9 Questions About the Nature & Existence of God

Welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host Eli Ayala, and today there is no guest.

It's just me. I'm going to be covering nine questions about the nature and existence of God.

All right, so I'm just going to be going through a list of questions that I think are very important for folks to be familiar with, and I also want to talk a little bit about the importance of answering questions, just the task of answering questions and creating an environment in which questions can be asked and explored.

I think all those things are very important. If we want to perhaps maybe raise our children or have a household in which questions can be asked and discussed and go deeper,

I think that's very valuable when doing apologetics in the home in terms of preparing your family, preparing your kids, all those sorts of things.

We're going to be talking about that in just a moment, but real quick, just a reminder again, if you guys have listened to some of my last live streams,

I made reference to a conference that I will be hosting, and this is my attempt to hopefully get some financial support from people who have been enjoying and Revealed Apologetics and have been benefiting from the content.

I'm going to be hosting an epic precept conference. It's an online conference.

We get the thing up here and have some great speakers lined up, and this is just one of hopefully many other conferences.

So this one is going to be on November 12th. I'm going to be presenting, giving an overview of the presuppositional method.

Dr. Jason Lyle is going to be teaching us how to use evidence within a presuppositional framework.

Dr. Chris Bolt is going to talk about the history of transcendental arguments and the uniqueness of Cornelius Mantill's transcendental arguments.

Matt Slick is going to teach us how to apply the presuppositional method to the cults, and Joshua Pillows is going to help us answer common and not -so -common objections to the presuppositional method.

So I'm totally looking forward to having this. It's going to be like an all -day thing. It's from 10 a .m. to 4 .30

p .m., in which the speakers will have specific times that they will come on. Folks can sign up for that right now on the

Revealed Apologetics website. So you go to revealedapologetics .com, and you click the Presupp You option on the menu, and you can

RSVP your spot to view this epic online presupp conference.

And that's not the only thing I'm planning. There is no date set yet. I'm going to be solidifying this, but I'll also be hosting an epic online

Calvinism conference, which I'm very excited. Once I get the specific date nailed down and schedules worked out, we'll be having myself, of course, but we'll be having

Dr. James White, Dr. Guillaume Bignon, Scott Christensen, and Saiten Bruggenkate, all covering different elements of Calvinism.

And it's not going to be a generic tulip sort of thing. There's five of us.

We're not doing total depravity, unconditional election, limited autonomy, all that kind of stuff. We're going to be covering specific areas that I think take it up a notch and apply to issues that Calvinists are really confronting today.

So we'll be talking about all sorts of interesting things, and I'll make sure I'll update you guys on the details once those details are set in stone.

Okay? So two conferences. This one, the epic Calvinism conference, is going to be coming up in January. You cannot sign up for that just yet, but if you are wanting to support

Revealed Apologetics, you can sign up right now for the epic online presub conference.

All right? And so without further ado, let's kind of jump into our topic. I'll remove that from the screen.

And just as promised, I want to walk through a couple of things. So the main topic for today is that I'm going to be trying to cover nine questions about the nature and existence of God.

But before I do that, I want to talk about the importance of answering questions. So we can do, you know, answering five questions about this, and nine questions about that, and 10 questions about this, and five questions about that.

I want to talk about the importance of answering questions. I think it's vitally important to understand that answering questions can really be a ministry.

Okay? We can answer questions. We can be answer givers, right? People come to us and ask questions.

We can give them answers. We can be answer finders, and we can be pointers to answer givers and finders.

Okay? So there are many different ways in which answering questions or being a resource to people can be a very powerful ministry, especially in today's world where so many people are asking so many different questions about God, the

Bible, religion, worldviews, these sorts of things, truth, morality, these sorts of things.

And so I think it's very important to create an environment as Christians in which questions can be safely asked and meaningfully addressed.

Okay? I think fostering a question and answer environment really can be a kind of way of life.

And so this kind of really came home to me when I was reading, what book was it? I think it was a

William Lane Craig book. I think I might have it here. Let me see. It might be, let me see.

Hmm. I, geez Louise. Oh, here we go. There we go.

All right. So in this book right here, William Lane Craig, A Reasonable Response.

Okay. Now, again, I don't agree with everything Dr. Craig says. I have very sharp disagreements with him on a lot of issues.

But there was this really, really good section in the book where it spoke about fostering a, a question and answering environment as kind of a way of life.

And I've very much resonated with that. And I think that's a really good thing. I haven't done it in my own life necessarily.

But it's definitely something I want to try to more intentionally implement. So fostering a

Q &A environment as a way of life. The book pointed out some very important points here. Number one, we need to recognize the role of the home as a worldview forming center.

Okay? Again, if you don't do this, I mean, I, I'm, I'm guilty of this as well, right?

This is something that we need to be intentional about, but recognizing the home as a worldview forming center.

We want to be able to recognize and be sensitive to teachable moments in the home in which questions can be asked and answered.

Or, you know, we can pose questions to our family and have meaningful discussions. We want to recognize opportunities to reason with or alongside our children, family, and friends, right?

Being intentional about that. Again, super hard. One of the things I struggle with, you know, I'm a full -time teacher.

When I get home, I am exhausted. And so I usually go straight for the nap or I'm really groggy and I'm kind of like, you know, slothing around.

So this is something definitely I can work on, but I think it's really important. Okay? So we want to recognize the role as a worldview forming center.

We want to recognize and be sensitive to teachable moments. We want to recognize opportunities to reason with or alongside our children, our family, our friends, and we want to foster an environment that empowers study in the home.

And this can take the form of reading, having intentional, good conversations, meaningful conversations.

You know, teach our children how to pray with intention, with meaning and purpose. And of course, not just teach our children this, but also practice this.

This is one of the big detriments of myself. If I were kind of exposed, if I can be vulnerable with you here, one of my weaknesses is prayer.

I tend to be kind of overly intellectual. Not that prayer isn't intellectual, but I tend to be overly up here.

And if I can use kind of this dichotomy, right? You know, don't throw rocks at the screens.

I know there's the heart and the mind. I know how that all works. But if I can just speak colloquially about this,

I tend to be very intellectual and not very heart oriented. And so I love

God with my mind, right? I love to read theology and I consider reading theology and reading the

Bible as a form of worship itself. But to take time aside in prayer, and then of course, to teach my children, that's something that I definitely need to work on.

But it's important. And so I think that fostering an environment of prayer, asking questions, all of these sorts of things are vitally important.

Now, we also want to integrate intellectual formation with character formation.

Okay? So again, in finding these teachable moments, we want to make the connection between intellectual growth and how that relates to our character, right?

It's not just what we think. It's also allowing what we think to impact the way that we act.

Okay? And if we foster a question and answering environment in the home, if we are sensitive to those teachable moments, if we understand the home as a worldview forming center, and that we're intentional about reading and studying and having good conversations and teaching our children, our family, how to pray, as well as maintaining a healthy prayer life ourself, integrating the intellectual and character formation, that is going to all work towards really the fulfillment of 1

Peter 3, verse 15, which is to always be ready. We're always ready because being ready, the preparation is not something we just do.

It's a way of life, right? Again, very difficult to implement in all of its detail, but definitely an important aspect to really developing an environment where questions and answers can be really a part of what we do.

And we can be resources to people in our family, and people that God has placed within the context of our own lives.

So hopefully that makes sense. And that is useful to you definitely was useful to me when

I was when I was reading it there. So if you're interested, again, you may love or hate Dr.

William Lane Craig. Again, I have very strong disagreements with him. But there is a really good section here where it talks about the importance of answering questions.

And I thought it was very useful. So this is the book here if you are interested. All right. Let me put that down before someone.

How can a pre supper be holding up a William Lane Craig book? Come on. I mean, I've learned a lot from the guy because he's brilliant in many regards.

And then in other ways, I'm just kind of like, ah, you know, so there's kind of a love hate relationship. Okay, so hopefully, this will be useful for anyone if they read that section of the book.

All right. So let's tackle some of these questions. Okay. A lot of these questions are common questions.

Okay. And I think they'll be useful to you. And hopefully we won't kind of we'll keep things kind of in the mid shelf.

I don't want to speak over anyone's head. I don't want to speak over anyone's head. And hopefully, you'll find them useful.

So question number one. Okay. What key arguments are there for or against God?

Okay. Now, this is really important. We want to be aware of kind of the arguments that float around, right?

I'm not going to go through this, you know, comprehensively. But, you know, in terms of atheism, you have the hiddenness of God arguments, right?

Why is God so hidden? You have the problem of evil, and you have the problem of evil in different variations that tend to be a very powerful tool in the hands of unbelievers when they are attacking

Christian theism, or they're arguing against the Christian position or anything along those lines. And of course, from the

Christian position, yes, I am a presuppositionalist. But I have no problem in various contexts using some of the traditional arguments.

I think they're good data points for launching into certain conversations, depending on how the conversation goes.

So even from a presuppositional perspective, I think the cosmological argument, you know, the

Kalam arguments from design, various teleological arguments, moral arguments, historical arguments for the resurrection,

I think, even as presuppositionalist, all those are fair game, if you're able to incorporate them in a consistent fashion within a presuppositional framework, okay?

We want to always remember, no matter what arguments we use, we do not want to allow autonomy and neutrality to seep into our methodology, right?

We want to always remember our foundations and be faithful to that. And this is very important to as a presuppositionalist.

When we think of like apologetic methodology, we tend to think of like presuppositionalism over here, which uses like more of like a transcendental approach.

And then we take a look at say, like the classical approach, and we see some of these traditional proofs from like natural theology and things like that.

And we kind of see it as like an either and either or. The rejection of traditional arguments is not essential to a presuppositional approach.

Okay, I'm going to say that again, the rejection of many of the traditional arguments is not an essential feature of the presuppositional approach.

I'll give you an example. Dr. Greg Bonson rejected various cosmological arguments, but he didn't reject it simply because he was a presuppositionalist.

He rejects some of the versions of those arguments because he just thought that they were bad arguments. Okay? You can be a presuppositionalist and think and disagree with Dr.

Bonson and think, well, actually, I think the cosmological arguments got something going for it. But I want to be able to use it in a way that's consistent with my undergirding presuppositional and biblical principles.

Okay? So some key arguments are the cosmological argument, I think that's fair game, teleological arguments, moral arguments, historical arguments.

Yes, presuppositionalists can appeal to historical arguments. Cornelius Van Til even said,

I don't remember the reference, but hopefully you'll trust that I'm speaking truthfully here. When people ask about the resurrection,

Dr. Van Til made mention in one of his books where he said that at some point, I would find it necessary to engage in historical apologetics.

Okay, so it is completely appropriate to talk about historical data points.

You see, as a presuppositionalist, who really has a transcendental method at the center of most of what

I do, if someone were to ask me kind of like a historical question about the evidence for the resurrection,

I don't necessarily need to jump into a transcendental analysis of that, or how do you know any fact of history whatsoever?

Yeah, that might be appropriate, right? In some contexts, but there's nothing wrong with just laying out the facts.

And of course, we always lay out the facts, being sensitive to the importance of presuppositions and how that impacts the interpretation of facts and things like that.

So there are ways to do this consistently. Okay, so those are some of the key arguments. But of course, as a presuppositionalist,

I would say that the centerpiece of all that would be a transcendental method of reasoning, a transcendental method of argumentation.

Okay, I would say that the transcendental method would, which informs and gives meaning and cogency to to all the other arguments is really that transcendental principle.

Okay. So yeah, so I think those are some of the key arguments that one might want to be familiar with when doing apologetics and knowing like, you know, what's going on out there in terms of the sorts of things that people talk about.

Okay. All right. Let's deal with our next question. Our next question is what are the practical implications of a an atheistic worldview?

Okay. Now, this is important. Okay. So when we ask the question, what are the practical implications of an atheistic worldview, identifying the practical implications of a worldview is not to say that that worldview is necessarily false.

Okay. So if someone were to ask me the question, what are the practical implications of an atheistic worldview? Okay. That's not saying that atheism is false.

It's just saying, what are the practical implications of it? So I think that is apologetically useful.

You don't necessarily always have to go for the jugular in every context and try to refute a person's position.

Although that is fair game, given the nature of apologetics and arguments and things like that.

But I think from an existential perspective, I think it's very useful to really talk about the practical implications of someone's worldview.

And sorry, Brenda, atheism is a worldview. There are different flavors of atheism.

There is not the atheist worldview, but there are different flavors of atheism and all of them have a key components that make up their perspective.

So sorry. Yeah. I would strongly disagree with you. Okay. At any rate. And trust me,

I know exactly what various atheists say. Any version of atheism and all of its expressions is coming from a worldview perspective.

And of course, the atheistic commitments, whether it's more of a weak or strong form of atheism have worldview implications.

So that's just the way it is. All right. So I want to remind you guys, identifying practical implications is not necessarily saying that atheism is necessarily false.

You want to differentiate between the truth of a perspective and the implications of a perspective. I say that one more time.

We want to differentiate between the truth of a perspective and the implications of a perspective.

If atheism is true, okay, this is something to consider, and this will incorporate various arguments as well.

If atheism is true, then if you think about it, there is no objective meaning and purpose in the world.

If atheism is true, objectively speaking, in the ultimate sense, there is no meaning and purpose for our existence.

Does that mean atheism is false? No. This is just a practical implication of it.

Many atheists would admit this, that they would embrace the darkness and nothingness of existence, and they embraced it with courage.

If there is no God and there's no ultimate purpose and meaning for why we exist, then there is no objective meaning and purpose.

We create meaning for ourselves. Again, it doesn't mean atheism is false, but I think that's an important implication that follows from an atheistic perspective.

By the way, if you do have questions, please feel free to leave them in the comments. By the way,

I want to give you a reminder, preface your question with a question that helps me more easily differentiate your question from the comments.

Let's see here. Okay. All right.

Let's see here. If atheism is true, again, evil or what we define as evil is never dealt with.

On atheism, there is no ultimate justice in the world, ultimately speaking. Again, this is not controversial.

If there's no meaning and purpose, things just happen. They happen. That's just the way the world works. There's no justice.

Again, it doesn't mean atheism is false, but this might be something useful to bring up in conversation because speaking with people myself,

I do get a strong indication that people do have a very strong sense of justice and a desire to see the wrongs being righted at the end.

This might be an existentially useful thing to do. If atheism is true, the world really can't be understood in any consistent and unifying fashion as reality is not the outflow,

I would argue, from the will and plan of God. All is sound and fury signifying nothing.

Where does atheism or whatever version of atheism one might hold, where does unity come from?

How does one unify knowledge? How does someone have a unified perspective on reality?

How does someone step outside? Really, on atheism, it seems to me, how does one step outside the egocentric predicament?

Is unity actually unity or is it something we create for ourselves because we're limited?

There's no God. There's no transcendence communicating with us in any way. We have to make these connections.

I think those are important things to keep in mind.

Again, a lot more can be said. I can't get into all of the details. I'm just going through these questions as data points.

I think they're important to keep in mind when you're having conversations with people. Another common question is, why would a good

God allow evil to exist? This is the question. I think some apologists try to wiggle out of this question in a way that I think sometimes can be useful, but other times

I don't think it's very helpful. Why would a good

God allow evil to exist? Someone might say, and I've heard people say this before, well, on atheism, there is no evil.

Now that's true. On atheism, there is nothing that is objectively evil.

We can call certain things evil. We can agree as a society that we think certain actions are morally unacceptable.

I get that. But if atheism is true, there's nothing objectively evil.

However, when an atheist or anyone asks, why would a good God allow evil to exist?

I think it's a dodge to simply say, well, on atheism, there is no evil, so what's your problem?

Notice though that this is not the question. The question is, why would a good

God allow evil? If you think about this, this question, if it's coming from an atheist, is an attempt at, and I think appropriately, it's an attempt at an internal critique of the theist position, and in my case, the

Christian position. If someone says, why would a good God allow evil to exist? Let's hypothetically assume that there is a good

God. Hypothetically, why would this God allow evil to exist? That's important.

I think we want to be able to differentiate between what's being asked and not dodge the question by answering a question or making a statement that's not really addressing the point.

I want to keep a couple of things in mind. Number one, the concept of evil, and this is why it's important on a presuppositional perspective where we place a great emphasis on worldviews.

The concept of evil is not independent of a worldview context in which it makes sense and is defined, so the concept of evil is not a neutral perspective.

Sorry, Brenda, on Christianity, evil cannot exist. That is literally an external critique.

The hypothetical question being asked, why would a good God allow evil, is doing a better job than you are in asking internally critical questions.

When you say Christianity and evil cannot exist, you're just rejecting the Christian system. On the

Christian system, there is a good God and literally there is evil, and it plays a plan and purpose in God's overall plans.

You don't have to accept that, but that is the Christian story. So to say that on Christianity evil can't exist, that's just to reject the

Christian worldview at the outset because inherent within the Christian worldview is that there is a good God and there is evil.

So I think that'd be problematic there. All right, at any rate, so the concept of evil is not independent of a worldview context in which it makes sense and is defined.

So when we're talking about evil, we need to define what we mean by that, and for the Christian, if you're going to engage in an internal critique, then that category needs to be defined within a consistently

Christian worldview context. Now within the Christian context, evil, as everything else, serves the purposes of God's will and intentions.

While we would affirm that God is not evil, evil definitely plays a role in God accomplishing his purposes.

For him permitting evil, he has a reason for that. Why would God do this? Why would

God allow Adam and Eve to eat the fruit? He puts them in the garden and he knows that they're going to eat from the fruit.

Why would God do that? Well, for morally sufficient reasons. God has his reasons for doing it. We might not know what those reasons are.

We might know some of the reasons. Regardless, it's not random. God knew it and he had a purpose for it.

And because God is good, his purposes are good. Period. People might not like that, but there's nothing logically inconsistent with that within the

Christian system. So within the Christian context, evil, as everything else, serves the purposes of God's will and intentions.

That's one aspect of it. Another aspect of it is why would a good God allow evil? There's an aspect of mystery there.

And even mystery is consistent with the Christian worldview. Deuteronomy 29 .29, the secret things belong to the

Lord, but the things revealed belong to us and our children's children. Another aspect of why does a good

God allow evil? For his glory and our good. God is glorified in his permitting of evil and his conquering of it and a revelation of his character through that whole process.

How it creates a context for redemption and mercy and an exhibition of God's justice and righteousness.

That's an element of it. To reveal aspects of his character, he desires, apparently, his creatures to know what he's like.

And these things are demonstrated when he permits rebellion. Now you might not like that God did it.

You might not like that at all, but I mean, that's okay. Not liking it is not the same as showing that there's a logical inconsistency and it's not showing that it's false.

Okay. All right. And no, Brenda, I'm sorry if I'm responding to Brenda. She's got a lot of quotes there, comments, and there's not many comments yet, so it's easy to see it.

No, my position doesn't collapse into skeptical theism.

I mean, maybe you can define that for me. I'm not sure what you mean by skeptical theism. Maybe you can define that and I can let you know what

I think about that. But at any rate. Yeah. All right. So let's see here. So yeah, ultimately

God has not only does, can God have, but I think that it's the biblical position that God does have morally sufficient reasons and good reasons for permitting the evil that he allows.

Okay. From a logical perspective, if that's even logically possible, then it follows that there is no conflict between the existence of a good

God and the existence of evil. God could have morally sufficient reasons for the evil that he allows. Well, what are those reasons,

Eli? Well, I can give you some, and then that would show that there's no logical contradiction, or I can say,

I don't know what those reasons are. Right. And I do know what some of them are kind of just listed them there, but I suppose

I didn't. The fact that it's even logically possible that God could have morally sufficient reasons follow makes it makes it the case that there is not a logical contradiction.

Remember a logical contradiction, according to the second law of logic states that a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense.

Okay. The idea that there is a good God and that there's evil is not logically incompatible. If it's possible that God could have morally sufficient reasons for the evil that he allows.

And that's precisely what we get in scripture. Okay. All right. Let's see here.

Let's see. Let's see. Let's see. Okay. So why would a God, a good God allow suffering to exist?

I mean, if you take the problem of evil and the problem of suffering, for example, I would say, you know, wash, rinse, repeat, right?

Suffering and its purpose is not without a context, right? It's worldview, right?

It fits within a worldview system. So suffering has a worldview context within Christianity, within the

Christian context, suffering as everything else serves the purposes of God's will and intention.

Okay. He reveals some those intentions. Okay. And some of them are mysterious.

Deuteronomy 29, 29, God has morally sufficient and good reasons to permit the suffering that he allows. Okay. Might not be emotionally satisfying, although we could come up with more specificity, but just generally speaking here.

But there is no logical incompatibility. And of course the God of the Bible not only permits suffering and brings glory to himself through suffering and redeems the suffering.

He also engages in the suffering himself in the incarnation where Christ, the compassionate one, compassion, co -passion to suffer, passion to suffer alongside.

He suffers alongside us as well. Okay. So all right. So a couple of things here.

So I would say that the problem of suffering, the problem of evil can be answered in similar ways. If we're considering kind of that, that worldview context.

All right. All right. Before I go to the next question, just want to let people know, again, if you have any questions, please feel free to put your question in the comments and preface your question with question and I'll try my best to get to some of them.

All right. So again, I'm going through these rather quickly. There's obviously much more that can be said about each of these points. But just as a quick little run through, hopefully it's useful and helpful for folks.

All right. So then we have another common question. Why would God command the death of so many people in the

Bible? An example, say the Canaanites. Okay. Again, when we take a look at the actions of God, nothing is done without a context on Christianity.

Nothing is done. God does not do anything arbitrarily. He has a reason and a purpose, right?

No matter what, right? Whether you know that purpose, and sometimes he tells us in his word, or you don't know that purpose.

Okay. God does not do anything without purpose. And when he does what he does, those purposes are always good.

And they are coming from an omniscient, omnipotent God who is working out his plans in the world.

Okay. And this will involve a revealing of his character, which often is his righteousness, his justice, his attitude towards sin.

And we see this all throughout the Old Testament. God will act consistently with his character as righteous judge.

He will and has executed justice upon sinners to demonstrate the seriousness of sin, to demonstrate the consequences of sin, to demonstrate what all men deserve, but don't all get by God's grace.

He does this. He executes his wrath in the Old Testament to demonstrate his right and freedom to give and take life, to demonstrate that his judgments, his judgments, if you think about it, are also used to draw others to repentance.

Okay. God demonstrates all sorts of things by executing justice in particular instances throughout the

Old Testament. I don't apologize for that as well. I very much appreciate the work of Dr.

Paul Copan in his book, Is God a Moral Monster? And he talks a little bit about kind of the historical context for a lot of this.

But, and as helpful as it is, and I think there's some warrants to some of the things he says, I'm not that apologetic for the things that God does.

God knows all things. Okay. He knows when you are ripe for justice and judgment, and he is free to execute that judgment.

Right. He's good. So his judgment is good. He always does what's right. So his judgment is right.

Okay. There's no problem. Someone says, well, how can God command the death? Because he's God. Because he's righteous.

Because he's free to judge when he sees fit to judge. Okay. So from an apologetic point of view,

I don't see a problem with that. None of us deserve to live. Right. I remember it was, I don't know if it was an interview on Larry King.

I don't know if it was Larry King or some show where John MacArthur, Pastor John MacArthur was asked the question, why do bad things happen to good people?

And I loved his answer. He said that to ask the question, why do bad things happen to good people is the wrong question.

The right question we should be asking is why do good things happen to anyone? Why do good things happen to anyone?

The assumption is we're just good people and these random things, you know, just happen to us. Listen, we all deserve the judgment of God.

And it is only by his mercy and grace that we are allowed to wake up the next day and take a breath. Okay.

If God so desires, he can stop our lives on it because he wants to.

And of course he doesn't do it arbitrarily, but he could, if he, if he wanted to end our lives, he could do it and he would be just in doing so.

Okay. So why would God command the death of so many people in the Bible? Well, he exhibits his righteous judgment.

He executes his justice upon sinners. He's demonstrating to us the seriousness of sin.

It's no wonder. I wonder if it's the case that it, is it the case that God is mean or that we don't take sin seriously enough?

I don't know about you, but I think it's the latter. I think we don't take sin seriously enough. And so that's why when we see God's actions in the old

Testament, we think he's, you know, going a little overboard. Okay. So if you think about it though,

God, regardless of the apologetic answer you give to this question, if you think about it, God is going to lose any way you slice it, right?

We can bend over backwards and try to make God seem nicer and, you know, and we can create a

God in our own image, right? And create a God that we're comfortable with. But in the final analysis, let's be honest.

God loses. If God punishes sin, then we ask the question, why is he so harsh?

If God doesn't punish sin, we ask the question, why doesn't God care about evil? You see,

God does not cater to the fickle and sinful perspectives of men who wish to sit in judgment over his actions, right?

The Bible says the Lord is in heaven. He does what he pleases. And what he does and what he pleases is always righteous.

It's always just, okay? You don't have to like it, but it's irrelevant, right? It's irrelevant.

So from an apologetic perspective, I don't think there's a problem there at all. We should stand by the justice of God, make sure we're understanding those passages in its proper context.

We don't want to act cavalierly when engaging those sensitive topics, but we don't have to apologize for God.

He's righteous. He has the right to take life, to judge. He can judge you now. He can wait until later.

He can wait until in the final judgment day. That's his prerogative, okay? From within a Christian perspective, right?

That's consistent, okay? You don't refute or show a logical inconsistency by having some neutral and subjective view of what you think justice is, and then impose that subjective view of justice upon God and say, look, there's a contradiction.

God contradicts my sense of justice, okay? That's not how it works, okay?

You cannot refute God's objective, free, righteous justice by your subjective opinion of what you think righteousness and justice should look like, all right?

All right. Another question here, how can a loving God send people to hell?

And again, that's another common question that is thrown around. Again, and this is not just, you know,

I want to kind of create a proper context here. In your interactions with unbelievers, it's not always going to be, you know, these hardcore internet atheists.

I mean, you're talking to real people, and so some of these topics can be very sensitive. We want to be careful how we kind of, like, address it and navigate those conversations, so we don't want to, you know, when

I say, you know, it doesn't matter. God does what he pleases. He's righteous. Yeah, I mean that, but the way we share that with people, we want to know our context.

I think that's very important, all right? So how can a loving God send people to hell? The way

I answer this question has always been to draw attention to the fully orbed character of God as revealed in scripture, okay?

We tend to define God under the category of love.

How can a loving God do this? Well, part of the answer to that is that God is not just loving.

As I mentioned just a few moments ago, God is also holy. He's also righteous.

He's also just, right? He is long -suffering, but it doesn't last forever.

God has executed his justice, right? So God is not simply loving. God sends people to hell because he's also righteous and just.

Hell is an execution of God's justice, all right? So I think that's an important thing to keep in mind.

Secondly, we want to recognize two aspects of the question, okay?

How can a loving God send people to hell? You have really an emotional problem that comes along with this question and an intellectual problem which comes along with this question.

Now, for the purposes of truth, I think the most important aspect of the question to address, because it's really the stronger objection, is the intellectual problem of hell, okay?

Because if someone's going to say, for example, how can a loving God send people to hell? What's implicit in that is often what seems to the person to be a logical incompatibility between a loving

God and the fact that he sends people to hell, right? So if there is a genuine conflict there, then yeah, from an internal critique of the

Christian worldview, there would be a problem. Now, of course, there is no problem because God is not just loving.

Biblically, God is all those other things I mentioned. And so hell is just an execution of God's justice, his wrath, along with some of these other attributes that he has, right?

So there's no logical inconsistency there. Now, the emotional problem of hell, we want to navigate very carefully depending on the nature of the discussion, who we're speaking with, these sorts of things.

But this is the weaker aspect of the problem in the sense that the emotional problem of hell is really irrelevant to the truth of whether hell exists or the truth of whether there is a loving

God, but he is also just and righteous and throws people in hell, right? So the emotional problem is strong only in the sense that in our culture today, people are very persuaded by emotionally or existentially difficult topics.

And so from an apologetics perspective, you will need to have to navigate that aspect of the problem.

But from a perspective of truth or falsity, intellectually speaking, there is no logical incompatibility with a loving

God who also executes justice because God is not just loving. He's all those other things the

Bible says that he is. All right. Okay. Let's take a look here.

All right. Here is a popular argument. I never got this one. I mean, people tend to think that,

I mean, there are books written on this specific question. I guess the question that I'm about to ask poses a problem for some people.

But this is the hiddenness of God objection.

So someone asked the question, why is God so hidden? Okay. And I mean,

I'm going to have to answer this. It's kind of like when someone asks me, why are you a Christian? Why do you believe

Christianity? And I don't know if you've ever seen when apologists are asked that what do apologists say, right? You know, you're a

Christian apologist. You speak to people and you defend the faith. Why are you a Christian? You know, and sometimes they'll say, well, you know,

I'm a Christian because of the overwhelming evidence for the Christian faith. Actually, that's not why

I'm a Christian. Okay. I believe there's overwhelming evidence for the Christian faith. I believe the Christian worldview is the only consistent worldview that can ground intelligible experience, can ground knowledge, can create a proper context for something like science and history and mathematics and these sorts of things.

I believe that. And I think that's true. However, when someone asks me why I am a

Christian, okay, I must answer the question in a way that is consistent with the biblical perspective.

And what does the Bible say? Okay. His spirit bears witness to mine that I am a child of God.

I am a Christian because of the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit in my life.

It is the spirit of God that drew me to himself and removed my heart of stone and gave me a heart of flesh.

Now, is there, did God use evidence to, as part of the mechanism that, that, that, that he used to bring me to that point of regeneration?

Sure. But the reason why I'm a Christian is because there was a spiritual resurrection that occurred through the working of the spirit of God.

Okay. In like fashion, when someone asks me, why is God so hidden? I am not going to grant the presupposition of that question, which is in diametric opposition to the biblical witness.

Okay. Why is God so hidden? The answer? He's not, he's not hidden according to scripture.

If the biblical worldview is true, Psalm 19 one says, heaven, the heavens declared the glory of God and the skies proclaim the works of his hands.

That doesn't seem like God is hiding. Okay. And that's natural revelation. What, what can be known about God?

It's there Romans chapter one, verses 19 through 21. Check this out for what can be known about God is plain to them because God has shown it to them for his invisible attributes, namely his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly perceived ever since the creation of the world and the things that have been made.

So they are without excuse for, although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Now check this out. What can be known that passage says is plain.

So he's not hidden. According to the Bible, his invisible attributes are, this is what the passage says, clearly seen.

So he's not hidden. According to the Bible, he is clearly perceived, clearly perceived in what has been made.

We all have access to what has been made, right? We all have access to creation. Even if you're blind, you yourself are an element of creation.

You yourself is evidence of God. So he's not hidden according to scripture. His existence is so not hidden that the passage

I just read in Romans chapter one. Okay. It says that men are unapologetic, literally without an apologetic, without an excuse.

Okay. And verse one, it says, um, it is God himself who has shown himself.

That's why it's so clear. Why is the revelation of God so clear? Not simply because the heavens declare his glory, but it says for what can be known about God is plain to them because God has shown it to them.

He's the one who shows. Okay. So there is no excuse. All right. According to the Bible, if we're arguing from a consistently

Christian worldview perspective, there is no hiddenness of God problem.

Okay. Um, he has made his existence known yet. What does the Bible say that we suppress the truth and unrighteousness?

Okay. So, um, there you go. I think that's the, that's clear from the Bible, from a Christian perspective,

Martin, from the worldview perspective, from the Christian perspective, God is not hidden. He is clearly revealed, right?

The hiddenness of God objection is a good example of an external critique upon the

Christian worldview, because it is trying to critique the Christian worldview on presuppositions that the Christian worldview rejects and actually explicitly denies.

Okay. What can be known as plain, his invisible attributes are clearly seen. He is clearly perceived in what has been made.

His existence is so not hidden that all men are without excuse. And it's God himself who shows it.

And that's why he's not hidden. Okay. If I affirm that he is hidden, I'm like, well, he's hidden because then

I'm already affirming something that the Bible, uh, tells me the complete opposite. All right. All right.

All right. Almost done here. Working through some of these, I got maybe two more questions and then maybe I'll take some questions in the chat and wrap things up.

I'm actually a good opportunity to share with people. I will on Saturday, I'll be flying out tomorrow.

Um, the conference starts Friday evening and then Saturday I'll be speaking on the topic of, um, is hell a problem for apologetics?

So, um, that's my talk there. So, um, I'm not going too long tonight, probably just go like a little under an hour, but I hope this is useful.

I know I'm kind of going quickly here, but I hope it's useful for you. Um, for those who are listening. All right.

Uh, let's see here. So my, my next question here is why does the old Testament God seem so different than the new

Testament? Okay. So, uh, the, you see, you see this all the way back in the early church, right? You had people claiming that the

God of the old Testament is different than the God of the new Testament, right? The God of the old Testament is a big old meanie. The God of the new

Testament is wonderful and loving. And you know, it's so nice, like what's going on. Right. Uh, so, so why does the old

Testament God so different than the new Testament God? Um, okay. Why does the old

Testament God seem so different than the new Testament? I want you to listen to that. Notice that seeming different is not the same as actually being different.

Okay. You need to remember something. It is the old Testament in Psalm 136 verse one, where it is said his love endures forever.

That's what the old Testament says his love endures forever. Yet is the new Testament that says it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living

God. Hebrews chapter 10, verse 31. Okay. There is no difference between the

God of the old Testament and the God of the new Testament. What we see in scripture is that God is working covenantally.

There are aspects of the new Testament that no longer require God to work and function in the way that he did necessarily in various aspects of the old

Testament. Although he is consistent across the covenants is very important. The old Testament God is a

God of love. He's a God of mercy. He's a God of long suffering, but he's also a God of justice. He's also a

God of wrath. And he's often expressed that in various stories in the scriptures and in the new Testament, this doesn't change.

Remember it's the new Testament that gives us the more pronounced picture of eternal hell, right?

The son of God who, uh, who comes and a sword proceeds from his mouth and his robe is dipped in the, in blood, right?

In, in, in the, in the new Testament, we have this pronounced picture of what

Jesus Christ will do on judgment day, right? He will judge, right?

Uh, hell and, and, and those who are, are not in Christ will pay for their sins and experience the judgment and justice of God.

That's the new Testament. So I don't think there's a difference. Um, I think if we nitpick certain aspects of the old

Testament, sure, we can create kind of a picture that seems at odds, but when you take the Bible, um, in its entirety from old to new, we have a

God who is loving. We have a God who is merciful, a God who is long suffering, a God who reaches out his hand, so to speak, and cries out for the people to repent.

Um, but we also have the same God also executing his justice and judgment. Um, that's the God of the old

Testament. That's the God of the new Testament. All right. All right. And my last question before I get to the questions, okay.

Um, why does God need people to worship him? Isn't that egotistical and arrogant? Okay. This was brought up by a lot of, uh, many of the new atheists.

I don't know if it was maybe Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, or one of those. I don't remember the four horsemen.

Who was it? Uh, four horsemen of the new atheism. What is that? Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett.

What was the other guy? If anyone knows who the other guy was, maybe they could, uh, put it in the chat. Okay. Uh, I'd be interested.

I don't remember. New atheism is not that new anymore. Um, I don't remember. Uh, those, those guys, if anyone knows they can put it in the chat, that'd be, that'd be helpful.

Uh, but anyway, why does God need people to worship him? Isn't that egotistical and arrogant? Well, a couple of things, um,

God, and this is, this is the Christian picture. Okay. According to the Christian worldview, right? If you're going to critique the

Christian world, you're going to ask these questions about the God of the Bible. We need to answer it in a way that's consistent with the Christian worldview. Right?

So why does God need people to worship him? Isn't that egotistical and arrogant? Okay. Well, biblically, uh,

God does not need anything, right? God requires worship, but God does not require worship because he needs it.

Right? That's got to be clear from the Christian perspective. Okay. In Psalm chapter 50, verse 12, we're told, and God, God saying this, he says, if I were hungry,

I wouldn't tell you for the world is mine and all that is in it. Right? God does not need anything.

This is very much wrapped up in the divine attribute of a say it's he, God does not depend on anything external.

We can use that word, right? There's nothing external to God. He's a, uh, an absolute all encompassing, uh, creator.

Right. Um, but, uh, there is nothing that God relies on for his own sustenance or his own existence.

God exists. I'll say, all right. So, um, he doesn't, he doesn't require worship because he needs it.

Okay. Um, and it's not egotistical, uh, to think highly of yourself if it's true, right?

If you are by definition, the sumum bonum, the highest good, right? Um, if that's who you are, right?

Worship and being in relationship with the source of the highest good is a good in itself, right?

It's not egotistical or arrogant to require worship. If in fact you are worthy of it, it would be egotistical and arrogant for me to require worship because I'm not worthy of worship.

But God being God is worthy of worship and it is not egotistical or arrogant to require something that is your right.

Okay. Uh, again, you don't, you might not want to worship God. You might not want to worship the, the God of the Bible. Fine.

But he doesn't need your worship. God doesn't need anything. The reason why

God creates people is not because he's lonely. Okay. God does it, uh, as an extension and expression of his love and grace, right?

The essential feature of love is other centeredness. He is giving, he is loving, right?

Um, he doesn't do this because he needs it or he's bored or he's all alone or anything like that. That sort of picture of God would be an external critique of the

Christian worldview because that doesn't represent what the Bible says about God. Okay. So I think it's very important that we take

God as he has revealed himself and not how we would, um, like him to be.

All right. Um, and that's difficult sometimes because we tend to, again, as I said before, we tend to create a

God in our own image instead of accepting and worshiping the God in whose image we were created. So there you go.

All right. So those are the nine questions about the nature and existence of God. I'm going to take a few moments to go through the comments section and see what we got.

And then we'll wrap things up in just a few minutes. And, um, thank you so much for, for listening.

If you've been sticking, if you were sticking around, uh, you know, for 50 minutes so far, but before I do that, one more announcement here, if I can remind you guys again, if you're interested in signing up for the

Epic Online Precept Conference, you can do that right now by going to revealedapologetics .com click the you menu and you could

RSVP. Um, when you purchase a ticket that is, um, supporting Revealed Apologetics. Yes.

I'm going to be open with you. I'm trying to raise money. It's expensive to do this stuff and funds are running low.

Uh, not because Revealed Apologetics isn't doing well. Um, YouTube's doing great. I'm getting a lot of positive feedback, um, but not a lot of, um, financial support.

So it does cost money to do this. And so if you, um, are, uh, if you feel, uh,

I gotta say this. If you feel, if you call the number on the bottom of the screen, if you give to this message,

I will send a message. Just kidding. If you feel compelled to, uh, to, uh, help this ministry and financially support it, uh, purchasing a ticket is one way to do it.

Sending super chats is another way to do it. All of these things are super, super helpful. And so I would greatly appreciate it.

Um, but if not, and you're just enjoying this stuff, I mean, my YouTube channel, everything here is free. And so, um, hopefully it's useful to you nonetheless.

All right. But, uh, that conference can be signed up for right now. If you go to the Revealed Apologetics website, it will be on November 12th from 10

AM to 4 30 PM. If you have questions, you can private message me. You can email me at revealedapologeticsatgmail .com

and I'll answer all the questions that you may have. All right. All right. So let's remove this here and let's take some questions.

All right. Slam RN. Hello. Hello. Uh, hi Eli. Well, hello, Slam. Thank you so much.

You are such a faithful, uh, viewer of Revealed Apologetics. I think I see you in the chat. And Slam RN is quite amazing because Slam is in everyone's comment section.

You're in the comments of my video. When I watch other people's video, you're there too. A very faithful viewer of Apologetics material.

Thank you so much. Uh, Tatiana Dunkerley. It's a student of mine. Hi, Mr. A. It's Tatiana.

Hello Tatiana. How are you doing? Uh, it's good to see you in the comments as well. Uh, let's see here.

Uh, let's see. Okay. So is light after darkness as, as someone new to Presupp Van Tilbonson, I wonder if there's research out there quantifying which apologetic method leads to conversion.

I could imagine Presupp working on some, but not all. Now I think this is, this is not a question.

It's a comment, but I think it's important to, um, to address what is inherent in this comment is a, uh, a sense of pragmatism for me.

For example, I'm convinced that presuppositional methodology is biblical. And so I do not use it because it quote works.

I use it because I think it is reflected in scripture, right? It's a consistent way to apply a scriptural teaching with respect to how we engage unbelievers.

Okay. Um, now the result, right, the practical result, that result of conversion, that is a work of the spirit.

It is not a work of methodology per se. Okay. So I want to keep that in mind.

All right. But yeah, I've used presuppositional apologetics and I've seen people, you know, come to the

Lord by the things that are said and, and, uh, the method, if you want to use pragmatic language, the method quote unquote works in the sense that God uses it.

But I would say God uses classical apologetics, evidential apologetics. I just think that presuppositional methodology is more faithful to scripture, but we're all being used by God, even in our own imperfections and inadequacies and how we do that.

Okay. But I wanted to make that distinction. There is a difference between what the Bible commands us to do, how we should do it.

And the question of like pragmatism. Well, what works? Okay. Um, I think what will work is when we're faithful to Christ in the manner in which we defend the faith, proclaim the faith, things like that.

But thank you so much for that light after dark. All right. Let's see here. I got something over here.

Pardon. I have to, uh, get some water, which apparently there is no more water.

Okay. Uh, all right.

Okay. I'm getting like notifications, like no tomorrow. I have no idea who this is right now. I have to look. I'll check on that later.

Okay. So let's see here. Okay. Uh, thank you so much,

Kayla. Kayla says, Eli, thank you for soldiering on and defending the faith. Well, you're welcome. And I hope you're doing it as well in the context that God has placed you in.

So I appreciate that. Uh, question. Okay. So light after dark, uh, here's another, here's a question here.

Presuming God's plan from the beginning, can God change course in time and act differently?

Or is the unfolding of creation an autopilot in terms of the plan being fixed? Well, yeah. So I would say that God doesn't change course.

If God is determined within his own mind from all eternity, right? God decrees all things that come to pass that decree will, um, unfold the way that he does.

He doesn't change in time. Okay. Now God, um, can change his mind in time.

Like if you repent, I will not destroy, you know, destroy the people, whatever, but that's part of the decree.

God decreed that he would respond in the way that he does to repentance. Right? So God does not change course.

Now I want to be very careful about the utilization of the phrase autopilot. Okay. So when we say that God decrees, all that comes to pass, we don't believe it's kind of like fatalism, where it's just kind of this meaningless, purposeless, um, gears turning and things just happen the way they do.

And they're just fated to happen that way. That's, that's not the case when God decrees. Um, the things that he decrees will happen with certainty, but not in a kind of a fatalistic, uh, sort of way.

Okay. Uh, so in essence, answer your question, God doesn't change course. If you mean by that, can he change his decree?

Okay. Uh, why would an all knowing all perfect God, right. Who initiates his all his decree, which unfolds his plans and purposes in detail?

Uh, how, why would he change his mind? Right. Uh, it was perfect to begin with in accordance with what he wanted to accomplish.

Right. Um, so yeah, a good question. All right. Kayla Henderson asks, uh, what are your favorite books to help explain the attributes of God and also the person of Christ?

Um, yeah. So, uh, there are different ways that you can come at this. I mean, pop this up here, go to Amazon real quick.

We have the attributes of God.

There is a, uh, there's a W Tozer's the attributes of God, which is a great book. And then there's

Arthur W pink. Okay. Uh, he's a Calvinist scholar. Um, and he wrote a book on the attributes of God.

I think those are both very good resources. Um, you can get those on Amazon. Let's see if it's on Kindle.

You're a Kindle person and even got an audio book, right? The attributes of God by, um, Arthur pink and the attributes of God by a

W Tozer. I think those are good resources. If you want to kind of, uh, get a grasp on, uh, some of the attributes of God.

Also, I would highly recommend and some of my, my favorite books are just systematic theologies, right?

Um, my favorite systematic theology is, uh, is Wayne Grudem systematic theology. Okay. Um, again, it's not like a technical work.

If you just want to kind of get a basic explanation of various doctrines pertaining to the doctrine of God, I think

Wayne Grudem systematic theology is an excellent read. Um, again, you can come at that question from a more technical perspective and go the more scholarly route in which you're going to get into much more theoretical and theological and philosophical categories.

But from a general perspective, Hey, I want to read something that gives me a good firm grasp on the attributes of God. Pick up a good systematic theology.

Um, you have a Wayne Grudem's, you have a John frame systematic theology, a little bit tougher of a read, but it's there, you know, you have the attributes there.

And, um, I think those are great resources. So I really love my systematic theologies. Um, really good systematic theology.

I also have here, uh, again, a little bit more technical, um, and it follows the structure of the

Westminster, um, confession of faith. This is, um, called a new systematic theology of the faith by Dr.

Robert Raymond. And I think this is an excellent, excellent, excellent systematic theology.

I highly recommend it. I actually heard of that systematic theology from Dr. White and, uh, James White. And so, uh,

I purchased that on Kindle and I have the hard cover and, um, I enjoy it. So I think that's a really, um, uh, a really good resource.

All right. And I got some compliments there. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Um, let's see here.

Yeah. So light after dark says I just picked up Michael Horton. Yeah. Michael Horton has a systematic theology as well.

Uh, all right. Well, I think that's it. No, just a couple of questions. That's fine. And that's perfect. We're right at the 59 minutes.

I need to go to sleep. Um, and I promise when I come back, I'll be having some more exciting guests covering a wide range of topics pertaining to presuppositionalism.

Maybe a couple of, you enjoy me kind of walking through some of these questions.

I'll do more of those things. I want to do what you guys want me to do in terms of what will be helpful and useful to you.

So please feel free to give me some suggestions in the comments, or you can email me at revealedapologetics at gmail .com.

All right. Well, before I go, I just want to say one last time, if you feel compelled to support revealed apologetics, best way you can do that is to order a priest, an

Epic Presupp online conference ticket. Um, you can do that, um, uh, at the revealed apologetics website, click presupp you and, uh,

RSVP your spot, um, for that online conference. All right. Um, so guys, thank you so much for your time, whether you agree with me, whether you don't agree with me,

I appreciate all of you. And, um, hopefully this was useful to you. All right.