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

Introduction to Eli Ayala and His Background

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 I want to learn.

About you. Okay. My name is Elias. 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 going to be talking about today.

And I got a YouTube channel, Revealed Apologetics and a podcast on iTunes, Revealed 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 threw out a couple of things there.

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

Book? 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 hear you 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 really got me was he said that you were a presuppositional apologist.

And I'm assuming you haven't seen my show. I've listened.

Very briefly. Okay. We just, you know, for people's 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, um, who has pushed presuppositional apologetics and by pushing presuppositional apologetics, I mean talking over until you stop talking.

And, um, 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, um, you know, one of the things that I try to exemplify in the other show that I do is charitable listening.

Um, 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. Um, and so I kind of wanted to ask you about tag, if you're up for it.

The Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence

Uh, sure. Yeah. Okay. So what is tag? Uh, tag is, is short for transcendental argument.

So that's a mouthful for people who aren't familiar with like that kind of, uh, argumentation. Um, and, um, it's not unique, uh, to Christians. I mean, you could find transcendental arguments in people like Emanuel 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. Um, so it's actually, it's actually arguing in terms of ultimate foundations.

And so, um, what I enjoy about it is, yeah, go ahead. Do you have a 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 going to be, um, being arbitrary in 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?

Um, 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, um, foundations kind of are those, um, stopping points that ground everything else that we, that we believe now, everyone has a stopping point regard.

And I argue if someone says, well, I don't have a stop, you know, an ultimate foundation, I would argue that everyone does, um, whether they recognize it or not.

So I, I, I've done this game for myself and I've gotten down to the laws of logic. Okay. We get to the problem of induction. Um, before I dive into it, I kind of want to explain a little bit that way people can follow along with us.

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

Um, those three things you're, 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.

Um, and that circularity means that you can't rely on it. And well, you can't, uh, you can't perfectly justify it. Um, you can rely on it, but you can't justify it without, um, well being circular. Yeah.

I, well, here's the, 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, um, 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, uh, 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, um, that your axioms 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, 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. No, no, I, I, I, 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 just, 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 ultimate foundation. So it is circular in a sense, but I would argue that not all circles are fallacious.

For example, transcendental ones aren't. Namely that, for example, if I were to demonstrate 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 I understand a few parts of this. Let's maybe put this into an example, that way we can work with it. I think that you can use that kind of reasoning 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 definition. So if I said that all bachelors are not married, that is by definition true, and in and of itself is justified by its own definition.

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

Go ahead. I'm sorry. Are we going to say something? No, well, I didn't want to dive in, please, because my question is going to be, please continue. What do you mean? So you're saying that the example is too trivial.

I'm.

Just trying to get the structure down. I'm saying that it's not foundational enough. And we can 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 to affirm it. So we can't say, well, logic is a starting point, and since I can't appeal to something external to itself, then it's impossible to prove that logic is something that's valid.

Well, you can prove it by the impossibility of the contrary. Deny it, and you have to affirm it. Affirm it, and you affirm it. And that is to show its own necessity. Unless, I'm sorry, let me just finish.

Unless we want to say that logic is not universally binding, right? So then it wouldn't be 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 believe that logic, you know, the laws of logic aren't universally binding.

Well, so I've definitely.

Argued with people who have said that, and they've been very convincing. But I do want to take the...

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

No, I've been convinced that you need the laws of logic without even a universe. The laws of logic just are. Universally binding? I mean, just period. Yeah, they just are. Now, that said, sorry. It's okay.

So if we agree that the laws of logic just are, 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.

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 use always and never statements, you know what I mean?

Just blanket statements like that. How are you justified in doing so?

Well, you can justify logic by appealing to its transcendental necessity. So if you were to say, I believe in logic, then I guess my question would be, well, on that position where logic just is, what is that metaphysically?

Can your worldview ground something like logic? Absolutely. Well, that's good. Because I can use it. I'm sorry? Because I can use it. Well, that doesn't justify it. 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, 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, I don't think that broader metaphysical context can couch something like immaterial 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, so do you think that now this is a bit of an aside and on my show, I would say we can't go down this path. 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 blows my mind, because I feel like it trivializes the universe. Okay. But that said, who cares what I feel about it? 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? 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. Right?

And similarly, I don't know if you've ever read the Lord of the Rings. I'm a big fan.

You are? Okay, cool. I'm a nerd, bro. I like. I like video games.

We're gonna get along. We might not get along on tag, but we'll get along on other things. 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 a rhetorical question. I'm not. I'm not a rhetorical question, then I'll let you continue 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 talking about numbers, we're talking about ideas that only exist in our imaginations.

Right? 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. Are you saying that in the naturalistic worldview, that's not possible? 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 into the analogy, and I kind of,.

Kind of lost you. That's okay. Let's rewind it, then. 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, and ideas to matter in motion, then I think that there, that would be problematic on a number of levels.

I do not equate concepts and ideas with activity in the brain. Because I'm not, well, I'm not a materialist in that sense. I believe that man has an immaterial aspect to a soul. I think concepts are, are, 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, could you still use those concepts?

If you mean, if you're 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, would function. See, again, I'm operating with the whole entire system. So for example, when we talk about worldview apologetics, if I can just back up a little bit, 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, you know, in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

And you talk about the creation of man, and you breathe 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 going to damage the instrument through which my, my consciousness or my soul, whatever that looks like, whatever that is, 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 clearly.

The pianist, right?

I don't think my crowd is going to 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, you know, the consciousness of man, 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.

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.

And so you could damage my, 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.

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 and motion. I don't think it's reductionist. I think it's what it is. So to say that it would be similar to me saying, okay, all you believe is that a god, ta-da.

Well, I don't mean it in a pejorative sense. I don't either. But it's kind of revealing in how you view that materialism, you know, and the fact that we are material beings. So then let's do a thought experiment, right?

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, sometimes for towards very, very violent ends.

Right. And then, let's see, I believe I wrote about a case that there was a swelling in the brain that actually caused very, very different behaviors. It caused a gentleman to behave like a pedophile, actually, in that case.

And then after getting treated, though, that entirely changed, right? So was the pianist always a pedophile? Was the soul caused? What happened there? Yeah, those are good questions. And I.

Told you at 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 a philosopher of mind, and I'm not a, you know, a neuroscientist or anything like that.

What I'm saying when we go back up to the nature of tech is now we're shifting into immateriality, the mind and things like that. The basic gist of tag is worldview system, which worldview system can provide a foundation for even what we're talking about now, when 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. We 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, 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. He, God is the metaphysical context in which something like logic actually fits. If you just hang logic out there, kind of like a platonic, if you're familiar with Platonism, you got the forms and 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 logic is what we use. 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 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, which I'm sure you might, you might think it does. And you might think it, it, it does make sense, but I don't know.

Your position. So that's why I would ask that question. Yeah. So I think the best way to do that is to couch it in a little bit of an explanation, right? So I was born and raised a born again Christian, went to Calvary Chapel.

I lived that life. And when I left the church, one of the things, and 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 is my understanding of morality changed because I thought that morality was something that was handed down to me by 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 creating a morality 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? The number one and, you know, just numbers in general, they aren't useful unless we give them use, right? Even with the way we, we do math, right?

If I were to change base 10 to base eight, 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. 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. Well, sure you do.

So if I, if I wanted to make you a chair, I'd say, okay, Eli's yay high. So I'm going to, 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, the 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 worldview where there's matter in motion.

And I, and I asked that not as kind of a, you know, it's not a gotcha. Give me a demand and answer. I'm really, I have no clue. No worries. How 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.

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. 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, I'm familiar with that.

Okay. How are you not confusing? And that's why I started talking about the Shire, right? 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 next time I go to the Shire, I'm going to pick up a, you know, whatever. How are you not confusing those things? Cause 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 worldview, metaphysically speaking, what is logic? If, 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 and still have them unchanging, invariant and universal? Got it. It's an idea.

Is an idea material? Absolutely. It's, it's, it's related to a brain state and something that, so can a dead person think about the number one? No. Can a dead person think about?

Well, that begs the question, doesn't it?

No, it doesn't. A dead person.

It begs the question that man is purely, for example, at death. For example, we have different conceptions of death. For me, I continue to exist after I die. And so in my, in my worldview, I can still think of the number one without a physical body.

Okay. In your view, on your view, it seems that when you die, you can't think of the number one cause 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.

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 worldview? And what is it in your worldview? On your worldview, logic is reduced to physicality, which makes, which I don't mean this pejoratively. Okay. So if it's not physicality,.

Does it matter? It's an idea. I'm telling you that it is in your brain. It is an idea without you. So that tool without it. Yes. I use the laws of logic. Yes. Is it my brain? So are, so are our brains the same?

I, in that way you, you can do math the same way I can, right? 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 seems, 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, like 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 in my brain is 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 worldview provides the preconditions for knowledge.

So if we're going to make knowledge claims, we're going to disagree over our certain claims. Uh, how do we justify any of our claims? So we can talk about logic, but if we haven't gotten to the worldview 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, we 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 what 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.

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. 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. 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, 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, I'm going to grant the laws of logic to you because you're using it. And we.

Both agree and understand that it is a specific thing within my system. You're not granting my.

System because my system. Okay. How come you won't do that same kindness for me? It feels.