The Ulimate Proof of Creation! w/ Jason Lisle

Hello, welcome to the apologetic dog where it's a heart's desire to contend for the gospel of grace

Thank you so much for tuning in if you're new to the apologetic dog. You may be thinking why beard?

well, we got to have a memorable logo, but it's a reformed beard and also Embedded in the logo of the apologetic dog.

I want you to understand my heart is coming from the scripture thy word is truth that's what

I want to ultimately point back point people back to is the only way for us to know truth is

To know the God of truth and how he's revealed himself to us And so embedded in the logo, you should see first Timothy chapter 6 verse 20 where Paul says

Oh Timothy Guard the deposit entrusted to you do this Timothy by avoiding irreverent bag

Irreverent babble and so what that's talking about is pagan philosophy that rivals the truth of God's Word.

So we avoid that how do we do it? Well, we avoid this pagan philosophy by Contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge.

And so we do that internal critique. We show That the unbelieving worldview is actually borrowing from the

Christian worldview At every point in turn because they cannot escape living in God's creation

Also, I serve as a pastor and elder at 12 -5 Church in Jonesboro, Arkansas That's what

I tell you so much How how much it means to me the the love and support that I have from my church family at 12 -5

Church That name is a reference to Romans 12 5 that says all the Saints We are one together in the body of Christ And so just a couple announcements that I want to make you aware of is coming up on August 23rd

I believe at the gospel truth hosted by Marlon Wilson I will be engaging in a debate on is water baptism necessary gonna have to tune in for that one

So, please be on the lookout for that and also coming up. I believe it's not really close, but it's in February So I got

I gotta get everybody ready for this, but I'll be Actually debating at a conference in Tullahoma, Tennessee So stay tuned for that.

I'm really excited today because I have a guest Dr. Jason Lau.

How are you, sir? I'm good. How are you doing, man? We finally got you on your computer could not decide which camera to use your program

Cam live well Yeah, maybe we got some kinks to work out, but thank you so much for coming on dr.

Lau if you don't mind tell us a little bit about yourself and where maybe people can find you Okay, the most important thing

I'm a Christian and I have been for many many years the Lord saved me from my sins I'm grateful for that Secondarily, I'm an astrophysicist

I got my PhD from the University of Colorado in Boulder and I now try to serve God by showing people how science confirms

What the Bible teaches and I really specialize in Genesis, but any matters pertaining to science and the

Bible I love talking about those issues because they go together It's the biblical God that makes science possible

And I am the founder and president of the Biblical Science Institute and you can find us on the web

That's just the name Biblical Science Institute comm a lot of great articles on that website, so that's that's me

Well, somebody is already dying to know so dr. Lyle. Do you still do any more debates?

Do you have anything coming up? What's the criteria that someone has to meet in order to debate with you?

Yeah, I do debates. I've done many I haven't done a lot of I haven't done formal debates where there's a you know

Cross -examination and it's all time. I've done a lot of best part. I did it is it's just I can't

I can't get people to debate me for the most part except people who really there there are folks who want to debate me That really hurt a call

You know, it's like I'm 12, but I think I can disprove you and like well, you know get some education first Then we'll talk but I prefer to have somebody who has a

PhD In science preferably, you know, I'd be happy to to do that I'm not a great debater, but I I do

I I have done them. I've debated you Ross many times for example and And others as well.

So yeah, I do that But I try to have somebody who's qualified and preferably somebody who's already fairly well known

I would be very happy to debate and Neil deGrasse Tyson. So if you're watching this Neil, oh my goodness

Hey, I'm gonna I may have to host that one if you do an online debate I'd love to I'm gonna get on that actually so I love how you know

Some people may say a PhD really? Well, you want someone that's done their homework like you said and y 'all can really get down to the core fundamental issues

So I've benefited from watching Your debates in the past So good, and so you've teamed up with Ken Ham in the past too.

Is that right? Yeah, yeah, it's Ken Ham and I we debated against Walt Kaiser and Hugh Ross and John Ankerberg He was supposed to be the moderator, but he gave them twice as much time as he gave us

It wasn't all that great, but that's the problem. He's trying to help him out a little bit. Yeah Well, I have you on today because we need to talk about something so apparently you have this ultimate proof of Creation that you know people probably pick up this book and said what isolated evidence, you know

Totally disproves atheism, right and I'm sure they open up your book and thinking wait

This is not what I expected. So tell us a little bit about what went into the the mindset of you writing this book

It delivers on what it promises. It does give an ultimate proof of biblical creation and really the Christian worldview

It's hard to do all that together but it's I focused in on creation in particular and what it really is is doing is it's giving people an

Introduction into what's sometimes called the transcendental argument and the transcendental argument Demonstrates that God exists by the impossibility of the contrary showing that if any any alternative to biblical

Christianity Would make knowledge impossible and I know that sounds kind of abstract

But when you read the book, it's fleshed out and it shows you that those things that that need to exist for us to know

Anything about anything the those things are the things that the Bible says is the way the universe is so that we have

Reliable senses and we're capable of rational thought and there are laws of logic by which we reason and so on and those are the

Things that the Bible makes sense of it can justify our expectation in those things And so that's really what the book is about.

It's not about giving all kinds of details and nuances of science I think that stuff's interesting. I'm a

PhD scientist. I love talking about scientific details That's not for everybody though, but you can give an ultimate proof by showing that that God is logically necessary That any alternative to the

Christian worldview ultimately reduces to nonsense, that's what the book's about well, and there are many principles in Scripture that say that that the feet the beginning of knowledge if you will

Starts with the fear of the Lord how he's revealed himself And if you don't start with that necessary foundation, then it reduces to foolishness not to be mean but intellectually

We're a fool. You're bankrupt, right and right tell me what you think about this It all goes back to were made in the triune

God's image our very existence The way that we think is permeated with reflecting that particular

God's image Yeah, that's why we can reason rationally that's why we have reliable senses

God is honest and so we can have some degree of trust in our senses that God made Maybe they're not perfect because there's the fall we have the curse now

So the world's not perfect as it was originally, but nonetheless God hasn't left us completely to our sin

He's given us access to some of his knowledge in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom knowledge according to Colossians 2 3 and so If we're to know anything, it's ultimately by revelation from God and there's different types of revelation

But the one that's most precious is God's propositional revelation in his word because that gives us specific

Revelation from God written in human language and sentences that we can understand and process and that helps us to interpret

The general revelation that God's given around us Thank you for referencing that like you mentioned

Colossians 2 3 tell me if you can see this on your in Went away. Let's see if I can bring it back.

Can you see this scripture on your end? Yep. Yep so Being knit together in love to reach all the riches of full assurance

Dr. Lyle when I think of full assurance of understanding, I'm thinking about certainty We can have certainty in the promises of God and the knowledge of God's mystery which is

Christ in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge like you said and Then I've always thought this parts really important too.

I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments and That's kind of what we're getting at is

God in his revelation is giving a certainty right now That's beautiful.

And not only do we live Trusting certain things to hold like the laws of logic that Reason will hold as we deal with other image bearers and we ought to treat them with love and grace and be respectful but Tell me this outside the

Christian worldview. What hope does an unbeliever have? Outside the Christian worldview is none

All the treasure of wisdom and knowledge and positive Christ not some and so in order to have knowledge of anything

The Christian worldview would have to be true and the objection to that is but wait a minute I know some non -christians and they know some things

Yes, that's because the Christian worldview is true My point is not that somebody has to profess a belief in Christianity to have knowledge

My point is that Christianity would have to be true for people to have knowledge That is the biblical worldview the way the

Bible describes the universe That would have to be true in order for us to know anything about anything because apart from that we couldn't justify

The things that we need to have knowledge like a certain degree of uniformity or orderliness in nature or that there are laws of logic by which we reason or that there are there's this absolute moral code by which we have knowledge of ethics and things like that the

Things that we rely upon to have knowledge Are things that are true in the universe and there are things that the

Bible says are true in the universe But apart from the biblical God, we couldn't really know any of those things

You could you could believe that they might be true, but you'd never be able to justify them You'd never be able to demonstrate it. Hmm Well, I'd like for us to continue into that I want to give people just a taste of your book if they haven't read it

Please check out the ultimate proof of creation by dr. Jason Lyle I've included that link in the show notes in the video below.

So please check that out. I Really did want to spend a little bit more time talking about the laws of logic and Reason why that's so important and then in your book you get into the necessary Preconditions for intelligibility.

So maybe we'll touch on what that means and why that's so important in this passage in your book. Dr Lyle, you say the

Christian can answer the hard questions about logic and reason and demonstrating that for the

Christian There is an absolute standard for reasoning We are to pattern our thoughts after God's and we know in an infinite and limited way how

God thinks because he has revealed Some of his thoughts through his word according Genesis he has made us in his image and therefore we are to follow his example the laws of logic are a

Reflection of the way God thinks and thus the way he expects us to think the law of non -contradiction

For example is not simply one person's opinion about how we ought to think rather it stems from God's Self -consistent nature

God cannot deny himself And all truth is in God therefore truth will not contradict itself since God is

Constantly upholding the universe by his power the consistent Christian expects that no contradiction will ever occur in the universe

So when I read them To me truth is everything right? We are on this earth for a reason when we look at the world around us

It it hits us like wow We're here, you know, I mean and When we start talking about truth, well who gets to determine that secular definitions of truth

Dr. Lyle is that which corresponds to reality? I've read many of your articles in your book essentially dresses as defined or perceived by who right?

that's why we really are trying to narrow in is saying truth is that which is perceived by the

Unchanging infallible perception of God what he thinks right and logic isn't just floating outside of God But it's a help me out a reflection of how he thinks and who he is

Right, and you know truth. It's something it's something that wasn't a pilot that asked

Jesus What is truth and that's something that the secularists really can't answer I mean they can it you know, you mentioned that what really is the

Correspondence theory of truth truth is that which corresponds to reality that's about that's like one of about seven main

Definitions of truth that secular philosophers use because they can make there's seven different definitions because they can't none of them are sufficient

It's not that that's wrong. Truth does correspond to reality, but it's insufficient as a definition because then

I'm gonna ask But how do you know what reality is? Okay, and so, you know, so you have this problem Well, well my senses tell me what reality is really can but your senses can be fooled, right?

I mean, you've seen an optical illusion. So that's not quite True in the Christian worldview truth is that which corresponds to the mind of God true something is true

But something God would say It's something that God has a positive mental attitude toward and our minds are different from God's in some fundamental ways

We're making God's image. That's a tremendous privilege, but God's mind determines truth

Whereas our minds discover truth and not always correctly We can be mistaken about things

God can't be mistaken about anything because what he thinks determines What is true because truth is what corresponds to his mind?

That's why Jesus can say when he's praying to the Father thy word is truth. Hmm, whatever comes out You know

Had a question I wanted you to maybe share your thoughts. I think I understand this Question for dr.

Lyle from one of our theologians in the side chat He says people have a high value on the book of nature

Can you give thoughts on this book being unreliable since the curse?

So do you kind of understand maybe the angle that he's coming from there? Mm -hmm, of course nature isn't literally a book at all in the sense that it's not comprised of statements

Although nature contains books which are propositional, but those aren't part of what we might call general revelation

Yeah, the we can learn something about God by the universe and there's no doubt about that The Bible tells us that Psalm 19 one tell we can learn something about God's nature in fact

Psalm 19 is interesting because it compares and contrasts the general revelation that God's given to us and then in verse 7 it switches and talks about this the

Propositional special revelation that God's given to us in in the Bible in his book, which is not cursed nature is cursed and And we're part of that nature.

And so we sometimes don't draw correct conclusions We don't always use our mind properly and the

Bible is giving us an infallible filter by which we can process the information

We see in the universe correctly in so much as we stand on Scripture So these are two there are two revelations that God's given to us general revelation

Which has the advantage of being universal everybody's seen it and and that's what Psalm Psalm 19

The first six verses are about no one escapes God's general revelation, but it doesn't save you

It's God's special revelation that restores the soul that brings you into a right relationship with him if you respond to the gospel if you repent trust in His Word So the main thing for me is not so much that nature is cursed

Although it is there's no doubt the nature's curse the Bible's clear about that But the problem is nature is not made up of propositional statements

And so when we talk about interpreting nature, we're using the word interpret interpret differently than when we talk about interpreting

Scripture Interpreting Scripture is getting is understanding the meaning of the propositions as intended by the author

But when we talk about interpreting nature, we're talking about creating Propositions about nature that may or may not be correct.

They're not infallible with the Bible. We start with infallible propositions And then we interpret them hopefully properly and there are rules for interpretation that the

Bible itself gives But with nature you can't do that. There aren't proper nature is not made up of propositions

And so that's the real difference between the two God's special revelation has a clarity that the general revelation lacks general

Revelation is sufficient to tell us God exists and that we fall short of his moral standard

Even the Gentiles have God's law written on their heart according to Romans 2 But it doesn't tell us how to be saved and There's a lot you can mess up in terms of interpreting nature

If you don't start with the special revelation that God has given us in his Word Now you've spoken to this

Issue as well because when we get into interpretation you said there's rules of interpretation

Because one critique to this transcendental method is okay if we can't rely on our sense perception as we're observing the world and making

Inductions or Trying to figure out how to live in this world. What about the subjective?

predicament of Interpreting scripture scripture may be infallible, but us being fallible.

What would you encourage somebody of saying? How does that bridge get crossed and worked out?

Okay, I believe in what's called the hermeneutical spiral The the Bible is sufficiently clear and God has given us enough insight that when you read it

There's certain things you can't miss. There's certain things. You can't misinterpret if you're if you're a remotely rational person

I mean Unbelievers can decide not to interpret the Bible properly. There's no doubt about that But if you put your heart and mind to it and you say

I want I want to understand the author's intention There are certain things you can't miss in scripture that God is the creator that we're sinners that we've fallen short

That Jesus is the only way back to God and so on these main and plain themes And then there are some difficult sections in scripture and the

Bible itself tells us that there are some things that are hard to understand but as you as you

As your worldview becomes more biblical as you read the Bible and it corrects some of your Misunderstandings on the next pass you're gonna do better.

You're gonna you're gonna better interpret the scripture So the Bible provides in itself its own keys for interpretation.

And so I would argue that interpretation of scripture is Maybe I should say it this way interpretation may be subjective but meaning isn't there's only one meaning

There's an infinite number of interpretations of any passage because those are subjective But there's only one meaning and I want to interpret the

Bible is to get to its meaning and there are rules on how to do that and some of Them are obvious and even the ones that we miss when you read the

Bible on the second pass You're gonna get more out of it. And I actually wrote a book on that topic called understanding

Genesis It's more than understanding Genesis. It's really how to read the Bible. What what are the rules of interpretation that the

Bible itself? Tells us that are sufficiently clear that even if you come at the

Bible with some mistaken Principles of hermeneutics it will correct those as you read it on multiple passes

And so it's not it's not a vicious circle It spirals out and you gain better understanding of the

Bible on each reading Well, I like how you you call that kind of a necessary spiral because when we're talking about the grammatical historical

Method of interpretation. We're really saying language must be understood in a particular context our

Conversation right now presupposes that that words have meaning the way that they were intended and when you're going back to Psalm 19

It mentions how God's revelation Illumines the eyes God's Word is sure it is true

And I really think and I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. I think this is a special principle within Protestantism meaning that God's Word is perspicuous to the imago

Dei and if it's not then you can always wind up in these absurdities never having certainty of What's being understood?

So like you said God's Word has to be able to get through, you know what I mean? So don't add anything to that Yeah, I mean if God's Word is not clear what is because I mean

God God created language He created he created Adam and Eve already able to speak which I think is a little unfair because I had to go to school

To learn principles of grammar and things like that, but it's pre -programmed into Adam So do you think the God that made language can't communicate that makes no sense?

Of course, God can communicate he made language God can communicate with those creatures that he made in his own image and gave them the gift of language

Now because of the curse there's a problem now because you know, there's the Tower of Babel and languages split and so on So we have interpretational issues and such but nonetheless

God does know how to communicate clearly If he doesn't who are we to think that we can communicate clearly you think that human beings are superior to God in that Capacity.

I mean it's interesting to me because people will write these wonderful books on how the Bible doesn't mean what it says

But they expect us when we read their book to take them at their word To believe that what they say is what they mean.

And so there's there's some hypocrisy there really I mean, they're they're they're expecting us to read their words and try to get to their meaning

But they're not doing that with God's Word and So that's that's a bit of a problem. God does know how to communicate.

The problem is people don't like what he has to say So you mean I don't need an infallible magisterium to interpret the

Word of God for me That's right. That's right You know, and of course

That's that by the way that Roman Catholic principle is getting very hard to defend with the current Pope So I mean when popes contradict previous popes, what do you do?

Are they both infallible? It's it's a it's a problem. It's a problem. The Pope is not superior to God in his ability to clearly articulate

Truth and in fact the Pope is inferior to God in that way Yeah, and like you said There are bad interpretations.

So, you know those of us that hold to a soul of scripture God's Word is sufficient We need to do we need to show ourself approved before God We need to rightly handle the word and that takes study that takes time and we're gonna get it wrong but the core things of what

God wants from us namely to have Relationship with him his word is sufficient to accomplish that right?

And so I want to be charitable tell people not all interpretations are equally valid just because there's a lot of Interpretations about the most you can conclude from that is there's a lot of bad ones out there, right?

And so we do want to study context. We do want to understand God's truth holistically, right?

And so I do want to Continue this with you. I'm talking about why logic logic is

So important to having reasonable discourse intelligible experiences making

Deductions about what's going on in the world and so in your book you continue to talk about the laws of logic

They are God's standard for thinking since God is an unchanging sovereign immaterial being

His thoughts would necessarily be abstract universal invariant entities In other words, they are not made of matter.

They apply everywhere and at all times laws of logic are Cogent upon God's unchanging nature.

They are a prerequisite for logical reasoning thus rational Reasoning would be impossible without the biblical

God. So do you care to kind of elaborate a little bit on that paragraph? Yes, the consistent

Christian can make sense of why we have laws of reasoning why they're the same for everybody because God's the creator.

God's mind determines truth. And so there's one standard for correct reasoning That's God and we're made in God's image

And so we have at least a limited capacity to think in a way that's consistent with his character We can't think infinitely like God his mind's infinitely superior to ours

But we can think in a way that's self -consistent and is consistent with his nature in that sense

Furthermore, it's not just that we we can make sense of the existence of laws of logic

We can make sense of why it is that they don't change with time and why they apply everywhere

Well, it's because God's God is everywhere. He's omnipresent. He's sovereign over the universe. His thinking controls all of creation.

And so obviously Creation will never violate a law of logic because God's controlling it all.

It's his mind that does that Furthermore, we would expect laws of logic will not change because they're reflecting

God and God doesn't change, right? God says I the Lord do not change therefore you sons of Jacob are not consumed

And so because God is beyond time and because God's revealed himself We're in a position to know all these things

See if God hid himself it if we had a God who was like the Christian God in every way But didn't give us the

Bible then we couldn't have confidence in laws of logic because we could say well I think there's a

God who's sovereign and in beyond time, but he hasn't communicated. So, how could we know?

It's only because God has revealed himself that we can have this knowledge That's why it's unique to the biblical

Christian worldview that we can justify our belief in laws of logic and their properties

The fact that they're immaterial they're abstract I can have I can have things like laws of logic which are mental concepts

That don't depend on my mind because there's a mind that's beyond my mind and that's the mind of God And so all the properties of laws of logic

Can be made sense of in the Christian worldview and so I have a good reason for Believing that laws of logic exist and that they'll be the same tomorrow as they were yesterday and that they work everywhere in the universe

The secularist cannot on his own worldview justify those things yet He believes those things and that's irrational a rational person has a good reason for what he believes

Secularists don't on their own worldview Now I'm out of misread something. I want to touch back on this again

You wrote laws of logic are contingent upon God's unchanging nature

So does that mean that God can just kind of reshape the laws of logic if he ever wants to like?

What does that mean? There are some things that God can do that with nature and in the way he holds his physical universe

God can do that But I would say that laws of logic when I use the word contingent that word can in logic that can mean changeable but it also can mean that something rests on something else and if something rests on something else in a way that is necessary and Unchanging then it can't change so laws of logic

They're both they're both the transcendental necessity and they're contingent in the sense that they depend on something else

They owe their existence to something else but because they do so necessarily because laws of logic are the way

God thinks not the way that he You know God had freedom in what he created God could have not created

Neptune if he'd wanted to but laws of logic Necessarily flowed from the nature of God so they can't change because God doesn't change and he can't change because he's beyond time

Yeah, so I remember But he can't change fundamentally I think maybe

Greg Bonson brought this up in one of his debates or in some of his writings But he he expressed and help me out here laws of logic reflect who

God is So is that a proper way? I know we as the Imago Dei reflect God. So is it proper to say the laws of logic?

Similarly because we would say even though they were maybe reflected God That's that's still an eternal truth

And I'm thinking about Proverbs chapter 8 the excellence of wisdom kind of depicts wisdom in that way.

Yeah Yeah, so laws of logic they reflect God's thinking they reflect his chain of reasoning as it were and We reflect

God but in a different way, well one of the ways we reflect God as we have the capacity to be logical But we reflect

God in other ways, too We have a sense of morality and I mean there are many ways in which we reflect God's character laws of logic reflect

God in One specific way they reflect the way that he thinks about Things and therefore the way we must think about things if we're gonna think correctly

So they reflect his thinking in in that way. They don't bear his image like we do

That's a unique privilege of human beings, but they do reflect the way that he thinks about things. Mm -hmm.

Thank you for that I want you to see this. This is a second cup of coffee. Sorry, you ready?

I want to touch on this next paragraph because you mentioned the world the word worldview and this is so important when you're getting down to The question of truth this is something reading your your books talking with our mutual friend

Eli Yala and reading Bonson and Ventile is when you're discussing the nature of truth No one is neutral and for the longest time did not understand that now

I believed in things like we were born at enmity with God, right?

You cannot please God unless he regenerates your heart. I'm thinking okay, you're either against God Jesus said you're either, you know for me or against me.

So I was like, okay, I'm kind of understanding this theologically and as dr James Watt has Said we can't have a separated apologetics over here.

And then oh we got our theology over here We got to let the scriptures inform how we give an apologetics to the world

Right, and so to me you touch on this in this next paragraph You talk about the laws of logic makes sense in a

Christian worldview, but other worldviews cannot account for them Dr. Lyle, that is a bold claim.

Do you mean all those other worldviews can't account for truth? What do you mean by that? Yes Only the

Christian world you can make sense of truth No other world you can do it and and then there's different ways people will try to come back for that from that You know, well, have you examined every other possible worldview?

Well, actually technically Yes, because there's only so many I mean there's an infinite number of possible worldviews, but there's only so many categories

Right a world use either theistic or Atheistic there's either a god or there's not if it's theistic

It's either polytheistic or monotheistic and so on There's only so many categories of worldviews and I've examined all the ones that are non -christian

And we just put one leaky bucket into another leaky bucket and that kind of fix things or roll it say, right?

But no, we can't live in a leaky bucket Yeah, because the bucket indicates knowledge and so if your buckets leaky you don't have knowledge eventually

All Peters out. So no, we need to have we need to have knowledge and that doesn't mean we have to have certainty on everything

I know that we have certainty on everything I understand that we can have certainty on some things and then a lot of what we do is probabilistic and so, you know,

I bring an umbrella if there's a 90 % chance of rain or something like that, but but nonetheless we do need to Have justification for our beliefs and that includes beliefs and laws of logic and so on and the

Christian world You can do that. No other world you can and To those who say well, yeah, I think that I think there's some other possible worldview

Bring it on name it Tell me what world you think can make sense of the existence and properties of laws of logic and how we can know about them

Because I haven't seen any other worldview that can do that Yeah in your book you kind of bring up believe it's

Proverbs 26 With the opening verses or so see here

I'm gonna try to pull it up on my end where you kind of say look there There is a kind of two -step approach and how we do

I'm trying to think how Bonson or Van Til would say we kind of take the gun out of the the opposition's hand But the

Proverbs tell us answer not a full according to his folly lest you be like him yourself Okay We're not gonna grant things that the unbelieving the unbeliever can't give a justification for namely his worldview and his presuppositions

But then that proverb goes on to say answer a fool according to his folly lest he be wise in his own eyes

So what's the apologetic value would you say of that scripture? It is

I think it's the it's really the key to refuting just about anything that dares to challenge the biblical

God It's at the heart of what sometimes called the presuppositional apologetic method Which which is what

I use and what I endorse and I believe that all other Apologetic methods violate those verses they don't actually do that consistently.

Yeah Proverbs 26 4 & 5 Proverbs 26 4 do not answer full according to folly lest you be like him

So that's telling us that when this when a fool comes along the Bible's not just you know, say well, you're just a moron

It's not name -calling. It's using that term to describe someone who perhaps is very intelligent But he was not using his mind properly.

And so his worldview is silly It's been reduced to foolishness when somebody like that comes along and he has these false

Presuppositions these false basic beliefs about reality. We're not supposed to embrace those if we do we'll be just like him

We'll be produced to foolishness as well. So somebody comes along and says I don't believe the Bible.

It's false We can talk about origins But you got to leave the Bible out of it because the Bible is just a collection of myths

Some Christians would agree to that. It's okay. We can talk about origins. We'll just use science and things like that Don't get me wrong.

I'm all for using science But when you agree to that presupposition you've become foolish too because you've agreed to a false standard when you say well, yeah

Yeah, the Bible it's not relevant to origin. No, it's very relevant origins. It's the account of origins

On the other hand we have verse 5 answer a fool according to his folly Which may sound like a contradiction until you look and see that the sense is different lest he be wise in his own eyes

So on the on the one hand you shouldn't embrace the presuppositions of the unbeliever But you should show where they go

You should answer them according to those presuppositions to show that they lead to foolishness To show that they reduce to absurdity.

And so that's called a reductio ad absurdum. That's where you temporarily accept the the

Hypothesis the presupposition of your opponent and then it showed that it leads to an inconsistency It leads to something logically that he would not accept

This is a very powerful method of defending the Christian thing never race Never embrace the presuppositions of the non -christian

Do show where they would go if they were true because they will always lead to absurdity And by the way, one person who was masterful at this approach was

Jesus Christ in his earthly ministry The way he would answer his critics It was always according to Proverbs 26 4 and 5 and that's why he was of course

It was his Holy Spirit that inspired this person. So he does know how to do it Yeah, yeah

So you touch on this a lot in your book and I love the appendix in the back

There's there's maybe a few where you you kind of show how to interact with people saying hey, dr

Lyle, you're wrong. And so you kind of show how okay Tell me tell me where I'm wrong put forth your worldview put forth your presuppositions to be examined because we are open about it

We only get truth from the Word of God So when people have, you know issues with certain verses that apparently seem to be kind of in conflict with each other well a lot of times you just got to keep reading in the context and realize that they are talking about different things and Then we can kind of see it holistically and you know

Christ has been building his church for 2 ,000 years and that's why I encourage people examine church history so many

Wonderful saints that have come before us a great witness a multitude that we can glean in and Build on the shoulders of Giants and so even though God's Word is perspicuous that the

Bride of Christ we would benefit from sharpening one another and examining what's came forth in church history, so Yeah, your your work and the ultimate proof of God's creation is really trying to say there's not one

Isolated proof that's just a major defeater for the the unbelieving atheistic worldview

But it's the entirety of God's revelation given to us. Is that right? Well, yeah that that would be the the ultimate proof that that unless God's revelation to us is true

You can't prove that anything is true And I can use specific examples and the cool thing about the presuppositional approach is

I can use any example. I use any example So when somebody asked me what evidence do you have of the

Christian worldview? I would say all of them and and as one example of this Greg Bonson one time Greg Bonson one time in a in a debate used toothpaste to prove the existence of God He used toothpaste the famous toothpaste argument

Yes You've heard this one and he pointed out that when you squeeze that the tube of toothpaste You expect that it will come out the end like it has in the past What you're doing is you're relying upon a principle called induction or which relies upon uniformity of nature that's a biblical principle the idea that there are patterns in nature that God has promised will be in the future as they have been in the past and That goes back to promises like we have in Genesis 8 22 where God promises the seasons of the day and night cycle will continue as long as the earth remains and Oh and only

God's in a position to make that kind of promise on his own authority because he's beyond time He declares the end from the beginning according to Isaiah chapter 46 so God isn't

God knows the future and he and he's the one that's controlling the future anyway And so when he tells us the day and night cycle will continue as long as the earth remains you can take that to the bank

That the Sun will rise tomorrow, right? Unless tomorrow's Judgment Day the Sun will rise tomorrow and and there's no doubt about that But from a secular worldview, you can't explain that the the secular philosopher

David Hume was reduced to utter Skepticism on this issue. How do you know the Sun will rise tomorrow? He kind of knew that it would but he couldn't explain how on his worldview that he knew the

Sun would rise tomorrow or that it was even probable that the Sun would rise tomorrow because Whenever you use past experience for predicting what's likely to happen in the future.

You're assuming induction and The Bible gives us a basis for that, but there's no other there's no other basis for that Read David Hume's work if you don't believe me

And so your expectation that the the toothpaste will come out the end of the tube as it has in the past That assumes the

Christian worldview apart from the Christian worldview You couldn't predict that or even predict that it's likely because laws of probability priest presuppose induction

They're all based on that so you can use toothpaste to prove the existence of God those inductive principles

Presuppose something that is certain and that's what we're getting at induction in and of itself

Cannot lead you to certainty. And so as much as I love RC Sproul and I got his books over here

Man, he really had a problem with wanting certainty, right? And I loved how Bonson kept saying like hey

God God's revelation is able to give us that certainty. That's why we start there That's why we're able to reflect on these inductive principles, especially uniformity of nature and so forth.

Someone has a question. Dr Lyle that says do you have any books or anything that you are currently working on right now?

Yeah, I'm always working on something Right now. I'm working on a book on the law of God, which is something that is overlooked by many

Christians today We tend to say well, you know, that's an Old Testament thing. Well, no, we're still supposed to obey

God's commandments, right? Jesus if you love me obey my commandments And so I'm gonna talk a bit about law the relationship between Old Testament New Testament laws

It's something that's a little bit out outside my wheelhouse But it's something that I've been studying for over a decade and it's just fascinating to me and I kind of want to share

That with others and I've read other authors on that topic. So the law of God is something I'm working on now

Does this mean? That you were hashtag that post mill since you're writing a book on the law of God.

Well, that's more eschatology This would be more along the lines of theonomy and I am a carrying

You know what? We're all theonomist to a degree right even those of us that affirm general equity

Like God's law is the standard now Like you said in certain eschatological camps what you do with that law and how it caches out in real time

We continue on with that conversation. So can't wait for that book. Thank you for Telling us that and and your website.

You're always I say you're always you are pumping out articles that have been super helpful I'll tell you one article probably my favorite one is do you remember writing on men

Charleston's trilemma? Kind of this this idea of bootstrapping yourself Would you say that that is the unbelievers trilemma right how they're trying to justify knowledge and concluding?

Oh wait, we can't Yeah, yeah, it has to do with the chain of reasoning and how do you deal with you know, cuz you know

A belief is justified if it follows logically either certainty or likely from another more foundational belief

But then of course you got to ask how do you know that more foundational belief is true? Well, it follows from something else and so on all the way back to it has to stop somewhere, right?

I mean what the chain of reasoning has to end somewhere because we are finite beings We can't reason in an infinite argument so there's an ultimate claim and then the question is how do you know it's true and You can't appeal to something more basic or wouldn't be ultimate you can't have an infinite chain of reasoning because it would never terminate and Chain that doesn't terminate doesn't prove anything and the only alternative is the claim this ultimate

Standard must prove itself, which I think is correct But unbelievers say well that we don't we know we don't allow any form of circular reasoning.

So the claim can't prove itself Well, then you got a trilemma. You got a problem you can't you can't have knowledge because one of those three has to be the option either an infinite chain or or a

Presupposition that is itself unjustified in which case you don't know anything or it has to somehow prove itself And if you reject all three options, you can't have knowledge.

Mm -hmm. Well, that was such a good article your article talking about the What is truth essentially like we've already reflected on so I want to recommend your book want to recommend your your website and so Something I was intrigued about was watching how other people just felt like they had to send you emails telling you how you're wrong

And so I was doing a little digging myself and I found an article online and I thought you know,

I'd love to have dr. Lau on and Engage with a refutation maybe something here is something brand new

You've never considered considered before and so an evidentialist wrote a review. Dr. Lyle of your book the ultimate proof of creation

So to give you a little backdrop with this gentleman who I've actually corresponded with a little bit over social media

His name is David Paulman. He's an evidentialist. So We we approach the the issue of truth more from a presuppositional mindset

Transcendentally arguing for necessity, right? And so tell us real quick. What's the difference between?

More of a presuppositional apologetics and some a Christian that identifies more as an evidentialist

Yeah, the bottom line is what is the standard of truth and for the presuppositionalist?

God is the standard of truth God as revealed in his word And so the Bible is the ultimate standard for all truth claims

Including its own defense and that's where the evil. That's where the evidentialist would say

Well, no, you can't do that. The evidentialist might say yeah God is the ultimate depending on which one you ask

There's different camps out there But a lot of them might say well, yeah God is the ultimate source of truth except for when you're defending the

Bible You can't appeal to the Bible when you're defending the Bible because that would be circular and that's not allowed So you have to appeal to something else but once you appeal to something else you

Implicitly make that a greater standard than the Bible and so the the key is the

Evidentialist either openly or tacitly has to appeal to some allegedly greater standard than scripture by which the scriptures are proved or at least shown to be very likely to be true and a lot of them argue on The basis of probability.

It's very likely the Bible's true It's very likely Jesus rose from the dead when you hear people making probability arguments like that.

They tend to be evidentialists So that that really is the heart of the issue. What is this? What is the Ultimate criterion for truth.

Is it the mind of man? Ultimately, or is it God's Word if it's God's Word then it must be the ultimate standard even when defending up the idea that it's

The ultimate standard that's the inescapable reality Now with this individual, like I said,

I appreciate the article because we welcome iron sharpening iron in that in that right? Dr. Lyle Now this this gentleman he identifies as a classical

Armenian. And so I do think there is some clashes Theologically even how we perceive the

Imago Dei and God's and his sovereignty And so the name of his YouTube apologetics is faith because of reason

So what do you think about that does does reason precede faith faith precede reason are they equally ultimate?

How do we understand that relationship? I appreciate his honesty in Naming that organization or I don't know if it's the website or whatever

But in any case that that is the evidentialist view is that we have faith in God Because of the logically at least logically superior basis of reason

So so man's reasoning is the ultimate standard by which all truth claims are judged and therefore we eventually come to faith in Christ That way whereas I would take the opposite.

I would say that no, it's by faith that we understand by faith We understand we start with faith in God and then in his word and then

Based on that we can reason properly in terms and I'm talking about Logical priority not necessarily chronological

Priority and that's I think that's an important distinction because babies can think and reason a little bit They're not very good at when they're young when they get better at it and later

They read the Bible and find out the basis the logical basis for why they can think and reason

But the the Bible would have to already be true for babies to be able to think and reason is my point

And so it's it's by faith. We understand and by the way, that's what the Bible teaches In Hebrews 11 by faith.

We understand Hebrews 11 3. I am I was tracking I was tracking with you

Well, I had it ready because I was gonna quote it if you didn't but I've read your books I know where you're thinking but like you said by faith

We understand that the universe was created by the Word of God That's a necessary foundation and you can't even the secular person that says they are, you know

Anti -god anti -faith you have your faith in something and you're at least trusting in your own sense perception

You're trusting in your own reasoning ability. And so they can't escape putting their trust in something so that's why

I tell them like like you're trusting in something whether you're going to be open about it or not and Like you said we have something to appeal to so we we would say faith is kind of foundational

But I like what you said to that. It's it's logically prior not necessarily in a temporal sense

So going back to this article I also like what you said at least at least we see kind of where you know, the foundation that you know

A classical Arminian. Mr. David is standing from so I read through his article and I wanted to run a few things

By you, so he kind of took issue when you brought up the term worldviews And so in the second paragraph, he says near the end of your first chapter

Lyle brings up the issue of worldviews Unfortunately pay careful attention. Dr. Lyle He appears to be operating on an unusual definition of the word by worldview

He appears to mean any belief that a person holds too strongly on page 68

But this is a problematic definition because no two people hold the exact same set of beliefs indeed

The history of Christian theology is littered with examples of strong disagreements Thus it makes no sense to speak of the

Christian worldview using Lyle's Definition. So what do you think about that? Well, he's misrepresented me.

That's not my definition I'm not sure where he got that. It's it's not in the book. I do define the word in the book

You know it's a lot of times you define something in a brief way and then as you as you get more familiarity with it you define it in a more specific way and I tried to do that in the book but the world my definition of worldview is

It's a network of presuppositions untested by the natural sciences and in light of which all evidence is interpreted

That would be my definition of the worldview and that's very consistent with the way the word is used among other apologists

That's I'm in fact, I'm stealing Bonson's definition when I when I quote it that way But so it's it's not just a foundational belief it's a network of foundational beliefs a network of them that go that go together they and they form a

Network through which evidence is interpreted and I take his point about different Christians having different beliefs

But I would think that on the most foundational level our beliefs are the same and I guess it depends on house How foundational you want it to be?

But if we if we limit it to to be essential definitions of what it means to be a Christian faith in Christ Belief that Jesus is

God. He's the God -man that he died and rose again. All Christians would share those beliefs Otherwise by definition, they're not a

Christian because those are essential to the Christian worldview And so that's all I mean by the Christian worldview those that are essential now if you want to say

I'm going to include Some of these other beliefs that are part of Christianity, but but they're less they're less foundational then

Okay, we're gonna have some minor differences, but we can still largely agree You know, I The pastors at my church and I we have basically the same worldview that we do

We can have some minor differences, but depending on how foundational you want to keep those beliefs. So I don't think his objection here really

It's a little bit of a straw man argument. I'm sure it was unintentional, but it doesn't really represent what I wrote in the book Well, he did pick up a little bit because this next paragraph he kind of talks about how

Presuppositions really do color how you see everything He goes on to say he then proceeds to argue that everyone has a worldview and that that is unavoidable

Essentially one's worldview according to Lyle determines how one interprets evidence

He compares a worldview to colored glasses which can change how a person sees the world for Lyle there is no way to be neutral his denial of the possibility of Objectivity is extremely problematic and leads to problems later on as we shall see

What do you say about that? Yeah, two real significant problems with what he said There one is Lyle's idea of neutrality or they're not being neutral.

Actually, that's Jesus Jesus is the one who said he was not with me is against you I didn't say he was not with me as neutral He said he was not with me as against me.

The Bible is very clear then when it comes to faith in Christ There's no neutral you're God's friend or you're his enemy.

You're under his blessings or you're under his wrath There's no neutral when it comes to God. And of course, that's the topic of this book

We're talking about a worldview that either affirms God or one that denies God there can't be a neutral in that According to Jesus now you could say but Jesus is wrong

There is a neutral but if you say that you're not being neutral You've made it you've made a truth claim that the

Bible's wrong at least about neutrality. So you're not being neutral It's interesting the nature of the claim Demonstrates itself because since the

Bible says there there's no neutral with respect to belief in the Bible if you say yes There is you're necessarily not being neutral.

So neutrality is a non -neutral claim. Interestingly It's a secular claim and then the other thing is

I noticed an equivocation fallacy and and David himself may not have realized this but he Equivocated he switched words thinking perhaps that they're the same

Neutrality and then he says therefore we're denying Objectivity now in my worldview.

Those are two very different things. I believe in objectivity I don't believe in neutrality something is objectively true

If it's true for all people and so truth is objective because truth is that which stems from the mind of God something's true

But something God would say and that is objectively true something an individual human being might say is not necessarily objectively true

Like a person's preference of color, whatever, but my claim is that the Bible is objectively true and objectively provable, but it's not neutral It's not neutrally provable.

We don't start from neutral ground because according to Christ There's no such thing. So be careful not to confuse Neutrality with objectivity.

There is no neutral ground But there is common ground between the believer and the unbeliever and and that really is an essential

Attribute of presuppositional apologetics so that in reading that that tells me this this young man hasn't he's not really familiar with presuppositional apologetics

Sure, and he's produced content since then so I think you're right at least from writing this article I think he's beefed up his understanding of presupp and now you mentioned a distinction between there's no neutrality but there is common ground and so in my research and understanding that that common ground is that even the

Unbeliever is made in God's image. So we appeal to those things that are written on their heart namely that we have respect

Value we want we desire we ought to have Reasonable discourse right reason reasonable dialogue.

So we're going to press into that Imago Dei right now We know Romans 1 they're trying to suppress, you know certain truths, but because they're creating

God's image They can't help but to illuminate that when we interact with them. Is that a good way of looking at it?

Yeah, that's right And so my job as an apologist and this is another difference between someone like myself who's a presuppositionalist and then someone who's an evidentialist

I believe Romans 1 I believe that unbelievers are made in God's image. I believe that they know

God I believe that they suppress the truth and unrighteousness And that's not just it man I could do a whole sermon on suppressing the truth and unrighteousness because that's such a weird phrase

Think about to suppress the truth. You have to know the truth and Then you have to hold it down and claim that you don't know the truth.

I mean, it's interesting It's so it's a form of self -deception. And so I as a presuppositionalist

I embrace what the Bible says about the condition of the unbeliever He does know God in his heart of hearts, but he hates

God. He doesn't want to know God So he suppresses that truth and unrighteousness And so my task as an apologist is to reveal the suppressed knowledge of God that already lies in the unbeliever

Whereas evidentialists would tend to accept what the unbeliever says about himself an evidentialist comes it comes to an atheist atheists

I don't believe in God the evidentialist tends to say all okay I'll present evidence and show you that God I'll try to change your mind.

Whereas I as a presuppositionalist say no You're you're lying perhaps to yourself But you do know

God in your heart of hearts and it's obvious by the way you behave and I can show you that you Know God based on your behavior and the things that you say

It's obvious that you do know God but are suppressing the truth and unrighteousness So we have very different beliefs about the condition of the unbeliever.

I accept what the Bible says about the unbeliever Yeah, so we had a question I'd like for you to speak to this just briefly, but he asked

Lao is paganism Irrational does Occam's Razor surmise pantheism is more logical because the neutral mind has also

Supposed all is one. Is this the trap of first Corinthians one? What do you think?

This razor surmise pantheism is more logical because the the natural mind

Has also suppressed all All is one this is the trap of first Corinthians of one.

Well, first of all, yes, it's irrational Occam's Razor really applies more to its

Occam's Razor is designed to Apply to competing scientific models. I tend to use it primarily in that in that format

And in the supposition is that the model that's simpler that explains all the data equally

Well, you have two models in science that explain the data equally Well, the one that's simpler is more likely to be true

And that's or is is a better approximation of truth or in some verses in some versions of it It's just preferred whether or not it's more likely to be true.

We go with the simpler model I think Occam's Razor is a good idea because there's a simplicity that's in Christ that Paul speaks of in in first Corinthians So I do believe in Occam's Razor.

That's mainly Scientific models the reason that pantheism and I mean pantheism everything's part of God.

Yeah, that's a problem There's so many problems with that you don't have a transcendent

God a God who's beyond nature and controlling it So that's a problem. It's it's a problem because it's contrary to Scripture That's a big problem.

God has revealed himself and he indicates that he is separate from his creation God can

God does not depend on his creation He made it at a point in time. And so it depends on him.

He's not part of it. So In all is not what

There's there's two errors that people tend to fall into the idea that all is one. So you have sort of this monism

Everything's one or everything is atomistic. Everything's separate and neither of those quite explains the universe

Because the universe is one in one sense It's many in another sense And I would argue it's the

Christian worldview that makes sense of that partly because God himself is One and three he's one in one sense and more than one in a different sense

That's not contradictory because the sense is different But God is one and more than one and the universe that he made has consistency in it because of the way

God upholds things But it also has differences that God allows and that again I think reflects partly the triune nature of the biblical not exactly.

There's no exact There's no exact parallel to the Trinity, but it is it partly reflects that aspect of his being so that's that's one reason why paganism or any sort of pantheism is

Illogical. I hope that's helpful. Oh, yeah. Absolutely. There's so much content on that and wanted to get a recommendation

Any recommendation for content for kids shows movies? This person's saying it's hard to find good content that's

Easy to digest and obviously your book the ultimate proof of creation. It's funny

I remember you were talking about the laws of logic in a couple chapters and you're like, hey Skip these chapters and come back to it.

Check it out some other time but the book is structured in such a way where I feel like It's it's it's digestible, right?

And I know Bonson wrote a book called the defense of the faith to which I always recommend to people.

So you got any recommendations out there Yeah for kids specifically it's a little tricky I I don't have kids my own and I don't write to that level normally if you're talking about older kids like middle school

Yeah, I think I think middle school kids could read the ultimate proof of creation It might it might take a couple

I've had some people say I've had adults say I had to read it twice I'm like only twice. That's good That's good

Because when I first started reading Bonson it took me a while to get it it did and it's not because it's that hard It's because I've been trained.

I had been trained to think incorrectly Most of us are most of us got I've gone through a public school system where we're trained to think of secularists

Which is not right. We're trained to think in terms of neutrality We're not trained to think biblically and so that that's the problem

But I think a lot of my resources if middle schoolers could read certainly now youngsters

I have one resource that I've done that youngsters would like and it's my DVD on dinosaurs in the

Bible I don't care how the young they are. They will like it. It's because it's dinosaurs and kids like dinosaurs

Other resources we have coming another on our We have another on our staff

Dan Leitha. He's our illustrator. He's working on some children's resources Now see he's had kids and so he knows how to write that stuff better than I do

And then check out our sister ministry answers in Genesis They have some really good resources for children there and a lot more than we have a few on our website

We have answers for kids answers for teens. I didn't write these but they're very well done Our sister ministry did but yeah, check out our sister ministry for young for young kids

Awesome. Thank you for that. Dr. Lyle. All right. I want to pick back up. We got just a couple more

Excerpts from this article that was critiquing your book. So you got some explaining to do

David says Lyle solution to the origins debate is to compare worldviews and see which one can satisfy

Two criteria number one maintaining a logical consistency sounds important number two accounting for the preconditions of intelligibility

The former criteria means that a worldview must not be internally contradictory and I do not find this criteria

Objectable internal consistency is necessary, but not sufficient condition for justification the second criteria appears to refer to giving an explanation for things such as Memory morality logic and the uniformity of nature it is not at all clear to me

David says why a worldview needs an Explanation for these things.

We may simply not know the answer to why logic Logical laws for example are always true.

We may simply have to conclude We do not know why everything conforms to the logical laws

But whatever we do surely it is Inadvisable to conduct an explanation just for the sake of having one

Apparently withholding judgment just is not an option for Lyle. So what do you think about that?

We made me maybe just don't know Yeah a couple problems here in the first one.

I think connects to the second one There were three criteria I gave and they're very clear in the book

I called the AIP test and he only mentioned the I in the P and I think that's interesting It's arbitrariness

Inconsistency and preconditions of intelligibility. He mentions only two of those in it. I don't know

I mean, maybe you didn't read it very carefully, but it could be you know Sometimes when you come at something and he's admitted he's an evidentialist.

So he's coming at it from a very different perspective Sometimes when you when you're thinking in a particular way and somebody challenges that it's hard for you to even see it

Maybe a scripture that contradicts your way of thinking and you tend to skip over the part that contradicts your thinking So that could be it and that relates then to what comes later because he's he's confusing

Explanation with justification and this is very important because these are two very different things

I'm not claiming that we need to be able to explain everything that we believe to be true

But I do think we need to justify everything that that we believe to be true And that is an essential component of rationality

In fact, that's what rationality means to be rational is to have good reasons for your for your beliefs

And that's called justification justification is when you have a good reason for something you believe

Okay, and I and rational people do have good reasons for what they believe not explanations

Justification and so he's suggesting well, maybe we don't need what he thinks is explanation But it's really justification for our beliefs, you know, what why can't we just withhold judgment?

Well think about that suppose I say to David Christianity is true. And he says, how do you know that I said,

I don't know I just do it's just true Maybe you know, I'm withholding judgment on the reason for why it's true

Nobody would be satisfied with that right or if I said there's a monster in my closet Don't get don't go near my closet because there's a monster in there.

How do you know there's a monster in there? Oh, I don't I don't have a reason for it. I can't explain how

I know that I just do They're just a monster in there. Just trust me. But but how do you know? I thought

I'm withholding judgment. Apparently, that's an option Withhold judgment not on things that you believe on things that you believe to be true

You should have a good reason for them. And the more adamant you are about your belief the better the reason better be

Children don't have good reasons for what they believe Children do believe there's a monster in the closet and you ask them to justify that and they can't give you one because they're children

And they're not thinking rationally Adults should have good reasons for what they believe and so a worldview

That accepts that there are laws of logic that we must use when we're reasoning or that there's orderliness in nature

Which we presuppose when we do science or that there are moral truths a worldview that holds to those things Better be able to justify them.

If not by definition you are irrational and So I don't I don't think David would want to admit this but but he's bit ways basically defending it is like apparently it's okay

To be irrational. You don't have to have good reasons for what you believe But I would say no we do need to have good reasons for what we believe and that's a

Christian principle When someone asks us of reason of the hope that's in us We're supposed to be able to give them an answer a logical defense and that means we better have one

We better have a good reason for our beliefs And I believe the presupposition list Christian does and I believe any alternative doesn't

So one of your articles, I remember I've really I've read multiple times, but you're kind of talking about Historically, how do we understand what knowledge is a justified true belief?

And so it's that kind of first. I mean, was it a three -legged stool that you had a three -legged stool for knowledge and Asking that question.

What is what what satisfies for justification? I remember I talked to a gentleman BA Bostrom and he wrote a book on the

Trinity and I remember asking I was like so in the most concise way How would you explain what the justification is?

We talked about a self -attesting worldview all these things, you know what he said Jesus Christ He said that's the justification and I was like,

I love it. I love it But I just want to recommend people check out that that article where you kind of talk about knowledge being justified true belief

And there's the the correspondence theory of truth. It must be grounded in God and then having that robust understanding of knowledge justified true belief

Man, like that's where Christians we ought to hang out because we can pay the bills I've heard

Eli Yala say on his his show. So going on in the article I just want to kind of look at two more slides here

So this was kind of some of the takeaway in chapter 3 at least he says leaving this issue aside for the moment

Can Lao even justify his own claim that only Christianity makes sense of absolute morality?

It seems that he cannot he spends several pages Arguing that if morality is simply a matter of preferences of majority opinion, then it is not absolute but after this he makes a puzzling claim that Christianity accounts for absolute morality because Since God created human beings he determines what is good to be considered right and wrong on page 51

But hang on doesn't Lyle's account make morality simply a matter of God's opinion

If morality is nothing more than Because God said so then we are still lacking an account of an opinion free absolute morality

This is well known as the problem called the euthyros Dilemma euthyphros dilemma his own worldview cannot give an account of absolute morality

Thus by his own criterion his own worldview cannot satisfy One of the preconditions for intelligibility.

What do you think about that? You can see some of the Arminian ism coming out there where God is reduced to kind of a humans

Wrinkled in there a little bit, huh? Yeah. Yeah where it's you know, where God just has opinions on things

God doesn't have opinions on anything What God says is true and that's why Jesus can say when he's praying to the

Father thy word is truth Truth is whatever comes out of God's mouth Whatever God says that defines things and so when

God says this is the right way to behave That's the right way to behave and that's due to the nature of God him being different from us

So David has ignored the creature creator distinction He's treating God as if God what

God says is just another opinion It isn't and frankly, it's to God's standard and his standard alone that I will answer on Judgment Day Yeah, and granted we all fall short and we need a

Savior but my point is I have a very good reason to obey God's laws because Ultimately and everybody else does too

Everybody will answer to God's laws on Judgment Day The books will be opened and they'll be judged by what they've done in the books.

And of course we fall short We need our name written in the Lamb's Book of Life But that's why God's standard is the one that ultimately cosmically is the only one that matters

Now if you if you have a boss His opinion might matter a little bit because if you don't you might get fired, but that's you just getting fired

You you ignore God's instructions. You spend all eternity in the lake of fire So you see I have a good reason to believe that God's morality

I have a good basis for saying that's the standard I would Define morality in terms of God's character because what because all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are deposited in Christ So I would define right as that which

God approves of that which incurs his blessings And I would define wrong as that which

God disapproves of that which incurs his wrath And so not and I can justify that that makes sense biblically because God's mind isn't just an opinion

Right. It's what God says. It's not an opinion. It's truth. And it's to that standard that I will answer on Judgment Day Yeah, so he brings out

Euthyphro's dilemma It sounds like his interpretation of what you're saying is morality that just God can make on a whim, right?

May maybe because Euthyphro's dilemma is accusing the Christian where it seems like well God is the one that can

Change inform the laws of logic or morality. And so you have a problem that God can arbitrarily do these things on a whim and Like you said we ground morality in God's nature

We ground the laws of logic in God's thinking and so it's not something that he is subservient to Like it's floating out there or something.

It's a reflection of who he is. Am I kind of in the ballpark there? Yeah, Euthyphro's dilemma was proposed in the context of the

Greek polytheistic Belief system where they asked the question Is that which is right right because it's dear to the gods or do the gods?

Proclaim something because it's right is in other words Do the gods determine morality or do the gods simply proclaim a morality that's above them and beyond them and in in their system

It's unanswerable because if there's some morality beyond them How do you account for that if on the other hand there the gods are accounting for morality?

Well, their gods are changeable their gods change and bicker about whose morality We follow Zeus or Aphrodite or Apollo because they disagree with each other and they're within time they can change

And so their gods can change their opinions on things But you see that the euthyphro's Dilemma does not occur in the

Christian worldview because God is the one that determines what's right God is the determiner of morality and morality doesn't change because it's rooted in God's nature and God's nature is unchanging

And so Because he's beyond time and so God cannot on a whim Make morality anything other than what it is because it's rooted in his nature

And it makes sense logically if God could change what's right and wrong if God could change his commandments

Then the then Christ was unnecessary The crucifixion would be unnecessary because God could just lower his moral standards to something we could actually do

He said you know what just breathe that's all you have to do and then you're in you're in good standing and then

Christ would Have been unnecessary. It's because God can't change and his moral standard can't change that We needed a substitute somebody who made

God's laws perfectly to die in our place on the cross And so the euthyphro dilemma if David thinks that applies to the

Christian worldview that undermines the cross It's in the Christian worldview that we have morality that is based and rooted in God's unchanging nature

Yeah, one to sneak in a question here from someone that asked I have a question for dr

Lyle, is there historical precedence for old earth creationist? I don't think you can make that argument for the theistic evolution position

I know it's kind of off what we were saying, but I thought this perhaps was a good question. You could address real quick Yes, the the

Greeks Believed in a very ancient earth and I have to tell you the early church was very influenced by Greek thinking and not for the

Better. I mean there are some things that I mean, I think the Greeks make some good contributions to I think Aristotle and his

Categorical syllogisms. I mean that's kind of neat and it's useful But they the Greeks believed in an old earth and some of that thinking had infiltrated the early church

It wasn't common, but there are a few folks that like even origin I think might have believed in the old earth

Mmm Augustine didn't Augustine alibis sections of Genesis but he was still a young earth creationist because he talked about the time span between creation and now being less than 6 ,000 years and so on so Yeah, there were a few but they were very few and far between for most of the early church history all the way up until about the 1700s the the the church

Almost universally embraced what you might call young earth Creation they believed that the world was thousands of years old and then the real resurgence of old earth creationism happened really in the 17 some of the 1600s, but really in the 1700s with Those folks who wanted to art

James Hutton and Charles Lyell who wanted to argue that the geology Proved millions of years and a lot of the pastors not all of them but a lot of them compromised and started, you know allowing for the millions of years either by day age or Thomas Chalmers invented the gap theory in 1804 if memory serves and so that allowed for them the millions of years

But no young earth creation has always been the the mainstay of the Christian Church with a very few exceptions

Mm -hmm. Thanks for that. All right. This is the last kind of paragraph. I'd like for you to address because You are just begging the question.

Dr. Lyle. I'm sure you've never heard of that one before David says first. Dr. Lyle claims that logic

Describes chains of reasoning rather than aspects of the universe

This statement is baffling in the first place It is question begging against the account of logic that I have suggested allow cannot merely claim logic is not descriptive

For this is what we are disputing. He must demonstrate his claim.

So what do you think about that? Are you just begging the question? We Yeah, I think

I did demonstrate that claim in the book one of the things I pointed out is that the universe is constantly changing and So if the laws of logic were describing a changing universe, you'd expect them to change but frankly

He says it's statements baffling not to anyone who studied logic I Take it

David hasn't had I feel like he hasn't had a class in logic because that's what logic is logic is the Study of the principles of correct reasoning

It's not about fossils and stars and magma and chemistry it's about The rules of reasoning so I you know,

I mean I might ask David What aspect of the universe does modus ponens demonstrate? Modus ponens if P then

Q P therefore Q. What does that tell me about? Distant stars or quasars or magma or whatever now

I can take facts about nature and put them into modus ponens and draw conclusions about that But logic itself is the study of the principles of correct reasoning it's it's about the chain of reasoning

It's not about the specific propositions that are placed into those Into that chain of reasoning now, we use logic to draw conclusions about the universe, but it's not describing the universe

It's describing correct reasoning. So I think any textbook on logic would pretty well cover that What if there's some dimension out there where it's just a different kind of logic, right?

Can we not come up with interesting bizarre hypotheticals that just basically make that conclusion for us

It's fun to think about that, but I would say from a Christian world, you know The universe no matter what universe

God created it would have to obey laws of logic But you see in my worldview laws of logic stem from the unchanging nature of God And so no matter what universe

God creates it will obey logic this is guy can answer that a secularist might propose that he's what if laws of logic are different and so on but There's no universe in which that's possible.

And obviously you can't demonstrate that because laws of logic do have a persistent Unchanging universal nature to them because they do stem from the mind of God.

It's just that only the Christian can make sense of that Jamie AG out there she may or may not be a member of 12 -5 church, but she says

Dr. Lyle, would you be willing to come to Jonesboro, Arkansas in debate if given the opportunity?

What if we got Neil deGrasse to come down we could set it up. What do you say? Yeah, if Neil deGrasse

Tyson would be willing to debate me I'd go anywhere in the country to do that or or I'd debate

William Lane Craig. I would debate that that woman might be hard to get going. Yeah Pretty nicely,

I thought oh, yeah pretty well. Yeah, so that was pretty nice or Richard Dawkins I would love to debate

Richard Dawkins And although I I normally have the standard that I require a PhD I would make an exception for Bill Nye if Bill Nye would want to debate me on creation

He's an engineer and he's not a PhD. I would still be happy to debate him on that topic So yeah, I'd be willing to do that.

I don't want to debate somebody who's just Joe Schmo You know is 12 years old and I want to debate dr Lyle it has to be somebody who has some credentials so that it's not just me

Explaining to someone who hasn't studied the topic what it's really About you need to have somebody who's knowledgeable to have a good debate.

That's good So it's good to hear a few people that you would strongly say Yeah That would be a good meaningful interaction where a lot of people can kind of learn some of the the nuances there so another question as we're winding down and you just let me know if Are you are we good for maybe another 10 minutes or so?

Yeah, you got your coffee are you coffee drinker? I'm not a coffee drinker I just have water here to lubricate my vocal cords.

There you go Well, this question is how do secular astrophysicists explain how stars are for I hope you don't mind that kind of question

But that's in your wheelhouse. I think it is. Yeah So secular astronomers believe that stars form from nebulae that so the universe contains stars

It also contains nebulae nebulae a nebula is a cloud of hydrogen and helium gas. It's made of the same stuff as stars

And so you can see the connection there. So the secular astrophysicist believes that nebulae some of them

Their gravity causes them to collapse in on themselves and form a star because they're made of the same stuff

So you might think well, that sounds pretty reasonable But there are some problems with that There are three in particular that stand out one of them is that the force of gas pressure in a nebula which is outward gas presses outward is typically orders of magnitude greater than the force of gravity in a nebula and because the force of gravity is

Diminishes with the square of the distance and so you have something like a nebula that's huge It might be a light -year across the force of gravity in that nebula is very very meager.

And so Getting the process started Nebulas expand they don't contract on themselves

Now once you get a star because the space is very small the gravity is much stronger. It'll hold itself together

It'll counteract the gas pressure and it'll stay a star but getting a nebula to compress into a star is very tricky

And gas pressure is one reason Another is angular momentum So as that nebula collapses if that nebula has just a little bit of spin to it, which they all would just statistically

Then as it collapses, it'll speed up just like a skater when she pulls her arms in and she's spinning it

She speeds up like that That's a principle called conservation of angular momentum and that would tend to prevent any further collapse because is it if you've ever been spinning in a chair and You have like weights and you pull them in it's hard to pull them in right?

It requires more pressure due to the in your reference frame What would be at the centrifugal force which seems to be pulling them outward?

So that's be that's a problem and then also the magnetic field pressure Nebulae have magnetic fields threading them and as you push them together

It's like pushing the north end to another north end of a magnet. They don't they would want to resist So there are three forces in nature that would tend to prevent a star from collapsing in on itself

But that is the secular belief is that they form from a collapsing nebula and I've given you three reasons to think that that probably

Doesn't happen, but I'm not dogmatic about it. Hmm Another question really interesting

Lao is pure logic Mathematical do those laws correspond to the logic of good and evil in any logical way

It's pure logic mathematical. It has a mathematical quality to it If you've ever studied formal logic, it looks a lot like algebra

Because they're they're similar I would kind of flip it and say Mathematics is a subset of logic

Mathematics mathematics is the logic of numbers. It's the it's the correct way to reason about numbers

So you have the big the larger category logic and then mathematics is one aspect of it and do these laws

Correspond to knowledge of good and evil in a logical way. That's almost a different category because Mathematics is about what's what is and it's in the realm of the abstract.

What is what is conceptually true? Whereas good and evil Are about what should be and so they're kind of in a different category

The connection between the two is of course God God is the one that determines laws of mathematics and God is the one that determines what is right and what is wrong

So that's the connection between the two Excellent. Someone says out there So let's let's wind up with this this last statement from mr.

Paulman he says dr Lyle, you commit a blatant either or fallacy

Why can logic not describe chains of reasoning and aspects of the universe just a few pages earlier

Lyle? Illustrated the law of non -contradiction by using the example of his car being Unable to be both in the garage and not in the garage at the same time in the same way

But this is an example, but this is not an example of logic describing an aspect of the universe

Thus Lyle's response not only commits two fallacies, but it also contradicts his own example

So when I say, you know, my car is in the parking lot and it's not in the parking lot at the same time

I'm illustrating a violation of the law of non -contradiction by putting by putting propositional statements about the universe into The logical category of a contradiction so but the logical category of non -contradiction stands on its own

You don't need any particular illustration to say a and not a cannot be true at the same time in the same sense

Because what is a what is a and not a tell me about the universe nothing? Okay, it's so laws of logic are rules of correct reasoning.

And by the way, I'm not Claiming that that they can't include other things too. I think they reflect

God's reasoning So I'm not I'm not saying that that's the only way to describe them But it would be a fallacy to say that laws of logic describe

Nature, they really don't Can we learn something about nature using logic? Definitely, but that's because we have to take the propositions about nature and put them into the logical chain of reasoning

Which is abstract and not about nature and that tells us what conclusions we can draw So there there is a correlation between nature and laws of logic and that too exists in the mind of God It's the mind of God that upholds the physical universe, which is why the physical universe will never violate a law of logic

But laws of logic themselves are conceptual entities that describe the correct chain of reasoning mmm

Dr. Lyle, thanks so much for all that you do contending for the faith the kingdom and It's wonderful that you observe

Outer space and are able to kind of break that down I've watched a lot of y 'all's your interactions with dr.

Dr. White. You've really got him roped into Observing the as far as we can observe in the universe.

So Do you have any kind of parting words that you would like to encourage our people with once again?

Thanks so much for Kind of just addressing some of the I didn't want to get into the the nitty -gritty of your book

From what we already did because I want people to buy it and check it out Yeah, I hope they will and and you can get the book on our website

So here's the book ultimate proof of creation you get on our website biblical science Institute calm and And and frankly when you do read the book

I haven't had people respond to it and a lot of those responses I put up on the website along with my response to their response and so on So if you know people if you're saying well, what about you know circular reasoning and things like and things like that We've answered that on the website.

So they get the question Yeah, yeah I've got I've got more articles on begging the question and circular reasoning and vicious versus virtuous and people saying

I misrepresent Monson on that. I've got two articles on that where I quote Bonson and say no, here's what he said about that So anyway, check out the read the book you can get the book on our website and then read the follow -ups on the website where I've defended that and And because I can't answer every possible objection to one book.

I've tried to hit the main objections and You know David said well, he didn't hit this or that or the other I can't hit everything because you can come up with an infinite number of potential objections

But I tried to hit the main ones and then for those that come up later I've tried to answer those on the website. So check us out biblical science institute comm

Now I think in a previous live stream you did maybe it was yesterday or so Someone asked you if you're gonna do a follow -up to the ultimate proof of creation and your answer is something like it's the ultimate proof

You can't Now I have thought about writing a follow -up conversations involving the ultimate proof

Where I basically apply the method of the book to many conversations that I've had that that might be fun But I think the book itself.

I think it delivers on what it promises I think it gives you an ultimate proof of creation and therefore that a sequel is not necessary Right.

Well, hey, you've given me a task to go work on finding you a debate opponent So we got venues here in Jonesboro, Arkansas Northeast, Arkansas So hey,

I'm gonna be in touch with Miss Denise finding you a debate opponent and then we got to get you.

We got to get you down here to Arkansas land I'm sure we can do that All right, dr.

Lyle. Thank you so much for your time Thank you so much for contending for the gospel of grace and the

Christian worldview I'm gonna continue to share your content with other people and thank you so much for your time tonight

Thanks. My pleasure. All right. Have a good one. Thanks again Thank you so much for tuning in everybody to the apologetic dog

If you have benefited from this ministry, if you really if you liked this interview with dr

Lyle, please like share subscribe hit that notification bill that way you can be reminded of when

I'm able to do these kinds of interviews and wouldn't it be awesome if I got to Host a debate with dr.

Lyle and Neil deGrasse and some of these other people that he's throwing his names out there Hey, I'm gonna try But thank you so much for all your support.

Thank you so much 12 -5 church many of you are watching live.

Thank you so much for your support With me pursuing apologetics. I love y 'all and everybody else.

That's really supported the apologetics ministry through prayer through finances

Appreciate that so much. I've got a number of things kind of in the pipeline from debates teaching series more live streams interacting with other

Christians Contending for the faith once delivered to the Saints.

Thank you so much for tuning in to the apologetic dog tonight Look forward to seeing you next time.