say, oh, presuppositionalist, we used a biblical method.

Yeah, well, a biblical method includes gentleness and respect, being able to teach, being patient, these sorts of things.

All important, okay? All important aspects of doing presuppositional apologetics biblically.

We can't forget that, okay? You know, and none of this garbaggio where it's like the righteous anger. It's like, well, you know, it's they're just fighting against the gospel.

Be quiet, bro, all right? Yes, I agree. But you can still communicate with respect.

As simple as that, all right? It is presuppositionalists fault for being accused of being arrogant because a lot of times they are, okay?

I know this. I know people who I greatly respect, but when they use the method and they're engaging in argumentation, they sound like jerks, as simple as that, okay?

Matter of fact, many of the criticisms I get in the comments of my videos is not always about the presupp argument, but it's a stated disdain for presuppositionalists.

And that's something we can control, right? There are people who use the presuppositional approach masterfully, but they ruin it because of their character.

And so we need to see that a biblical approach takes the character and the argument and they go together, right?

Consistency, that is so important. All right, let's see here.

Next question. We are on question eight. I believe. Can presuppositional apologetics be applied to other religions or is it exclusively against atheism?

I love that question, okay? That is a great question. Yes, okay?

You can use it against any perspective. It is often erroneously thought that the presupp works great against the atheist, but what happens when you have the

Muslim or the Mormon? For example, I had the Christian apologist,

J. Warner Wallace on the author of, Cold Case, what's the name of the book again?

Oh man, now I have to look it up because I feel terrible, hold up. I've got to get this book, the name of the book.

Is it Cold Case Christianity? What is it? J. Warner Wallace, let me see here. J. Warner Wallace.

Yeah, Cold, how did I forget that? I feel like such a loser. So yeah, so Cold Case Christianity.

I had J. Warner Wallace on and we were talking, there's a little clip I snipped here so folks can check this out.

He told me that presuppositional apologetics works fine when you're critiquing a worldview, but when you come to say like a religious perspective like Mormonism, and I think he has kind of some background with Mormons and things like that, and when the

Mormon asserts, well, I have my authority and the Christian has their authority, then at that point, where do we go?

He says at that point, to defend Christianity, everyone needs to be an evidentialist because now we have ultimate authority versus ultimate authority and then, well, where do you go from here?

Well, now you have to appeal to the evidence. And so I said, well, that's not quite right because he assumed that presuppositionalism is used in one context and then we hop into another apologetic methodology.

No, we do not, okay? When we are bumping heads against a competing ultimate authority, what we do is we engage in internal worldview critique and then when we present the case for Christianity, we can appeal to evidence and argumentation, but we don't do so independent of a consistent biblical presuppositional framework, okay?

So I think that's really important. So we can do that with the Muslim, we can do that with the Mormon, okay? When I had

Dr. Chris Bolt on, and I think we covered this, the whole show is on this specific question of how to apply presuppositional apologetics to like competing religious perspectives.

How do you apply presuppositional apologetics to competing religious perspectives?

The answer, the same way you do when you are talking with the atheist. The argument's the same, the only difference is gonna be the emphasis on the sorts of things that we talk about.

We're still gonna identify key presuppositions, we're gonna identify the ultimate authority, we're gonna internally critique the worldview, right?

These are the sorts of things we would do if talking to the atheist, okay? So there you go,

I think that's a great question. All right, question number 10. How can one reconcile the use of presuppositional apologetics with the biblical call to engage others respectfully and lovingly?

Yeah, so when we use presuppositional apologetics correctly, we should be characterized by respect and gentleness, like I mentioned before.

And so the biblical mandate to engage others with gentleness and respect, 1 Peter 3 .15, is central to the method.

And this involves listening carefully to the unbeliever, understanding their perspective, and addressing their objections with patience and humility.

Okay, the goal is not simply to win the argument, but to witness to the truth of the gospel in a way that's compelling and compassionate, okay?

Now notice what I just said there, it is not simply to win arguments. I'm not suggesting that we should lose arguments, we should try to win arguments, but it is not simply about winning arguments, right?

It's not simply about that, all right? We need to engage with gentleness and respect because that is biblical, okay?

All right, number 11, okay, how does the presuppositional apologetic approach handle the critique of religious pluralism?

Okay, so the presuppositionalist addresses religious pluralism by basically examining the presuppositions underlying the various religious worldviews that we come in contact with, right?

And so it argues that the, like we said before, that transcendental aspect of this all, right?

We argue that only the Christian worldview provides a consistent and coherent basis for rationality, morality, intelligibility of human experience, so on and so forth.

And while we acknowledge the diversity of religious beliefs, we're going to assert the claims of the Christian worldview with force.

For example, even if you were a Muslim, if you are part of some tribe and you hold to some tribal religion, what the

Bible says about those people is still true, right? They have a knowledge of God that's being suppressed, okay?

And so when we're coming to the issue of religious pluralism, yeah, we acknowledge the existence of many religions.

We acknowledge that people have created idols to replace the God that they know exists in their heart of hearts, because that God has made himself known, okay?

Has made himself known through creation, all right? Everyone has a knowledge of God such that they are unapologetus, without an apologetic, okay?

So religious plural, the existence of other religions is not a problem for the Christian.

We acknowledge it, but within our worldview, we have an explanation as to why other religions exist, all right, okay?

People are suppressing the truth and unrighteousness. And instead of worshiping the creator, they worship the creation in some way, shape or form, okay?

All right, number 12, we're at 12, moving along.

What is the role of worldview analysis in presuppositional apologetics? Okay, so worldview analysis is super important.

It's a super important aspect of presuppositional apologetics. As I mentioned before, presupp is a worldview apologetic.

So it involves examining the basic presuppositions and commitments that basically shape an unbeliever or anyone, it doesn't matter, an unbeliever, an individual's understanding of reality, metaphysics, knowledge, epistemology, and ethics, okay?

And so this analysis aims to identify the foundational beliefs that underlie a person's worldview and we want to assess those for coherence and explanatory power and with the hope of showing that the unbelieving worldview is unable to provide those, what we said before, those necessary presuppositions, all right?

All right, question number 13, how do presuppositional apologists respond to the challenge of epistemological relativism?

Hmm, epistemological, okay, so we would respond to that by arguing that it's self -defeating.

So epistemological relativism claims that knowledge is subjective and varies from person to person or culture to culture, right?

But this position, the position itself undermines the possibility of objective knowledge and universal truth, including the truth of relativism itself, okay?

And again, we're going to argue that if it's self -refuting, then of course it can't be true. So if a position is self -refuting, then obviously it's going to have internal problems.

All right, all right, let's see here, moving along. Number 14, in what ways does presuppositional apologetics address the problem of induction?

Now, if you want a more fuller response, I did a whole video, it's my last video, literally called the problem of induction.

But just real quick, the problem of induction was basically highlighted by the Scottish skeptic,

David Hume, okay, and basically questions how we could justify the assumption that the future will resemble the past based on our past experiences, okay?

And so we would address this problem by arguing that the uniformity of nature, which basically underlies inductive reasoning, which is an important aspect and essential aspect of the scientific enterprise, is grounded in the character of God, okay?

So according to the Christian world, you've got to uphold the universe in a consistent and orderly manner, okay?

Hebrews 1 .3, Colossians 1 .17, you want to check those out. And this basically, this divine providence provides a basis for expecting the future to be like the past.

See, non -Christian worldviews, I think, lack this basis, especially from the atheistic perspective. You don't have to hold to the

Christian worldview, but it makes sense for the Christian to say that we can expect the future will very likely be like the past because God has created the world in such a way that we can expect regularity and uniformity.

But in a worldview in which atheism is true, all is sound and fury signifying nothing, what is the basis for uniformity?

Well, you can't appeal to experience. Well, it's always been that way in the past. Yeah, but how do you know it's gonna be that way in the future?

It doesn't logically follow that because something is a certain way in the past that it must be that way in the future.

So what is the basis for that, okay? All right, question 15.

How does presuppositional apologetics deal with the critique that it is fideistic or based on blind faith?

Okay, so basically we're gonna reject this. This is a very common objection, right? So we reject the charge of fideism.

We're gonna argue that the Christian worldview and the presuppositional apologetic methodology, it is not based on blind faith, but it is based on a rational and coherent worldview, okay?

And so while it begins with the presupposition that the Christian worldview is true, this is key. It seeks to demonstrate that this presupposition provides, and we've been saying it over and over again, the only viable foundation for rational thought, knowledge, ethics, so on and so forth.

So we are not simply asserting the truth, okay? We're not simply asserting the truth.

There we go. I lost my train of thought because my microphone turned off. Yeah, so even if you don't agree with the presuppositional form of argumentation, it's just blatantly false to say we don't offer a justification.

Maybe you don't like the justification. Maybe you think it's false, but there is a justification being offered. And so on that basis, it's not fideistic.

We're not saying it's just blind faith and that's it, okay? All right, number 16. What is the significance of the impossibility of the contrary in presuppositional apologetics?

Yeah, so the impossibility of the contrary is a key concept in this methodology, this form of argumentation.

It asserts that only the Christian worldview can provide, as I said before, a consistent and coherent foundation for all rational thought, knowledge, morality, and that any contrary worldview, we're gonna argue is ultimately self -defeating.

So this principle is used to demonstrate that the non -Christian worldviews cannot account for the preconditions of intelligibility.

So for example, a materialistic atheistic worldview, we would argue, cannot justify the existence of abstract entities like the laws of logic or objective moral values or something along those lines.

And by showing that the denial of the Christian worldview leads to absurdity or incoherence, we're gonna argue that the

Christian worldview is necessarily true. So the impossibility of the contrary is an aspect of the transcendental argument.

So transcendental arguments try to prove things by the impossibility of the contrary.

That's the nature of transcendental arguments, not just the presuppositional transcendental argument, but just transcendental arguments in general.

Remember in a past video, I argued that transcendental arguments are anti -skeptical arguments.

They're constructed in such a way to respond to the skeptic who says, no, no, no, there are certain things that we just can't know.

And the transcendentalist is gonna say, well, no, there are certain things that are known by the impossibility of the contrary.

Here's an argument, yada, yada, yada. At least in principle, that's what it's trying to accomplish.

All right, all right, next question. Next question, my throat is doing good.

So we're on question 17. All right, we're 43 minutes in. All right, I gotta move along. You can give me a thumbs up if you're enjoying.

I mean, hopefully you're finding this helpful. I don't wanna waste my breath.

Okay, let's see here, next question. How does the doctrine of the Trinity play a role in presuppositional apologetics?

Yeah, so I would say that the doctrine of the Trinity is central to a presuppositional apologetic because, and we talk about this all, especially within philosophy, it provides a unique solution to the philosophical problem of the one and the many.

Okay, and I've mentioned this before. I've got a bunch of videos on this topic as well. So type in, you know, revealed apologetics, problem of the one and the many, something along those lines, okay?

So typically this problem concerns how to reconcile the existence of unity and diversity in the world, okay?

And so the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, which basically posits one God in three persons,

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, offers a metaphysical foundation for understanding how unity and diversity can coexist, okay?

And so the triune nature of God reflects both unity, right? He's one in essence, and diversity, he's three in persons, providing a model for understanding the unity and diversity found in creation.

So the non -Christian world, you cannot account for unity and diversity. Now, the funny thing is, people think that this is just a weird thing that Presuppers made.

I actually, interestingly enough, I was listening to the Sean McDowell podcast, and I like his podcast, even though, you know, obviously he's not a presuppositionalist, but I still like his content.

You know, I learned a lot from him. He even mentioned how the Trinity solves the problem of the one and the many. It's not like a weird thing that I made up, you know?

Okay, it is a philosophical problem. If you're interested, you can look into it yourself, but it's an issue of how do we bring into, how we bring together universals and particulars.

Now, I'm gonna do a video later on the topic of universals and explain what that is for those who are not philosophically initiated, but it is an issue, and saying it's not an issue doesn't make the issue go away, and I think we should be aware of what the problem is and how the doctrine of the

Trinity uniquely answers this very profound, and I think important philosophical question that deals with one of the necessary preconditions for knowledge and intelligible experience, all right?

All right, now we are on question 18. I'm gonna have to go super fast. So, how do presuppositional apologists engage with a moral argument for God's existence?

Yeah, so basically I would argue, this is real quick, I would argue that the

Christian God, the Christian world beyond his revelation are the necessary preconditions for objective morality, okay?

So basically, when we're talking about objective morality, we're arguing, well, what are the preconditions for objective morality? And so that's kind of a transcendental emphasis there, okay?

So there you go, that's kind of simple. Now, I did do a video entitled Traditional Proofs Precept, where I talk about this a little bit more, but just to move along, okay?

All right, number 19, what is the role of general revelation in presuppositional apologetics?

Okay, so general revelation refers to the knowledge of God that is available to everybody, right?

Through nature, history, human consciousness, okay? And so within the presuppositional apologetic paradigm, general revelation,

I think, plays a central role in affirming that all people have an inherent knowledge of God, which they suppress due to their sin.

This is Romans 1, 18 through 20. And so this suppression leads to the adoption, this is key, this suppression leads to the adoption of false worldviews and the denial of God's existence.

And so we use general revelation to argue that the evidence of God's existence is clear and undeniable, but the unbeliever's problem is not a lack of evidence, but it's a moral and spiritual rebellion against God, okay?

And so what we're going to do then is in our apologetic interaction, we're going to try and expose the knowledge of God that the unbeliever has, okay?

And this knowledge comes through general revelation. And of course, we're giving special revelation when we're proclaiming the scriptures and so on and so forth, all right?

All right, next question. How does the presuppositional apologetic methodology interact with scientific claims and theories?

Yeah, so basically we interact with scientific claims and theories by examining, this is important, the presuppositions that underlie scientific inquiry, okay?

Science is not just this neutral thing out there, like, look, it's right in front of your face, bro, right? Science itself is theory -laden, okay?

I'm going to say that again, science is theory -laden, okay? Basically, we're going to argue that the practice of science presupposes a rational, orderly, and intelligible universe, which can only be accounted for, we would argue, from within the

Christian world through the uniformity of nature, the laws of logic, the reliability of human cognition are all essential for scientific investigation, and we would argue are grounded in the character of the

Christian God. Now, again, there's more to argue there, okay? But science, you have to be careful when someone says, well, the science says, it's like, listen, science says nothing, right?

Scientists say things. We all have our presuppositions, and we all impose, or we are impacted in how we interpret facts and scientific theories and things like that.

Science is not in conflict with Christianity. It is in conflict, Christianity is in conflict with certain interpretations of the scientific data, so on and so forth.

That's a super important thing to keep in mind. All right, next question. How does presuppositional apologetics address the challenge of ethical subjectivism, okay?

So basically, we're going to address ethical subjectivism by asserting that objective moral values and duties, again, are grounded in the character of God.

So ethical subjectivism basically claims that moral judgments are based on individual preferences or cultural norms, things like that, and basically making morality relative and changeable, okay?

But again, what we're going to want to do is we're going to want to put that perspective to the test and test for consistency.

Does the person live that way? Is there a performative inconsistency in what they say with their mouth and how they live their lives, right?

When you take the wallet of the person who says, ah, it's all relative, all of a sudden, he becomes a moral objectivist, okay?

So again, the issue of testing for consistency is going to be really how we're going to engage in a lot of, you know, that's the answer to many of these questions.

All right, next question. How does presuppositional apologetics respond to the problem of evil?

Yeah, so here's the thing. If we're going to say that objective evil exists, then you're going to need an objective standard by which to measure something as evil.

So I would argue that if objective evil is in fact a thing, then that presupposes an objective standard of good, and so objective evil proves the existence of an objectively good

God. There you go, right? There is no problem of evil within the Christian worldview. We acknowledge evil.

We have a worldview that allows us to define something as evil and to define something as good, okay?

All these sorts of things, there is no problem. Well, there's no logical problem, at least. There might be an emotional problem.

Obviously, we all struggle with the realities of evil. I don't mean to treat this lightly, but you get what I'm saying, all right?

Okay, next question. What is the significance of antithesis between belief and unbelief in presuppositional apologetics?

Before I answer that question, I am going to sip some more coffee. All right, you guys are doing a great job hanging with me.

All right, let's see here. So the concept of antithesis within kind of the presuppositional paradigm emphasizes pretty much the fundamental opposition, okay, between the

Christian world and the non -Christian world. And so this antithesis, this idea of antithesis is rooted in scripture.

Basically, the mind of the unbeliever is darkened by sin in rebelling against God, Romans 121,

Ephesians 4, 17 through 18. The Christian and the non -Christian basically operate from fundamentally different presuppositions, right?

And this is gonna lead us to different interpretations of reality because presuppositions impact our interpretations.

So what we're gonna do is we're gonna highlight this antithesis to demonstrate that there can be no neutral ground in matters of faith and reason or anything, right?

Every fact is interpreted within the context of one's presupposition. So by exposing the antithesis, this non -neutrality, this direct opposition of worldviews due to our presuppositions, we're gonna wanna seek to show the inconsistency and incoherence of the unbeliever's worldview and the necessity of the

Christian worldview for making sense of any fact whatsoever. So I think the value of antithesis is when we expose the fact of antithesis, it also exposes the fact that there is just no neutrality.

Okay? There's no neutrality. Everything we say is going to expose our presuppositions. All right?

Okay, next question. How does the concept of borrowed capital function within presuppositional apologetics?

That's a good question. Okay, we often say the unbeliever's borrowing from the Christian worldview. So the concept of borrowed capital, okay, and presupp, basically refers to the idea that non -Christian worldviews rely on assumptions and principles that are actually grounded in the

Christian worldview. So for example, when an atheist appeals to the laws of logic or moral absolutes or the uniformity of nature, we would argue that they're borrowing from the

Christian worldview, which alone can account for these very things. Now, of course, the unbeliever's gonna be like, well, how convenient?

Okay, I remember a discussion between Greg Bonson and atheist George Smith, where Dr. Bonson said that, yeah, you're borrowing from the

Christian worldview. George Smith, the atheist, says, well, you're borrowing from the atheist worldview. And Dr.

Bonson pointed out, like, I hope you don't think I'm making a mere authority claim. If you think

I'm presupposing, when I use logic and reason and morale, if you think I'm presupposing the atheistic worldview, then make good on that claim, because as a

Christian, I can make sense of abstract conceptual laws. I can make sense out of objective moral principles and so forth, okay?

It's not just a bare authority claim. The Christian world, you can actually pay the bills on those claims, okay?

So that's an important thing to keep in mind. All right, next question.

How does the presuppositional apologetic methodology utilize the doctrine of general revelation in engaging with atheists?

All right, so we utilize the doctrine of general revelation pretty much to argue that all people, including atheists, have an inherent knowledge of God through his creation.

Again, the unbeliever doesn't have to accept what we're saying, but that is what the Bible teaches, okay?

And it makes sense that if the Christian God exists, it makes sense that we can be in a position to know about the suppressed knowledge of God of the unbeliever, right?

Because if the Christian worldview is true, then God has revealed that to us. He's revealed to us the nature of unbelief, okay?

And so this knowledge of God is evident in the natural world, human consciousness, and the orderliness of the universe.

And atheists, we're gonna argue, suppress this truth due to their sinful nature, okay?

And so that's why the idea of general revelation is important because general revelation highlights the fact that everyone has a knowledge of this

God. The unbeliever's gonna be like, uh -uh, that's ridiculous, and what are we gonna do? The goal of our apologetic is to expose the fact that they do have a knowledge of God, okay?

And show that they're actually borrowing from God even when rejecting that very God that we're speaking of. All right, all right.

How does the presuppositional apologetic critique epistemological foundations of empiricism?

Okay, so we, okay, so we can critique the epistemological foundations of empiricism by arguing that it depends, because people who hold to empiricism, it depends what role that functions within their worldview.

You have kind of naive empiricism, different aspects of it, but just basically. Empiricism relies on sensory experience as pretty much the primary source of knowledge, okay?

We're gonna argue that that fails to justify things that are not, that can't be known by empirical means, like the laws of logic, or the uniformity of nature, or the reliability of human cognition.

These preconditions are necessary for making sense of empirical data, yet they can't be derived from sensory experience itself.

So if you run into someone who's kind of like an empiricist in that degree, where they say something along the lines of, all knowledge comes through sense experience, you could simply ask, well, how do you know that?

Did you come to know that through sense experience? And the answer, of course, is no, okay? And if they know that not on sense experience, that undercuts their own position, all right?

All right, let's take another sip of coffee. All right, next question.

How does presuppositional apologetics engage with postmodernism's denial of absolute truth?

Yeah, so, I mean, this is simple, right? So there is no absolute truth.

Is that absolutely true? No. Is it absolutely true that that's not absolutely true? I mean, this is ridiculous, right?

So to deny truth is gonna be self -defeating, so we're not gonna spend too much time. I hope that makes sense, okay? All right, next question.

How does the notion of covenantal epistemology function in presuppositional apologetics?

So let me explain this. So covenant epistemology refers to the idea that human knowledge is grounded in a covenantal relationship with God, okay?

And so according to this perspective here, all knowledge is ultimately dependent on God's revelation, both in creation, that's general revelation, right?

And in scripture, that's special revelation. So human beings created in the image of God are designed to know and relate to him within the context of this covenant.

But sin, okay, this is important because you have covenant keepers, covenant breakers, sin disrupts this relationship.

And this disruption leads to a distortion of knowledge and human understanding. And so we're going to emphasize that true knowledge is restored through redemption in Christ and the illumination of the

Holy Spirit. And that's basically that aspect I mentioned in a previous question, that regeneration is what occurs, the work of the spirit causing someone to be born again unto a knowledge of the truth, right?

It's when we are born anew and given a spiritual need, we're able to see things in its proper light, all right?

Okay, let's see here. Next question, how does presuppositional apologetics challenge, address the challenge of naturalism in explaining consciousness and intentionality?

Okay, consciousness, well, let me, okay. All right, hold up, timeout. Let's take coffee for this one.

Oh, it is hot in here. You know what I need? I need a fan in here, I need a fan, that'd be nice.

All right, let's see here. So pretty much we would address the challenge of naturalism in explaining consciousness and intentionality by arguing that naturalistic explanations, and I would say that naturalistic explanations are inadequate, okay, for accounting for consciousness and intentionality, okay?

So naturalism, which pretty much posits that everything can be explained by natural processes and material causes,

I think this is gonna struggle to explain what I think is very clear, that they're immaterial aspects of human consciousness and intentionality of mental states, okay?

I don't think that the brain and the mind are the same.

I think there are things that are true of the brain that are not true of the mind, and there are things that are vice versa, true of the mind that are not true of the brain, okay?

You know, a thought, I don't think can be reduced to kind of neurochemical reactions in the brain, okay?

I can't measure physically a thought of a sunset. You just can't, okay?

So if there are things that are true of, say, the brain that are not true of the mind, then by definition, they're not the same, and so there's a distinction between that.

Naturalism can't explain those things, I think, in a sufficient way, okay? There's a big question.

If you're interested in issues of consciousness, check out my friend Eric Hernandez, not a presuppositionalist, but he argues a lot for the soul and talks about the distinctions between brain and soul.

I think he does a really good job. You might wanna check out his stuff. Maybe type in Eric Hernandez soul or something like that.

Might be helpful, all right? All right, next question. How does the presuppositional apologetics engage with scientific method and the assumption of the uniformity of nature?

So we kind of answered that question already, right? Due to God's providence and orderliness in creation, right?

We can, in acknowledging that God is sovereign and works in an orderly way, we know through creation and revelation that God has created the world in an orderly way and promises to uphold the world in an orderly way, such that we have a basis for the uniformity of nature, which undergirds induction, okay?

Again, I addressed this in more detail in a previous video, all right? I'm gonna move through one that kind of sound similar.

Next question. How does presuppositional apologetics address the challenge of the evolutionary argument against naturalism posed by Alvin Plantinga?

Hmm. Okay, yeah. So I'm not sure those who are listening are familiar with Alvin Plantinga, all right?

But he has this argument called the evolutionary argument against naturalism, okay?

So I'm gonna say that the presuppositional approach, I think aligns to some extent with this argument.

It can be used by presuppositionalists to some degree, I think. And Plantinga's argument posits that if both naturalism and evolution are true, then we don't have any good reason to believe that our cognitive faculties are reliable to give us truth.

Because remember, evolution is focused on survival, not truth, okay? And so the argument runs along those lines.

And basically, we can use that as an internal critique. If you hold to naturalism and evolution, we can challenge whether there is a basis for trusting that our minds are such that they can give us truth in any meaningful way, okay?

So that can be part of, you can use Plantinga's argument here, the evolutionary argument against naturalism, as kind of like an internal critique.

So I do think there's a place for a presuppositionalist to appeal to this sort of argumentation, okay?

All right, next question. How does presuppositional apologetics critique the coherence of secular moral realism?

Okay, all right. So let's define that first. So, and I think if the person is referring to what

I think they're referring to, secular moral realism is the view that objective moral values exist independently of God, okay?

And I think we could respond to this by arguing that it can't provide a sufficient, what we would call ontological grounding for these values.

Okay, so secular moral realism often puts forth that moral values are kind of brute facts or they're grounded in human wellbeing or something along those lines.

But we're gonna wanna argue that without a transcendent personal source, such as the Christian God, right? These moral values lack ultimate authority and binding power.

I mean, think in terms of moral Platonism, for example, the idea that moral principles exist in kind of this abstract realm of ideas, even if it were true, that there is this abstract realm of ideals of which morality exists, okay?

As a moral realist, you think they actually are there. What connects that which exists in the realm of ideas to this world?

In other words, if you have goodness, love and all these sorts of things, what obligates me to obey those sets of abstract moral principles and not some other set of abstract moral principles, okay?

Without an authoritative God, okay? That of Christianity to impose these rules and to make that connection between abstract conceptual laws and why we should care about them, right?

They just kind of float out there and there's no obligation attached to them, okay?

All right. Moving along so fast. Oh my goodness. All right, let's see here. In what ways does presuppositional apologetics engage with the problem of divine hiddenness?

Okay, ready? This is how I respond to the problem of divine hiddenness. God is not hidden, that's it.

God's not hidden. That is an external critique, okay? On the

Christian worldview, God isn't hidden. God has made himself known. The heavens declare the glory of God. All men have a knowledge of God because God has made himself known, that's

Romans one, such that they are without excuse. God is not hiding, people are running.

They run explicitly or they run implicitly and hide it with many things, okay?

So again, I don't think God is hidden at all. All right, so basically we'd address the problem of divine hiddenness.

We'd say, you know, someone says, for example, why doesn't God make his existence more evident, right?

We're gonna argue that the problem is not in God's hiddenness but it's in human rebellion, the noetic effects of sin, which distort and reject the knowledge of God.

And we would argue that God's purpose in revelation is not merely to provide intellectual assent but to bring people into covenant relationship with him.

And God has revealed himself sufficiently, okay? He's not hiding, okay?

And so to argue that God is hiding is an external critique of theism or Christian theism more specifically, all right?

Depends on the context in which we're talking here. All right, let's see here.

Next question, how does presuppositional apologetics deal with the challenge of religious epistemology posed by reformed epistemologists like another

Plantinga question? All right, so we would interact with reformed epistemology, particularly Plantinga's notion of warranted belief in God by emphasizing that belief in God is not only properly basic, but also the precondition for all rational thought and knowledge.

Now, proper basicality is very much an important aspect of reformed epistemology. So Plantinga will argue that the knowledge of God exists as properly basic to human beings and that we can be justified in believing in God without appealing to various arguments and things like that.

But we would say that it's not simply that God is a properly basic belief, but we would also argue transcendentally that he is the precondition for all rational thought and knowledge.

And so while reformed epistemology argues that belief in God can be rationally accepted without evidence, the presuppositional apologist is gonna go further by arguing that the denial of God leads to epistemological incoherence.

And so it posits that all knowledge and rationality are grounded in the truth of the Christian worldview, making belief in God not just properly basic like the reformed epistemologist, but the necessary foundation for a coherent worldview, the presuppositional emphasis there.

So there are aspects to it that we'd be friendly to, but obviously what we're saying more than the reformed epistemologist, if that makes sense.

All right. I'm gonna take one more sip of my coffee. Let's see here.

All right. How does, I wanna skip a question here.

How does the presuppositional apologetic engage with transcendental idealism, particularly the philosophy of Immanuel Kant?

I think there's a video on that too on my channel, on nevertheless. So, okay, so presuppositional apologetics engages with transcendental idealism, okay, specifically

Kant's philosophy, by critiquing what I would call the bifurcation between the noumenal and the phenomenal.

You have to understand that you might wanna look this up if you're not familiar with what I'm saying. Kant made a distinction between the noumenal realm, the things in themselves, reality as it exists, and phenomenal things, things as they appear to us.

And so basically you have ultimate reality, things as they are, the ding on sick, okay? And we have the phenomenal, things as they appear to us.

And so for Kant, he would say that there's no way to bridge the gap.

We never see the world in itself. We only see the world as we perceive it. And so on this view, you really can't know ultimate reality, okay?

I think there's a problem with that is that to say that ultimate reality is such that there is this divide between the noumenal reality in and of itself, and the phenomenal reality as we perceive it, that's to tell us something about ultimate reality, which is basically something he just asserted we can't know.

So I think there's an internal conflict within that perspective. Okay, now there are some variations within that philosophy.

Obviously, it depends on who you're talking to and things like that, but that's how I would address that briefly.

All right, next question. Let's see here. Take another sip of my coffee.

The coffee is helping. It is helping, okay. So how does presuppositional apologetics approach meta -ethical, the meta -ethical challenge of grounding moral obligations?

Okay, so we would approach the meta -ethical challenge of grounding moral obligations by arguing that moral obligations are rooted in the character and commands of God, okay?

So unlike secular approaches that attempt to ground moral duties in maybe like social contracts or something like consequentialism or human flourishing, we're gonna argue that these frameworks are gonna lack ultimate authority and binding force, okay?

And basically from our perspective, we're gonna say that not only are moral truths grounded in God, but because of God's nature and authority, they are also binding on us, his image bearers, okay?

And so we have that link that I think the secular meta -ethical approaches don't have.

All right, I can't get into too much of that because then I'll be here forever. I hope that's a little bit helpful. All right, how does presuppositional apologetics critique the concept of methodological naturalism?

And how does the presuppositional apologetic critique the concept of methodological naturalism in science?

Okay, all right, so methodological naturalism is the principle that scientific inquiry or investigation should assume natural causes and pretty much exclude supernatural explanations by arguing that it's to do to use supernatural explanation is arbitrary and it's problematic, right?

So we're gonna contend that excluding the possibility of supernatural causation a priori restricts the scope of scientific investigation and biases or biases or creates a bias, okay, in the interpretation of the evidence, okay?

And so we're gonna argue the Christian worldview provides a coherent basis for the practice of science as we put forth as Christians an orderly intelligible universe created and sustained by a rational

God. And so by acknowledging both natural and supernatural causation, we're gonna maintain that science can be more comprehensive and not as biased in that sense.

When you limit it in terms of only natural causes, then you remove other possible explanations that can shed light on the specific inquiry that you're engaging in.

So I don't hold to methodological naturalism nor do I hold to its various critiques.

You know, if you say there are supernatural causes and that means we can't know anything, no, that doesn't logically follow at all.

All right, let's see here, next question. Moving quickly, quickly.

How does presuppositionalism address the issue of internal coherence within non -Christian worldviews?

Yeah, so we would argue that non -Christian worldviews are internally inconsistent. And we try to expose that by doing the internal critique.

So the internal critique is basically when we hypothetically grant the truth of the position and show that on its own basis, it falls apart through incoherence, arbitrariness and things like that, okay?

How do, oh boy, here's a doozy. How does the presuppositional apologetics engage with the debate over free will and determinism?

Okay, all right, so we would engage with the debate over free will and determinism by arguing that the

Christian worldview provides a coherent framework for understanding the relationship between human freedom and divine sovereignty.

And so I would argue for a view known as compatibilism, namely the view that divine determinism is compatible with human freedom and responsibility and moral praiseworthiness or blameworthiness.

Now I can't unpack that in detail here, but I've got a bunch of videos on my channel discussing this very point.

If you're interested in a very long discussion with my good friend, Guillaume Bignon, who is a analytic philosopher and expert in this area,

I would point you to those videos that will unpack that and do justice to this question that has the potential to be very technical, all right?

All right, let's see here. How does presuppositional apologetics respond to the philosophical challenge of skepticism?

Well, it depends what you mean by skepticism. So you have local skepticism, global skepticism, iterative skepticism.

There are different flavors of skepticism. But remember, what is the centerpiece of the presuppositional apologetic method?

Well, it's the transcendental argument. Well, throughout the history of philosophy, what are transcendental arguments? Well, they're anti -skeptical arguments.

So the very nature of transcendental arguments is a response to skepticism, namely the idea that maybe depending on the version of skepticism, knowledge is impossible or anything along those lines.

The skeptic is gonna say something's impossible. The transcendental argument's gonna show this particular thing like knowledge or whatever is not impossible.

Rather, it's true by the impossibility of the contrary, okay, and this is generally speaking.

So how do you respond to skeptical arguments? You know, transcendental arguments are geared towards responding to those sorts of positions specifically.

All right, next question. Let's see here.

How can presuppositional apologetics be used in a conversation with an atheist colleague at work?

Okay, now we get to the more practical questions, okay. All right, so when engaging an atheist colleague at work, all right, you wanna start by understanding their worldview and identifying their foundational beliefs, okay?

So you're gonna politely ask questions that reveal their assumptions about reality and metaphysics, morality, the ethics, knowledge, epistemology, these sorts of things.

So for example, you might ask how they account for the existence of objective moral values or the uniformity of nature, right?

Whatever the case may be, whatever the topic is you're talking about. Once their presuppositions are identified, you're gonna gently point out any inconsistencies or gaps within their perspective and you're gonna explain that the

Christian worldview provides a coherent basis for these aspects of reality grounded in the character and revelation of God, so on and so forth, okay?

So when you're engaging at work, there's obviously limitations, but you're gonna wanna engage in the sort of conversations in which you are asking questions that expose their worldview.

And when their worldview foundations are exposed, then you're gonna gently point out inconsistencies.

And you're not just gonna stop there, you're also going to show, well, within the Christian worldview, here's how we make sense out of this, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, right?

Fill in the blank. And then of course we do this all trusting. The Holy Spirit is working on that person's heart and we pray that God uses what we say to bring about, to call this person to repentance, right?

All these sorts of things, all right? All right, next question. How can a presuppositional apologist effectively engage with a

Muslim friend? All right, so basically you're gonna have to understand Islamic presuppositions and respectfully challenge their coherence, okay?

Start by discussing the nature of God, revelation, morality in Islam. Are you gonna highlight areas where the

Islamic worldview struggles with internal consistency, such as the relationship between Allah's transcendence and his eminence or the historical reliability of the

Quran, okay? And you're gonna contrast these with the Christian understanding of the triune God, who's both transcendent and imminent and the reliability of the

Bible, so on and so forth, okay? The method is not gonna change.

You want to expose underlying presuppositions and test for consistency and be prepared to have the internal critique done to you.

You're gonna have to know your own worldview and show that your worldview does not fall into the same gaps and problems that the other worldview has, okay?

All right, now it depends where the Muslim is gonna wanna point. I mean, when you talk to Muslims, the conversations can go on a bunch of different ways, but regardless, if it's just a casual conversation, not so much kind of like the

YouTube scene and all that kind of stuff, you wanna have the conversations that expose the foundations and then show how the foundations cannot stand, all right?

All right, how can presuppositional apologetics be applied in a university classroom discussion on philosophy?

Hmm, that's a good question. Let's see here, more coffee. All right, let me stop real quick.

I know there are people who came in late. Those who are interested in learning presuppositional apologetics and how to apply it in a more formal setting,

I may have mentioned at the beginning of this livestream that my second course is completed and folks can sign up for that right now by clicking on the link on the description to this video, okay, and it'll take you to PresuppU, which is on my website, where you can enroll in my course entitled

Presupp Applied. And basically, I apply presuppositional apologetics to, first we talk about how to navigate apologetic conversations.

That's the first lecture. Second lecture, how to apply presupp to atheism, how to apply presupp to Roman Catholicism, how to apply presupp to presuppositional

Eastern Orthodoxy, and how to apply presupp to the cult. So that's kind of the topics that it's covered. So if you're interested in that, click on the link in the description.

That's a great way to support revealed apologetics as well. Just wanted to throw that out there for folks who came in a little late.

Okay, so how can we apply presuppositional apologetics in a university classroom discussion on philosophy? So in a university classroom, you're having a discussion on philosophy.

We could apply presupp in many ways, basically by critically examining the presuppositions of various philosophical systems, okay?

So say you're having a discussion on Immanuel Kant, or David Hume, or John Locke, or some atheistic philosopher like Bertrand Russell, okay?

When you have the opportunity to raise your hand, you can gently say, hey, well, you know, it seems that, you know,

Bertrand Russell presupposes such and such and such and such, and here's why I think there's a problem with this.

What do you think? You know, and you might even insert, you know, I think this is why I appreciate, I'm a Christian, you know,

I'm a Christian, and it's what I appreciate about Christianity is it provides a worldview that, and then you could explain right there in the classroom, right, how

Christianity can actually answer the questions that some of the philosophers that you're engaging with in your class can't.

That's kind of an, that might spark kind of an interesting discussion in the classroom, okay? All right, how can a presuppositional apologist respond to a family member who is an agnostic, an agnostic?

Now, again, I'm giving answers to these questions, but I mean, the question, the answers could vary, right? Everything's gonna depend on who you're talking with and the context and how much time you have, all those sorts of things, so you wanna keep that in mind.

All right, so when responding to an agnostic family member, I think it's important that we try to understand their doubts and their uncertainty about the things that they're struggling with, right?

And again, this is so important, we wanna use questions. Questions help us explore a person's presuppositions about those kind of worldview foundations and explain that agnosticism, which often claims that knowledge about God is impossible, right, still is gonna rely on certain assumptions about the nature of reality and human thinking epistemology, all these sorts of things.

We're gonna wanna gently challenge the coherence of these assumptions and present the Christian worldview as providing a rational and consistent basis for knowledge and belief.

So someone who's an agnostic, again, same method, identify the presuppositions and then address them.

Now, it's a little bit easier, it can be a little easier with a family member if you get along with them, you can kind of just be straightforward with them.

It depends on the relationship. You're gonna want to read the situation to know how kind of straightforward you can be, all right?

And this kind of takes practice, right? I mean, sometimes you don't know what to say and other times you're kind of like, oh man, I said this thing and I thought

I responded adequately. It's all gonna depend on the context and the conversation that you're having, all right?

All right, next question. How can a presuppositional apologists or apologetics, how can presuppositional apologetics be used in evangelistic outreach in a multicultural setting?

Yeah, so, okay, so this is important. So you need to be aware of the context.

So a multicultural setting, we're gonna still have to identify underlying presuppositions and that's gonna come through asking questions.

So if you're in a multicultural setting where people believe all sorts of different things, well, how do I know what they believe and how do

I know what to say? Well, that's where questions come in. I spoke at a church in Florida not that long ago and someone had a question during the

Q &A about Rastafarianism. And I was like, I don't know, I've heard of Rastafarian, but I have no idea what

Rastafarians believe, okay? How would I address someone who comes at me with Rastafarianism?

Well, I can only respond in the only way that I possibly can is to ask them questions. Well, what do you believe?

What is your religious system? Explain it to me. And as they're explaining, I'm looking for three things, three foundations of every worldview.

Their theory of reality, their theory of knowledge and their ethic. And those are the foundations upon which everything else is built.

And once I identify those things, I could ask certain questions and show attention within that worldview, okay?

So asking questions, especially when you're in a multicultural setting where people believe all sorts of different things, okay?

Asking questions is so important. Asking good questions. It helps expose really what's lying underneath the disagreement between two people.

All right, how can presuppositional apologetics be applied in online discussions and debates?

Okay, so when engaging in online discussions, this is different than face -to -face sorts of things, right?

But when we're engaging in online discussions, we could apply the presuppositional apologetics by carefully reading, if you're reading a text, and understanding the arguments presented by others, right?

You wanna read carefully to understand. It's very tempting to kind of read through a text and then respond. Take your time.

That's the beauty of kind of like text back and forth. You have time, right, to read and then think and then gather your thoughts, okay?

And you're gonna wanna respond with well -reasoned questions that, again, reveal the presuppositions underlying the worldview or the viewpoints that you're interacting with via text, okay?

Now, this is important. When you're interacting online, it's very easy to feel protected behind the screen, okay?

We tend to say things through text that we would never say if we were face -to -face with someone.

You wanna be sure to be respectful. You wanna speak clearly. You wanna type out clearly. You wanna use clear language to challenge the coherence of the non -Christian worldview.

Point out any inconsistencies that you see. Look, read. Don't just read quickly and respond quickly. Read, think about it, analyze, okay?

You also want to be careful that in online discussion, you could be dragged into the black hole where you have this endless back and forth.

It is never gonna end because the other person, you know, there is value in having some of those discussions because I know that there are people, and I've had this experience before, where I go back and forth with someone, and I'm not doing it necessarily to convince the person

I'm interacting with. I know others are reading it, and so I do it for the person who's reading it and really considering what's being said, right?

And so I think that's very important. So you wanna be careful how you respond, okay?

Gentleness and respect goes for text as well as face -to -face interactions, all right?

All right, I think we're almost done, almost. Okay, one, two, three, four.

Four more questions. So how about this? I'm gonna scratch my pre -planned questions and take the last four questions from the chat, okay?

And then we will successfully have completed 50 questions. That's right, 50 questions.

So let's take a look. I'm gonna go through some of these here.

Audio's good. Let's see here. This won't count as one, but Scott says, if you do any team -ups with Jeff Durbin, don't you have to grow a beard first?

Actually, no, that was not one of the prerequisites. I did not have to grow a beard, thankfully, because I don't grow a beard.

This is as long as it gets. As a matter of fact, I have a mild case of alopecia where some hair doesn't grow in where it's supposed to.

So you don't wanna see my beard. My beard is not very reformed. It's a pretty pitiful sight to behold.

Yes, yes, yes, yes. Yes, that'll be a good response video, yay, for the summer break, more content.

That's right, that's right, I'm excited. More content, here we go. Let's see here.

Okay, so here's a question. So precept apologetics depends on a binary understanding of worldviews, either for or against Christ.

Yeah, so I would say that there are, and I agree with Vantil here, there's a sense in which there's only two worldviews, the

Christian worldview and the non -Christian worldview. Now, there are many non -Christian worldviews, but why do we say there's only two?

Because in a sense, all non -Christian worldviews share a similar feature of which is their weakness, and that is autonomy from the one true

God. And that actually has apologetic implications. Autonomy in a worldview is going to have huge implications apologetically, okay?

So yeah, so there is the Christian worldview and every worldview that denies the Christian worldview. So yeah,

I think that's correct. Let's see here. So that's, okay.

Can unreformed Christians use precept? Is it sound? I know I get this question a lot, and I think

I have a show on it somewhere in the channel, but you have to understand that within the context of Vantilian presuppositional apologetics,

Vantil was seeking to develop an apologetic that flowed out of a consistent application of his reformed theological convictions.

And so I do think that presuppositionalism fits best within a reformed context.

And I do understand that there are people who are not reformed and try to use the methodology.

Someone like Jay Dyer comes to mind, who's a Eastern Orthodox. He's known for using presuppositional apologetics.

And I think to a certain degree, there is benefit. Like I hope more people use it, right?

Even when using it inconsistency, I think is still very, very powerful, but I don't wanna promote the use of inconsistency.

I do think that it fits best within a reformed context. That was the position of Vantil, Bonson, and most other people within the reformed tradition that kind of were spearheading the presuppositional approach.

All right. All right, let's see here. All right, let's see here.

Earth says, revealed apologetics, you know the presuppo approach works because you see the logic in it in your own mind, and that's enough, or because you've seen atheists change their mind with it.

What? Let me see here. So presuppo approach works because you see the law.

No. Okay, so, okay. So, okay, so this is important. I see this a lot with like an approach that works.

I'm not a presuppositionalist because I think it's pragmatic. Well, it works. No, I think,

I'm a presuppositionalist because I think it's a biblical approach. What works is going to be what is biblical, okay?

Because by using a biblical apologetic, or doing apologetics in the way that I think the Bible commands us to, that works relative to the purposes of apologetics outlined in scripture, okay?

And yes, if it's a biblical apologetic, it's going to be logical. It's not gonna be incoherent.

And so I also see the logic in it, okay? And no, I don't just simply see it subjectively in my own mind, okay?

And then you say, or because you've seen atheists change their minds with it. That's a false dichotomy, right? Why can't

I use the approach because I think it's biblical, and I see the logic of it, and I've seen people change with the utilization of it.

All those can be true, right? And yes, when someone says, well, no one's convinced. Well, if your only sample of it is online context,

I mean, maybe, it depends on what circles you run in, right? I've used approach.

I've seen people change their mind, or thoughtfully consider what I'm saying in a way that you don't typically see in online interactions and things like that.

Yeah, absolutely. So thank you for that. And one more, one more will be 50.

This will be 50. We've reached 50. There was four more, and I just said, that's it. So let me see here.

Let's see. One more. Please let there be one.

Okay, so do you think, Andrew says, do you think the new atheist movement is in its death throes?

Yes. It seems to me Four Horsemen turned out to be a little. I love the way you ask it.

Do you think that the new atheist movement is in its death throes? Seems to me the

Four Horsemen turned out to be My Little Pony, My Little Ponies. Yes, I do think it's in its death throes.

The new atheist, when you look at them closely, I mean, people like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, the arguments that they use are not impressive at all.

And they often appeal to emotional argumentation as opposed to logical argumentation.

It's a very surface level criticism of religion in general and Christianity in particular. So yeah,

I think it's in its death throes. You're obviously gonna see remnants of that style of atheism.

But yeah, I think My Little Ponies is a good description. That's 50 questions.

But let me keep going here. I did that one already. Have you written any books?

No, I have not written any books. It's really hard to write books. It's an issue of time. If I did this full -time and had time to research and to write uninterrupted, it would be amazing and I would be able to write.

It's awesome. I don't have that time. So instead, I create courses.

So I completed a course that folks can enroll in if they're interested in supporting

Real Apologize. You can do that right now. As I said before, the link is in the description. Instead of stressing myself out about writing a book,

I decided to use my teaching abilities. Take that for what it's worth.

I'm told I'm a good teacher. I hope I am, okay? And I've used that aspect of what

I think God has blessed me with to create courses and to teach apologetics through the context of teaching.

So as of now, no, I have not written any books. I have a bajillion ideas, just I need to eventually get them down.

If I write a book, I would not be making content because I would have to be absorbed in that.

And I don't have the time to do that, but turning the camera on and doing these streams, especially in the summertime,

I have the time to do these sorts of things. So unfortunately, I have not written a book yet. Hopefully one day I will be able to do that.

So, all right. Well, that's 50. I might've even, that might've been 51 or maybe that maybe is 50, yeah.

That's 50 questions, folks, in one hour and 35 minutes. I am so happy I got through that, okay?

And I hope that this live stream was enjoyable. If you like that format,

I can continue to do similar sorts of things. I know a lot of people like Q &A kind of format, things like that.

So hopefully that was useful. But yeah, guys, thank you so much for sticking with me and I hope this was beneficial to you.

Just one more quick reminder is that if you're interested in signing up for my course, you can do that if you click the link in the description of this video.

Please consider supporting Revealed Apologetics. Sorry about that.

My microphone is off. My internet crashed. So I do apologize, but good thing

I was able to finish everything we're gonna conclude here. So until next time, guys, take care and God bless.