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 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 courses 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 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 of 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 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 perspective there is no overarching purpose no overarching order

It's all just really a cosmic accident. Okay, and if you think about it and in such a worldview There really is no there's no reason to expect that the laws of nature are going to remain consistent

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

Right, 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. They're descriptions but if they're 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 worldview now according to the Bible Okay, God created the universe and upholds it by his power

Hebrews 1 3 comes to mind, right? It 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 worldview 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 of 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 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 on 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 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 world view 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 pre suppositional lists 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 is just something

Christians bring up to you know, Complicate things right, you know, you know, you know these all the pre suppositionalists 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 to 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 Pre -suppositionalism pre sip. 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.

Did it did it today coffees? 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 Did it did it today?

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 Alright, let's see here Okay We'll come back to the comments 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 acknowledgement 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 well, 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 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?

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

Isn't 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 and 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 His 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.

Let's see here Did you did it today? Is this a real question?

No breakfast coffee. No lunch drink. Oh you feel Okay Tim more the question isn't whether or not there is order the question is on what foundation do you expect order?

Yeah, that's correct Very good Let's see here. Jonathan Myron says any progress on the second channel

Yeah, I got a couple of videos up there now I still have to add more but I haven't forgotten about it I will be making shorter videos on the second channel if some of you are wondering what what do you mean second channel?

I have another another YouTube channel called revealed apologetics plus Where I basically just take a

Bible question a theology question or apologetics question and make like a quick five minute six minute video

I'm shooting for under ten minutes to provide answers Let's get kind of a short form version of what

I do here But something I could point the average person to if they have a particular question about some issue

So so yeah, thank you for asking about that. Let's see here The argument from coffee, that's right

Let's see here temps Goes back to what I said. No one is a true atheist

They know they just suppress the precedent make stuff up No one talks more about a subject that they say they don't believe in than an atheist

No, well, and that is an interesting phenomena, isn't it? You know Let's see here.

Yes. Eli has a second channel. Yeah, it's brand new got only a couple subscribers there But if you want to it's called revealed apologetics plus Okay, and if you have a question, you want me to just tackle in one video a short video

You could email me at revealed apologetics at gmail .com and I will answer your question in the form of those short form videos

They're okay Let's see here That did it to do and plain.

Oh, no vanilla or cinnamon flavor. Mmm. I like cinnamon. Cinnamon is a cinnamon is good

Okay, oh Okay. All right. Hazelnut creamer in Cool, is it

Colombian coffee or you're trying to say Columbia? I like Colombian coffee. I grew up on Bustelo Bustelo coffee.

It's good stuff Taylor where says Eli I've been watching your channel for a little over two years now.

I'm grateful for you and your ministry Well, thank you so much Taylor. That is very encouraging. I appreciate that.

Thank you so much. Glad you're finding the content useful there Let's see here

Well Jonathan says I don't see how people dilute their coffee with creamer and other things. Plain black is the best.

Well, I mean, yeah, I mean I Don't see how people drink decaf.

That's why I can't believe that I the existence of decaf coffee It could be a good argument for the atheist arsenal in some form of like the problem of evil or something like that.

Yeah Yeah, I guess We dilute our coffee with all sorts of things

In a perfect world we can just we can just enjoy coffee for what it is But in a sinful world, we need all of these helps and sweet flavorings and so forth.

So sorry Let's see here Okay, so follower of Jesus that unironically likes sardines asks

Why must there be a justification especially since an atheistic worldview would not claim universal knowledge?

Well, well part of the point of illustrating the fact that the atheist worldview cannot provide a justification for anything much less the uniformity of nature

Okay, the point is showing that on an atheist worldview knowledge and the preconditions of intelligibility are undermined making the position irrational if you do not provide a justification for a belief then that belief is

Arbitrary and the people are allowed to be arbitrary then that destroys the foundation for all human

Investigation whether it's science philosophical reflection and history and so forth. So yeah if It's not even just universal knowledge any knowledge whatsoever

Notice that we say that the Christian worldview provides the only worldview that provides the necessary preconditions for what not just knowledge but intelligible experience

Right. So so yeah, I would make I would make those distinctions there. Thank you for the question

Mmm, let's see here I've loved black coffee for over seven. I can't do black coffee.

I've tried I've tried I can't do it. Oh man Let's see here.

So Aaron Yost says why is appealing to axioms and inadequate explanation aren't axioms the same as self -attesting truths?

No, they're not. They're not the same It depends of course the context in which you're using an axiom an axiom is a first principle.

It's a starting point And Some people might argue that it's self evidence

But again, because I believe there is no neutrality and there is no such thing as brute facts Every fact that we assert is going to be interpreted in light of a worldview.

So from my perspective, I reject brute factuality I think axioms are not self evident, but they are first principles and being a first principle

Okay axioms do not a person who holds to an axiom does not seek to demonstrate the truth of the axiom

Because you cannot demonstrate your first principle by appealing to some other principle that justifies your first principle

Because if you appeal to a principle other than your first principle principle over here to Justify your first principle that's no longer your first principle the thing you've appealed to to justify this principle becomes your first principle

So an axiom does not is that you don't demonstrate your axiom because they are your first principle

So if someone says well, I start with this axiom. Well, the axiom doesn't have a justification just start for that But how do you know?

You've chosen the correct axiom you see because the axioms you choose you're gonna build the rest of your worldview upon that But if you have a axiom that it does not actually correspond to reality

It's not true. Then that undermines everything else upon which you built up on top of your axiom

Okay, now this is very different than a transcendental presupposition and the presupposition list has his first principles, too

And we believe that you do not justify your first principle by appealing to another principle

That's more fundamental But unlike those who hold to simply an axiom which is often typically defined as something that by definition

Cannot be demonstrated because of its first principle nature Okay, the presupposition list argues that you can justify your ultimate presupposition and the way that you do that is

Transcendentally, okay. So Transcendentally transcendental arguments actually are meant to prove your presupposition

So when someone says by definition, you can't prove a presupposition. They don't know what they're talking about. That's that's to deny

Transcendental arguments transcendental arguments seek to demonstrate Your presuppositions and it does so indirectly by proving that when the presupposition is denied

Right, the presupposition is has to be assumed It's kind of like denying logic to deny logic you have to presuppose logic you have to use logic to even assert a sentence which

Maybe if you say I reject logic that sentence presupposes the laws of logic Because language presupposes logical law of identity and all the different laws.

Okay, so We do not appeal to Indemonstrable Starting points.

We believe that our starting point Can be demonstrated unlike those who hold to axioms if they're understanding in the kind of traditional philosophical sense, okay

I hope that makes sense. Good question. Let's see here.

All right, let's see here Right.

So, okay So Aaron Yost says the pre sub argument is that God is the necessary precondition for intelligibility?

Why can't I just say the laws of logic are the preconditions for intelligibility, how is that different?

Oh, well, what are the laws of logic? Aaron I would ask you a question are the laws of logic Conceptual or are they material?

If you say they're material then they lose their universal application if you say they are conceptual

Then that falls into the trap because concepts I would then ask can a concept exist independent of a mind

Right if you reject a universal mind that houses Universal conceptual principles like logic if you deny that and you say well they exist in the minds of humans

Then the question is how how do the how are the laws of logic? Universal if they exist in the individual finite minds of human beings

Right. So again, you're gonna run into the issue of their universal application

So we're asking a deeper question logic is a transcendental category you have what we what

I call localized transcendental so for example, this would be a transcendent like in other words, I Exist is a precondition for the intelligibility of my saying that I exist

So like my existence is a localized transcendental. How do I know I exist? Well by the impossibility of the contrary if I didn't exist,

I couldn't utter this statement So you have many transcendental categories, but then we ask the question it's a more fundamental question

What grounds all of the individual localized transcendental categories because they are realities, right?

We have to us we have to assume our existence laws of logic Identity through time all these sorts of things what brings all those transcendental localized categories together?

You're going to need one ultimate foundation to tie them together and in a coherent relationship and that I would argue would have to be

God, there's no finite category that can ground all of the transcendentals Okay, if you want to know why in the details of that I've done videos and discussing this topic before Okay, but I hope that makes a little sense.

Okay Thank you Let's see here. Did it did it did it?

in fact Eli's and his deep stuff. Everyone's like well, I like the black bro.

I like when they're hazelnut. It's alright. I'm a teacher I'll say something profound and you know, there's a kid picking his nose in the back of the room lying

All right, you gotta you know You just gotta you just got to pray that it sticks with someone, right? That's awesome

Let's see here trying to look for questions if there are no questions then there you go.

All right Where did you get your coffee when I actually ordered it on Amazon?

ordered an Amazon So, there we go. All right Thank you.

Thank you the early discussion and that looks like I think

I don't see any other ones Okay. All right. Well, I'm gonna cut it short here because I have to wake up early tomorrow

All right. Okay. Well, I hope you've enjoyed this. I've enjoyed this.

I mean enjoy the comments too. They're really funny and I wish I can go and grab a cup of coffee, but I cannot so I have to wake up early.

So anyway I hope this was enjoyable guys. I appreciate you giving me your time and listening in and I've got a couple of other videos coming up in terms of topics

I want to cover but I have to see since I'll be starting work and things will be a little bit busy for me

So if there's a little lag, there's a little lag in my output Then I do apologize, but I'll try my best if I can get on I I will try my best to do so.