(Debate/Friendly Discussion): Eli Ayala (Christian) Vs. Eric Murphy (Atheist)

Right now Eli, how are you doing? I'm doing good. Good. Good. I'm really glad you can make it man

So before we kind of dive into things, who are you? I want to learn about you Okay, my name is

Elia say oh that's my full name my friends call me Eli I am 37 years old

I'm married. I have three kids and I am a middle school and high school teacher at a

Christian private school Okay, and I'm a youth director at my church and I do some writing and apologetics, you know on the side my my interests are philosophy epistemology more specifically and I love to have good conversations about you know, the stuff that we're gonna be talking about today and I've got a

YouTube channel revealed apologetics and the podcast on iTunes Reveals apologetics folks can go there if they're interested in anything.

I have to say And that's about it. All right. Well speaking of your

YouTube channel I popped the link down in the comments for anybody who wants to check out Eli's channel so You you threw out a couple things there.

You said you're really into apologetics and philosophy. How long have you been doing this for? Oh man, um

How long have I been doing this but probably since intentionally doing apologetics probably since I want to say 2002 ish around there

But I grew up I grew up in a Christian home and I and I always enjoyed like theology and kind of going back and forth with with some

Ideas and things like that. So I guess I can trace it back to like when I was in high school But I didn't really take it seriously

Until I was probably in my early years of college Okay, yeah, well rock on man, so I'm taking a look in the comments and I'm seeing if we can

Let's see. We have people saying that they're having audio issues Looks like it's doing.

All right. Okay. I didn't want to have a muted stream I Can okay fine you sound better than before Nice, I like that.

All right. I increased both of our volumes just in case that was the case okay, but I Want to kind of let people know how

I found you There's a gentleman named Braxton that I reached out to who suggested to you and said that you would be a good guy to talk to What what what really got me was he said that you were pre suppositional apologist and I'm assuming you haven't seen my show

I took a listen very briefly. Okay, just we just you know for people background information

We just spoke for the first time. I think like a day or two, right? Right something like that. Yeah, okay

So there is a caller who's called in a handful of times who has pushed presuppositional apologetics and by pushing presuppositional apologetics,

I mean talking over until you stop talking and It was rough man, it was really rough this guy wasn't representing very well and so I don't feel like I've gotten a very clear idea of what tag is and You know, one of the things that I try to exemplify in the other show that I do is

Charitable listening You should give the other person the benefit of the doubt and let them live up to those expectations

Let them be the best versions of themselves And so I kind of wanted to ask you about tag if you're up for it

Sure. Yeah. Okay. So what is tag? Tag is is short for transcendental argument.

So that's a mouthful for people who aren't familiar with like that kind of argumentation and It's not unique to Christians I mean you could find transcendental arguments in people like Immanuel Kant and even

Aristotle when he argued for the laws of logic and Transcendental arguments basically ask the question.

What are the preconditions for intelligible experience? What are the preconditions for knowledge?

What must be true in order for? Intelligibility to be the case knowledge acquisition to be the case and knowledge itself

So it's actually it's actually arguing in terms of ultimate foundations so what

I enjoy about it is Yeah, good question, what is an ultimate foundation and why do we need it?

Well, if you don't have an ultimate foundation, for example for your your reasoning then then we're gonna be Being arbitrary and a lot of the things that we say, you know

For example, if I say if I assert, you know something I believe to be true and you asked me to justify

Why do I think that's true? And I don't have a stopping point I run into an infinite regress of justifications never justifying the initial assertion that I make and so Foundations kind of are those

Stopping points that ground to everything else that we that we believe now, okay Everyone has a stopping point

Regard and I would argue if someone says well, I don't have a stop, you know an ultimate foundation

I would argue that everyone does Whether they recognize it or not so I I've done this game for myself and I've turned down to the laws of logic.

Okay, we get to the problem of induction Before I dive into it. I kind of explain a little bit that way people can follow along with us.

Sure So the laws of logic there are three of them. There's identity non -contradiction in the excluded middle

So a thing is what it is isn't what it isn't and can't be what it is and what it isn't at the same time those three things

You're stuck with them and the interesting thing is is we build logic upon it

And so in order to justify it you would need to use it to justify itself Which is circular and that circularity means that you can't rely on it.

And well, you can't You can't perfectly justify it You can rely on it, but you can't justify it without while being circular

Yeah, I Here's it. Here's the thing. I think you can justify it You just don't justify it in the same way you justify other things.

So for example if I were to Have a presupposition that I accept on its own basis you have people for example

I don't want to mix kind of the terminology, but you have people who have what you call axioms Okay, there are these stopping points in our in our reasoning and axioms are typically understood as something that cannot be justified by anything else because If you try to justify an axiom then you have to appeal to something external to that axiom to justify the axiom in which case

The axiom that you previously inserted is not your axiom. The other thing that you've appealed to becomes your axiom

So axioms are kind of these These intellectual Foundations that we just accept on their own authority now a lot of people think well because that's the nature of an axiom

There's really no way to demonstrate That your axiom is true People adopt axioms and try to build the rest of their worldview from those axioms now

I would say that I don't want to use the word axiom. I guess the way I understand it from within like an apologetics

Mentality I Take my foundation as what I like to call an ultimate presupposition and the way

I differentiate between an ultimate presupposition and an axiom within my apologetic tradition is

That unlike an axiom that can't be justified I believe that an ultimate presupposition can be justified just not by appealing to something external to itself

Rather by appealing to its own transcendental necessity Sort of like the laws of logic,

I don't agree Well, you don't have to agree you know, no,

I Not only disagree though. I think that it's unnecessary and needs to be justified in order to be claimed

No, if you're saying you don't agree, then what you're denying is the very possibility of Transcendental arguments because that's how transcendental arguments proceed you don't you justify them by appealing to their own transcendental necessity

If you say well, I don't agree with that. Then you're just denying all forms of transcendental argumentation okay, so let me

That's interesting. I want to I want to dive into that a little bit. So you're saying that for me to Say that it's unjustified to claim a presupposition

I'm throwing out all transcendental arguments I'm saying if you say That a presupposition cannot be justified by appealing to its own necessity

If you're saying that can't be done what you're doing is you're in essence denying Transcendental arguments because that is what a transcendental argument does you justify the claim?

By appealing to its necessity since you can't appeal to something external to it. Otherwise, it wouldn't be your your ultimate foundation

So it is circular in a sense But I would argue that not all circle not all circles are are fallacious for example

Transcendental ones aren't namely that for example if I were to demonstrate the truth of the truths of logic

They would be demonstrated by their necessity deny them and you must affirm them. They're true by the impossibility of the contrary so, um

I I understand a few parts of this, um Let's let's maybe put this into an example that way we can work with it.

Sure. Um I think that you can use that kind of reasoning when you talk about something when you talk about something that is definitionally true

Right. So if we were to use a deductive argument and that deductive argument

Specifically went through with definitions. So if I said that All bachelors are not married

Okay, right. Um that is by definition true And in and of itself is justified by its own definition

Um, I Yeah, but if we're dealing with something more foundational than bachelors and words, we're really dealing with logic itself

So I I think Go ahead. I'm, sorry. We're gonna say something. No, I I well I I didn't want to dive in Please because my question is going to be please continue.

What what do you what do you mean? so you're saying I that The example is too trivial.

I I'm just trying to get the structure down It's not foundational enough and we use examples we're talking about ultimate foundations

We're talking about like really the bare the bare bottom so to speak when we're talking about transcendentals. We're talking about The truth of something by its own necessity.

In other words to deny it. You must affirm it you have you have to affirm it so so Um, we can't say well logic is a starting point and since I can't appeal to something external to itself

And it's impossible to prove that logic is you know is something that's valid Well, you can prove it by the impossibility of the country deny it and you have to affirm it affirm it and you affirm it

And that is to show its own necessity so Unless i'm, sorry.

Let me just finish. Yeah, unless we want to say that logic is not universally binding, right?

So then it wouldn't be like a like a logical truth wouldn't be necessarily true If someone wanted to go that route, which i'm sure you know, there are people who who believe that logic

You know the laws of logic aren't universally binding Well, um, so i've definitely argued with people who have said that and they've been very convincing but I do want to take the um

Wait a second time out time out. What's up? Are you saying it's convincing that the laws of logic are not universally binding?

Uh, no, i've been convinced that you you need the laws of logic without even a universe um, the laws of logic just are

And universally binding I mean just period yeah, they just are now that said, um,

Sorry, um, it's okay. So if we agree that the laws of logic just are um

Why are we making an assertion If we are at an impasse, it seems like what we've got is we have a thing that's working

This is a tool that we use Okay. Um Wouldn't it be? Intellectually honest to say

I will use this tool so long as it works and if it stops working i'll stop using it but to make a general statement

When you can't justify it and and use always and never statements, you know what I mean in just blanket statements like that How how are you justified in doing so?

Well, you can justify logic by its appeal appealing to its transcendental necessity So if you were to say

I believe in logic then I I guess my question would be well on that position where logic just is

Um, what is that metaphysically? Does your world view can your world view ground something?

like logic and how Well, that's that's good. So so yeah because I can use it

I'm, sorry because I can use it. Well that that doesn't justify it if it's if it's necessary if it's necessarily true

Whether you can justify it or not, you still have to use it So there are people who use logic but don't have a broader worldview context in which that makes sense.

For example Um, I would argue I don't know your own position your own metaphysic But if you are a metaphysical naturalist that all that exists is matter in motion

Um, I don't think that broader metaphysical context can couch something like immaterial

Uh laws of logic so you can use it and in many cases you can use it very well But I don't think that when we talk about the nature of logic

That that fits in a worldview in which all that exists is matter in motion. I I So do you think that?

Now now this is a bit of an aside and on my show. I would say we can't go down this path Okay, but this is this is my channel.

This is new. Yeah, you can do whatever you want. We are going down this path So First off all that it is is matter in motion

Um blows my mind, uh, because I I feel like it trivializes the universe

Um, okay, but that said who cares what I feel about it. Uh, that's that's what you think about it.

Um, Do you think that concepts and ideas and tools that we use mentally

Don't exist in the natural world Say that again. So Let me give you an example numbers

Right, um, I I can tell you about the number one But if you put a gun to my head and said eric, take me to the number one

I would be in trouble Um And similarly, um,

I don't know if you've ever read the lord of the rings Um, i'm a big fan. You are okay. Cool. I'm a dude.

I'm a nerd bro. I like I like video games We're gonna get along We might not get along on on on tag, but we'll get along on other things.

Um so Let's let's let's talk about the shire if you were to walk up to me and say eric

Please take me to the shire I could say I can't because it doesn't exist but I can draw you a map

Now, why is that? Because i'm not sure where you're going so sure that's that's a rhetorical question i'm not i'm

If it's a rhetorical question then i'll let you continue this question to me i'm not sure where you're going with this sure um, so we're talking about Tools that we use things that we're creating we're talking about mental

Tools right we're we're talking about numbers we're talking about Ideas that only exist in our imaginations right um, like the shire is not an actual place, but it is

Written in fiction Right, so we can we can agree that in this fiction We can make determinations we could talk about the shire in a way that both of us can agree on or you can say eric

No, that is absolutely not true, you know, and we can we can go about Talking about it, even though it doesn't exist um

Are you saying that in the naturalistic worldview? That's not possible. I i'm trying to I would much rather it would be easier for me to answer your question

If you asked it the way you were originally going to ask it before you started talking about the shire Because once you started asking the question,

I kind of figured. Oh, okay I think I know what you're saying, but then you went it's the analogy and I kind of kind of lost you

That's okay Let's rewind it then. Uh, let's talk about numbers. I think you were saying

Are you saying eli that in a world where there's matter in motion that we can't have concepts and ideas?

I think that's what you asked Yeah, well if you are reducing concept that I uh and ideas to matter in motion

Then I think that there that would be problematic on on a number of levels Um, I do not equate concepts and ideas with activity in the brain because I Because i'm not uh, well,

I well i'm not a materialist in that sense I believe that man has an immaterial aspect to his soul.

I think concepts are Are um are immaterial And so if something's immaterial, you can't have something that's immaterial in a worldview where everything is matter

But you you you agree that matter exists Well, of course, okay, so we can we can start there, right?

So If I were to lobotomize you, you know, could you still?

Use those concepts If you mean if you cut me open and then like i'm dead no, no if I were to Damage your brain such that you're still alive, but unable to think

Well, you would damage the instrument through which my soul would function. See again. I'm operating with a whole entire system

So for example when we talk about um worldview apologetics if I can just back up The difference between the christian and the non -christian is a difference of system versus system

So anything I might say about the nature of man is going to be connected to my broader metaphysic in which

I believe That there is an immaterial aspect and a material aspect. So I believe that man, uh, you know in the beginning

God created the heavens and the earth and you talk about the creation of man and he breathed into man the breath of life I believe man is a body soul composite

And so the body is the vehicle through which the soul functions if you damage the body

Then yeah, you're gonna damage the instrument through which my my consciousness or my soul whatever that looks like whatever that is

Uh functions, you know, i've heard i'm sure you've heard the example of the pianist. I have to make sure

I said that very very The pianist right? I don't think my crowd is gonna have a yeah Well, I mean, you know, this is gonna go on your channel too.

So no worries Is typically in these kinds of examples, uh

You know the consciousness of man the the soul of man is the pianist and the piano is his body

Okay, and so the the pianist can produce beautiful sounds by you know playing the keys um, but There's a distinction between the instrument and the pianist if you damage the instrument that doesn't destroy the pianist

But it does damage the instrument through which he uses to produce the music. Okay, and so you could damage my uh,

You know my brain and I wouldn't be able to operate in any meaningful way within time and space

But I don't think that i'm purely my body. So there's there's definitely a disconnect. There's a connection there.

Um, but I don't I don't have that reductionistic view of the nature of man. Namely.

Well, it's just purely all all matter in motion well, I I don't think it's reductionist I think it's What it is.

Um so To say that it would be similar to me saying Okay, all you believe is that a god tada, um, well,

I don't mean it in a pejorative I I don't I don't either but I but it it's kind of revealing in how you view

Um that materialism, you know, and and and the fact that we are material beings. Um, so Then let's let's do a thought experiment, right?

Um, okay So, you know that brain damage doesn't just prevent or inhibit action

It changes action and there have been documented cases where people have Survived a traumatic brain injury

And then have changed their personality entirely Um sometimes for towards very very violent ends right um, and then

Uh, let's see I believe I read about a case that there was a swelling, uh in the brain that actually caused very very different behaviors.

Um, it caused a A gentleman to be behave as like a pedophile actually, okay in that case.

Um, and then after getting treated Though that entirely changed right um, so was the pianist always a pedophile where they was the soul caused

What happened there Yeah That those those are good questions and I told you the beginning if I don't know the answer to something i'll let you know

I don't know the intricacies of the connection. I mean i'm not i'm not a philosopher of mind and i'm not a

You know a neuroscientist or anything like that um what i'm saying when we go back up to the nature of tag because now we're shifting into immateriality the mind and things like that um, the basic gist of tag is world view system

Which world view system can provide a foundation for even what we're talking about now? Well, we can talk about the specifics but that Ultimately is not where we disagree necessarily

I mean we're going to have disagreements there, but it's because our foundations are in conflict with one another What if I said that I don't think?

What if I said that I think we have the same foundation? We don't because my foundation includes a metaphysic in which what the bible says about the world

Is true. You don't have that foundation. Do we both agree that the laws of logic are?

a starting point They're not my starting point metaphysically my my

In other words, I don't think that logic is something that like hangs out in the middle of nowhere I believe logic only makes sense within a context

So do you then a metaphysical context in which something like logic could make sense? So do you think god could break the laws of logic?

No, because within the christian perspective logic is a reflection of his thinking so it's not something that he like as christians

We don't believe that god invented logic because we don't believe that god invented his thinking It's just it's an aspect of who he is

See god is the metaphysical context in which something like logic actually fits if you just hang logic out

They're kind of like a platonic Uh, if you're familiar with platonism You got the forms in the particulars if you have logic kind of existing out there as a platonic reality

I don't I don't think that that is even a coherent concept. Why not? We both agree that uh logic is what we use um, the only thing that's different is that you're taking an extra step and then saying

Because that's how I describe god it's almost as if you're defining that god into Existence i'm not taking an extra step because remember the disagreement between you and I is not a particular

Hey, we disagree over logic here and this over here and the nature of the mind over here. It's the system

I have an entire system that gives context to the individual pieces so what I believe about logic is related to what

I believe about the broader metaphysical context with which I bring to to the table So you have your own metaphysical context in which you you have, you know, you use logic.

I know we both use it We use it by necessity. Yeah, but but I think the the issue here is which worldview?

Has the metaphysical context in which something like logic makes sense if your worldview is one of matter in motion my question is

How would you define for me what logic is and how does it fit within your broader context? And so we can see if that if that even makes sense

Yeah, but i'm sure you might you might think it does and you might think it it does make sense But I don't know your position.

So that's why I would ask that question Yeah, um, so I think the best way to do that is to couch it in Um a little bit of an explanation, right?

So I was born and raised a born -again christian went to calvary chapel, um

I lived that life and when I left the church One of the things and I i'm only going to talk about morality because i'm using it to point back

I promise i'm not going to take us down a different road here. Okay Is my understanding of morality changed

Because I thought that morality was something that was handed down to me by a god and as I stepped away

I saw people who Did not believe in that god believed in contradictory gods and things like that.

And so it wasn't a case of Of creating immorality as much as it was understanding why we

Behave in a moral way, right? I didn't need to reinvent the wheel because I saw that my neighbors were still being kind to each other and I could still

You know behave in a moral way Why why do we do that? Let's let's define it.

What we're doing is we're creating tools to explain things Right. Um the number one

And you know just numbers in general They aren't useful unless we give them use right, um even uh

With the way we we do math right if I were to change base 10 to base 8 The way you're going to do a problem is going to be different.

In fact, I could Live in a world that doesn't use numbers at all.

Um, but That said I'm talking about relative

Uh relatively relative use, uh, so Uh, I could make you a chair without ever using a ruler

Right, you still have numbers though. No numbers is wrapped up in oh sure you do So if I if I wanted to make you a chair i'd say okay eli is yay high

So i'm gonna uh, you know about here to here is about where I want it to be And so the next piece i'm going to make i'm going to line up with it and that's going to be flush

Um, i'm going to create i'm going to make a chair to you Not to A specific measurement that I took

You're still assuming numbers even though you're not saying numbers So then there's a differentiation between me who you're making this hypothetical chair for and chair

There's there's individuality numbers are wrapped up in in logic itself law of identity and things like that so you can talk and not use numbers in your language, but We assume numbers and language.

Uh, i'm sorry numbers and logic in the very moment We communicate or even think when we when we reflect

So I mean that you can talk about it practically what i'm dealing with is the metaphysical aspect

How do you make sense out of something? That is immaterial something that is conceptual like logic in a world view where there's matter in motion and I and I ask that not as kind of a

No, it's not a gotcha. Give me a demand an answer. I'm really I have no clue No, no worries world where there's purely matter in motion.

You can make sense out of Logical laws unless you include them within the matter in motion, which has problems or you

Hold on. Why does that have problems? It only has a problem if you say that we have to have a grounding which you have not justified

No, no, the reason why there's a problem You can't ground unchangeable laws in the physical cosmos since the physical cosmos anything with physics with the physicality undergoes undergoes change

I mean that it's like how do you know that you never step into the same in the same river twice?

Hold on. You can't ground universal laws in Physicality because they're they're conceptual in nature

You don't you don't see a law of logic growing in a field somewhere. Have you heard of confusing the map for the place?

Yeah, sure. I'm, i'm familiar with that. Okay, how are you not confusing and that's why I started talking about the shire

Right, you're you're describing a thing and then telling me that it exists you're Mixing things and I don't think you have the right to I think that you're saying.

Okay. Here's a description of a thing, right? I can i'm telling you about the shire therefore um next time

I go to the shire i'm going to pick up a you know, Whatever um How are you not

Confusing those things because it feels to me like that's what you're doing. Yeah. No, I don't think i'm confusing them I'm, basically just asking on your world view metaphysically speaking.

What is logic if if all of reality is matter in motion? Logic would have to be part of that And so how do you explain logic in physical terms sure and still have them?

Unchanging invariant and universal got it. It's an idea Is an idea material absolutely

It's it's related to a brain state and something so can a dead person think about the number one

No, can a dead person think about well anything that begs the question doesn't it? No, it doesn't a dead person

It begs the question that man is purely uh at for example at death for example We have different conceptions of death for me when

I continue to exist after I die And so in my in my world view I can still think of the number one without a physical body.

Okay your view On your view it seems that when you die you can't think of the number one because you don't exist

So that begs the question in favor of your kind of outlook on that But you haven't introduced anything to demonstrate why it's justifiable to accept the idea that there's anything outside of the body but again, we're we're

Let's let's go back to Grounding here We're talking about ideas

Um ideas exist in this world We agree with that.

We also agree that the laws of logic Are what we're using we don't have a choice, correct?

Yes, but there's a shift there I think you said the laws of logic No one's going to disagree that we're using the laws of logic

The use of the laws of logic is not the issue. The issue is the metaphysical grounding for it What what is it in my world view and what is it in your world view on your world?

View logic is reduced to physicality which makes which I don't mean this pejoratively. Okay, so if it's not physicality, is it matter?

It's an idea I'm, i'm telling you that it is in your brain. It is an idea without you that tool without brain

Yes, I use the laws of logic. Yes So are so are our brains the same?

I in that way you you can do math the same way I can right? But we can both look at a pizza and call it a pizza.

We're we're talking about Definitions of words I mean, do you think that if we have the same definitions of a word we're the same person?

No, that's silly Well, that's not of course. That's that's not what i'm saying I'm saying that it seemed it seems to me that the laws of logic transcend our physical brains

Why is that the case? Well, I mean if logic is merely reduced to something and I mean nearly

I don't mean it in a pejorative sense I'm kind of using in the philosophical Uh sense that you know that kind of reductionist view of like, you know, you know people reduce

You know man as matter. It's not like a mean thing or anything like that Um, if you reduce the laws of logic to brain states, you know, not every my brain's different than yours

And so on that view, I know we can talk consistently with each other but on that view You could hypothetically have different logic and they both equally be true.

No, i'm sorry. Absolutely not So then they would transcend no you could be wrong and I could be wrong

Uh, see we bring other people into the room and we're going to find out Whose definition is is lining up and if everybody in the room decided to use different words for things and to find things different ways

That's great. But that's missing the point. The point is you could be wrong That doesn't mean that it exists outside of the brain.

It just means you were wrong Right. So now that brings me down to the more fundamental issue is knowledge

Which is what I got back what I was talking about at the beginning Where the transcendental argument asks, um, which world view provides the preconditions for knowledge?

So if we're going to make knowledge claims, we're going to disagree over our certain claims How do we justify any of our claims so we can talk about logic?

but if we haven't gotten to The world view context in which knowledge itself can be justified Then we're going to have a disagreement because I don't

I don't grant certain things you're saying and you're not going to grant Certain things that I would say in response actually have a fundamental disagreement on that issue.

I'm, sorry I don't know if that's the case So so the thing is is i'll grant everything up to the laws of logic and Past that it's incumbent upon you to justify it

Well, then I but here's i'm saying I don't grant you the laws of logic In the sense that in the sense that not that you can't use them

Obviously then I wouldn't be having come right we wouldn't be talking if I didn't grant you that we could use them I don't grant them to you as this thing that can float

Independence, uh independent of a metaphysical context. Okay, you're adding to it You're adding to it that that is by necessity additive you're taking the laws of logic because you're not yeah

You're not understanding and you're adding to it. Uh, right. I'm sorry. We're talking about identity non -contradiction excluded middle

No, i'm talking about more No, when we both come to Debate so to speak and I would say this is a respectful discussion

Yeah, what we're doing is we're bringing to opposing systems I'm, not adding to anything because we're not in the same system.

We have different worldview perspectives I understand logic different than you in its metaphysical sense.

I have a different epistemology than you Um, I have um a different view of history than you

Uh, if we really boil down to it we'll have different views as to what a cow is if we want to get into the metaphysical foundation of just individual things and We come to this entire discussion with systems

So I don't grant you your system and you don't grant me my system Yeah, and I I i'm going to grant the laws of logic to you because you're using it

We both agree and understand what it is a specific thing within my system You're not granting my system because if you grant my system, okay, how come you won't do that same kindness for me?

It it feels like you're only doing it because you can't have your way uh Well that well good thing.

That's just how it feels. It's not actually how it is. Right? I agree You're right. I said that's how it feels

Please the reason why i'm doing it is not because uh, you know, because I can't have my way I actually think it's um,

And it's an illogical concept To take a worldview system and grant pieces of it since the truth of the pieces depend on the broader context

So it's not that that i'm not granting it to you. Um Because you know,

I just don't I just don't want it any other way I actually think it's a logically inconsistent thing when you're doing worldview analysis what you have to do

Is what we call internal worldview critique What I would do is not grant you the neutral ground of logic.

Hey, we both agree on logic. Let's start there No logic for me is necessarily connected and couched within the context of my broader worldview

What I want to do is hypothetically grant your worldview on your own terms Do these things like logic and induction and all do they make sense within your own system?

And i'd have to critique you on that basis because I can't throw rocks from my worldview system over to yours

Because you're not operating on the same system in like fashion if you're going to grant my system it you can't just grant aspects of the system like logical laws because um,

It's true. It's connected to the entire package. I don't do uh, if you if you're familiar with presuppositional methodology

Um, we don't argue in like a piece by piece fashion. We argue worldview system

We don't pull things apart. I had a discussion with a the atheist youtuber tom jump Um where i'm not sure if you're familiar with him.

Um, I sound familiar Yeah, well, he he said something. Well, I can grant you the resurrection that doesn't grant you christianity

I'm, like well No, you can't grant me the resurrection because the resurrection doesn't have any meaning outside the broader context of the entire system

So some people have this impression that when they're critiquing a worldview or asking certain questions, you know

You know towards another worldview that they can just pick and choose well i'll grant you this but i'm not going to grant you this You're making an extra step here.

There's no steps. I have an entire complete system. You have an entire complete system Nope, we need to interact in terms of internally critiquing those systems

So that's a false dichotomy. Um, you can talk about your worldview and your system But sure you don't get to say that I behave in the same way

Because I don't i'm not using an all or all or nothing method. You're saying all or nothing for you i'm saying

Evaluate and follow the evidence where it leads And that and that that right there is an exemplification of our differing epistemologies

Okay, so and we we have a different I think that that actually is not it's not only That I don't hold to that epistemological perspective

I actually don't even think it's it's possible because it almost seems to presuppose that you can talk about individual things without a broader context

Well, I can drive my car And understand how to drive my car

Sure and not know what's actually going on under the hood I just know I need to take it to the mechanic and put gas in it um

I can use this thing and not right Know how it's working just like we're both using the laws of logic and not justifying it

That's right. So if you're going to drive the car and not know what's under the hood, that's fine

You can do that when you're driving the car But if you're going to have a discussion about worldviews You can't do that because you could just say well my car works because it just works.

Well That's not how we evaluate the truth or falsity of a worldview perspective or to see if a worldview is rational or whatever

That's that's just being arbitrary. We're having you know, we're having a back and forth, you know, respectful discussion You're gonna have to do a little bit more than just say well

I use the laws of logic Well granted, I know you use the laws of logic. Okay That's just contrary to what you said

You said I can't use it And so I just gave you an example of me being able to use a thing that I couldn't I didn't say you can't

Use the laws of logic. I said that you do we both are using the laws of logic. Okay, sorry That's okay.

That's okay. What i'm saying is what you can't do Well, I suppose you can do this, but if we're going to have a discussion It's not fruitful to do this that you just talk about Look, I use it, but then there's no justification for it so if you're going to argue a position you're going to need to Give a little more than just say well

I use I know the logic exists because I use it Well, yeah, we all we're all using it the question of the transcendental argument is which world you can make sense out of it so Let me let me think on this for just a moment

So you're saying That and and i'm going to point back to the car here, right?

Sure. Um, it's not enough to say that I can drive my car

And not know it's under the hood I should be able to tell you why the car works to justify

Using it No, if you're going say for example, say we weren't having a discussion.

We're having a formal debate And i'm not saying you can't use it, but justify using it Well, well, well, here's you can use it because you're using it, right?

No one's going to prohibit you from using the laws of logic or driving a car, right? Sounds like you just granted me the laws of logic

I'm, sorry. Sounds like you just granted me the laws of logic. I'm glad yes But not in the way that you understand logic when

I grant you the laws of logic from my system It's because you're made in the image of god. We haven't discussed that part yet, but it's part of a broader system

No, I mean we can get there. That's extra and that is extra because we can both agree on identity non -contradiction excluded middle

Yes, are those that can can we agree on the definitions of the laws of logic if I define the laws of logic?

Will you agree that that is the definition of laws of logic? I would say that those are the laws of logic but within your worldview perspective.

No, wait, stop stop I didn't ask you about that I asked you if you will I if you will agree that we both have the definition for the law of logic the laws of logic

Well, well i'm not going to answer that question independent of a broader metaphysic because what you're doing is you're thinking in piecemeal fashion

Piece here piece there what i'm saying is pieces cannot be rationally discussed without a broader system

I'm bringing a system you asked about the transcendental argument. Okay, when we as presuppositionals argue transcendentally we are arguing

Systems, I don't I don't argue about You know, for example, um a specific fact over here

I have an undergirding theory of fact that gives meaning and coherence to the specific fact So I can't talk about one without discussing the other

So because because say you have a fact here and I have a fact here and we can fight it off Or which one's true?

Well, our assumptions are going to prohibit us from agreeing So we need to go behind those and see which worldview has a proper theory of fact a proper

Um worldview that can couch something like a fact And if you don't have a broader worldview that's consistent with what you say about the individual fact

Then it's an incoherent system and I could actually draw into doubt Whether you could know that to be a fact within your own worldview perspective.

Okay, so let's um, let's reduce this down Let's let's reduce it down as far as we can.

Okay. Um, so Let let's let's take this to hard solipsism

Brain in a vat, you know, uh, are we in the matrix? Um, can you trust your sense perception?

right, um, so my view of that is that I really don't have a choice to um, either i'm going to Behave in this world such that I can continue to exist or You know if I thought that I don't actually need to eat i'm going to starve, you know, it's it's exactly the same.

Um, It's exactly the same as far as consequences are concerned. Um, if I don't care for my body i'll die

Whether i'm in the matrix or not um that said Can I definitively say?

That i'm not in the matrix that i'm not a brain in a vat Uh and that you're not just a construct of my imagination well, no, it's an unfalsifiable claim.

Um, well you Yeah, I don't I don't I don't think we can in my within my worldview

It's impossible for me to be a brain in a vat and then the reason is the brain in the vat. Um, If the brain in the vat concept were true, it would seem to me that knowledge about anything would be impossible.

How so? It well because anything I claim to know I can say well that I might I might be in a brain in a vat that Might not actually be the case.

Well, that's if you're talking about absolute truth capital t truth, right? So as a christian, I do believe that there is absolute truth and we can know we can know some of it

No, whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Hold on a second. Hold on. Uh, I I agree that uh, that's what you think Um, i'll grant you that uh, what

I won't grant you is that you can actually attain any of it What makes you think you can attain absolute truth?

and Please tell me how you got away from your own sense perceptions because well, well real quick.

Um, You said that I could not attain absolute truth now And I know that how these conversations go and I don't mean this to be

Unless we're talking about definitions right unmarried bachelors, right? But you say if I can't know absolute truth and the the the famous and annoying retort

Is our is that absolutely true that I can't know absolute truth I mean even that statement itself seems to and if you say well, no, i'm not even sure about that Well now you're back into the infinite regress and you couldn't know anything

It would seem as though if you grant the brain in the vat analogy knowledge would be impossible But it's impossible for knowledge to be impossible because if someone says we can't know anything i'd ask

How do you know we can't know anything? You either know we can't know anything which is self -refuting Or you can say

I don't even know that but then you're stuck in the infinite regress again So are you kicking out all inductive logic? I'm, not kicking out.

I'm i'm saying that that's the result of your worldview Which you've just expressed that within your own perspective.

You could be a brain in a vat There's no way for you to know within my worldview I'm, not in that situation because within my worldview system it includes a foundation for knowing some things

Justify that to me Well again, that's the it's wrapped up into the uh, the transcendental argument if you were to ask me

How do you know christianity is true? You know, I would say and this is the common presuppositional language, but i'll try to explain

Um christianity the christian worldview is true by the impossibility of the contrary. Well, that's interesting do say, you know, explain yourself it's kind of like Logic, how do

I know logic is valid? Well deny it you affirm it. How do you know christianity's true? Deny what christianity says about the world and you'll have to affirm certain things within the christian worldview namely

Logic and you think that you could justify logic in your own worldview? And that's why we're having this discussion But i'm my argument part of my argument would be that you can't and I don't think you have appealing

Making logic something that's that's stuck within the material and material existence um, so first off You have to show that it's immaterial before you can make that claim second um

No I What's up, I have to interrupt you

I have to drop this is what I like about you What's up, you say things very simply and I appreciate that Well, it's not like that's an invalid argument.

You know what? No, and I completely understand what you mean. So well, so here's the thing.

Um, One of the things that I hate about these kinds of arguments is they're incredibly hard to follow

Somebody who wants to pick up and learn about these concepts um are quickly going to find themselves over their heads, um, in fact

When I started talk heathen my example was somebody had called into the atheist experience

And said I want to talk about the kalam cosmological argument and matt answers the phone And he says okay.

I disagree with premise two click non to the next call. Did we learn? Anything About the kalam.

Do we learn about why he disagrees? Do we learn about what the premises are and why premises are important? Do we learn any of that?

No, we lost a teachable moment and I I honestly think it's a it's a sign of understanding when you can use different language to Express an idea.

It's just like, uh, you know, it's one thing to learn another to learn a subject It's another thing to teach it right if you're wanting to teach mathematics to someone

You're not just understanding it You are finding different ways of approaching it so that you can discuss it in a way that makes sense to the student right, um when

I say no it it it definitely Resonates it people are able to okay

Why is eric disagreeing? right, uh, so the the reason i'm disagreeing is um

And I I don't want to go in circles here I don't and I feel like we're gonna start going in circles

I don't think so I don't think we're gonna go in circles. I don't feel I don't even feel that I My my question my question is and this is an honest question

I'm having great difficulty understanding how universal laws of logic

Can be material? I I yeah, they exist in your mind And okay, well when you talk to a christian a mind is not material

I don't equate mind with brain, okay, that's great for you Uh demonstrate it because you're adding an extra step to our understanding.

No, no, no. Remember i'm not adding anything. Yeah, you are So you're adding soul to body which we both agree with no

Okay, so understanding you're not understanding the idea of system against system. I'm not adding it.

No No, no, how is that not all or nothing? That is all or nothing You are saying you're taking my whole world view or not you're trying to argue piecemeal and I and I reject that I reject that that form of argumentation because I'm, not i'm not going to discuss individual things independent of a broader context.

I have a completely different system than you And you have a different system than I do. So i'm not I don't operate on on that basis

So what i'm saying is within your perspective now, this is what you call an internal critique

I'm putting my perspective aside and i'm trying to understand your perspective within your worldview.

Okay how How do you explain? And and this is not like a debate question.

I'm honestly asking how do you explain? universal conceptual laws that are unchanging

That is grounded in the material world and and and for you and you can correct me if i'm wrong

All that exists and I don't mean that pejoratively is matter in motion I i'm having great difficulty understanding how universal conceptual laws are matter sure um, the shire

Is a place that I can draw a map to Um, I can describe the shire in the same way that I can describe our understanding of concepts.

That doesn't mean the shire exists you're mixing up the map with the place

So I don't i'm not telling you there's a place i'm telling you there's a map and the map exists Okay, so so what so explain this?

So so what is logic on your view? What is it? the metaphysical Essence of it so I can tell you about the laws of logic

Okay, so do these laws these laws that we use to speak? Are they reflecting a more fundamental?

Reality I think if it was then you would need to show me evidence in the same way that somebody said no, no, no

Eric, i'm, sorry. I'm asking you within your perspective Do these words that we use love identity love non -contradiction love excluded middle?

Are they pointing to something more foundational or are these just? Words that we use and we call them the laws of logic and we all agree to use them

I Don't see how you could justify the former I'm not sure what you mean.

I'm asking you from your perspective. Sure um Words just being words is the way that we built this society, right?

we all agreed to them we understand and talk about the laws of logic because very smart people found that there were constants in This universe that we're living in um, and we describe them um

But that's it I Anything more like I could be a dishonest, uh interlocutor, right?

I could um, For example, I could say that the only reason you're able to use logic is because I grant logic to you

Um me being the deity Right. Um, and so if I were to as the deity

Uh grant that I say well i'm couching that my entire worldview and so i'm not going to let you pick that apart It becomes unfalsifiable

And so how do you protect yourself from unfalsifiable claims

It's unfalsifiable Okay, so in my worldview logic is unfalsifiable. No, no your worldview being unfalsifiable

That's right. And since it's grounded on god who's ground who's who who couches the laws of logic. It's unfalsifiable

It's true. It's true by the trend by its own transcendental necessity. That's the nature of the transcendental argument.

Hold on. Hold on No, no, we didn't hash that out just yet But for example, if you were to ask me is it possible for your worldview to be false?

Well, if i'm going to be consistent with using a transcendental argument i'm going to say no it's not because if it's possible

Then it's not the necessary precondition for intelligible experience. Okay, so Where in here?

Do you feel that? I'm, right And there's no way that I can be wrong

By definition, how is that? Acceptable to you

Yeah, i'm not saying it by definition in the sense. Well, i'm right and and that's it and it's just a claim

The response that I would hope that you would if we were to kind of do it in a more formalized way for example, if I were to say

That the proof for the truth of the christian worldview is that if it were not true, you couldn't prove anything at all

A lot of people mistake that as a as an assertion. It actually isn't If you want to falsify that assertion, which

I believe is you're not going to falsify but that's just me I mean i'm trying to be consistent with my own view what you're going to need to do is

Give me your worldview and show me how you can you can ground the very thing. I'm saying you can't

Okay, if you do that if you do that, then that's where the that's where the The worldview systems are going to collide and we're going to see which one has the foundation for knowledge intelligibility and things like that Um okay, so um

Does that does that make a little sense though? I mean you might obviously you don't agree with me But but is what what i'm trying to say make a little sense?

Like are you understanding a little bit about like at least like where i'm coming from or is it completely? No, no

No, i'm i'm getting it. Um, i'm actually Trying to think of a way that I can

Clearly respond in in in a way that's helpful um So i'm borrowing an example from seeing a whole lot of other people use it, uh, okay

Houdini harry houdini Was friends with sir, arthur conan doyle who wrote sherlock holmes right famously in sherlock holmes, there's the statement that sir, arthur conan doyle would say is

Once you eliminate all probable Results whatever's left

Has to be the truth, right if you lay out all of the different explanations for a thing and discount um

And are able to rule out everything but one then whatever's left no matter how improbable is true um and so that statement right is

It it seems great and when you read sherlock holmes, there's there's a lot of you know Ha ha, you know,

I ruled out all of the other um competing ideas but what's funny is

Sir, arthur conan doyle used that logic um And said, you know houdini

I know that you're dematerializing and Rematerializing outside of the handcuffs because there's no other way that you can do it

And so no matter how improbable it is, you're obviously phasing through this

Um, and so I want to know how you're doing it. I want to know how you're able to phase through things Um, well, no

That wasn't the case. He was fooling people um, which is an example of Just because I don't have an answer

Doesn't mean that your answer is any more justified. What it is is it's an argument from incredulity

I don't know or you can't explain it. Therefore i'm right Well, you could say that that's

I can say When you say well just because I don't know doesn't mean your answer is right. Well, i'm giving you uh

A worldview system that can ground universal conceptual laws, which I think upon very close study and obviously you disagree

It is easy to see that the laws of logic are not grounded as uh materialistically

And um, and I have there are a lot of atheists who would Who see this as a problem? You have these universal conceptual laws

How do we make sense out of that if we hold to a view That the universe is purely matter in motion.

I don't think it fits in the same way you uh When you ground these universal laws in a world that is purely material

There's issues there that my assertion that there's issues is not just my assertion A lot of people who agree with it doesn't make it right

But that's something that you really need to come to grips with if I were to say Logic, is it material you say?

No, it's like well, is it immaterial? uh I don't know or no or so.

What is it? It's like well, I don't know but that doesn't mean what you're saying is right It's like well, I mean if we're going to debate worldviews and and talk about foundations

It seems as though We need to talk a little bit more about the details of your worldview because otherwise you're using logic

But you are you have no ground for them and your assertion that well Just because I don't know doesn't mean it.

Well, maybe you should consider That universal conceptual laws you might not agree with this

But it is quite rational to to to make the argument that universal conceptual laws could be grounded in a universal mind

That that's they're conceptual. They're conceptual by nature. Yes, and bigfoot could crawl out of my ass

Um until you can justify that then you have no right You have no right.

In fact what you've done here is you replied to my example of You know you need to provide your own response before you know, uh invalidating mine

Um, I understand that you're wanting to talk about my worldview and i'd be happy to talk to you about my worldview what it seems that you've done is you have taken

The ability to discuss your worldview off the table before we ever came to it Absolutely.

Okay, then show me how your worldview is falsifiable Well when we talk about comparison of worldviews i'm not

Removing mine from the from the table if you're familiar with I'm, sorry, how's it falsifiable then?

It's not falsifiable. Okay, then you're taking it off the table No, because you're welcome to critique my worldview.

That's the whole nature of the discussion since we have different worldview systems Look at this if I were to have my two hands up here.

I look like an idiot putting my hands up Dude, i've been doing it the whole night. No worries, man Sorry, so these are two of these let me get them in the camera.

There we go. Yes, these are two world worldview systems Okay, okay If you throw stones from your worldview system into mine critiquing it from the outside You're not going to successfully refute my worldview since your system

Has completely different starting point. I don't I don't grant the things within your worldview and like fashion as a christian

I can't throw rocks over into your worldview from my perspective. Yes, you can so You should no you can no you can entirely show us

Because if i'm wrong my worldview, yes, absolutely You can be wrong about everything else.

You can be wrong about everything in your life But if you bring a salient point to me

That shows me that I was wrong somewhere then I should change it and the fact is change the idea

That it's adequate to critique a worldview from someone else's worldview No, i'm It's an illegitimate logical move.

So for example If if you were to say, you know, can god create a rock so big that he can't lift?

again You are you are asking a question. That would be impossible given the thought categories and and concepts within the christian system

You can't throw rocks from outside systems. You have to go into the system and Evaluate it on its own basis so that given it's given the the hypothetical truth within that system it shoots itself in the foot and hence can't stand or It can answer those questions.

It is consistent is coherent and you can ground the the the pieces of belief or the The articles of knowledge within that worldview that they're consistent within the system

So you can't you can't just go from outside the worldview because you have to do what's called internal worldview critique otherwise

I so I entirely disagree You can teach me a true thing for all of the wrong reasons and be coincidentally showing me a true thing

So, how do you? I apologize. I interrupted. It's okay. No, no. No, I is what

I was what I was going what I was going to say is um, yeah It it sounds like there's no reason for me to be here

Um, well, I mean you invited me no, no, no, no, I I agree but but generally in this discussion, um, you're saying that Tag the transcendental argument the christian worldview as you are portraying it is something that is

Absolutely justified Absolutely works And you can't be wrong

And well investigating it Doesn't matter because no matter how many ways

I can bring it to you unless I already believe what you believe Then I can't justify it somebody else who says that they believe in tag and honestly

What you could do is no true scotsman everybody else right out if somebody says well here I have a problem you go Well, you obviously don't accept my worldview the way

I believe it and so i'm going to invalidate you um How do you get out of that bubble, dude?

Um, I don't think you're understanding the nature of transcendental arguments and the nature of worldview critiques, uh, and I and again, uh when

I when I say for example that I argue transcendentally by the impossibility of the contrary

You can't ask me could you be wrong and me consistently argue transcendentally and say yes,

I could be wrong Well, if I could be wrong then out goes the transcendental argument since the transcendental argument says my worldview is the necessary precondition

Now, I welcome i'm sorry. Oh, no, I I was I will hold on to what

I was about to say until you finish Go right ahead Okay, i'm, sorry. I'm, sorry. No, um, yeah, so so when

I say that when I argue transcendentally I'm arguing from the impossibility of the contrary now whether you agree that one could argue successfully that's the nature of the argument

So if i'm going to say that christianity is true by the impossibility of the contrary But then in the next breath you ask me is it possible for your worldview to be falsified?

If I say yes, it's possible Then I throw out transcendental argument if it's possible then

Then it's not the necessary precondition that there might be another precondition a different precondition that falsifies my own

Okay, i'm just being consistent when I say it's unfalsifiable. I'm just being consistent at that point so let's um

Let's see if the if tag turned out to be not a good tool, would you stop being a christian?

Say again if tag turned out to be Not a good tool Would you still be a christian?

Like I can I can give you bad tag is an argument When i'm saying when I use tag i'm using an argument

Uh in regards to a broader an entire system Right, um, that's like saying if if christianity were not true by the impossibility of the contrary, would you still be a christian?

Well that you're you're basically asking me to conceive of my worldview in a way that it's that's it's not my worldview at that Point I believe an intrinsic part of the christian worldview is that god is that necessary foundation, you know for logic and things like that So right, um, which has not been substantiated yet Well, well, of course we have there's a bunch of things we haven't gotten into given the uh

I would say given them and I don't mean this in a negative way because we're having a conversation Dude, you're doing great nature of our conversation.

We've jumped here and there we haven't really laid out Although i'll tell you I think that people who are going to watch this are going to get

Infinitely more out of it than if we were taking turns talking at each other So while it may seem like a mess

The fact is people are going to be able to walk away with this with a whole lot more understanding and I love that I agree.

Um So by the way, I prefer these kinds of discussions because I think

I Heard you and I watched a little bit of a I think a podcast or it was a video. I don't remember where you talked about the importance of Um being able to stop and say hey clarify and I think that's important, especially with these topics

They're like really like sometimes top shelf metaphysics and epistemology. So I completely agree with you which is why whenever I talk about epistemology,

I usually say Your your mental toolbox for understanding the world

Um, it's the same thing but more people are going to follow along, right? I got you when you talk about metaphysics um,

I try and specify what it is we're talking about. Otherwise, we're using a blanket term that kind of makes things

Hazy and then all of a sudden people think oh, well, they got to be true. It's got to be real because they're smart um

And and honestly, I think that that leads me to where I was going a little earlier and that is

When I said, uh, you're using uh using a bad tool Um, and then you said well

You know you identified that as an argument Um, we can agree that there are some bad arguments. Um just on their face, right?

Um so ad baculum arguments The argument from the stick this is true or i'm going to hit you is not a good argument right

Well pragmatically it is Yeah, but I don't I i'm not gonna I don't know I don't ascribe to the pragmatic

Uh definition of truth. I'm not even gonna Yeah, um and honestly

I Okay, you almost got me on a tangent. Let's not do oh, nope. Nope. Okay, so if I were to give you

Um a bad tool I can give you another one uh ad hominem Right.

Don't don't listen to what he says because he's smelly um what His smell has nothing to do with the truth value of his argument, right?

You're finding a way to Invalidate them that has nothing to do with the claim You can agree that that is a bad tool, right?

That would be a bad tool. Yeah, okay cool and within my worldview that's a bad tool Well, I I I think we both are operating on the same

Understanding of logic you're just scaffolding more on Um, well i'm acknowledging a broader system in which make couches and make sense out of logic so it but whereas you're you're it almost seems to me that you understand logic as kind of this either something material which that I That I really doesn't make sense to me or why

I ask ask me questions about it It doesn't make sense to you. Well, that that's what I asked before. I don't know I mean, what does logic look like in a materialist worldview?

What does it look like the same way? It looks like to you? Um, no identity non -contradiction excluded middle

What does it look like though? Remember I asked you about the laws themselves when we say the laws law of identity non -contradiction excluded middle

Are those words pointing? to a more fundamental reality

Got it so or Are they conventions of words? We just put these words and we agree upon them and we use them, right?

um, so you're pointing I it's it's the latter your I feel like you're pointing at a map of the shire and saying

Is this a real place? And if this is not a real place, then there's no value to this map

Okay, when you use the shire not because it's a bad example. It's because i'm having difficulty. Uh following sure

The analogy and then the point you're making when you say the latter which part is it? Is the the rules pointing to something more fundamental?

Or do we just have these linguistic constructions? We call The laws and we and on convention we agree on them and use them, right?

um, so let me try and Uh, so it's it's the second it's it's the we we creating these words

We're identifying we're working on these definitions So they're convention and my example is you're pointing at the map of the shire

And saying well If this does not actually correspond to a place

Then it is unintelligible Well, no as an idea I can talk to you about the shire I can tell you about hobbits so we can talk about things that have happened there

I can talk to you about bilbo and all that Um, that doesn't mean that the shire is a place. It just means that we understand this concept together

Yes, but If that's what you mean remember what I what

I asked you Do they refer to something more fundamental or are they?

Linguistic conventions that we agree now. You said that one now Are you then saying?

That on your view logic is a convention I Let's would that be different than saying that logic is an idea?

Well, is it a is it is the idea a convention we make it up and agree upon it in which case my next point

Would be if that's your position Then I don't see how on convention. These laws are universally binding.

I never said we agree I'm, sorry. I never said they were how could you possibly make universally binding statements?

Ever other than Other than to define something into existence unless you're defining something as true

You are bound to this world that we're in and you Cannot justify unless you give yourself special permission to do so to say that you can do any more than I can

Your world view that you're giving me Cannot justify because it is in false unfalsifiable by you you're by your admission

I you're okay. This is why this is why I i'm having difficulty if they're conventions

Then they're man -made Yes, they're man -made How are they universal?

Unchanging, I mean I can just say suppose I disagreed with you and said well two plus two is seven Okay, even if everyone in the world disagreed with me i'm not wrong on your view.

That's my convention No on your view by definition not true wouldn't be absolute. Nope. Nope.

Okay, so it's not true That's what i'm having difficulty understanding. Absolutely their convention I'm, not seeing how what i'm saying is not true if they're convention if you could explain that for me, absolutely

Um, so i'm going to use the term atheist Okay, right. Uh, what is an atheist?

An atheist is someone who does not accept the theist claim, right a theism

It's the same. It's the same kind of thing If I said I was an a bigfootist Or an a loch ness monsterist or an a a alienist a non -stamp collector, right?

It it seems like a word that doesn't make sense because you don't really define yourself by what you're not

The reason that a theist is something that sparks people's attention is because theism

Is taking a very very large front row seat in this society that we're living in, uh, people are using it as justification for things and um

There are a lot of justifications that i'm sure you would agree with me should not be used with religion, right?

Talk about the westboro baptist church right, they're using what they feel that their religious view is to Hate on gay people and uh condemn, um

Soldiers who were who were sent back from war after they died um when

Theism stops being something that people can batter each other over the head with atheism

Will be a concept that makes just as much sense as non -stamp collecting And i'll need to find a new job and i'd be fine with that.

I'd be happy with that Um, but the thing is that term Has a purpose and we're using that term.

Does that mean that there is something intrinsic in that term? No, we can define it. We can give it a different word and that's fine

In fact in all cultures in all different languages. We use different words to describe things The only reason that we're able to move forward is because we agree on those definitions

If you don't agree on an idea by yourself Cool you're not going to have a good time navigating the world that we're in But that doesn't make you just as right

Right making a definition on convention what we're going to call this word atheism is not the same

As asking the question as to whether the laws of logic are universal and binding If the laws of logic are not universal and binding but are conventions

Then people could have different conventions and you could not say That one person's invented convention is wrong.

So two plus two equals ten You can't say that that's wrong Even if everyone in the world disagreed with me and that would be that would be related to the knowledge question

If if that's your view, how can we actually know anything? Because I could be using different laws and you might disagree and everyone might disagree, but you couldn't say i'm wrong

On your view it would almost seem as though it undercuts Knowledge so again

That's just an appeal to I that's scary It's an appeal It makes the review irrational.

No, why is that the case? Why is it the case that just because we decide on what words are? They have no value because you are that's not what i'm saying.

Okay, that's not what i'm saying because you're you're throwing out words Because I don't have a god view

Now tell me why that is and why I should believe you But what i'm saying is what i'm saying is

Uh, what we're talking about is logic if that's your understanding within your world view of these logical laws

Then it destroys knowledge since I can just operate on a different convention. You can't say i'm wrong. Yes, I can know

Yes, I can say it but but you don't know that i'm wrong. Oh, then good luck living in the world But have fun with that.

I can deal if someone's willing to to live in a you know living in inconsistently with everyone else

Yeah, but but the issue is truth on your world view on that view of logic Could you know anything to be true?

We both have the same relationship to truth I'm, just being honest about it and I want to take you.

Oh, that's what it is. Okay. I want to take you this honest Not not intentionally not intentionally, but if you're saying this is unfalsifiable

You're saying it's unfalsifiable Eli You're saying it's unfalsifiable and i'm not trying to be an ass about it.

I I don't understand I think you picked this up I think you picked up tag and these are the tools that you were given and these are the tools that you're using

To explain what tag is i'm not saying that you are a dishonest interlocutor I am saying that you are presenting a dishonest point and i'm trying to show you why

I I don't think you're doing and I mean this respectfully. I don't think you're doing a good job. I'm probably I'm probably not doing a good job

Yeah, but i'm trying What i'm saying simply Is that if if what you're saying about logic and all this stuff within your world is true

It seems to destroy and undercut knowledge and rationality Since we couldn't know anything to be true because if you're going to use logic to come to conclusions and call it knowledge

Well, if someone's operating on a different convention then I can draw into question whether what you say, you know

You have you in fact know it now you can say for example Well fine deny what we've all agreed upon have fun living in that world

Well, that's that's an irrelevant question that deals with the practical outflow of what I believe but we still can't get to Is what i'm saying true on your view?

It seems like you're reduced to a complete and utter skepticism Which I think is a problematic perspective if you're going to make knowledge claims throughout a conversation and you can't ground them so You're appealing to something

That we both have to deal with We're both in the same boat No I don't have that.

I don't because I don't believe that logic is conventional because if I don't care what you believe You you're using exactly that what you said you can't do right?

Uh, you said hey eric if yeah This person wants to believe x and they're absolutely wrong and they want to live on an island somewhere and never have to deal with people then that is just an outflow

Uh from you say that again line of reasoning if somebody wants to repeat that sentence again Sure, if somebody wants to live on an island with their own definitions for things and their own understanding, whatever

Um, good luck living in the world. You replied to that by saying hey eric You're just appealing to the consequent of it, right?

You're not actually giving me truth claims and you can't get to truth claims by appealing to consequences right

Yeah, but you said when you said the first time you said that they go off and they're wrong I'm saying on your view you couldn't say they're wrong because you can't say you don't know

What truth is capital t in regards to any specific thing unless you think you can

But then again, you said before you could be a brain in a vat Which I don't see how you're going to escape a complete and utter skepticism at that point.

No, well, you can't either That's the thing Is just because I guess Okay, ollie ollie oxen for yes.

I can too now. We're good, right? Well, no Yes, why you don't have to You don't have to agree with this

But but if I if you consider the the my world view system within my world view system

Because it is grounded in a personal god if you were to hypothetically just hypothetically Grant the truth of my world view then within the truth of my world view.

There's a god who can convey knowledge to me Such that I could know it now You don't have to agree with that as an atheist but from within the christian system that is a coherent concept

So I could have knowledge because I have a god who knows all things and can reveal things within that within my system

That's consistent now within your system. What i'm saying is on your system

You can't have knowledge and if you can't have knowledge, then it's an irrational position Why do

I say you can't have knowledge because you just before agreed logic is convention Well, if it's convention, then you have competing conventions and you can never know the difference

No, give me a competing convention to the laws of logic Well, I mean I I can't think off the top of my head

I can say two plus two is um, It's 20. Is that wrong? Is that right or wrong? All right. Do you define two the way

I define two? I'm, sorry You're playing a definitions game. Try let so are you defining two?

I'm asking you with your definition and disagree with your definition at the same time. No, you can't so That's like saying that I can't so you are

You are Relying on okay Let me let me

Yeah, clear your mind. It's just a little bit What was it what was it a bad one

I've got my energy drink right here. Okay so um

We're talking about brain and event Uh, you you brought up. How do we get it? How do we escape from brain and event?

How do you escape world view there's no there's no brain and event Okay, I just I unless you can verify it

All it is is just saying a thing to say it you you don't have to agree with it within my system That notion is not coherent

I'm asking within your system. How do you escape it? I only care about truth. Um, shouldn't you only care about truth?

So let's look we're investigating your system here. Um this unfalsifiable system right um

There are a ton of things within that system that I can pick apart But if you're taking the whole thing

Then would it be intellectually honest to say? Hey, eric if you can point out a flaw in this hole, then that hole is no longer justified to stand as a hole

Well, you'd have to pick out a flaw that is that that is an essential feature of the coherence of that worldview

But you're just saying right there if you were to say yes I'm going to try to do that Then you're agreeing with me at the beginning that in order to refute a worldview you have to do an internal critique

What you just expressed there is itself an internal critique. Some people have tried to do that Here's an internal critique of the christian worldview.

The christian worldview says that god is good. There's evil in the world How do you reconcile that right trinity? How could god be three in one?

But that's no longer that's no longer seeking I'm, sorry, that's that's no longer giving a truth claim. That's evaluating somebody else's claim

That's right And when you evaluate it and show it to be logically incoherent Then you've now shown that it's false since logical incoherencies can't be true.

Okay, perfect. Uh, does god speak to christians I'm, sorry, does god give christians special knowledge?

Uh, yes in scripture Okay. Um, how can you tell the difference between somebody who's hearing voices or hearing god?

Well as scripture being our standard we have to compare what we think we're hearing with the truth of scripture Sometimes it's clear.

Sometimes it's ambiguous god Uh speaks to us, but that doesn't mean he's always speaking to us at every moment

He's given us his word and we're called to to learn it and to apply it in our lives Okay, the best that we can could somebody

Hear a voice in their head that is coherent and accidentally think that they believe they heard the voice of god

Well, it depends that we're dealing with the metaphysics of how god conveys knowledge. I'm not sure exactly how that works.

I mean For example, there are things within the christian worldview That we can know to be certain and there are things that are

Um, we we call it in theological language like mister the mysteries of god What I when

I look at the bible it is god's revelation But there are certain things that god hasn't revealed to us and the bible even says that And when you ask questions that relate to things that he hasn't revealed

Um, I couldn't say with any you know with any in any definitive fashion Um within my worldview

I there there is an allowance for areas of mystery Um, you know, how do you reconcile you know, uh a completely sovereign god with uh,

Human free will and responsibility that's a tough one. The bible doesn't go into it So we create philosophical constructs to try to understand those in various ways but to point out those various tensions

Um because they're not included as a revelatory aspect within our worldview That's not one of the things we can claim to know with certainty in my worldview.

We can know certain things I'm not saying we can know everything that sounds that sounds like I don't know I could have said that but then okay,

I would I think it'd be better if I explain sure. Sure I I just want to make sure that I'm not last time.

I have a problem saying I don't know I know Deuteronomy 29 29 says that the secret things belong to the lord and the things that god has revealed

Belong to us and our children children There are things that within the christian system things that we can know and things that we are not told.

Okay, so I brought up something that's inconsistent you by We can actually go back on the record and you actually used the word mystery

Which is you appealed to mystery you appealed to mystery to answer.

Yeah That yeah Do you think an appeal to miss? No, it's a fallacy by definition appeal to mystery is a fallacy by definition

It can't be a fallacy because within my system There are certain things we can know and within my system.

We're told things that we don't know or we can't know Okay, so in your worldview System in your worldview an appeal to mystery is not fallacious

It can be fallacious but not in this case. Okay. Well, how do you know that? Well because given my worldview

Given the revelation of god i'm not giving it But you can say according to my worldview you can say according to my worldview

Hypothetically given my worldview if you want to use though that kind of language, you know, I'm assuming I here's the thing.

I i'm I don't think you're fully understanding the nature of an internal critique.

You almost got it and you asked a good question But when I say given my worldview what i'm assuming is that if you assume my worldview

I know you don't believe my worldview But if you assume my worldview this appeal to mystery makes sense Just as this appeal over here to knowledge makes sense within my system now, you don't have to believe the system

But you can't critique my system from the outside of it because that's an external worldview critique and that's an illegitimate

And um illogical move you wouldn't be able to draw any good conclusions by evaluating my worldview based upon your worldview

Because we have different paradigms. Okay, so could I say? Using that logic, um, you have no right to critique my worldview because you don't have it

No, why I I can critique your worldview, but I don't critique it from Within my worldview.

I want to hear as we're having a conversation i'd be like listen I'm not going to evaluate your worldview based on my worldview

I want to hear what your worldview is and given the truth of those various points of your worldview We can talk about whether they make sense within your own system

That's what a worldview critique a worldview critique is So I can critique your worldview without my you know,

I myself holding to your worldview. So I just gave you an example yeah of A question that you genuinely said you don't know

Hmm and uh, you also gave Examples of things that can either be contradictory or just unknown, right?

but you appealed to the mystery of that god and the The hidden nature of that god to say that I don't know it but the answers out there just know that What i'm saying is true

Because you have to believe in it um How does that make you any different from any other worldview

How does that make you any more insulated from lies? How does that make you any more insulated from somebody saying?

Hey Eli dude I want to invest your money

I've got a really good deal. It's going to give you a 60 percent payback in two years

Um, and you say hey, hey eric Um, how does that work? I you know what?

I really can't explain it. I I don't know but you gotta believe that's not that is not analogous at all

We're not dealing with someone who's dead. We're talking we're dealing with with god here. Okay within my system

There is there is space for mystery every christian affirms that you know If you were to tell me what the trinity is ask me what the trinity is

I can tell you that you know, this is the definition of the trinity I can talk about why it's not logically incoherent

But if you say but what is it? How does it work? Like well the bible doesn't tell me so I I can think of an answer that might be contradictory

But if the bible tells me what it is, then I would go and show you look this is what it is The bible doesn't tell me

It wouldn't because the bible would be a giant philosophical textbook. I'd have to caveat every single ideal We have that would be awesome within scripture.

I'm, sorry, that would be awesome Well for us it would be but god god has chosen to communicate in a certain way

Historical events and things like that not through a textbook So do you think it would be better if god, uh did give you an a a large tone that uh, no

No, I I don't think because I think I think you and I are um are rare creatures.

I think the average person who Uh who's out there? I mean the bible touches people on a on a very um

Real plane it deals with with life situations and things like that It's not always lofty in philosophy the seeds of it are definitely there

I mean we can talk about the story of jesus, you know turning water into wine But the broader context the metaphysical context that can be drawn out of scripture can take us into those deep philosophical issues

Because I believe those stories are grounded in a broader metaphysical context in which we can go deeper

There are aspects of it within the christian system That we don't know why not because it's contradictory and i'm trying to get out of something

It's because god hasn't revealed it if I believe that there's a revelation from god I could only tell you what god has revealed now.

God has demonstrated his faithfulness in scripture. This is not an argument He's demonstrated, uh himself in ways to me that um that have been faithful And so even though he says hi, but you know

I'm going to use it like kind of a colloquial kind of way of speaking if god says i'm not going to tell you this But trust me, there's precedent within my life that I can trust him

It's not just a random guy coming from the street, you know saying hey, I got a really good deal Just trust me. I'm not going to show you how it works

But you're relying on it Regardless, right?

No, the foundation of my worldview is not dependent upon if I can explain the metaphysical way in which god conveys

Certain truths, you know how that works. We know we have general revelation. We have scripture

We have the utilization of logic and things like that where we can gain knowledge, but you're relying on that You're relying on that to be the difference between me and you and you being able to answer things

In a definitive way, so I could answer things My argument is you can't answer anything in a definitive way given your view of logic, right?

And when I asked you to explain it you said mysterious ways. I it's not given to me, but it's totes true

Basically what i'm saying if you're going to do an internal critique and to show that something's logically incoherent You didn't show that there's a logical incoherency my inability to explain say

The metaphysics of the trinity on every detail. It doesn't prove that it's contradictory You're making the claim that it's contradictory demonstrate that it's contradictory.

Sure. It defies the laws of logic Show me how does it how does it defy the law of logic? Okay, can you have three beings in one that are distinct and separate from each other that I that Absolutely goes against the law of non -contradiction.

It absolutely goes against the law of identity. No, um, so Yes It goes against the laws of logic.

No, because you just incorrectly define the trinity. Okay, if you're going to say Husband father friend what i'm going to say either.

Okay, then what? Because i'm going to say that you're a You said three beings that's polytheism.

We don't believe that god is three beings We believe that god is one being who exists as three persons and we make a distinction between Being and personhood.

This is the traditional understanding when we when we understand the trinity We have these distinctions that are very important Some people will say in popular sense god is one what and three who's he's one being with three centers of consciousness

Each center of consciousness has the characteristics of personhood cool that's not a that's not a contradictory statement because i'm not saying three beings and No It just means that you're not a trinitarian

I am a trinitarian. No, you're not you Just said That you have one being with three persons that one being is not three beings and by it not being three beings

You're not a trinitarian At this point eric and I and I and i'm sure if i've misunderstood you then yes

You can say the same thing to me. Hey, here's my view look into this and get a grip on it Maybe we can come back and talk about that's fine.

Yeah, but the way you've just expressed the trinity You don't know what the trinity is.

This is the orthodox view of the trinity that god is one being Who exists as three persons?

That's the orthodox doctrine of the trinity i'm, not a oneness pentecostal where we hold to some form of modalism that god is a one being in three manifestations kind of like a a father and a son and That's not what i'm saying that those are heretical views that christianity rejects we never say that god is three beings that's polytheism

He's one being but he is tripersonal and we make a distinction between being and person So just as a point of correction, that's what the trinity is.

That's the ortho. That's not a weird view. That's the orthodox I I understand that I I was I was raised a christian.

I I get it Um, can you give me an example of something else that has multiple persons?

I can't because god is unique in that way. Okay. So how is that different from special pleading? It's not special pleading because there's nothing that is violated in the laws of logic to say that there is one being

That exists as three persons that show me how that violates logical laws. I'm not saying god is three beings in one being

That's a logical contradiction then show me what's different between a being and a person I'm, sorry

Then i'm then i'm not understanding what's different between a being and a person Well, when we explain the trinity when we talk about the being of god we're talking about the whatness of god

He is what is god? Well, he's a being the nature of his being is that he has three centers of consciousness

How do I know this? Well, if the bible's true, this is revealed to us in scripture Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to know about it.

How do we know this is revealed in scripture? Well, if you grant if right you grant scripture

It clearly teaches that there is only one god right deuteronomy 6 4 hero israel Lord our god is one yet There are three persons who are called god the father is called god and in various places

The son is called god jesus claimed deity for himself and the holy spirit is called god How do we know there are three persons?

Well, the father gives personal attributes, you know He speaks and is described as a person.

The son is described as a person The holy spirit is attributed in scripture having personal attributes

And so when we take the idea that there is one god, but then we see how he's revealed himself in these three persons

That is how the trinity is derived We derive that from a systematic approach of looking at all of what scripture said and what god has said about himself

And we come up later on with some of these philosophical terms to couch these biblical principles

And so that's how we derive the doctrine of the trinity I I Get that Okay, I do

Um That doesn't Take away from Saying this is a unique quality of a character that okay

I don't have Anything but the claim of it existing to justify that it is a possibility and therefore

It's correct I I don't know. That's not what I said at all. Then please here's what i'm saying

I I mean, I I understand the history. I understand where you derived it from. I get that i'm with you on it I I got you.

Well, i'm saying that it's unjustified No, what what was the claim? What were you just trying to do a few minutes ago?

You were trying to correctly by the way, I think I agree with this tactic you were using You were trying to internally critique my worldview

And you were trying to show an article within my worldview to be logically inconsistent. What example did you use? Use the trinity and basically what what we use another example, too

Um, basically what I was trying to show you is that it's not contradictory and so you have an internal critique

And i've clarified my position showing that it's not a valid internal critique because it doesn't violate any logical laws

The fact that god is unique Um is not special pleading if god is god. Yeah, he's going to be unique in certain ways

There there are certain attributes that he has that we don't within the christian system. God is omniscient.

I'm not i'm rational He's rational, but he's infinitely more rational than I am in theology We make a distinction between what we call the communicable attributes of god and the incommunicable attributes of god

Have you are you familiar with that with those with those terms? So i'm i'm i'm with you and at the same time

I I gotta ask you a question here um, sure eli what you said

Please correct me because Sure, this has happened more than once in this conversation Okay, um where I brought up a problem and your response was

Well, you're bringing me your outside view which has no justification on talking about what my uh, it what my view is

Right. And you know, that's not what i'm doing. So so how am I? How am I messing this up here?

Because I am critiquing a thing that yeah doesn't make sense, but You're invalidating it by saying that i'm critiquing it and I don't have your worldview so it doesn't count

That's not what I said then help me, please. Yeah What I what i'm saying is that I stand by this you can't critique my worldview from your worldview

But what you were just doing a moment ago, you were correctly attempting to internally critique my worldview

You were hypothetically saying okay, you guys got this idea of the trinity How is that not illogical?

And so in my response, I'll say well show me how it violates the laws of logic And then you responded with an incorrect definition which violated the laws of logic and I pointed

Pointed to you that that's not the definition. And so I gave you a definition which doesn't violate the laws of logic

And so that is a response that is an adequate response to your attempt to correctly internally critique my worldview

I'm, not saying you know, you you know, i'm not saying that you're not justified in trying to critique my perspective

Critique my perspective, but it needs to be internal critique. It can't be external critique It just it's irrational for me to okay.

Um Externally critique your worldview if I want to know your worldviews is is false I want to grant the truth of it and see okay.

Does this make sense because if it's logically incoherent by definition, it's false But you've already said that mysterious ways isn't acceptable out

And in the specific areas sure and that your worldview is unfalsifiable

Okay, so in doing so it sounds like There's no point in the conversation because what what it sounds like to me is

Um, and and by the conversation i'm not talking about people learning about it I'm talking about sure changing your mind at that point, right?

Uh having you evaluate this If mysterious ways is acceptable

And I can't be wrong is where you're starting then

Tell me if i'm wrong Well when you say I mean, it seems like you have a problem with me saying

I can't be wrong If that's your problem, then you're basically just having a problem with a transcendental argument.

No I'm having a problem with you and your argument, right? I'm not having a problem with the argument

I'm using a transcendent world. So you're not having a problem with you're having a problem with transcendental. What am

I? What is my argument that the christian worldview is the necessary precondition for for knowledge now? You don't have to agree with that But if that's my argument

Then i'd be inconsistent if you were to ask me later and say could you be wrong and I say well Yeah, I could be wrong, but I don't think i'm wrong if I were to say that i'd be inconsistent with the nature of My argument because I believe the christian system is the necessary precondition.

Can any christians be wrong? I'm, sorry, can any christians be wrong? About what anything you you of course, yeah, okay math test and I will

I'll show you my i'll show you my nature very quickly Okay. Um, could

I'm claiming infallible knowledge in everything but just this that's not But yeah, there are certain things that we could know uh when we argue transcendentally we can know by the impossibility of the contrary one of those things is is the is the universality and Invariant nature of logic.

I I believe I can know that with certainty whereas you can't because they're convention. Well again

I i'm going to refer back to arthur conan doyle And say doesn't matter. Um, yeah.

No, I I disagree with that analogy then really I don't think it I don't think so the whole thing with the shire and all that so so if I say, um

I've eliminated all other possibilities. Therefore the what is left is true you

Agree or disagree with that statement? No, I i'm i'm I don't agree with the idea that logic is convention

I don't agree with that And your example as missing the forest for the trees

Those are all just um, and I don't mean this in a pejorative way. They're creative ways to say quite simply

It's convention. It's the language we use. I I just just for clarification I would take you for a beer after this filming

If you were not on the east coast, I got I took nothing that you said as pejorative against me

Sure. Oh, I appreciate that. You can never tell these days. I mean, oh dude to people and so I just make these caveats

Okay, okay Eli, can we say something that we both agree on and and make it very clear to everyone watching christian and atheists alike?

Right help me if if you agree with this people deserve respect

Ideas do not necessarily Deserve respect you can disagree with somebody and that doesn't mean that you're you are disparaging the person

It means that you're talking about that idea Cool, and I agree with that. The only reason why

I say this because I don't know you so um I've spoke to people and people, you know, i've tried to be as nice as I possibly can

People still say oh he's just he's guys an arrogant, you know jerk Um, so I always caveat these things because I don't know who you are so i'm just trying to be respectful

Sure, I I mean i'm not gonna lie. I think that it's an It's an uh arrogant method um

But I don't think you're an arrogant person. Are you absolutely sure about that? Well in as much as in as much as either of us can be yes

Because you are right where I'm at If we were to if I were to be a stickler

I mean again everything you're saying you're making knowledge claims And so they're not if you could be wrong about them, then you don't really you don't really know them

Well, that's if you're talking about capital t truth, and I think that capital t truth belongs in definitional things

So if I define a thing to be true, then I can say that there's capital t truth there. Otherwise you're left with um with inductive reasoning um and You can't get away from it.

I can't get away from it Uh, you you have your sense perceptions, right? You have your eyes you have your ears you have your body

You have your you have your feelings about yourself. Uh, you could be wrong Um, you can't get away from that You can say something else exists outside of me, right?

But to say that You can't be wrong would be to say that you are infallible Right. Well, no,

I could be wrong about certain things. Okay, so so You're saying that you have limited infallibility

I could know certain things for certain. Yes that are not just definitionally. So I uh, well, it depends.

I'd have to we'd have to give a couple of examples For example, I believe that logic is universally binding and I think it it's true by the impossibility of the contrary

I believe that I exist If I deny my own existence, I have to exist in order to exist So I know these things because they're true

And they can't fail to be true. How do you know that? By the impossibility of the contrary deny it and you affirm it but you're just all you're doing is saying, um

You can't describe you can't give me an answer. Therefore. My answer is correct. You've done nothing That's not what

I did. Okay, when you say it's true by the impossibility of the contrary that is Literally, I can write the words out and show you how that is exactly synonymous

The impossibility of the contrary is saying you can't answer it Therefore My proposition is true.

That's not what therefore wouldn't follow what you're trying to say. It doesn't therefore it doesn't follow How's that something to be if uh true by the impossibility of the contrary is to say that it's necessarily true

If you deny it you affirm it so you have two options if you deny it

It whatever that transcendental truth is it's proven if you affirm it it's proven So it's proven whether you affirm it or deny it.

It's not saying I don't know and so, you know So then my view is correct it's true by the impossible it can't fail to be true that's that's that's what i'm saying

I I I I don't think that um, so I i'm i'm telling you i'm taking the devil's advocate approach because I don't think that laws of logic can be can be uh falsified

Um, I I don't I have no idea how that is possible Well, I don't

I don't see how you could alter that position if you think they're conventions I don't see how Huh that said

It does accurately describe the world that I live in And how do you know? I can't see you have to sorry mouse.

I Okay Did I know that that mouse was going to drop in as much as I can know anything?

I know that that that gravity exists now it existed yesterday And it will exist tomorrow in as much as I can know anything

And and what can you know about anything? You could be wrong about everything you just said you

You're absolutely right. I can also be wrong about my bank account That doesn't mean that I have to throw it out because I don't have capital t truth

Because you don't have to throw it out What i'm saying is you're going to believe those things but you have no justification for holding them to be true within your system

Now from as a christian perspective, I believe you think I believe you know things things that you say

Well, I don't know if I know them. I actually think there are certain things you can know But not given your own worldview system your your your worldview system

Cannot couch truth with a capital t it just can't so if you could be wrong about everything You think you know, it seems to follow that you don't know anything because you could be wrong.

So so um I think that should be the approach that we all have to everything.

I could be wrong. I'm going to make sure that i'm Listening and available to learn if i'm wrong so that I can correct

Um, but wait, can I interrupt you? I do apologize. It's okay if you want if you want to finish

I don't want to interrupt So well, I want to point to something that you said, okay um And so if you want to chime in Please do because i'm going to point us in in a direction that I think is a good place to to finish

Sure, sure Okay, are you asking you're letting me uh respond real quick?

Yeah that way that way it's not No, no, no worries so you're saying that it it is, uh

This is the good approach that we affirm that we can't you know We can't know anything in other words not not you didn't say that what word you said you said we can't be certain about anything

Well, and so we want to learn and we want to do this that and the other thing Is it absolutely true?

That that's the appropriate approach. You couldn't even know that on your own your own system.

So um Can't know and don't know for sure are very different. You're you're conflating two very different things

Conflation is a sloppy way of saying it, but I think you know what i'm trying to say. Sure Well, I I I actually the thing is is that's been brought to me.

You can't know anything Therefore you don't have the right to open your mouth and that Yeah Yeah, right.

Um, but uh The the the response to that i've given a couple of times.

Um And and you've responded we we've gone around the bush a couple of times. Um, but okay There is something that you said

That I feel is a dark underbelly to tag um, okay The deep that was very rich phrase, right?

It's like if you stop the video cut off right there go intriguing a dark to be continued All right with that we're going to move to the patron only section of the show

That would be terrible right Okay, no, no, no i'm doing this because i'm supported by patrons but not because i'm keeping the good stuff um, okay, because it's not good stuff the dark underbelly is that you you you you gave away the the part that I think probably

Is kind of damning and that is okay You're also presupposing that I use the christian worldview as well.

I just don't i'm not admitting it or I don't know that i'm using it well, um,

I didn't say that blatantly but I I definitely do assume it because it's part of my system and part of my system

Is that you are made in the image of god? And so you can't help but to use those categories.

That's why I believe you do know things even certain things. You think you you don't know um, but I didn't go that route because I know how these conversations go and um

For christians who might be watching one of my favorite verses the key bible verse in in scripture when in regards to apologetics

Is um set apart christ as lord in your heart always being ready to give a reason for the hope that's in you yet doing

So with gentleness and respect in these kinds of conversations When we use certain words when we try to make certain points

Some of those the way we do that can kind of get us off on the wrong foot

And so there are certain things that I believe to be true But I didn't use them outright just out of respect because out of the converse these conversations go a certain way

I thought that by coming out and saying things right at the beginning. Maybe that's not the best route

Let's talk a little bit about some of the things we were talking about and maybe we'll get there But that is definitely true part of my system is yeah in a very profound way all men know that god exists in a profound way

Um, I don't know how that works out in detail. I'm not saying it's a mystery

I'm, just saying me personally. It's something that I have to look into some more But just as a bare bones assertion as part of my system as part of my system

Yeah, god has made himself known such that men are without excuse and um when you deny him

I could argue you need to use tools that he's giving you in order to to even make your your argument

I could have said at the beginning, but then I think that probably would have Brought our conversation a completely different direction and it automatically puts the defenses up because some people hate that, you know, you know the god

I'm talking it's like oh So so i've talked to christians like that for sure

And I think it's incredibly condescending and I think that the reason you didn't bring it up is because you don't want to be incredibly

Condescending I think you as a person are someone I respect And I will continue to respect after this conversation but the view

The idea that you bring or that you are bringing forth Is incredibly condescending because what it says is

I'm true. There's no way I can be false and You know, i'm right because you think it's true too.

You're just denying it Yeah, it's more complicated than it's more complicated than that.

Sure But but if you're really interested in a detailed analysis of this and again even listing the title, yeah

Are you going to talk about bonson? Okay, but you're familiar with his Yeah, okay good.

So he goes into some detail that I would I wouldn't do this without it. I promise So there's more there's more to that Um, and sometimes even for myself, it's hard to kind of tease that out

But um, I mean it goes it goes both ways if if what i'm saying is true as a christian It's condescending for a creature to deny his maker, but that's not an argument.

It's not my argument. I'm not gonna make that argument Oh, it's so condescending. Listen. We have different worldview perspectives

We're going to look at the other worldview perspective in some way like well, you know That's kind of presumptuous of you to say that well, we're trying our best to be consistent with our worldviews within my worldview perspective

Yeah, man is without excuse Uh within your worldview perspective, you don't think that's true and so that's why we're having this conversation and we're trying to go back and forth and pick these things, uh, you know apart and kind of explain them and I think that's um from within the christian worldview perspective that's encouraged where i'm

Encouraged to speak with people with whom I disagree and to to speak what the bible says speak the truth in love

You know, I know this sounds cheesy, but I love you as a human being. I believe you're a great commission I'm, sorry, it's the great commission

Um So remember I was a christian But I never

I'm a presuppositionalist, but I never presuppose that people who used to be a christian Know a lot of some of the details means and how do you have different people who?

I read so much more on the way out. It's amazing because they said okay Eric, you you did you obviously didn't read the bible and the thing is is i've done tons of bible studies

You know growing up. I did I did youth group. I did all of that stuff. I even taught in vbs and and things like that um, but I I was like did

I read the whole thing cover to cover and and so um You know, so I I I went and got the king james version

And I read king james And they're like, okay. Did you read it? Yes And I started talking they're like wait,

I think that did you read the king james version? I was like, yeah, they said you can't read the king james version You have to read niv

Okay, so I went and got niv Well, don't do the niv you need to do the the esv

Everyone knows that the niv is the not inspired version. That's yeah. Yeah, totally god is making this real easy for me, man

So You you knew exactly where I was going. Um, and and Really what it was doing is it was finding ways to write me off without talking to me um because Because I mean if if if doctrinal issues and and um

I think that there are other arguments to be made that we don't have time for tonight. Um, but You're a compassionate guy

You're empathetic You're calm And you've been kind even when

I yelled at you And for that I know Right, uh, and I appreciate that and because of that I would love to talk to you about other things other than tag because We we ran around on this circuit for a long time and um, i'm sure that you are a multi -dimensional human um

That said I know working with you and talking to you before this. Uh, you have I I saw your facebook.

You have a lovely family Thank you. Um, you are You are active in your community and um

Cheers to that man. Um, I can disagree with you. Oh, come on eric. My head's not gonna be able to fit

Nah, you're fine I I can disagree with you you uh, you know on premise but i'm not going to disparage your character in that way

Um, I think that the viewpoint that you've given Does by its own nature disparage?

Um, and it's not but you haven't demonstrated that well I You agree, you could be wrong

You could well I could be wrong. That doesn't mean that I don't have enough to move forward on a thing.

I'd like well It does mean you don't have enough to move forward and arguing for your your conclusion because your conclusion you could be wrong

Yeah, so could you? You're in the same boat that I'm the same epistemological That what I was arguing was i'm not stuck in the same epistemological boat that you're in because my broader worldview system can account

For sensation induction and all these other things we haven't we haven't discussed. Well again, I don't want to we can account for it

Because you're right Because you're right because you're right If that's the way you see it

What that says and by the by the way before I say this thank you very much for that and I and I um,

I do strive to be respectful, uh, because one of the things that Have gotten me very upset as a presuppositionalist

Is that presuppositionalist? will tout The bible as their ultimate standard and the bible this and the bible that And the bible's true and the impossibility of the contrary and by what standard?

Yet the manner in which they conduct themselves is itself unbiblical they will do it in a spirit of um

Argumentation in a negative sort of kind of in kind of way speaking in condescending fashion being insulting and things like that It's very it's very possible

To defend the bible unbiblically and I think a lot of unfortunately a lot of presuppositionalist that I've that i've known about and listened to Have done that and so I apologize if I ever come across that way.

That's not something that's inherent to the system. That is um People who need to really get back to what the scripture is teaching regards to how they should be conducting themselves

So just want to throw that out there. Absolutely. Um I i'm just having a mental image of getting you and darth dawkins together in a room

And sitting you both down and then getting popcorn and just joining in the live chat and talking while you're talking

You know, just just just enjoying that. Um, but uh, the fact is We're platforming each other

We are um They you know, um william lane craig

Uh is not going to live forever Other apologists are going to be needed

Um, this this conversation will continue the fact is If i'm going to have a platform i'd like to use it to at least encourage non -assholes

Because um I want People to make their minds up based on the content and quality of our argument and not on Well, that guy just seemed like a jerk

So with that eli, do you have anything else that you want to say before I let you go? Um, and and I do have more coming up for everybody else.

So do not click away because i've got more But yes eli, uh, sure just uh, just real quick reminder.

Anyone could find me on facebook Uh, it'd be really helpful if people subscribe to my uh, youtube channel

I know even if you disagree with me i'm sure i'll say something that might be helpful to push the conversation forward and um,

And just as kind of a cherry on top. I I do appreciate uh, This conversation you two have been very respectful and I really do appreciate that And it's really interesting and fascinating to hear a little bit about uh your background and things like that and knowing that you came from you know from a church and things like that from a from that perspective, it's very helpful to kind of Personalize you you know, you're not just the face on a screen

It kind of gives me a little bit of insight into some of the things that you've gone through so my prayer for you and I know people will probably say this all the time is that you uh

That you come back to the truth, you know by god's grace. Uh, well, we don't have to debate that issue, but I I do

I do I I I do hope that through these conversations and and What appears to be just a genuine desire to find the truth.

I I do pray that that you do find it. So Um, those are just my my last words I do appreciate this conversation man if I if I get there

I will have gotten there honestly and if I didn't get there then it's

Because you got put me there. Bye Eli have a good night, man.

Uh, it was good talking to you. All right. Same here brother. Take care. Bye All right

It was muted, okay um So I wanted to say thanks to eli, um

And I did want to say a couple more things Uh, one of them is that just because it's in the bible doesn't mean it's necessarily false um

It can be You know, you can point out true things in works of fiction. Um, just because there are some true things doesn't mean it's all true

Um, I saw that referenced a little bit, but it didn't feel like it was worth bringing up and i'm sure that he would agree with me Um, you know my my snarky response is first corinthians 13 11.

Um When I was a child I played as a child I spoke as a child

I thought as a child And when I became a man, I put away childish things um

But again, that's that's the snarky bit. Um, he was it was pretty nice. I liked that I am going to be doing a couple of other things.

I do want to thank my patrons before I do anything else Because I have not yet done that and y 'all are amazing

It's because of you that i'm able to keep doing this. I've got to pick up a uh part -time job starting tomorrow

Um, but I am able to justify keeping the lights on doing this With that patronage.

Uh, so if you do want to become a patron you go you can go to patreon .com slash eric murphy um

I believe If I got that wrong No patreon .com slash eric murphy and you can become a patron.

Um, I am going to from here create a separate stream Where i'm going to bring patrons and people in we're going to have a discussion that only the patrons are going to get to be a part of um, so if you want to you can go to patreon .com

and get that when I do Put together videos that I release, you know that are edited and not just live um

I'm going to be giving patrons, uh, one to two days Lead on it and they're going to get to see those early

Um for everybody who made it on the last second to watch this y 'all are amazing you rock.

I'm, so glad that you're here Um, I see messages from people and i'm going to be taking those and talking to those people And I want to thank my patrons and so uh, let's

Get through them. I want to thank alana alexander billy bob candy david ellen james kathy kitty kristin megan ray and william

Thank you um, i'm haven't yet Put together a title card.

I have not yet put together an end screen where those are going to go up Um, I have my eyes set on a video intro that i'm going to be putting together

So it's going to look better over time, but I can't wait until everything's perfect to put stuff out.

Um A lot of you in this chat have told me that and so i'm working on it um

With that I think i'm going to move on to the patron uh, the patron stream Um, I hope you have a wonderful night.

Do something good in your world and i'll see you on on sunday talk even