How Coffee Proves God

Hello everyone, welcome back to Revealed Apologetics. I'm Eli Ayala and today we're gonna be talking about something Interesting. It's not clickbait, you know, obviously everyone who knows me knows I love coffee.

So it's not it's not a joke I will be discussing what I call the coffee proof for God's existence. So so if that's what you've come for, that's that's what I'm going to offer you today. Now, let me get off.

Let me just say that begin with this. I've gotten off to a very bad start. Okay, as you guys know, I am a teacher and so I have been cursed with the wonderful Summer vacation. Okay. I'm tongue-in-cheek.

Obviously the summer vacation is amazing. I'd like two months off but my summer vacation has Officially ended so now I have actually had to I had to go to work this week. Okay. No, we don't have students yet.

It's the beginning of the year. So we do all those wonderful teacher teachers meetings and so forth. But what that means for me now when I do a live stream late in the evening, it's nine nine. Oh one right now.

In the evening that means I cannot have a cup of coffee because I need to wake up early tomorrow, so Unfortunately, I'm offering the coffee proof for God's existence without actually being able to drink a wonderful cup of coffee.

Except except I did something very very heretical. Okay before I came on I was very tired I had to wake myself up so I took a walk around the block but before I did that I brewed a cup of decaf and this is You don't understand.

This is if coffee was a topic in theology. This would be downright heresy. I hate decaf but at minimum I needed something and of course, I squirted a little bit of the the caramel flavor, so it was actually pretty delicious, but Nevertheless, but by the way, there is a reformed.

I think it's called reformed roasters. There's a free commercial for them here where they they have this these coffee brews that are named after you know, I think the the five points of Calvinism tulip so you have the total depravity brew which is like a dark roast.

Okay, and then they have a heresy brew which is their decaf brew. So I think that's.

That's.

That's that's really funny. So I had decaf coffee and I'm not sure if it's going to work. But hopefully I will stay awake because I said I was gonna come on today and that's what I'm going to do. So here I am.

Well, if it's your first time on listening to revealed apologetics or watching apologetics Welcome. I'm glad you're here. If you have not subscribed, please do so. If you're looking to if you're a returning viewer if you're looking to support revealed apologetics You can do so by going to revealed apologetics calm.

There's a donate button there. That is always appreciated. I also offer courses in apologetics that can be Accessed there on the website revealed apologetics calm. If you want to support by simply just being here and being respectful in the comments and things like that That is awesome as well.

And of course, I would appreciate your prayers as well. So all of those are different ways that you can support Support what I'm doing. Okay. All right. So let me give some context here for What I want to talk about this evening.

Okay. Now those who are familiar with the work of dr. Greg Bonson, dr Greg Bonson gave Countless lectures and he engaged in many debates and so forth that people could access. Either on the Apologia Studios website where they have the Bonson you there you can go access the courses there not the course is the lectures and.

And.

You can access the content on sermon audio and all of its free and if you go there that you could actually listen to the lecture upon which I'm kind of drawing from and and it is a lecture in which Dr. Bonson offers what he calls the toothpaste proof for God's existence the toothpaste proof for God's existence and he proceeds to try and demonstrate the existence of God by using the Using a toothpaste tube as an example now the reason why I think this is interesting.

It's not it's not a formal proof and kind of the sense where we're gonna be laying out specific premises and engaging in you know Rigorous logical analysis and so forth and things like that. But what I what I appreciate by dr Bonson using a toothpaste to prove God's existence that he shows something very unique.

That when we are engaging in apologetics Traditionally and classically if you're familiar with apologetic works on YouTube and various interactions You will find that many people appeal to the miraculous to try and demonstrate You know the existence of God or offer evidence for the existence of God and that is entirely appropriate.

I think that's perfectly fine. I have no problem with people using You know appeals to the resurrection of Jesus and looking for the evidence and things like that. But if you're familiar with the presuppositional approach and the presuppositional claim not just the presuppositional claim of the biblical claim is that we believe Everything evidences God everything and that means the Christian has available to him or her appeals to both miraculous realities like the resurrection of Jesus and mundane realities so just as much as the resurrection demonstrates The existence of God and the fulfillment of the Old Testament scriptures and so forth.

Basic mundane things point to the creator. Okay, and in that sense the existence of God is inescapable and so highlighting the fact that we can talk about literally anything is a very useful tool in trying to make a Connection with someone maybe in like a conversation or something like that.

I mean often people will ask but how do you simplify? Presuppositional apologetics and the transcendental argument. What are some mundane things that we could appeal to? Well, well golly, okay Bonson pointed to Toothpaste if you're interested, you can look that up and today I'm going to be talking about coffee.

Okay, so as you guys know, I'm a very big fan of coffee. I like the fancy stuff. I like the latte. I'm actually more of a latte fan. I love it with the whipped cream on the top and all the big you know.

Nothing better than a giant latte with the the whipped cream and the drizzled caramel. Oh my goodness a caramel macchiato. Oh my goodness. Don't get me started. Anyway before I go crazy just thinking about that.

Let's let's begin. Okay again hopefully this will be a helpful tool for people in terms of finding a Connection point in terms of conversation as to how we can begin to talk about how God is really required.

Even even for mundane things like understanding Coffee. Okay. So every morning you wake up. Okay. Okay. I wake up right I head to my kitchen. All right, you know you want to make yourself a cup of coffee, right?

This is something that's routine. It's a habit. It's almost like a religious experience if you will, right you wake up and you you're brewing the coffee, right? You begin to you know. So you scoop the coffee grounds you add the water right you turn on the coffee maker and soon enough What do you have you have your hot cup of coffee ready to go?

Okay, we've done this a bajillion times right every time we do this every time we walk through the process Putting in the water putting in the coffee grinds all these sorts of things the same thing occurs, okay, our cup of coffee is Made now.

I want to take this very simple fact that every time we engage in the activity required for making coffee. The result is always the same unless your coffee maker is broken or something like that, right?

But I want us to kind of put our philosophical thinking caps on okay, I want you to ask this question. Okay, I think it's a simple question, but I think it's a profound question. Okay, why? Does it work every time?

Why is it the case that every time we engage in the making of our coffee and doing the process that it works? Every time okay now at first glance this kind of seems like a straightforward question and with a pretty much an obvious answer.

And quite frankly it works because that's just how coffee makers are designed. Okay now I'm not Giving a design argument based upon a coffee machine, right? But but that's kind of the straightforward answer that comes to mind when someone asks a question like this, right?

They pretty much follow the laws of physics and chemistry, right converting water and coffee grounds into a delicious cup of coffee, right? And this is a reliable process that we could expect that if we engage in that process The result is always the same, but I want you to step back for a moment I want you to think a little bit more deeply about this.

Okay, I'm gonna move to this slowly so that we can follow the line of reasoning. Okay now the process of making coffee. Okay, think in time in terms of philosophical categories. We're thinking a little deeper here.

It's a as you guys would imagine I'm not simply appealing to coffee, right? There's there's some underlining things that we need to be paying attention to. Okay, the process of making coffee Relies on something we call the uniformity of nature now if you're interested in this topic I did I had to have a video on the uniformity of nature and The problem of induction and things like that on the channel if you can just type that in revealed apologetics Eli.

You know uniformity of nature problem of induction or something should pop up. Okay, but when we make a cup of coffee We rely on this this notion of the uniformity of nature and this is pretty much the principle that the laws of nature are Consistent over time and space.

Okay, the same processes that work yesterday are gonna work today. And of course will work tomorrow as well. Okay, and pretty much without Without this uniformity. You really couldn't be sure that your coffee maker is gonna function in the same way that that it has in the past.

Okay, so this simple principle is presupposed in literally Everything that we do now, of course the question arises. How can we be confident in the uniformity of nature? Why do we believe that the future will be like the past?

Okay, this is This is so ingrained in us that we rarely question right this kind of the things we simply take for granted yet It is a very profound Philosophical question it deals with a very profound philosophical issue.

Okay. Now this is important because things that we take for granted are things that need to be challenged. Okay, when you take a look for example at the dual task of philosophy okay, the dual task of philosophy can be broken up into what we might call the constructive task of philosophy and the Critical task of philosophy the constructive task of philosophy deals with putting forth a positive consistent worldview, okay, and the critical task forces us to be critically critical and engage in critical analysis in Examining the things that we take for granted examining the things that other people take for granted and of course the uniformity of nature is Something we simply take for granted yet It is a profound principle upon which all of science is based upon which everything that we do is It's undergirded by this principle.

Now, of course, this makes perfect sense in a Christian worldview. Okay, the the fact that nature is uniform orderly and predictable Fits perfectly well within a Christian theistic conception of reality.

Okay, however, there is no reason to believe that such a principle makes sense from within an atheistic naturalistic.

Worldview.

Atheism is not a worldview fine any version of atheism that you hold to. Okay. It literally you there's no foundation for this. This is not something random that I'm saying others have pointed this out in the past.

We'll get into that in just a bit. Okay, but from an atheistic naturalistic worldview perspective the universe really is just a product of random chaotic events. Okay. Now, of course, I already anticipate Objections to that statement, but let's let's be real within a within an atheistic naturalistic worldview.

All is sound and fury signifying nothing. Okay now there on this this perspective. There is no overarching purpose no overarching order. It's all just really a cosmic accident. Okay, and if you think about it in such a worldview There really is no there's no reason to expect that the laws of nature are gonna remain consistent.

No, they could in principle change at any moment. All right, after all if the universe is just random occurrence Why should it behave in a predictable orderly manner? Okay. Now again, I anticipate what someone is going to say, but things random.

Okay, why should we expect order in a random universe? This this is an important question I think that we need to we need to ask. Okay. Now here's what they're done where the dilemma lies for the atheist, right?

They rely on the uniformity of nature every day, right? They have to rely on this principle just like when they make their morning cup of coffee, right? But their worldview Doesn't provide a basis for the very uniformity that they're relying on.

Right. It's like trying to balance a cup of coffee on a table that doesn't exist. The belief in uniformity is is pretty much hanging there in midair unsupported by their worldview. Okay. Now this is obviously not the case within a a Christian conception of reality.

Okay, yet we need to ask the the atheist. Okay. And again, everything is going to depend on who you're talking to but I often hear people tell me the laws of nature are Descriptive they're not prescriptive their descriptions but if their descriptions Descriptions don't tell us how things must be and how they will always work.

They are just describing. Okay, if the atheist says that the laws of nature are prescriptive. We're gonna have to ask for a justification for that from within their worldview. And if they say that the laws of nature are simply descriptions that we're gonna ask.

Well, how do you then provide a justification for what we're talking about here? Okay. Now this is not an issue from within the Christian world, you know, according to the Bible. Okay, God created the universe and uphold it by his power.

Hebrews 1 3 comes to mind right tells us that Christ Upholds the universe by the word of his power and and this means that the consistent Orderly nature of the universe is grounded in the character of God.

He's faithful. Unchanging he's sovereign and because of God's providence we can trust the laws of nature are gonna remain consistent, right? That makes sense as a Christian our belief in the uniformity of nature is not just a convenient assumption.

It's it's rooted from within the Christian world in the very nature of God. Okay, and so when you make your morning cup of coffee, you are in a very real sense you know witnessing the faithfulness of God right the consistent process of making coffee is a Small but I think powerful testimony to the order and reliability that God has imbued in his creation.

Okay. Now the Christians gonna say yay and amen. Of course. We thank God for coffee. We thank God for the processes that allow us to make coffee. We thank God for the predictability and the patterns that he's created Within his creation and so forth.

Okay but How does the atheist how does the naturalist? Account for these things.

All right.

So the next time you make a cup of coffee, right take a moment to reflect on that right the simple act. Brewing your coffee is a testament to a deeper reality the existence of a faithful Sovereign God who upholds the universe and without him the uniformity of nature and thus your morning routine really would be inexplicable.

Okay, so that's something to think about now. This is just one of the many ways that everyday experience is not just kind of appealing to the miraculous and so forth.

Okay.

But our everyday experience point to the truth of the Christian worldview the uniformity that we take for granted Is not just a random occurrence. It's a reflection of God's orderly nature. And so let your cup of coffee be a daily reminder of God's existence and his sustaining power over all creation, right.

We thank God for coffee.

Okay.

All right. Okay now. Of course, you know laying this out is not going to be enough, right? The atheist might appeal to any number of things to respond here. And of course, you know conversation is Welcomed here on this point, right but an atheist might say well things in nature work the way that they do.

Because that's just the way the nature of those things are. Right coffee grounds dissolve in water and the coffee maker heats the water because that's their nature, right? There's no need to invoke a God to explain These processes, okay.

So so there you go, right? There's no there's no reason to invoke God now on the surface I kind of I kind of resonate with that. Yeah. On the surface, it doesn't seem like that. That's the case. But I think that this really appeals to the inherent properties of what to appeal to the inherent nature of the of things I think is is problematic from the atheist perspective.

Okay, when someone says that something works because of its nature. Okay, they're essentially saying that that's just the way that it is. Right, but this this doesn't actually explain anything. Right, it's more of a restatement of the phenomenon in question, okay.

Dr. Bonson often pointed out that saying something happens because of its nature. It's not really an explanation. But rather it's offering a description, right? It's like saying why does the coffee brew?

Well, it brews because it's coffee, right? And this of course doesn't tell us why the coffee the water and the coffee maker interact in a consistent and reliable way. It doesn't it doesn't go deep enough.

Okay, now we're to get a little bit more philosophical here. Let's ask the question. How does the atheist know the objective nature of a particular thing or if you're gonna appeal to the idea? Well, that's just the way things work.

Well, how do you know how things work? And of course, what are they gonna do? They're going to appeal to what? Past experience. And of course, we're going to jump into the problem of The problem of induction and the problem of the uniformity of nature see in a Christian worldview.

We have Divine revelation that gives us an understanding of the nature of things right now God who created and sustains the universe Reveals to us the order and consistency of his creation. Okay, and this revelation is foundational to our knowledge from the Christian perspective.

But the atheist doesn't have a worldview that's based on revelation. Okay, they rely depending on the particular philosophy. They hold to they often appeal to observation and empirical evidence and so forth.

But here's the catch. In the very process of observing how things behave. They're already assuming what what are they assuming? They are assuming the uniformity of nature. They assume that the laws governing the coffee right the coffee maker the water the coffee grounds and so forth will not change from one moment to the next and this assumption is Necessary to make any meaningful observation whatsoever and we're asking for a a justification for that.

Okay, now this is where the presuppositional challenge I think comes in. We're not merely asking okay if I understand what we're asking. Okay, we're not merely asking the atheist to observe how things behave and then give us an answer, right?

We're asking them to give an account or provide a Justification for why they believe the nature of things is uniform and consistent in the first place, right? How can they be confident that the processes they observe today will be the same tomorrow.

This confidence this trust in the uniformity of nature is something their worldview we would argue cannot account for. Okay, they take it for granted. They use it. They reap the benefits of assuming this principle yet There is no foundation in a non-christian worldview for this principle.

In other words to even begin to make sense of the nature of things. The atheist and we would argue Must borrow from the Christian worldview. They must assume the uniformity of nature an assumption that only makes sense if there is a consistent sovereign creator who upholds the universe.

That's our claim.

Okay.

Now.

Naturalism.

The.

Atheistic naturalism. We took naturalism just specifically the belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes and so forth that that outlook really falls short with respect to answering this question.

It can't argue or rather it can't. It can't justify why nature itself Is orderly and consistent right saying that that it's just the nature of things to be that way, right? This is the way nature behaves.

They'll say that certain things have limits. So there there's not an infinite number of possibilities of which certain things can behave and function and so forth. Okay, but to say that that's just simply the nature of the thing really is to engage in a form of vicious circularity.

Which ironically is the very thing that they often accuse the Christian of doing right? It assumes the very thing that's trying to be proven. Now in contrast the Christian worldview provides a coherent basis for the uniformity of nature, right?

God's unchanging character is the foundation for the consistent behavior of the natural world and our confidence in Making a cup of coffee every morning rests on that deeper truth of God's faithful governance of his creation.

Now you don't have to believe that. But that makes sense of uniformity. We have a reason for uniformity and therefore we have a reason for science. Okay and so. Again saying well, well, I don't agree with the Christian picture is not to argue against the Christian picture.

Offer us a justification for these things. Okay, hand waving it and saying that you know. Presuppositionalists are just reading off a script and all these sorts of things. You know. It's just a silly way that doesn't.

That's not an argument against a position. Okay, and so the next time you hear someone say things just work because that's just their nature, right? Remember that that explanation doesn't really go deep enough, right?

It doesn't account for the underlying order and consistency that we rely on every day. Oh, we would argue only the Christian worldview with its foundation in God's revelation. Right can provide an explanation for the uniformity of nature that we observe.

Okay now. Again some might think that this whole issue of the uniformity of nature and so forth. It's just something Christians bring up to you know, complicate things, right? You know, you know, you know these all the presuppositionalists always bring this up, right?

But actually, you know, this problem has been recognized by really some of the greatest minds in the history of Western philosophy. Okay, two philosophers that come to mind. David Hume Brings up what we what he called the problem of induction.

Okay, and and even Bertrand Russell the the Atheist Philosopher brings these up as well. Okay. Now I'm seeing In the comments people saying that they like black coffee. Ah, I Can't do black coffee. See I Let me read some of these here, so of course coffee proves existence of God, there we go.

I like this and we put this up there. Of course coffee proves God's existence. It's goodness and mercy in a cup. I like that one. Here's a really good one. Scott says Presuppositionalism. Precept I like what you did there.

Hmm.

Okay.

Let's see here. Yes. There we go. Yes, but I have to. I have to have a lots of cream and shot. I'm the same. I'm the same way. Yes, Scott. That's right. It does have caffeine. I don't know how much caffeine it has.

I mean, it doesn't really do it for me. It does, you know.

Let's see here.

When I wake up every morning, I thank God for coffee. Yeah, praise the Lord praise the Lord. Let me see here.

Coffee is.

Coffee that's right. My question is do read the Bible or get coffee. Mmm. There's a good question. Do you read the Bible or get coffee first? I have to be honest in the morning I can't read my Bible with any coherence without first having a cup of coffee.

I'll tell people it's coffee and Jesus is all you need but not in that order because that would be heresy. But but I guess it is heresy because I get coffee first. Yeah. Let's see here some fun comments there Andrew.

Thank you so much for that super chat, man. I appreciate it. The next cup is on me brother. God bless you. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate that. Thank you.

All right. Let's see here.

Okay.

We'll come back to the comment section here. So let's let's return then. So the word I leave off we were talking about David Hume, right? Yeah, so this this issue of the uniformity of nature and all these all these sorts of things.

It's not something that the Christian just brings up, right? So David Hume for example in his work an inquiry concerning human understanding Brought attention to the problem of induction and the uniformity of nature and questioned how we can justify Our belief that the future will be like the past and so he says and there's a direct quote.

He says all reasoning concerning matter-of-fact Seem to be founded on the relation of cause and effect by means of that relation alone. We can go beyond the evidence of our memory and senses if we would satisfy ourselves.

Therefore concerning the nature of that evidence. We must inquire how we arrive at the knowledge of cause and effect. Okay, as he argues here that we do not observe cause and effect, right? He's in a puma.

Hume's an empiricist, right? We don't observe Cause and effect, right? He says here continues on when we look about us towards external objects and Consider the operation of causes we are never able in a single instance to discover any power or necessary connection and Equality which binds the effect to the cause and renders the one an infallible consequence of the other.

We only find that the one does actually in fact follow the other. The impulse of the one billiard ball is attended with motion in the second. This is the hole that appears to the outward senses. The mind feels no sentiment or inward impression from this succession of objects.

Consequently there can be no power no idea of power in the case. Okay, no. Hume recognized that we assume the future will be like the past but he argued that this assumption really isn't rationally justified and he also said that the assumption of Causation, okay.

We do not observe cause and effect relationships. And so the assumption is unjustified. We cannot prove that the future will be like the past based on empirical evidence because any such proof would itself what?

Rely on the very principle of uniformity, right? And Bertrand Russell continues on if you don't know who Bertrand Russell's you can search his name is a very well-known Atheist philosopher and in his book the problems of philosophy Russell points out and this is a quote the inductive principle.

However, as we've seen cannot be proved by experience and is thus a form of general belief in the uniformity of nature. Which we have no reason to accept unless we have reason to accept the principle of induction.

And here's what he continues to say again. This is Bertrand Russell. It has been argued that we have reason to know that the future will resemble the past. Because what was the future has constantly become the past and has always been found to resemble the past.

So that we really have experience of the future. Namely of times which were formerly future which we may call past futures. But such an argument really begs the very question at issue. We have experience of past futures.

But not of future futures and the question is will future futures Resemble past futures. This question is not to be answered by an argument which starts from past futures alone. We have therefore still to seek for some principle which shall enable us to know that the future will follow.

The same laws as the past now both Hume and Russell highlight a significant issue here. Okay, the assumption that nature is uniform cannot be justified purely through empirical means. Okay, this acknowledgment comes not from the Christian who tries to bolster the case bolster their own case, but from David Hume Bertrand Russell and others.

Okay. Now again people can choose not to think about these philosophical issues as they will we all assume this this is ridiculous. I mean you can say that okay, but hand waving something away doesn't you know provide a justification?

Okay, and so it's I think it's interesting the fact that such eminent philosophers like Hume and Russell have recognized this problem. Really should make us pause and reflect it shows that the issue of uniformity.

Okay is not some arbitrary concern raised by Christians, but it's a very profound Philosophical problem that cuts to the heart of how we understand how the world works, right? When the atheists rely on the uniformity of nature to make sense of daily experience and so forth, right?

They're utilizing a principle that their worldview cannot account for. Okay now the Christian worldview again. We can move right back to very simple truth. Grounded in the character of a faithful and unchanging God Provides a solid foundation for this very principle right without such a foundation the atheist confidence in the uniformity of nature remains Unsupported as Hume and Russell have pointed out themselves, right?

This is not just Eli saying this. Okay, and so the uniformity of nature is an important philosophical issue that I think needs to be addressed and it has been recognized by both Christians and secular philosophers to be an issue that needs to be addressed and the Christian worldview provides a justification for the things that the atheist takes for granted and all of this is boiled behind it boils down to the issues of even Making a cup of coffee because whether you're making a cup of coffee or squeezing toothpaste out of a toothpaste tube.

The principle of the uniformity of nature is being assumed there. Okay, and so the Christian world you can account for that Non-christian world you can. Now again, there are other responses that someone might want to engage in some might argue that Pardon, we rely on the uniformity of nature and the principle of induction simply because they work.

Right. Ah the infamous pragmatist, right? Okay. Now this pragmatic approach suggests that as long as these principles are useful and effective There's no need to seek a deeper rational justification for for these principles.

Okay. Now if I can just give my opinion, I think that the pragmatist and pragmatism as a philosophical position is Lazy. Okay. Now that's another issue. Maybe a topic for another video. I think it's it's just works.

We don't have to get deeper into it. I think it's lazy, right? And so but but again while pragmatism can seem kind of practical on the surface, right? I think it encounters some issues that need to be dealt with.

Okay for one to say that we rely on the uniformity of nature because it works. Engage engages in circularity as well the form of vicious circularity that we're often accused of. Okay. Here's how the uniformity of nature.

Okay, someone might say the uniformity of nature is reliable because it has worked in the past. Okay, we assume the future will be like the past therefore the uniformity of nature will continue to work in the future.

Okay. You see the problem with that as argument assumes what the uniformity of nature to prove the uniformity of nature, right? It's like saying that I believe the Sun will rise tomorrow because it always has without providing a reason why this pattern should continue.

Okay, and we need to point out when people take those very things for granted. Okay, pragmatism doesn't provide a foundation for why the uniformity of nature should be trusted right? Beyond mere observation right that they don't offer that.

Okay. It's one thing to observe that natural laws appear consistent. Okay, but it's another to justify why this consistency should continue. Is that right without a rational basis our confidence in the uniformity of nature is on shaky grounds.

It's like building a house on sand. It's gonna stand for a little bit. But eventually we're gonna recognize it doesn't have a solid foundation. Right. I think another important thing to point in mind to with respect to the to the pragmatist pragmatism.

Okay. Or or even just appealing to pragmatic success Doesn't equate to truth. Isn't that right? Just because a belief is useful Doesn't mean it's true, right? For example believing in a superstition of some sort you can Fill in the blank whatever superstition someone might believe in might make someone feel better might make them feel more confident.

But that doesn't mean the superstition is true. Right relying on the uniformity of nature because it works Doesn't explain why it works or why we should trust that it will work in the future. Okay, and and notice that in any other area, right?

We seek rational justification for our beliefs, right? So in science, for example, we don't just accept phenomena at face value, right? We investigate their causes and their various underlying principles and so forth and and the same should apply to the uniformity of nature right if we don't seek a Rational justification we're essentially saying that one of the most fundamental principles of our understanding of the world doesn't need a justification, right?

It's just that way right and of course, that's the height of arbitrariness, right? But again from within the Christian worldview, we offer a coherent rational justification for the uniformity of nature as we said before according to the Bible God is the creator and sustainer of the universe and Unchanging nature ensures the consistency of natural laws and again this provides a solid foundation for our trust in a uniformity of nature.

The very principle required to brew our cup of coffee and to Expect that the processes and things that we go through to make our coffee will produce the same results under the same conditions. Okay, and so Pointing these things out.

I think is very useful because notice that while on the one hand We're talking about coffee at the surface level at the on the other hand We're at we're really talking about the preconditions of intelligibility.

What must be the case in order for us to even make sense out of the process of making coffee? Out of the process of scientific inquiry and investigation and experimentation. We're really touching not so much on the on the issue of a cup of coffee.

But we're touching on really the fundamental nature of reality itself. Okay, and so what we want to do is we want to take mundane things and show that underlying those mundane things. Are those things that we take for granted?

Require a worldview right in which God in his providence and sovereignty provides a context for Uniformity predictability and so forth if the unbeliever doesn't want that. Then they are going to have to provide a justification for that within their God denying worldview.

Okay, and Hand waving and saying it's not important or saying there there he goes again with his script really doesn't answer the question.

Okay.

So so there you go. So coffee there therefore God. There you go. All right. Okay, so we are at the 35 minute mark. Let me see if I can go through some of these comments here. If there's a question. I'll try to take a few questions and If there's not we'll we'll wrap things up here.