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. 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 going to want to 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, PresubU, and you could enroll in my newest course, which is entitled Presub 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, can you, 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?

I mean, you 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 I'm 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 are a little crazy and you don't mind that. And every now and then I will stop and I'll do 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 worldviews. 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.

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 an interesting, 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. Presupp, 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. So 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 nonbeliever, 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 unbelievers' 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, one will say, 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 sense of 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-believers' 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. You be patient, right? You know, have those conversations and talk with them. And, you know, 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, you know, hugely misunderstood and misrepresented. It is, there's 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, 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, presuppositionalists, we use 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. 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, 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, then 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 in unrighteousness, and instead of worshiping the creator, they worship the creation in some way, shape, or form, okay? All right, number 12, or 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,.