Facebook Presuppers Unite

Facebook Presuppers Unite

Welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host Eli Ayala, and welcome to the Facebook Presuppers livestream. Okay? I have some really awesome guys here who are active on a super cool and super helpful Facebook page.

I think they just recently changed the name. So what was the name of it, man? I don't want to open up the show and get the name wrong. Ricky, you're the resource, man. Ricky, search the comments rolled on.

What's the page called now?

It's still Reformed Presuppositional Apologetics, Vantillion.

Oh, Vantillion. Okay. All right. My bad. So Reformed Presuppositional Apologetics, Vantillion. This is an awesome Facebook page if you're looking to get a question answered or to really get some thoughtful responses to some issues that you might face online and things like that.

It's a super awesome resource. There's even a section where there are a lot of documents. You can kind of search documents, and there's some really cool essays that people wrote, especially I know Josh and Arne.

I think you have some stuff on there as well. And I highly recommend folks check it out if you want to get to know more about all things presuppositional apologetics. So totally check that out. Now, before I introduce my guest, I want to throw it out there that on January 15th, the premium version of my course, the Introduction to Biblical Apologetics, will be offered.

Folks can sign up for that on revealedapologetics .com. If you click on the PresuppU, that's short for Presupp University. If you click on that menu, you can RSVP. Classes start January 15th and already have folks signing up.

And once you sign up, you will get five recorded lectures, all of the PowerPoint presentations, the outlines and notes, and the premium edition or premium package. You get to meet with me five times a week or five times, sorry, once every week for five weeks where we meet through a private Zoom call, and we go much deeper into the content.

And I could address specific questions you have on the content or anything else. And those private Zoom meetings go for sometimes an hour, an hour and a half. And so totally, I mean, I hear people who've taken it, they've enjoyed it greatly.

So if you're looking to learn presuppositional apologetics in a more structured format, and you want to support Revealed Apologetics, then I highly recommend you sign up for that before the spots are all filled.

That's January 15th is when we'll start, and folks can sign up right now if they wanted to. All right, well, without further ado, let me get my brothers on the screen with me. Well, first, I'd like to introduce my friend Ricky Roldan.

Ricky, why don't you tell people who you are and where they can go to listen to your podcast? You have a podcast, and so folks might be interested in that.

Yes, sir. Like you said, my name is Ricky Roldan. I have a podcast called Urban Reform Podcast. I've been in the urban ministry for the last 25-plus years, and it's a ministry dedicated to the urban culture.

That's the term the name says. And, yeah, you can find a lot of shows on there, on eschatology, on apologetics. I did a four-part series with some great brothers and sisters in India through Zoom. They were very hungry when they came to me for this class.

They were like, we really want to know what this apologetics was. And so that was an honor to do that with them. Of course, they are also being persecuted over India. So there were some things that I was warned that I couldn't say because people were watching and they could get in trouble.

So that, you know, and I have a blog also, urbanreform .com. Articles on there are written on several different topics of theology, eschatology. And like you said, the group Reform Presupposition Apologetics slash Vantillion.

I did that to distinguish people, understand that it is a dirty Clarkian, right?

You're trying to distinguish from the dirty Clarkian. I'm just kidding.

Yeah, actually, from the Clarkian. Clarkian or, you know, classical people get confused on what to make sure they understood. They won't be surprised by the posts on there by the admins. I have great admins, by the way.

Yeah.

Awesome. Awesome. Well, thank you for that.

Yeah, guys, definitely check out Urban. What's it called again? Urban what?

Urban Reform Podcast.

Urban Reformed Podcast. That's awesome.

Yes, sir.

I actually had Ricky on a while back, and I don't remember the title of the episode. But if they could find your face, I know you're on the thumbnail. They should totally check it out because you have some really you share some really awesome stories of your experiences with just stuff on the streets and interacting with people.

What I enjoy about Ricky is that he is very good at simplifying. If Bonson grew up in the hood, you know what I'm saying? Like, he'd be Ricky. I'm just kidding, but partially not. You got some really good insight, and you know how to break it down, so I appreciate that.

All right. Well, our next guest is Arne. Is it Verster? Did I pronounce that right?

It's Arne Verster.

Exactly, bro. I can't say it like that.

See, that sounds much cooler that way.

All right. Well, Arne, why don't you tell folks a little bit about yourself and about your website? You got a really awesome website, really awesome blog that covers a wide range of presuppositional apologetic issues.

So why don't you share a little bit about that real quick?

Yeah. So like I said, my name is Arne Verster, or in English they call me Arne Verster.

You mispronounced it. You called me what Eli just called me at the beginning. Okay.

Yeah, and my first language is Afrikaans. I live in the southern point of Africa, in South Africa, in Pretoria. Best country in the world, best city in the world. So if you're watching this and you're in the United States and you want to have like an African safari, just reach out to me and I'll organize all the gear.

But yeah, so quite far away from the other people on the stream, but it does feel like I know them quite closely, all of them on here. And yeah, I do run this website called Apologetic Central. I've been running it for approximately 10 years now.

When I started getting into apologetics, that's when I got started with Apologetic Central, took lots of roots of it. You know, I started off with the evidentialist, classicalist apologetics and then moved over to presuppositionalism approximately four or five years ago.

And yeah, I think my view of the website is I usually have questions myself, things that pop up and then I'd essentially tackle it and I'd attempt to write an answer that is satisfactory to me. And then I'd publish on the site and then it seems like people also enjoy reading it and getting lots of nice traction there as well.

My main influences are Van Til himself and I would say to a large extent, Brandt Bosserman as well. Not as much Bonson, actually. I feel like I would first want to completely, well, if that's even possible.

Don't blaspheme now. Let us not blaspheme, sir.

No, no, no. Nothing against Bonson. I just found myself being drawn more to the works of Van Til himself than Bonson. So that's where I spend a lot of my time.

Awesome. Awesome. Thank you for that. And next up, we have Slim Jim, who's got an awesome beard. I love your beard, bro. Time out. Arne, are you Presbyterian, Arne? Or are you Baptist? What are you?

No, I'm a member of the Gereformeerde Kerke in South Africa, which is, I must actually, the translation isn't as direct because I think there are two churches, but it is the Reformed churches in South Africa.

And that is Presbyterian blasphemy.

I thought you might have been a Baptist because you don't have a beard. So, you know, I guess I'm the only Reformed Baptist here. All right. Okay. Quack, quack. It's okay. All right, Slim Jim, why don't you share a little bit about yourself and then we'll move on to Josh and then we'll jump right into these questions.

I like to take a little bit of time here at the beginning of the stream so we can get kind of people listening in and then we'll jump right into the good stuff. But why don't you share a little bit about yourself?

Yeah, I am Reformed Baptist, so just a guy that loves the Word. But also I really love, you know, our fellow Presbyterian and even Joshua, I think, is a Lutheran, brothers for the contribution. And I see Precept and Reform Apologetics as a team effort.

The blog I run is Veritas Domain. I think my gifting is more with exegesis, exegetical matters. So one ongoing project is answering Bible contradiction. That's an ongoing thing I'm doing with refuting.

But once in a while I'll jump in, just probably same like what Arne said, just want to learn it, just think through things myself of answering certain things. And I'll just have that as notes on the blog for my own sake.

But then realizing that can maybe hopefully benefit others and maybe even others springboard and improve on things way better. So that's my story.

Awesome. Well, I have Apologetics Academy I put in the comments. And I'm going to put the Veritas Domain in the comments as well if people want to check that out. Highly recommend. I'm not just saying that to be nice.

Some really good resources there. So as you're listening in and you're like, you know what, I want more of this stuff, the links are there. You should totally check it out. All right. Lastly, but certainly not least, my good friend Joshua Pillows, who has been on the show multiple times.

And I moderated an awesome debate with him and David Paulman on apologetic methodology. So that's on the channel. You should totally check it out. I thought that Joshua did an excellent job showing the difference and biblical nature of precept over a more evidential presentation.

But Joshua is a sharp guy. Why don't you tell folks a little bit about yourself and then we'll jump right into our questions.

Yes, I'm the organist, pianist, music director at a Lutheran church. Slim Jim, I'm not sure if I'm completely Lutheran. If my pastor caught wind that you said that, he would be jumping for joy. He doesn't know that.

I am not. But I have my Lutheran sympathies, of course, being here for years as an organist. So but my embodiment and reform theology came from Bonson. Van Til was kind of the extra spice of apologetics because you're supposed to start with Bonson before Van Til, unless you're just crazy or you're a genius like our name.

No, I am. I'm just a genius. Genius. Of course.

So, yeah, just I'm an organist at a Lutheran church, have Lutheran sympathies, but I'm still I still lean Presbyterian.

Yeah. Awesome. Well, let's jump right into our question. So I actually found a collection of questions slash objections to the presuppositional method. And so if folks don't like introductions or don't care about who we are, you could in the future for future reference, you could skip the submitted introduction.

That's perfectly fine. There's no no insult there. And you can go right to the juicy, the juicy stuff. So let's take a look at our first question and then I'll throw it out to you guys and anyone could share their thoughts.

Please do not hesitate. You don't have to raise your hand if you just want to jump in. Go for it. And I'm sure everyone else will respect whoever is jumping in first. So don't be too humble. Otherwise, it'll just be awkwardly quiet as everyone waits for the other person.

So question number one, what's your strategy with talking to militant atheists? More like an on street scenario and not something online. How would you guys address that kind of on the street situation?

Anybody feel free to jump in.

Do you. My experience is that atheists are more militant online than in person. That's fair. That's fair. Yeah. So I actually I like in person conversations more than than online conversations as people tend to be less keyboard warrior.

But I guess, you know, I've had my fair share of conversations with unbelievers in general in person. And you'd be surprised how far you can get by just asking them questions and continuing. I don't know, pointing out some things that you might perceive to be internal tensions in their worldview and stuff like that without sticking your own neck out too much.

Just ask questions. It's a good conversation starter and it allows you to place the person in front of you in a nice context and facilitates further conversation as well.

And then it just flows. Absolutely. Awesome. Yeah. Anyone else have a take on that? Yeah.

Well, my experience dealing with different like false religions, especially earlier years, dealing with Islam and 5 percent Nation of Islam and the Holy Tabernacle Ministries, Malachi York as their leader.

That's an interesting cult of the Muslims, but that's for another another show. But basically, you know, when they're asking questions, they usually they parrot a lot of things they heard. Sure. Don't really have no proof for they just say stuff or sometimes they're genuine questions that pop right out of the blue.

Sure. And the very basic, you know, and it always goes to what's the proof? What's the evidence? What's the proof? What's the evidence? And in a very simple way, like I always me, you guys know, I go transcendental immediately.

I go right to the scriptures and says what the Bible says about knowledge and evidences and those things that without gather your questions about evidence and proof really makes no sense. Sure. And then they size.

But what do you mean by that? Then jump into that. You know, stay away from the very technical terms. Sure. But the conversations have been fruitful. You know, they get it. Let me go research that or talk about that's interesting how you say that, you know, only the Bible can justify the fact that we even know things for me to even ask for evidence and proof in the first place.

Sure. So, you know, again, the key there is, you know, just trying to stay away from the big philosophical terms and bringing it into a street level layman's understanding. You know, it kind of speaking to them.

You might find somebody who's who's into philosophy.

All bets are off. It kind of reminds me of the discussions on like Molinism. So like when we talk about Molinism and Calvinism, a lot of Calvinists will, you know, point out that the Molinists often uses philosophical language and their light on biblical argumentation.

But one of the reasons why Molinists tend to use philosophical argument and not so much biblical argument is that the primary way that people learned about Molinism are through philosophers like Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig.

And so they haven't been able to contextualize the language to speak to the average reformed person, if that's the person they're trying to convince or the average person on the street. I think it's so important that we learn to contextualize our language.

And unfortunately, we'll learn the fancy language in Bonson and Van Till and then go out in the street and act like that's appropriate on the street context. So the way I answer this question, I suppose, is context.

And it depends on the context or nature of the discussion. I think the principle of Matthew 7 .6 is appropriate where we need to be careful not to throw pearls before swine. Right. But if you decide to engage in discussion with a militant atheist, I think it's important to not try and match their aggressiveness.

That's very important. You don't want to compete in that sense. Okay. Their militancy can be used against themselves, especially if others are watching and you stay calm, you stay firm in your position, and you continue to direct the discussion to the key and important issues at hand.

Don't allow someone's aggressiveness to derail your presentation of the gospel. Remember, anger is often a defense mechanism. Right. Your words can still make an impact in ways that you don't see. Just because the person looks angry and they're aggressive doesn't mean that you are not planting the seeds that God can water in his own timing.

So don't give up. Don't judge a militant discussion based on externals. Know that when you are speaking the truth, the word of God does not come back void. Those are simple biblical truths, but they're true nonetheless.

So that's my two cents on that question.

Can I expand on that? Of course. Yeah. Go for it. Just for a minute. It's an interesting analogy that I heard from from Brant Bosserman. He did a lecture at the South African Theological Seminary about two years ago.

It's available on YouTube. Oh, okay. Brilliant lecture. And he points to the passage. Now, this is where I guess my biblical knowledge is going to fail me. But it's the passage where you have you have two women and one of them has lost their baby.

And they are the first kings challenging who this living baby belongs to. Right. And then they they bring it towards King Solomon and he then needs to resolve this issue. Now, the Bible says that you can only convict someone on the on the account of two or three witnesses.

Right. And in this situation, you've got you have two women, each of them witnessing to a separate view of reality or a separate fact. Like this one is saying this is my baby. And the other one is saying, no, it's my baby.

So what does Solomon do? He asks particular questions. And he he for the sake of argument actually says we're going to cut this baby in half. Right. And in doing that, the actual mother immediately steps back and says, no, don't do it.

Just save the baby. And the false mother immediately says, yes, cut it in half. And in doing that, she has become a witness against herself, which witnesses together with the real mother that the baby actually belongs.

I never thought of it that way. That's interesting. OK, awesome.

So that's the interesting thing. Right. So, you know, in a one on one conversation with an unbeliever that is also militant. What you should then aim to do is almost what Solomon aimed to do is to take that person's militancy and then asking key questions to then essentially expose them as a witness against themselves and their own worldview.

And that's an interesting way to view presuppositionalism as well.

That's that's an awesome biblical example. I never thought of it that way. Thank you for that. Appreciate that. Let's jump to the second question. So here's the second question. I've heard an argument that I'm not sure how to address.

OK, I didn't list the names of the people who ask it, except in some cases. But I've heard an argument that I'm not sure how to address. It goes something like this. Because God is so transcendent, so totally other, he must therefore be unknowable or it would make him not as transcendent or holy.

And he made some allusion to Immanuel Kant. How would you answer? And the allusion to Immanuel Kant, no doubt, is probably related to Kant's what we would call in philosophy his noumenal phenomenal distinction.

Does anyone want to tackle that more philosophical sort of question and kind of break down a possible response to something like this?

Yeah, I think I'll take a stab at it. I think it is a theological question. First and foremost, the nature of it is still theological. There's a theological dimension. First and foremost, one of the things in that question was how to like God being unknowable doesn't make him now somehow not as transcendent or holy.

I would actually say holiness, looking at the Greek and Hebrew word, has the idea of separation, especially for a special purpose or purpose of God. In the case of God, he is set apart. He's unique. So I would actually say by that definition of holiness, this is an issue where it's not an issue.

When God is holy does not mean he's unknowable. The other thing, point number two, is when we say God is transcendent, we do believe that God is unique. He's different than any other creatures out there.

But that does not mean there's no room. By definition, there's no room for a doctrine or revelation. So if God can reveal himself, of course, we cannot imagine him by our own finite mind of what he's like, because he's so totally different than who we are.

So totally unique as the Bible teaches and transcendent in that sense. But I also think because God has revealed himself, he does. That doesn't mean. So I guess to me, the big key is that the definition of God being transcendent, if we go by a biblical definition, does not mean that God cannot reveal himself.

I do think in my view of right now, looking at Immanuel Kant, I think he was actually critiquing mainly autonomous thoughts and philosophy. My view has probably shifted from Presbyterian and Reform publishing when they published a great thinker series.

The one volume that's with Immanuel Kant, I think that's probably the newest interpretation of Immanuel Kant. He's not critiquing. No knowledge, revealed knowledge is unknowable. But if we're going to go by autonomous thought, this is where we end up with this division.

Someone can't apply the Kant's. Well, let's explain here. So if someone's alluding to the noumenal phenomenal distinction, there's no relevant analogy with the God of Scripture. Right on Kant's understanding, man is locked out of having knowledge of the noumenal reality as it is.

Right. And man is only stuck within the experience of the phenomenal, where man is relegated to imposing his own mental categories upon his experience. Right. So he doesn't see the thing in itself. Rather, he sees his own perception as he imposes categories of his mind, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

That's not the Christian position. The noumenal, this transcendent reality, is not an impersonal, non-revelatory reality. Within the Christian worldview, there's revelation. So God who exists in the noumenal is able to interact and reveal through the phenomenal.

So, again, to understand within the context of Kant, he's dealing, I think Slim Jim accurately points out, within the context of autonomy. Right. Whereas we are coming from a revelatory perspective. So does anyone have any thoughts on that?

Well, before I let Arn go, I know he's written some good stuff on this in theology, you know, to simplify it. That's that will be the distinction the Christian worldview makes between God being transcendent.

But he is also imminent, see, as opposed to, let's say, Islam, where God is so transcendent and above that he's unknowable. He's above, he doesn't share qualities. We're not made in his image, nothing.

You know, it's all he's so above, which self-refutes their own religion. But just wanted to make that that theological, like Jimmy said, is a theological issue. So that's the God is transcendent, but he is also imminent.

Yeah, I really appreciate Slim Jim mentioning it's a theological issue because the way you address this argument or rather this objection or question is through having an accurate understanding of God.

Right. So in the Christian worldview, God is both transcendent and imminent. So we believe in a God who is both, in a sense, transcendent and unknowable in his fullness. This is why we have within Christian theology the doctrine of the incomprehensibility of God.

God cannot be known fully, but he can be known in as much as he reveals himself. But he also is personal and has the capacity to interact with his creation. This is something that Muslims can't comprehend.

It's like, well, if God is God, can he interact and incarnate in the creation that he's made? And Muslims don't have categories for that. But within Christian theology, this again, we have the incarnations, literally what we celebrate Christmas for.

Right. In Philippians chapter two, verse five through eight, we read, have this mind amongst yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God, a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men and being found in human form.

He humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. We have the eternal, the noumenal, if you want to use that language, coming into the phenomenal and acting in time, making atonement for sinners.

That's a beautiful picture of the gospel. And I think a powerful apologetic to some of these more philosophically oriented objections. Joshua, do you have any comments on that?

No, I mean, Jim hit it on the head. For Kant, God is nothing more than a limiting notion or a limiting concept. He's sort of a placeholder that you have to believe in to kind of fit into the grand scheme of things to make everything make sense.

But we can't really know this God, hence the divide. For Kant, we can only know the ding on the thing in itself, or we can't really get to the thing in itself. And so to equate or to apply this as an objection, if it were to be an objection to a Christian theology, is just apples and oranges.

Kant's a deist, we're theists, we're tritheists. And so it's just an apples and oranges scenario of not all deists are the same, not all deists hold to the same.

You mean Trinitarians, right?

Both deists and Trinitarians.

I think you said tritheists. I have Mormons that are listening, they're going to be like.

I texted you 20 minutes before I just got to the church. It's been nonstop today.

It's okay, I'm just messing with you, man.

But yeah, so no, but it's just talking past each other because it's actually a complete antithesis for Kant. God is a placeholder. And for us, God is anything but a placeholder.

Right.

So it's just a matter of defining terms. Some Jim hit it on the head there.

Yeah, excellent. Arnie, any thoughts? Anyone else?

Yeah, I'd like to weigh in on this. As Ricky mentioned, of all the questions that you had prepared for us, Eli, this one was the one that tickled me the most. I definitely point people to Wendel's Introduction to Systematic Theology, Chapter 13, where he specifically speaks about the incomprehensibility of God.

And if you haven't read Wendel ever before, then Chapter 13 won't be of any help to you because Wendel is super difficult to interpret. But he actually addresses it quite directly. And then Brant Bosserman, in his doctoral dissertation, also has a subsection on the vindication of objective analogical knowledge of God, which also touches on this issue directly.

And I think the first thing to say, I mean, like Slim Jim and Joshua alluded to, the Kantian picture is already the opposite of the Christian picture, right? Because it already negates the fact that God is the creator of all that is not God.

And as such, everything is revelational of Him, every fact. So it's not that you've got this autonomous realm over here where you can comprehensively understand everything in independence of God and His revelation.

Because if that's the case, then Kant's critique applies. Because that means you've got this exhaustive understanding of creaturely reality in independence of God. And then there's no space for Him. So everything you say about Him is completely meaningless.

That's for me the Kantian critique. But you undercut that by just negating the starting point that we aren't autonomous over here. Things like space, time, logic aren't more ultimate than God Himself.

So God is the ultimate reference point in predication. Every fact is an analogical fact. Every fact is revelatory of God to a certain extent. So I think that's the first point. And then going on until in chapter 13 actually presents a critique of how non-reformed Christians actually can't answer Kant's critique.

Because in a certain sense they fall into some kind of rationalistic pit. So all non-reformed Christians, when you look at their epistemology, they to a certain extent don't treat God as the ultimate reference point in predication.

As they believe that you can know some truths without recourse to revelation. Independently of God, whether you're a Christian or not. And if that's the case, then again human autonomy enters the picture.

And knowledge becomes something that you do as an autonomous creature. And then the picture then of man is that they know facts or like atomistic discrete facts comprehensively without the need for revelation.

And if you concede that, then any revelation that God might give you in scripture becomes what Van Til calls like an irrational assertion against your rationalistic picture of reality. Because the words that God uses can't mean anything more than what you as an independent autonomous creature have already determined them to mean.

Which then at once means that God becomes unknowable. So it's interesting then that it's only the reformed or Calvinistic scheme that protects objective analogical knowledge of God. And that doesn't fall into the spit of making God unknowable as the creator.

And now as a recent father myself, I think there are lots of analogies that you can draw from just observing children. And I think this is the closest thing that I was able to get to, to kind of bring this together into more understandable language.

So I've got a baby daughter and she knows very little. She certainly doesn't know anything comprehensively. But she is being raised in the context of a loving family home. And what she knows, although very little and not comprehensive, is true.

And that is something about warmth and love and the care that she is receiving. And then she grows in that knowledge. Right. But even though her knowledge isn't comprehensive, it is still true. And in that same sense, because we are living in this world, which is a God, how can I say this?

God contains creation as his finite reflection. Like everything around us is in God. We live and move and have our being. Right. So he is our ultimate context in which we live and move and know and do our things.

Which means that we do attain knowledge of God and a logical knowledge. It's not comprehensive, but it is nevertheless true as far as it goes.

Yeah.

That can only be the case in the reformed system.

The way you explain yourself reminds me of Vantill. He uses a little analogy like that.

Don't he look like him a little bit?

Yeah, I was going to say, he looks like Vantill Jr. with his glasses.

You read so much, you're going to turn into him, bro.

Hey, I love this comment here. Immanuel Kant, but at least Immanuel tried.

That's awesome.

Hey, I like this comment here and I agree. I think that argument about non-reformed Christians need more specificity or put into a syllogism. I'd like to see it in syllogistic form myself. I'm a non-Calvinist Christian and I don't buy the argument.

Yeah, that's fair. I see where people are coming from when they don't buy it. I do agree that that line of thinking needs to be fleshed out more. I know for sure that Vantill purposefully developed this system within the context of a reformed doctrine of God and reformed theology.

But to pull that out more and be more specific, I think, is something worth exploring in more detail. So thank you, Rook and Pawn. I totally agree that it's something to explore in more detail. So maybe that'll be something we can focus on in the future.

So let's jump on to the next question. Thank you so much for that, Arne, and everyone else who chimed in on that.

If you want to see more in detail of that by Vantill himself, get Calvin's Calvinism. Calvinism? Vantill, his defense of the case for Calvinism.

Ah.

Okay.

That explains in detail why it is the reformed Calvinistic theology that only accounts for the preconditions of intelligibility, for the predication and things of that nature. Explains the why.

Yeah, yeah.

Wow.

I don't think I own that one.

Holy cow.

I'll get Amazon. Anyway.

Okay.

This one is from R2.

$1 ,000.

You can get it to me in the kingdom when we get to heaven.

You got that book, bro? Let me check it out.

This is from our dear friend and complete and absolute lover of all things presuppositional, Sam Cotty. And he's got a question here. I like this one. I like the example he used. It was actually pretty funny.

I laughed when I read it. So thank you, Sam Cotty. Time to use your imagination yet again. He always starts with those fun introductions to his questions. I can envision an imaginary being with all the omni properties and is triune.

And here are the three members of this trinity. The dude, the bro, and the invisible guy. And this deity can account for intelligibility, rationality, morality, and can solve the problem of the one in the many.

What is the argument that only the Christian God can do these things and not some other alternative with the same properties but did not have a physical son born of a virgin in Bethlehem? Anybody want to take a stab at that one?

And when you do so, use your imagination yet again.

There we go.

Thanks, Sam. I'm just joking around, but thanks for the question, Sam.

I had that conversation with him and the group, and I'll keep it simple. I'll let the other guys get into the deeper weeds of that. But real simply, all he did was describe the Christian God and use in different terms.

And for me, my opinion, when they do that, that shows the absolute nuclear power of the Christian worldview that they have to mimic it to such a detail in order to try to refute it. So all they did was use our worldview, change a few words, and just said, ha-ha, I got you.

Now what are you going to do? Ain't nothing to do. All you did was prove our point.