Responding to Atheist Argument

Responding to an Atheist Argument About Universal Knowledge of God

All right, welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host Eli Ayala and today I'm going to be addressing an argument that an atheist presented in response to a claim that I made that we tend to make especially from a biblical perspective a Presuppositional perspective that all men have a knowledge of God now I'm not going to get into the details of what I've said in the past those who are familiar With that idea in my past videos on this topic.

It should be self-explanatory given the nature of the Christian worldview and the teaching of Scripture the Bible says that everyone has a knowledge of God such that they Are on a polygamous literally without an excuse and so in response to that idea that is taught in Scripture.

An atheist put forth an argument that I want to take a few moments to address and I appreciate I won't mention the person's name quite frankly I just kind of cut and paste the argument so that I have in front of me I don't remember who the person was but I appreciate them offering the argument and by the way.

What I appreciate about this is that it does better than kind of the drive-by comments on some of the videos where? Someone would be like, you know, you're stupid. I don't know that your God exists or you know.

You know stop lying. Something along those lines, you know, I'll be accused of something or whatever. What I appreciate is is the person actually gives a specific line of reasoning that I could actually interact with.

So, you know someone says hey Eli, you know, you're stupid. Well, okay, like I can't really respond to that. So but if someone lays out an argument that that's actually much more helpful. So whoever this is I do appreciate it.

Okay, and so allows me to kind of expand on some on some ideas. Okay. So now let's take a look at the argument. It's a very simple. It's got the the two premises with the conclusion. So premise one is the following if God exists, then I know he exists.

Okay premise two. I don't know he exists. Conclusion therefore God does not exist. Okay. Now a couple of things about the structure. So when you're dealing with an argument, we can we need to deal with really two things a good argument.

Especially one that's set in a deductive form needs to be both valid and sound. Okay, so for those who are unfamiliar with logic. Validity of an argument deals with its structure so for example if an argument like this has a step one step two or premise one premise two and a Conclusion if the conclusion does in fact follow from the previous premises we can say that the argument is valid.

Okay, so validity is is relates to the structure of the argument. Okay, so every good argument is going to be every good deductive argument right is going to be valid. Okay? Also validity is not enough.

You also need to have soundness. Okay, so the the soundness of an argument pertains to whether the premises are true. Okay, so with respect to this argument if God exists, then I know he exists. I don't know he exists.

Therefore God exists that seems to me to be a pretty valid argument. However, I would challenge one of the premises as to its soundness and offer counterpoints that you know. If I were debating this this individual we'd have to go back and forth as he would defend his premises.

And likewise if I were to offer a deductive argument, I'd have to kind of engage with what people Have to say with respect to one of my premises. Okay. So, all right, so on the surface here, I think this argument looks pretty solid, right?

And in a surface level, yeah clearly. Well, I don't know if God exists. You're telling me that if God exists I would know him. I don't know him. So he doesn't exist. Okay, so let's take a look here. Okay, so the first premise says if God exists, then I know he exists.

Okay now I would agree with this Statement with this premise, but I would I would want to be a little bit more precise. Okay, I would say that the argument makes more sense if we say If if the Christian God exists, then all men know that he exists, okay.

That's more specific because I'm not just arguing for generic theism I'm arguing for the God who's revealed himself both in nature and in Scripture. Okay through general and special revelation. So I would say if the Christian God exists, then all men know that he exists.

Okay.

Now according to the Christian worldview God has clearly revealed himself to everyone right through nature. Through the moral law written in their hearts and so forth and through Scripture. Okay, that is the teaching of Scripture even if you reject the teaching of Scripture.

That is what the Bible teaches. You can go to Romans chapter 1 verses 18 through 20. Romans 2 14 through 15 speaks of the law written in the heart of man. So from my perspective at a fundamental level everyone has a knowledge of God such that they are without excuse.

Okay. Now if we move on to his second premise, he says I don't know that he exists. Okay, and so here's where things get here. Here's what I where I would take a disagreement with and we have to interact a little bit.

So so the second premise says I don't know that he exists. Okay, now Scripture tells us that the unbelievers suppress the truth and unrighteousness. Okay, so they claim not to know God, but this claim is a form of self-deception.

Okay. Now the superficial response to that is oh, well, of course, you know, you would think I'm self-deceived. But you know, that's an example of the pot calling the kettle black right or did I say that right?

You get the point, you know it what I'm saying when I say that the unbeliever is self-deceived. That's not just a Bare assertion, right? That's a point that we need to tease out. Okay, I'm not just saying well, they're just self-deceived and then the the person turns around say well, well you're self-deceived.

Uh-uh. Let's think a little bit more maturely and I'm not saying that this person is being immature. I'm saying people who typically hear these interactions are not hearing what we're saying. From within my worldview you are suffering from self-deception and you are suppressing a knowledge of God in unrighteousness.

Okay, but it goes beyond that. Okay, it's not just your self-deceived and we're kind of name-calling here.

Okay.

Now I'm just completely independent of what I'm talking about here. Self-deception is a very well documented psychological and philosophical phenomenon where individuals hold Contrary beliefs at different levels of awareness.

Okay. This isn't just a you know, a theological idea. It's something that's supported in the scholarly literature. For example, someone like philosopher Herbert finger ret. He explores this idea in depth in his book self-deception.

He was published in the 60s.

Okay.

And finger at discusses how people can deceive themselves by holding beliefs that conflict with what they know to be true at a deeper level. So this isn't something like unique to like the weird presupposition list.

Okay, as a matter of fact, dr Greg Bonson wrote his doctoral dissertation specifically on the nature of self-deception and its apologetic implications and he quotes extensively Other literature the philosophical literature that touches on these issues.

And again, that's not to say that I'm right or I'm wrong. It's just to point out that the claim that we're making that the unbeliever is to self-deceived is not some blanket Statement that is weird and like it's easily responded.

Well, no if you were truly self-deceived then you wouldn't think yourself that you're self-deceived now. You can say the Christian is self-deceived. Okay, and then we're gonna have to we're gonna have to interact with that.

It's not simply name-calling, right? Okay, so we have to go at a deeper level. Okay, I'm not simply saying that you're self-deceived and we stop there. I actually think that there is evidence of the self-deception and that evidence is drawn out throughout the apologetic interaction.

Okay. All right. So in terms of self-deception I have an entire video on this channel where I talk only about this issue in more depth. But real quick when we talk about self-deception we can talk about it in terms of what we call first-order and second-order beliefs.

Okay. Now I want to walk through this slowly so people don't get confused. So so a first-order belief is a direct belief about the world like, you know, let's use the example. There is no God. Okay, that would be a first-order belief now a second-order belief is a belief about one's own beliefs like I Believe there is no God.

Okay. Now here's the thing at a deeper level. First order level of at the first order level the unbeliever where we're claiming actually knows that God exists. But at a second order level they might claim to believe that he doesn't exist.

Okay. Now this is where I think the conflict comes in and I think we can show this or at least provide evidence for that claim their deeper knowledge of God is. At odds with their surface level claims.

Okay, and of course that would be true if they're suppressing the truth. They know deep down as we often say, you know in their heart of hearts. They know God. Okay, now let's use some practical examples.

Now these are general examples because you know when you talk to an atheist, you know. People have different atheists have different perspectives on issues of morality and logic and things like that. But just as an example, let's take morality for an example, you know an atheist might say depending on who you're talking to right?

Morality is subjective either people who just bite the bullet. It's subjective and that pretty much they would argue aligns with their belief. There is no God. There's no objective moral law that we should be following so on and so forth now.

Point that out as something that an atheist might say because you do have atheists that affirm objective moral values and duties in which case. If you're talking to that person, we need to challenge that as well because I think that has problems as well.

But nevertheless, okay an atheist might say that morality is subjective okay, but then they'll turn around oftentimes and they'll make strong moral judgments like, you know, racism is wrong or Murder is evil.

Okay. Notice that they're acting in that case. They're acting as if there's an objective moral standard that everyone should follow. But on their view, where does that moral standard come from? If there's no God, there's no ultimate source of morality.

Okay, and this inconsistency I think shows that deep down they recognize an objective moral law. Which of course we would argue points back to the God who's written that law in their heart. Okay, and that's why you have kind of these inconsistencies with what someone says with their mouth.

But how they actually live their lives that is the evidence that they actually know in their heart of hearts. The God that we're talking about. Okay, so that the claim of self-deception is not a claim without evidence.

The evidence is in the demonstration of that Inconsistency. Okay, and so when someone says well, you know, I don't believe in God. But I believe that morality is objective, okay, so I don't have to borrow from the Christian worldview okay, there's the claim they think that they can make sense out of this and you have different theories of Morality and so forth and then we have to interact with that.

Okay.

And that's pretty much what we're asking the unbeliever to do in the first place if you think you can provide the necessary preconditions for things like morality. Knowledge science. The way you combat our claim and our explanation as to how Christianity grounds those things the way to combat our claim that only the Christian worldview accounts for those things is to provide an example in which a Non-christian perspective grounds them.

Okay, and of course when you provide that then we're gonna have some interaction because obviously the Christians gonna disagree in the Atheist or whoever we're gonna disagree and that's where kind of a fruitful discussion is going to have.

Okay, so with morality. That's kind of one example. We can point out, you know, you talk about talk about logic. We talked about logic in this in this channel a lot. Pardon an atheist might say that logic is just a human construct.

Okay. Now again, if you're an atheist and you think well, I don't think logic is a human construct like cool I don't think it's a human construct too, but that is a position but many atheists I'm using this as a hypothetical.

In his debate with Gordon Stein Greg Bonson versus Gordon Stein Gordon Stein actually You know spoke of the laws of logic as mere conventions. There were conventions of men. But then of course he kind of tiptoed between convention and then universally binding there was it was an interesting inconsistency there.

But you know suppose you're speaking with an atheist that says logic is just a human construct. Okay. But then they use logic right as if it's universally binding and immaterial by pointing out Contradictions and you know the apparent contradictions in the Christian view or whatever the case may be, right?

So the laws of logic like the non law of non-contradiction law of identity excluded middle. We would argue these are abstract. Okay, they're not they're not material. They're abstract. They're universal.

They're invariant. Okay, they're not made of matter. They don't change they apply everywhere. But these laws we would argue only make sense if there is a rational creator who upholds the order of the universe and so when the atheist relies on Logic the when you're talking about especially the materialist relies on logic.

They're actually borrowing from a worldview. That is not their own for on a materialistic atheistic perspective. You can't make sense out of something like abstract universal immaterial conceptual laws of thought.

Okay. Now they might have a theory as to what logic is. I've heard a bunch of different things logic is a convention. Logic is the language we've made up to describe reality and so forth. But these are very I think very weak and don't get to the bottom of the issue as I've just expressed in various videos in The past okay, but but again when the atheist puts forth their worldview and says well, here's my worldview.

Here's how I make perfect sense of these things. That's what we want to happen. That's where the discussion goes, right? And of course the atheist has every right to say How does the Christian make sense out of these things and of course the Christians should be willing to show that given the Metaphysical picture of the Christian worldview in terms of what there is an an absolute universal all-encompassing sovereign God.

It makes sense to say that there are universal unchanging Conceptual laws that reflect his thinking. That's not a problem within the Christian worldview. But we should be willing to kind of expand and explain upon that as well as the atheist offering their counterpoint.

Okay.

And and again the counterpoint must be made because of the nature of our argument. If I'm arguing that the Christian worldview is the only worldview that can ground these things I as a Christian need to do two things.

I need to a show that the Christian worldview provides those necessary preconditions and B I need to defend the accusation that the Christian worldview doesn't account for those things. But in doing that the atheist has to provide counter examples as to how the Christian worldview Either does not provide those preconditions or there's this other worldview that can do it which counters my claim.

Okay, the atheist doesn't simply get to disagree with the claim. Okay? You the way you respond to the claim is showing a counter a counter example. Okay, and when they offer their counter example, you have to be willing to interact with it.

Okay, and that's where the fruitful discussion and debate is going to happen. Now, let's consider issues of science. We've talked about this in the past few videos. You know, we know that all of us trust in the uniformity of nature, right?

Atheists trust that nature is uniform that the future will be like the past that the laws of physics won't change tomorrow, right? But again for the atheists within their perspective of the world. Why should why should they right if the universe is just a product of random chance?

There's no reason to expect it to behave consistently, right? The Christian worldview can make sense out of this. But how does the unbelieving worldview make sense out of this? How does a worldview which posits, you know?

There's no rhyme or reason to anything. Okay? Why should we expect the future to be like the past? Okay, and what do we get historically throughout the you know. The history history of philosophy. What do we get?

Well.

We get that the that the future will be like the past because it's always been that way in the past. And of course Philosophers like Bertrand Russell and David Hume have pointed out that that's actually begging the question.

It doesn't answer the question. Okay, and of course that accusation is not coming from a Christian. It's coming from Secular philosophers, right? So this isn't something that like weird that I'm pointing out as I've mentioned in some past videos.

Okay.

Now the Christian worldview teaches that God is faithful and he upholds the universe in an orderly way and so when Atheists do science and they assume all those things we point out. Look, there is another data point and another evidence that you are actually inconsistent With what you say about the nature of reality if there is no God or You don't believe that there is a God or there's no need for a God yet.

You assume principles that you can't make sense out of without God if you think you can make sense out of them. Then that's right. We need to hear the counterpoint and then we need to engage right and that's where the critical analysis is going to.

Happen, okay and Christians when arguing these points you need to provide to be fair in discourse. Provide the atheist or whoever you're talking to the opportunity to lay out their case. Okay, and so we want to interact with what they're saying.

Now, of course the atheist the atheist I mean, they're they're atheists hold all sorts of different views. And so we want to hear what they have to say first. But I would argue any form of atheism any form that posits either that God does not exist or that he may exist.

But he's not necessary to understand these things I would argue is going to run into some problems when we get at some of those deeper levels. But just to address this point, I think when those inconsistencies are shown.

That's a data point that we need to consider and discuss. Okay. Now. I'm not just saying we consider everything I'm saying here. I'm not just saying to the unbeliever. You're self-deceived, you know as some kind of insult now.

I know for a fact. I mean, I'm gonna predict right now I'm gonna use my prophetic abilities. I'm gonna say all this and what I'm gonna get in the comments. Someone's gonna be like, well, well, well, you know.

Such a hypocrite, right? You're so dishonest, right? You're saying that we're self-deceived, you know, how convenient you're the Christians are clearly something as. Though all I'm saying is you're a self-deceived end of discussion, right?

And of course people who have ears even if you disagree with me. You could at least respect this that I'm not saying something as so simplistic as that. Okay, so keep your eyes on the comments. If you're a Christian watching my content and you know.

You're listening read some of the comments to this video when I guarantee something like that is going to happen. Okay, and then I'll I'll cut and paste it and post it on the screen my next video to show.

Let it happen. Hopefully I'm wrong. I mean, I hope I'm wrong, right? But but this isn't I'm not engaging in playground name-calling kind of games, right? I'm not saying all yourself all know yourself to see.

I think it's an important point and I think it can be Demonstrated by the fact that the unbeliever relies on Christian principles to even make their case. No, we don't mr Christian we don't rely on Christian principles good.

So you think that you can explain the necessary preconditions of intelligibility and uniformity and logic and knowledge and so forth without recourse to God. Let's talk about it. Okay. Let's see what what options they have.

Okay. What ground are they standing on and we need to take them as they present their position and interact with them in the meaningful way.

Okay.

Interact with them in the meaningful. I'm sure someone will be like well you Eli don't interact with people in a meaningful way. You were dishonest right doesn't it doesn't matter what I say, right? There's always gonna be someone who thinks I'm trying to trick because you guys know why I do this, right?

You guys know why I'm doing this, right? I do it. For that bling for that money, right? That's that's that's why I'm here, right? Apparently that's that's why I do this. Okay, so now the unbeliever could try and flip this and say well isn't the Christian self-deceived.

Okay, they might argue that Christians are borrowing from the atheistic worldview. You see now when an atheist thinks that the transcendental argument can simply it what we're arguing is simply a Reversible claim they've misunderstood the nature of the argument.

Okay, the the the nature of the argument is not a bare Authority claim. Okay, we are not simply Asserting that the Christian worldview can provide the necessary preconditions for knowledge and logic and uniformity and so forth we actually Try to show.

Given the Christian worldview those necessary preconditions are met. Okay, and that when you deny the Christian conception you lose those necessary foundations. Okay, so we're not me and even if we fail to do that maybe you say well well that's your claim.

Well, I don't think you do it. That's fine. But understand the claim. It's not a mere Authority claim if you think it is you just don't understand what we're saying. Okay. Now if you think that we are borrowing from an atheistic world, I saw someone in other comments They tried to flip the script right?

You know, well, you're assuming you know, but atheism, right? Okay. You're gonna need to show that the Christian worldview is in fact borrowing from yours. Okay, and of course, you know You can't do it.

Okay, I challenge anyone you're not going to be able to do it. So for when I appeal to immaterial abstract invariant immutable laws of thought that doesn't fit in atheism I trust me if I'm borrowing from another worldview, it ain't atheism.

I'll tell you that much. Okay. All right, so let's go into this claim that you know, this is all reversible, okay, you know. Let's take a look at the nature of logic. Okay, so we're talking about principles that are universal abstract and invariant.

Okay, these things aren't things that you can touch or you could measure in any way, right? They're not physical but the Christian worldview says that these laws of logic reflect God's nature, right? He's unchanging.

He is rational. He is sovereign. These laws aren't invented by humans. They're discovered. They're part of the order that God has Established. Okay. Now if you take something like a materialistic atheistic perspective, right?

Which says that everything is when you boil down to it reduced to matter in motion, right? Things are physical things are contingent. If our thoughts are just the results of chemical reactions in our brains, you know shaped by I don't know an evolutionary process and so forth.

Then the laws of logic should be subjective on that point and variable right but the atheists don't argue that way, right? They assume logic is binding and universal and that's because deep down. They're relying on a Christian understanding of a rational orderly universe.

That's the argument. Okay, if you think we're borrowing from your worldview then give an account of the immaterial abstract universal immutable conceptual laws of logic. Well, Eli, I don't agree that logic is how you describe.

Okay. All right. Well, how do you describe logic? Let's let's let's take it from the perspective that the particular atheist is Offering. Okay, because again, it's gonna depend who you're talking to. All right, there are many atheists who would affirm.

Yeah, the laws of logic.

Are.

Universal. Their binding we should hold to it. Do you also have atheists who say that logic is conventional and doesn't always apply. You do have even people who reject? The universal application of the Law of non-contradiction.

I'm aware of that. You even have people who challenge the law of identity. Okay, so it's gonna depend who you're speaking with. Okay now. You know. When you take something like the uniformity of nature.

Okay, the uniformity of nature is something that the entire enterprise of science relies on.

Okay.

And this idea that the laws of nature are consistent and reliable is based on for us is on the Christian belief that God is Faithful and he upholds the universe in an orderly manner. Okay, if the universe were just a product of random processes, right?

There'd be no reason to expect this uniformity. Okay, and appealing to past experiences tells us nothing about future experiences unless you sneak in an assumption. Which is not drawn from your past experience.

Namely that nature is.

Uniform.

Okay, and so the atheist. Simply takes that for granted showing again that they're relying on principles that don't make sense within their worldview.

Okay.

All right. So a couple of things to keep in mind. So the claim of self-deception isn't reversible. Okay, you could you can say it's reversible and then the Christian will be happy to answer it from our perspective.

Right the Christian worldview as we've argued provide Provides a coherent foundation for logic morality the uniformity of nature and these just aren't Assertions right given the truth of the Christian worldview.

Those things are in fact accounted for. Given the hypothetical truth of the atheistic worldview I fail to see how they are accounted for given the assumptions of Whatever variety of atheism you want to assert?

Okay, I would say all of them fail. But again, this is why we have discussion and discourse and so forth. Okay, so now if an atheist were to claim that Christians are borrowing from a non-christian worldview.

Okay, if you're a materialistic atheist and so forth, you're gonna have to show how their materialistic framework accounts for these immaterial objective principles. Now you can't say that all is material and then talk about you know Logic and things like that as immaterial you're gonna have to somehow reduce Logical principles to materiality in some way shape or form if you're a materialist if you're not a materialist, that's fine.

I know that there are Atheistic idealists and things like that and we've covered that in this channel here. So again, it's all dependent who you're talking to right, but I'm going to argue and I have argued that their worldview Regardless of what flavor of atheism you take lacks the necessary preconditions for those concepts.

And so the Christian worldview can provide those conditions. We argue that the non-christian worldview cannot okay. And so the argument that the atheist presents I think doesn't work just getting back to the original argument.

We started with the second premise is flawed. I think because it misunderstands their own self-deception I argue that deep down the unbeliever knows that God exists in a very profound way, but that they suppress the truth.

This is the teaching of Scripture when we expose that suppression and the inconsistency in their position I think it's clear that the conclusion then doesn't follow right they rely on concepts that presuppose God's existence.

Which shows that they do in fact know that he exists whether They admit it or not. So again, if God exists, then I know he exists. I don't know he exists. Therefore God does not exist. Okay, I challenge the second premise that you don't know God exists.

I would assert that you do know that God exists and that you suppress the truth and unrighteousness and that the Evidence for that is the conflict that is seen between your first-order beliefs and your second-order beliefs.

If someone disagrees that there is in fact a conflict then that's where the discussion needs to be had. But I'm not simply making the assertion deep down. You know that God exists and that's it.

Okay.

No.

There is there is a reason and evidence that we would appeal to that. Of course the atheist has a right to challenge but again fruitful discussion can be had there when you have. Both the Christian and the non-christian interact in good faith.

Okay, so again that that's another area that needs to be Explored as well, right. If you're talking to someone that's not in good faith and they they you know. You say what you're saying you lay out what you're trying to say and you're still you know, like oh no.

This is what you're really saying. You're just saying something dumb as that. I'm just self-deceiver. You think I'm outwardly lying. No, I don't think you're explicit when you say I don't know that God exists.

I don't necessarily say that you're explicitly lying. Even I'm just saying that there is an element a real element of self-deception.

Okay.

So there you go. All right. So that is my brief response about a half hour response to this argument. Whoever put it out there I do appreciate it for folks who are interested. This is how I would Begin to engage.

Obviously, there'd be more discussion and conversation and dispute and debate but Hopefully this is helpful for if you're an unbeliever understanding. Well, what does he mean by I know that God exists?

I don't think I know God exists. This is where I'm coming from theologically and how I would argue the point and from the Christian perspective wondering. Well, what if someone says well, I don't know if God exists, you know.

You know for the Christian and I specifically talking Christians here. That when someone affirms that I don't know that God exists you're you're kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place. Do I believe what God has said as a Christian now, right?

Okay, assuming the authority of the Bible, right? Do I believe what the unbeliever says about himself or do I believe what God has said about the unbeliever?

No.

God being God knowing the heart of man knowing the reality that men suppress the truth and unrighteousness, right. As Christians I would argue that we need to believe what God says.

Okay.

And when we lovingly and respectfully interact with the unbeliever we try to point out why we think this is the case a God says it but be here are some evidence and data points that we can point to that.

There is an interesting contradiction okay between what you say with your mouth and what you believe in your heart or if you use the language of the Psychological literature either as a conflict between your first and second order beliefs.

All right. All right. Well, that is it for this specific video. This of course was pre-recorded. So it wasn't live. So obviously I won't be taking questions here. But if this video has been helpful or useful to you whether you agree or disagree that's fine, okay.

I.

Hope that people are respectful in the comments as they interact with each other if people interact in the comments on this video that you know if that's the case and If you have any questions, or you'd like me to do a follow-up on something or you'd like me to cover a particular topic You can email me at revealed apologetics at gmail .com.

Even if you go onto my website, so revealed apologetics calm there is a section right there on the home page where you could either ask a question or Request something right there and I get that information and you give me everything I need to offer you the content that you find helpful and most useful to you.

All right. Now I do receive some requests from people all over the place and so I can't promise I'll get to it right away. But I'm not famous or so busy that I can't send it to me and I will try my best right.

I'm not I'm not a celebrity or a famous person. So it's not that difficult to get your request to me. So if you if you think you want me to cover something and you think wow, he's probably not gonna read it.

No, I do. I do read it. I get I get lots of emails, but I don't get like I'm not bombarded with stuff. So and I love when people share their thoughts and you know, hey, I'd really like if you can cover this topic or that topic I really appreciate when people Do that.

Okay. So, all right, and also if if you're interested.

This.

Episode and past episodes are also on iTunes. So if watching YouTube videos are not your thing because there's nothing exciting happen here I don't have like Presentation or I'm doing backflips here is it you might not want to just look at my face while I'm talking about these topics.

You can download the podcast on iTunes. I think there are some other platforms. It's available as well. And either this weekend or in a few days, I'll be updating so this won't be available as soon as I'm done here.

But I will try to update some of the newer Videos up onto iTunes so folks can listen to the audio there. All right. If you're interested in learning a presuppositional apologetics in an ordered and structure structured manner and you're looking to support reveals apologetics You can do so by going to revealed apologetics comm if you click on the menu part where it says presep you.

They have my courses and Conferences that I've put on on through online on various topics and you could order those great way to support what I'm doing and to Get some good content. All right. Well, that's it for this video guys.