Responding to Critics (Coffee Proof)

Welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host Eli Ayala and again another surprise livestream.

Didn't know I was going live but here I am. Let's get this out of the way before if people watch this.

I don't know how many people are gonna watch this live since I didn't plan this. I'm only planned it not that long ago.

But let's get this out of the way, okay? Yes, I'm not wearing glasses. I'm wearing contacts, okay?

I typically wear glasses and so you might I might look like Eli's brother, you know, someone that looks a little bit like him, you know.

No, this is me, right? So I'm wearing contact lenses. They help me.

I was jogging this morning and I didn't want to run with my my glasses. I put my contacts on. So that's why

I look different. Anyway, get that out of the way. Why am I doing this livestream?

Well, the previous livestream that I did was entitled the Coffee Proof for God's Existence, as you guys know.

I really love coffee. I actually have my my coffee here with me right next to me here on my my mug that heats up, which is super cool.

And so I argued for the existence of God based upon coffee, the process that's involved in making coffee and so forth.

And so, and surprise surprise, there are, you know, critics and skeptics in the comment section making their criticisms and objections, which is perfectly fine.

That's totally cool. I expect that. But again, I want to highlight one of the reasons why I don't typically interact with comments like actually sit and write out a response.

It would take too much effort because the objections are so bad that you can't just respond to the question.

You have to correct the question. You need to teach basic Christian theology to the person who thinks they know, but they don't.

And then once you get that all sorted out and it doesn't it doesn't bring you down a rabbit hole of like, yeah, well, what about this, then you have to answer this thinking original question that they were getting at.

So that's the reason why I don't actually kind of take the time. It takes a lot of effort to write. And then of course, you know, people asking questions or making criticisms that are really just exemplifying their ignorance of the topic.

Okay, now again, that doesn't mean I'm an expert in everything. I mean, obviously, there's some things that I might need correction and so forth.

But as you guys know, that's how the internet works. You need to be very careful with, you know, what you spend your time doing, because it can take a lot.

So basically what I want to do here is I want to walk through the comments of this individual and walk through, correct, and explain, and expand, and hopefully this will help

Christians in their interactions with people. And I think the coffee proof for God's existence is perfectly good to use, and I don't think that any of the criticisms here land any punches.

So there you go. Those are my thoughts on that, and not even close. They're not even, these are not even, you know, if you use the punching analogy, it's not even like they're missing the target.

They're not even in the arena of the target. It's just a complete misunderstanding of what

Christians believe, and then based upon that assumption, you know, then the question, you know, the comments are being made and so forth.

So hopefully we can take the time to walk through that, and hopefully it'll be useful for folks.

So now that I got that out of the way, got some people watching, which is good. So once again, we're gonna be offering a response to some of the criticisms of the coffee proof for God's existence.

If you enjoy the content on Revealed Apologetics, be sure to subscribe, tap that notification bell, all the things that YouTubers are supposed to say to, you know, get their videos out there.

If you're looking to support Revealed Apologetics, you can do so. There's links in the description to this video. You can go to RevealedApologetics .com.

There's a place where you can donate, or you can sign up for some courses that I offer, or you can just kind of just be here and listen in.

That's a good way to support as well, as it wouldn't make much a difference if no one was watching. So so there you go.

Alright, so let's kind of jump right into some of the comments here on my last video, the coffee proof for God's existence.

Now just to clarify, the coffee proof for God's existence was basically just an argument that I made to show that the

Christian worldview is the only worldview that can provide the preconditions for the uniformity of nature, this idea that nature works in a uniformed fashion such that we could expect the future to pretty much be like the past, or at least it's very likely that the future will be like the past based upon past regularities and based upon the broader presupposition that there is a

God who created everything, who sustains creation through various laws and so forth.

This allows for the utilization of scientific principles and everything like that. And so I was trying to argue that a

Christian worldview makes sense out of that basic presupposition, whereas the unbeliever's worldview does not.

The atheistic worldview cannot provide those necessary features within their worldview that allow for things like science, that allow for the reasonable and rational assumption that the future will very likely be like the past.

As I pointed out before, within the atheistic worldview, all is sound and fury signifying nothing, right?

It's purposeless, it's random, and so the argument then goes that the unbeliever cannot provide a foundation for the uniformity of nature, and when they do, they end up just begging the question in a fallacious sense.

Because of course, when you say the future will very likely be like the past because it's always been that way in the past, well that doesn't answer the question as to how you know about future instances.

Because part of your past experience does not include unexperienced future instances.

And I used David Hume and Bertrand Russell to highlight the point that you can't just assume that, especially if you're an empiricist, you hold to the view that knowledge comes through sensation and experience.

No one has experienced the future, and therefore you cannot use your senses and experience to tell us anything meaningful about the future unless you have baked within your position a reasonable aspect of your worldview that gives warrant in assuming uniformity, or the principle of induction and so forth.

Okay, so that was the context of the previous video. So now, I argued there that the future will be like the past, or it's very likely to be like the past, because there is a sovereign

God in control of the world, and hence we are promised a certain level of regularity so as to have dominion over the world that God has created for us.

So there you go. So in that context then, the critic then responds here.

Okay, so I'm going to read it here. So this particular critic says, lol, okay, in internet language, that's

LOL, laugh out loud, okay, indicating that, you know, there's something that I've said that's kind of silly.

So he says, so if your God is securing the laws that make your coffee machine work, when that machine eventually fails to work, do you think that it is a revelation that your

God is denying you coffee? Or do you simply think that the machine has developed a mechanical physical fault totally unconnected to God and just needs to be fixed?

Okay, now again, that particular comment, it completely misconstrues, misunderstands

Christian theology. Okay, for within the Christian worldview, we believe that God is sovereign over all events.

Okay, both functioning and malfunctioning machines is incorporated under God's sovereignty, right?

The malfunction of a coffee machine doesn't indicate, nor have Christians asserted this or ever held this position, it does not indicate

God denying someone coffee in some kind of arbitrary or whimsical fashion, right?

But rather, the breaking down of a machine falls under God's comprehensive governance of the world.

Okay, God's control includes natural laws, human actions, and even mechanical failures.

Okay, fixing the machine doesn't go against God's will either. Okay, rather, we are operating within the means that God has provided for humans to steward creation responsibly.

Okay, we fix things that are broken, and our ability to fix things that are broken is an example of stewarding creation.

Okay, we're able to do things and learn through the process and so forth, and so it is a false dichotomy to say that because God—it was not

God's will in a particular instance that my coffee machine worked, that therefore it's wrong when

I try to fix the machine, right? That's a false dichotomy, okay? Both within the Christian worldview are consistent, okay?

Because we have a conception within the Christian worldview of the difference between means and ends, right?

God ordains the ends, and He accomplishes the ends by various means. So again, this is just a complete misunderstanding or ignorance of basic Christian theology.

Now, this critic goes on to say, if your God is in charge of your coffee machine's regularities and has deemed that it should not work, okay, then if you fix it or replace it—okay, here we go, this is kind of what

I was mentioning before—you'd clearly be going against your God's wishes. No, it's not clearly going against God's wishes for the reasons that I just expressed before.

And he goes on to say, as He has intervened to ensure that the machine does not work, and thus you should not have coffee, okay?

This is really bad, right? So within the Christian worldview, God's sovereignty doesn't negate human responsibility, okay?

Again, it's a false dichotomy to suggest otherwise, right? We use means to achieve ends, okay?

God ordains not only the ends, but the means, okay? And so when a coffee machine breaks, it's within God's sovereign will to use human ingenuity, human creativity, and effort to repair it, okay?

This is part of humanity's mandate to exercise dominion over creation. This goes back to the creation mandate in Genesis chapter 1, okay?

Fixing a broken coffee machine is an exercise of responsible stewardship, just as it is fixing anything, right?

It's not a defiance of God's will. And so the malfunction and the repair from within a Christian worldview are both under God's sovereign control, and God accomplishes things through means, and many times, and oftentimes in Scripture, the means involves human activity.

So it's not as though God commands in kind of an explicit and revealed way, thou shall not have coffee, okay?

That would be different, that if, you know, if I go against His explicit command, then I would be going against His will in that sense.

But God decreeing from before the foundation of the world that my coffee machine fails in a particular instance, it doesn't logically follow, that therefore any attempt to fix the machine is to go against God's decree, because God can decree the malfunction of a machine, and He can decree as part of His decree the fact that we use human creativity and intelligence and so forth to fix the machine, okay?

This isn't hard. This is not, I mean, we're not getting into too deep theology at this point, but again, let me see here,

I got some, is there a question here? Okay, no, there's not a question, there's a comment there.

So yeah, so this isn't hard, this isn't like fancy theology here, or weird, I mean, this is just basic, okay?

And this is what happens when you don't respect, you don't respect your opponent's position, okay?

Now, I disagree with my atheist friends, okay? I mean, there's a sense in which I don't respect the position, but there's a certain level of respect that I have for any atheistic position that reflects deep thought and argumentation.

Now, I disagree, obviously, with where they're coming from, but I don't treat willy -nilly an atheist argument, right?

I have to look at the argument and kind of examine it, and to see if I'm making sure I'm understanding everything.

Comments like this just are complete, reflect a complete ignorance, okay, of Christian theology.

Okay, he goes on to say, under this precept worldview, this precept worldview of God constantly uses language, spinning the plates to ensure the regularities of nature are upheld, if such regularities cease to obtain, such as when your machine stops working, do you uphold your worldview, and thus, in line with God's wishes, never drink coffee again, see how that logically doesn't follow, okay?

God ordaining my coffee machine to malfunction in one instance does not logically entail that it is

God's desire that I never drink coffee, that's a complete non sequitur, okay? Or, here's the fun part, here's where he tries to get all presuppositional, this is really bad, check this out, he says, or do you borrow from the atheistic worldview where God is not securing the coffee machine's functional status and just get the thing fixed?

Well, I can assure you of one thing, I'm definitely not borrowing from the

Christian worldview, you know, that worldview that is based on purposelessness, the worldview that cannot account for uniformity, cannot account for the principle of induction, cannot account for the scientific activity that they engage in, cannot account for any absence of objective moral values, you know, the worldview that can't account for intelligible experience and the meaningfulness of human language and so forth, yeah, no,

I'm not borrowing from that worldview. Yeah, so nice try, right? The problem here is that such a statement is under the false impression that when the

Christian argues transcendentally and says that the Christian worldview provides the only necessary precondition for intelligible experience, knowledge, science, uniformity, and so forth, that is a bare authority claim, like we're just saying it, and that's just to completely misunderstand the nature of a transcendental argument, okay?

Now, if I was not a presuppositionalist, I would still say that, it's just a complete misunderstanding, so there you go, okay?

So, this particular response here that this person has offered, obviously the Christian worldview doesn't depict

God as constantly spinning plates in a way that would preclude human agency or intervention, right?

That's not our position, right? God's providence includes the regularities of nature and the laws of physics that enable machines to function, right?

When a machine breaks, all right, it's an example of, you know, the imperfection in the world.

There is, you know, we live in a fallen world, right? There are imperfections, things break, that happens, and in seeking to fix it, okay, we're not borrowing from an atheistic worldview, right?

When I fix something, I'm acting consistently with the Christian understanding of stewardship and the use of God -given abilities to maintain and repair

His creation, okay? The belief in the uniformity of nature and the intelligibility of the world are grounded in the

Christian worldview, right? That makes sense, given Christian presuppositions. It doesn't make sense in an atheistic worldview.

If you say, well, I'm borrowing from a Christian worldview, well, then name that tune, show me within a Christian worldview that you can make sense out of not just order, but disorder.

The fact that things break and mess up, you can't even account for that, I would argue, okay?

All right, let's continue on here, because he goes on some more. Let me just take my, yeah, if you're wondering who

I'm responding to, just responding to a comment, it was a long comment on my last video, I thought it'd be a good opportunity to kind of highlight some stuff, so there you go.

I'm gonna take a quick sip of my coffee, appropriate, given the topic, right? All right, so there you go.

So he goes on to say, he goes on to say, make sure I got the, I don't want to reread my comment here, he says, if it's the former, then there must be a lot of devout precepts that with a stack of broken household appliances cluttering up their kitchens, unless of course they've simply reinterpreted the revelation to fall into line with their desire for coffee, and have denied their

God's apparent wish for a non -functioning machine in favor of naturalistic atheistic machines that actually, actually work, okay?

I mean, this is, the level of cringe, the level of cringe with respect to this topic is just, is just bad, okay?

Well, again, it is a false dichotomy, right? Okay, Christians don't view every malfunction as a specific, as he used the word, revelation of God's will to abstain from certain activities, right?

Such as drinking coffee, okay? Rather, we understand that malfunctions are a result of, as I said before, living in an imperfect world, okay?

The act of repairing a machine is an exercise of dominion and stewardship, okay?

Using natural means to fix a machine doesn't imply adopting an atheistic worldview, since to fix a coffee machine presupposes categories that in an atheistic world you can't make sense out of, okay?

All right, to do the bait and switch doesn't work, because the atheistic world, you can't provide the preconditions for the things that go into making them, fixing the machine to begin with, all right?

So it demonstrates, rather, a trust in, to fix the machine demonstrates a trust in God's established order, and the use of human creativity and problem -solving abilities, which are, of course, on the

Christian worldview, gifts from God, okay? The existence of operational machines and the knowledge to repair them are themselves consistent with God's providential care and his common grace and so forth, not consistent with an atheistic conception of reality, okay?

All right, he goes on to say—actually, this coffee's really good, let me take another sip—if you're enjoying this video, do me a solid and click that like button.

Those things help. I used to not think that it was a big deal when I used to watch videos, but if I watch a video that I'm learning from,

I make sure I do the click, because it does help, I guess, the algorithm, as they say, okay? But anyway, this commenter continues on, he says, it seems you may be paying lip service to a professed theistic worldview on the surface, but what's really going on is you're borrowing heavily from an atheistic worldview to navigate your life.

Yeah, it's like, ooh. By the way, when an atheist, or whatever this person is, listens to a presuppositionalist and says, oh, well,

I could say those same things to you, they don't realize that that's—they think it's a strategy to kind of trip up the presuppositionalist.

No, that's literally what I want you to do, okay? Because what's part of my argument?

My argument is not only that I'm a presuppositionalist, but the atheist is a presuppositionalist, too.

He has his presuppositions. They govern how he sees and interprets things. And so when he becomes, as Van Til said, epistemologically self -conscious of those assumptions and starts arguing in light of a conscious awareness of them, then that's where we can get into the discussion, right?

So this isn't a stra— I mean, he thinks it's a strategy, right? Ooh, I'm gonna reverse it on you. That's what

I want you to do, okay? If you think that I'm borrowing from an atheistic worldview, I'd love to see that argument.

I'd love to see it, okay? Now, when I talk about uniformity, given the Christian presupposition, that makes sense.

When I speak of logic, given the presupposition of the Christian worldview, that makes sense. When I speak of objective moral values and duties from within a

Christian framework, that makes sense. If you think you can make sense out of those within an atheistic, purposeless universe,

I'd love to hear the argument, okay? This is not just a bare authority claim that's being made, okay?

So he says here, it seems you may be paying lip service to a professed theistic worldview on the surface, but what's really going on is you're borrowing heavily from an atheistic worldview to navigate your life.

You're just arbitrarily postulating an ad hoc God thing onto your atheistic worldviews, so bad, and retrofitting it to be consistent with your desires, whether your coffee machine is working or not, okay?

Okay, so what are we asserting here? So from my perspective, I'm asserting that the atheistic worldview can't account for the preconditions of intelligibility, right?

Can't account for the uniformity of nature, can't account for logic, can't account for moral values, intelligible experience, okay?

The ability to repair a coffee machine, the expectation that it should work regularly, and the process of troubleshooting its malfunctions all presuppose what?

Yeah, that's right, they presuppose an orderly universe, which is only intelligible within the

Christian worldview framework, right? The claim that Christians are borrowing from an atheistic worldview is therefore, gargantuously speaking, false, okay?

At a huge level, it's just mistaken, okay? If you think I'm wrong, I mean, show me. I would love to see the argument.

And so it is the atheist that's borrowing from the Christian worldview, and that's not simply a, you know, that's not what

I'm doing, no, no, that's what you're doing, and then we go back and forth, back and forth, no, no, no. I can show you that given the

Christian presuppositions, uniformity of nature makes sense, principle induction makes sense, objective moral values and duties make sense, immaterial abstract conceptual laws of logic make sense, okay?

I'm not just saying that. Given the Christian presupposition, those all fit perfectly well within the Christian worldview. They don't fit in with a materialistic, naturalistic framework, or any other form of atheism, if you're not a strict materialist.

I would have similar criticisms, or other criticisms, with respect to various things within that perspective, okay?

So we need to understand that from within the Christian perspective, when we say that the future will be like the past, we're affirming that the future will, to be more specifically, very likely be like the past, because God is a regular way in which he governs the world.

And so this regularity is rooted in God's providence, and his consistent upholding of the natural order. However, this does not mean that the future must be like the past, in kind of like a strict way that, like, that's it.

It has to be exactly the same. No. It allows, from within the Christian perspective, it allows for the possibility that God, in his sovereignty, performs the miraculous.

And because God's miracles are not arbitrary, the possibility of miracles does not undermine our general expectation that the future will be like the past.

Because God does not perform miracles arbitrarily and whimsically. He does so with specific purposes, but not so much in an unpredictable way that we lose the expectation of uniformity, okay?

So it's not an either -or in that respect, okay? For example, think in terms of the miracle of the parting of the

Red Sea, right? The regularity of nature would predict that the water in the Red Sea behave in a consistent manner, right?

But God miraculously parts the waters for Israel's escape, okay? This illustrates that while general expectation of regularity holds,

God is not bound by it. And he could, quote -unquote, intervene. I want to be careful with that word.

I don't want to imply that, you know, God is some kind of deistic God that's standing far off and then kind of tinkers with his creation.

I mean, using that word in a very, in a very general, in a very general sense. Nevertheless, in the everyday, we think in terms of everyday context, when a coffee machine breaks, okay,

Christians trust that the underlying regularity, okay? Like the laws of physics, the principles of engineering, when thinking in terms of mechanics behind a coffee machine, these generally apply, okay?

And so fixing the machine from within a Christian perspective is a reasonable action, okay? This expectation is based on the belief that God maintains a consistent natural order.

That is an aspect of the Christian worldview. Now, not so for the non -Christian, okay?

See here, yep, it's true. I'm just taking a look. It's weird seeing you without glasses. I know it's weird.

I'm sorry, okay? I apologize. Anyway, from the atheistic perspective, right, they don't have a coherent basis for the expectation that the future will be like the past, okay?

And this is not a criticism from a Christian. You can find non -Christian philosophers, you know, making similar points.

From an atheistic worldview, the universe is ultimately a product of random, purposeless processes that, as I said at the beginning of this video, what

Shakespeare describes, sound and fury signifying nothing, okay? Without the presupposition of a sovereign, orderly

God, the atheist has no foundation for assuming that the uniformity of nature will continue, okay?

And anytime they appeal to the past, they're engaging in fallacious circularity, okay? And they're not even answering the question, since the question is, how do you know the future will be like the past?

You don't answer that question by simply appealing to the past, okay? And so they can't comprehensively know the nature of any particular thing, because that's often what happens.

They'll say, well, certain things in the universe, they have certain behaviors, and there's not an infinite number of things that it can—well, how do you know the nature of any individual thing, okay?

Especially if you're an empiricist. You don't observe the nature of a thing, right? Is what you have to say about the nature of a thing descriptive or prescriptive?

If it's prescriptive, how do you have prescriptions within your worldview? If it's descriptive, then you can't cancel out something that happens that causes you to describe things in a different fashion, okay?

When an atheist, for example, relies on the consistent boiling of—the boiling point of water, for example, to make tea, okay?

Or coffee, depending on how you make them coffee, right? They're implicitly trusting the uniformity of nature, okay? Something they're borrowing from the

Christian worldview, okay? And without that presupposition, there would be no rational basis to expect water to behave the same way each time that it's heated, okay?

And so the malfunction of the coffee machine itself, from the

Christian perspective, is under God's sovereign control, right? And human efforts to repair it are part of the means through which

God governs His creation, okay? And so the atheist point doesn't undermine the Christian perspective.

Rather, I think it highlights the coherence and consistency of the Christian worldview in accounting for both the regularities and irregularities of our experiences, you know, the breaking of the machine, okay?

Now let's use another example. If I were to take a test and fail it, okay? I take a test and I fail.

That doesn't mean that it's God's will that I never pass the test, okay?

Isn't this obvious? This isn't something hard, right? If I take a test and I fail it, the

Christian does not conclude that it's God's will that I never pass, okay? When a

Christian who believes in a sovereign God fails a test, he doesn't take that as an indication that it's not God's will for him to pass.

But rather, it may not have been God's will for him to pass in that instance, and so he's therefore encouraged to do what?

To study harder, okay? And the encouragement to study harder is not inconsistent with the idea that God ordained my previous failure because there is a relationship between the ends that God ordains and the means by which those ends are accomplished, okay?

And like fashion, if someone suggests that my coffee machine breaks and therefore fixing it goes against God's will, it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of basic Christian theology.

In Christianity, we understand that God ordains both the ends and the means. And the roles that we play in accomplishing those means, okay, such as studying hard to pass a test or, you know, repairing a broken coffee machine, all of these things are important aspects of how

God's providence operates in the world. And so, with respect to the malfunction of a coffee machine, okay, that's under God's control.

And the human efforts to repair it are part of the means through which God governs his creation. And so the atheists don't really—if this person's an atheist,

I'm not sure of who this is, but the point that they're trying to make really just kind of falls flat, okay?

So for example, when I say that the future will very likely be like the past and we could have expectation because God created a world in an orderly fashion and so forth, pointing out instances where something happens differently than I expected is not a refutation of that initial point that I suggested here.

Sorry, I'm getting distracted at some of the comments here. All right, let me have another sip of my coffee.

Delicious. Okay, so let's continue on here. So, and it's interesting that this person brings this up here because the reality of disorder is not in favor of the atheistic or naturalistic case either, right?

Now the Christian worldview, I've argued, uniquely accounts for both order and disorder in the universe.

I would claim that as well. So we believe that God is sovereign. He upholds the regularities of nature, ensuring the consistency that allows us to make coffee, right, to perform countless other things that we do in our life.

And simultaneously, the Christian worldview also recognizes the effects of the fall, right, a disorder and so forth, right, okay.

And this means that while we can generally rely on the regular functioning of natural laws, we also understand that malfunctions and failures are part of living in the fallen world.

That's consistent with a Christian worldview. So for example, when a coffee machine works as expected, okay, and hopefully it's not broken, at my job there's this coffee machine, it's a really nice touchscreen, it's like an iPad coffee, you just touch the buttons and it makes your coffee.

The most devastating thing that I see, okay, and one could use it as a problem of evil argument against the existence of God is when

I go down there and there's this piece of paper taped to the surfaces as under construction or it needs repair,

I'm like, oh my goodness, okay. That's the worst feeling in the world, okay.

But when a coffee machine malfunctions, all right, and I have lots of experience with this, it's a reminder of the imperfection and brokenness of the world that we live in, right.

Things just don't always work out perfectly. But the imperfect is also accomplishing God's purposes.

The imperfections aren't random and purposeless within the Christian worldview. Even in the malfunction,

God's sovereignty is at work, right. And sometimes it has really practical implications, right. Through malfunctions, not just of machines, but just in issues of life,

God teaches us patience, he teaches us resilience, the need for stewardship, right. Fixing the coffee machine, okay, in essence for the

Christian becomes an act of responsible dominion aligning with the biblical mandate to care for and manage the world that God has placed us in, okay.

Now on the other hand, the unbeliever's world, you can't consistently account for either order or disorder.

In a naturalistic framework, the expectation of uniformity of nature has no rational foundation, okay.

And if the universe is merely the product of random purposeless processes, okay, there's no reason to trust the laws of nature are going to remain consistent.

And this makes really, this makes any scientific or practical endeavor really groundless, right, as those are going to rely on unfounded assumptions of regularity that the atheist cannot account for, okay.

Now, the concept of disorder or malfunction poses an even greater challenge for the unbeliever.

Again, as I argued before, without a sovereign orderly God, there is no objective standard to define what constitutes disorder, isn't that right?

Everything would be simply the result of impersonal forces and random chance.

And so the unbeliever lacks a basis for understanding why things should work consistently in the first place or why they sometimes don't.

And so the Christian worldview provides the coherent explanation for both regularity of the laws of nature and the presence of disorder that we do observe in various instances.

But the unbeliever's worldview fails to account for either of them. And so the malfunctioning of a coffee machine, okay, far from undermining the

Christian position actually highlights the deficiencies of the atheistic perspective. For the very act of recognizing a malfunction presupposes an expectation of order, an expectation that can only be justified within a

Christian theistic framework where a sovereign God upholds and sustains the universe. Okay, so again, questions like this, or not really questions, but statements like this just don't work.

They are based on misunderstanding and, you know, the level of depth of a lot of these comments, they're not very in -depth.

And so I can choose to do a response like this or sit down and write and correct all of the theological, but then it becomes too much.

But hopefully this is helpful in terms of knowing what to look for when reading a comment or things like this.

And so this gives me an opportunity to kind of teach a little bit. Now, do I know how to answer every aspect of all things?

No. Okay, there are things I'm still learning, right? You know, I have to acknowledge that there are issues that I'm not familiar with and I need to look at and things like this.

But the overall snarkiness and pridefulness of the people who comment on these things,

I mean, what makes it worse is that they're not even good objections or observations.

So I just think that's interesting. Now, another interesting thing I saw in the comments was that someone, surprisingly, let me

There we go. Here's another comment I got in a video. Revealed apologetics. The person put revealed stupidity.

I mean, how do you interact? How do you interact with that? I don't even know how to interact with that. I mean, someone leaves that as a comment.

Revealed stupidity. Okay. Like, I don't know what you're referring to. Is all of it stupid? I mean,

I'm not sure what the person's getting at, but these are the sorts of things that we have to deal with.

Now, what I found interesting was when I was scanning through the comments, uh, someone suggested that my argument for God using coffee is simply ready.

A teleological argument, right? Or an argument from design.

Where did you get that from? Oh my goodness. Yeah. So, so when

I, uh, am going through presuppositions and preconditions, I'm just giving a design argument.

That's what I'm doing, guys, right? There's nothing, nothing, you know, unique here. I'm just giving the good old teleological argument, right?

Okay. Well, well, not even close, right? I'm presenting, uh, and those who watch my channel and are familiar with what

I do, I'm, I'm presenting a kind of transcendental argument, right? I'm basically asserting that the assumption of the uniformity of nature and the principle of induction is required to make sense of the process that goes into making coffee.

So I try to show something mundane, like making coffee requires presuppositions that only make sense within a

Christian worldview, right? No one's giving the argument from design, right? So again, so let's consider this process of, of making coffee.

All right. So when you brew coffee, you rely on a series of expectations about how the world works.

Okay. That water will boil at a certain temperature, that ground coffee beans will infuse the water to create the delicious beverage, right?

And that the coffee machine that you're using is going to function in a predictable way, right?

Based on its design and the laws of physics. Now that's not a design argument. I'm not giving a design argument, right?

I'm saying that these expectations, okay. Are grounded in the uniformity of nature and the idea that, um, that the future will resemble the past and that the natural world operates in a consistent and orderly fashion.

Okay. That is not a design argument. All right. The transcendental argument posits that for us to even engage in such a process, certain preconditions need to be in place.

Okay. And so we specifically, we, we need to assume the uniformity of nature and the principle of induction. Okay. And these assumptions aren't derived from empirical observation, right?

Because empirical observation itself, sorry, I almost knocked over my mic. Empirical observation itself relies on those preconditions to be meaningful.

Instead, they are preconditions for the possibility of experience and rational, the rational process itself.

Okay. And so when you turn on a coffee machine, you expect, uh, you expect it to heat water, uh, to brew coffee based on your past experience.

And this expectation is an application of the principle of induction. And so without that principle, um, you'd have no rational basis to expect the machine to work as, as it has in the past.

And so the uniformity of nature, which underlies this principle is, is a foundational aspect of our experience and a foundational aspect of our understanding of the world.

All right. So the transcendental argument for God's existence asserts that these preconditions, okay, the uniformity of nature induction are best explained by the existence of a sovereign rational

God who upholds the order and regularity in the universe that we see. And without this God, these preconditions would be arbitrary and inexplicable, which is exactly the case when the atheist tries to make sense out of these basic, um, um, principles.

Okay. And so to address the objection more concretely, more focused here, consider the example of a scientist conducting an experiment, right?

So the scientist relies on the assumption that the natural world operates in a consistent manner. Okay. Allowing for repeatable and reliable results.

Okay. Now that assumption is not merely a product of past observations. It's a necessary precondition for the possibility of scientific inquiry itself.

And so the Christian worldview, we argued provides a foundation for that assumption by putting forth the

God that we've put forth with all of the trappings of the Christian theological worldview perspective. The atheistic worldview cannot.

Okay. So, so there you go. So, um, hopefully this is somewhat, um, helpful.

Okay. Um, let me see here. Okay. So let's see here.

Okay. Let's go through some of the comments here as I still have some time. All right. Let's see. Let me get a cup of coffee real quick.

Yes. Alyssa Scott, you need to get yourself one of these mugs. They're really good. It comes with like a little, I can't really lift it up because it's plugged.

Actually, let me see. No, I, if I show you the thing that heats it, I'd burn myself. So let's not do that.

But yes, I highly recommend you get one of those. Yes, you, you are correct. The mug is a necessary precondition for the perfect cup of coffee.

That's right. Uh, let's see here. God bless. Hello. Hello. Right.

So Christopher Coleman says, since I've experienced tomorrows, like when I, when I say

I'll see you tomorrow and then I see that person the next day, why can't I argue based on probability that tomorrow will be like other tomorrows?

Right. So this is, again, so Christopher, this is not something that I pointed out. This is something that David Hume pointed out that Bertram Russell pointed out and others.

Okay. When I say, how do you know the future will be like the past? Okay. Like in the case that you've just said, see you tomorrow.

Right. Um, uh, the past regularities has no necessary connection with future instances unless you presuppose the uniformity of nature.

Okay. And so if you say, well, because every time I say to someone, I see you tomorrow and then tomorrow has come and the tomorrow becomes today and I see the person, then why can't

I argue based on probability? Well, because you are assuming uniformity without demonstrating.

There is no necessary connection between past experiences and future unobserved experiences because the question, how do you know the future will be like the past is not a question about the past.

It's a question about the future. Okay. You haven't experienced the future. Okay. If you assume that we'll look at all the times that it happened in the past, well then can't

I infer that it most likely you can infer if you presuppose what the uniformity of nature.

And so the question that I'm asking is on what basis do you presuppose the uniformity of nature?

It's not on an empirical basis. Okay. You cannot, um, you cannot provide a justification for uniformity based on empiricism because the question is about the future.

You haven't observed the future. Okay. And if you appeal to the future being like the past, because it's always been that way in the past, that begs the question.

Okay. This isn't my criticism. That's Bertrand Russell's criticism. That's David Hume's criticism and others. Um, so that's basically what

I'm saying. And even when you argue from probability, pardon, probability presupposes certain certainties.

And so I'm just going to ask you, what is your rational justification for the certain certainties that you base your probabilities and expectations upon, right?

It's getting to a fundamental, uh, we're trying to get to the foundations of someone's world view.

Okay. Now in a general sense, yeah, probabilities in the uniformity of nature, I think that you can generally expect the future to be like the past, but because as a

Christian, I have a justification for that. Okay. Um, and so that's why I would, I would say it in the way that I would respond to that in the way that I have.

Okay. Now the unbeliever, they assume uniformity. The question just is what is the rational basis for uniformity?

That is a fair question. It's a question that has been an issue in the history of philosophy. It's not a weird kind of gotcha.

It's a basic question. Why should we expect uniformity? If you have a particular worldview that does not include a sovereign

God, that's a fair question. You're assuming this principle, what's the rational basis for that principle?

Okay. Well, Mr. Christian, what's the rational basis that you have? Well, we have a rational basis.

The unbeliever doesn't accept that rational basis, but in rejecting what the Christian says, they don't have a basis for the very things they continue to do.

Right. And that is Trent that is arguing transcendentally. Okay. All right. Great question.

Thank you for that. Let's see here. All right.

So Aaron Yoss says that's a circular argument. Why will the future be like the past? Because the future has been like the past.

Yes, that is circularity. Right. Can I use that type of argumentation with Christianity? No. Right.

That's a certain, a fallacious circular argument, which by the way, is not the kind of argument that the transcendental argument is when we argue for the existence of God.

Okay. We're not saying God exists because God exists because God exists. That's not the argument. If you think that's the argument, you just don't understand what a transcendental argument is.

All right. Let's see here. Ooh, the coffee video.

All right. So he's saying, it just seems like I'm saying probabilistically, I'm not claiming certainty. Sure you are.

When you appeal to probability and the general reliability of what is probable, right, you are appealing to the certainty of the probabilistic process.

You are appealing to the certainty of logical principles holding. Right. You're holding to the certainty of yourself being the same person you are at the end of your statement as you were at the beginning of your statement.

There's a whole host of presuppositions that must be in place to even engage in the rational reflection upon the very idea of probability.

Okay. And again, the presupposition list is just going under the layers and talking about, well, what is the foundation for that?

Okay. And some people don't like that, but that's, that is the reason why there's disagreement, right? Because we have different foundations.

So why shouldn't we talk about those foundations? The Christian should be willing to talk about those foundations that inform what they believe about everything else.

And hopefully the unbeliever should recognize, Hey, I have foundations too. They're not the Christian foundations.

I think my foundations are correct as an unbeliever. Here's why. Right. But oftentimes you don't even get that far because to even talk about foundations, people think you're trying to play some philosophical trick on them because they're unable to answer those foundational questions.

All right. Let's see here. Let's see.

Just looking for some questions or comments that are interesting. What's this here?

Jonathan says at some point, can you please do a stream about the new demonic Bible meant for kids?

If you haven't heard of it, that's okay. I haven't heard of that. Interesting. Yeah. Maybe you could email me with some information on that.

Revealedapologetics .com. I'll take a look. Yeah. Interesting. Okay. Follower of Jesus that unironically likes sardines.

Do you think that some ways of arguing precept commits appeal to consequence fallacy?

Well, I don't know what you're referring to some ways when we're arguing transcendentally, the form of a transcendental argument is not an appeal to consequences.

It's not transcendental formulation. The logical form of it is not fallacious or doing anything like that.

We're talking about the nature of paradigms, okay? And we're talking about the preconditions for the intelligibility of any fact that one might want to assert.

It's not appealing to the fallacy of the appeal to consequence fallacy.

Now, we are appealing to consequences in a sense, but not in a fallacious sense. We're showing that if you hold to, say, a non -Christian view, here's what results, okay?

But pointing that out is not the whole argument, right? It's a part of a reductio.

We're trying to show a reductio ad absurdum. So we're trying to show the unbeliever's position reduces to absurdity, and we're positively putting forth with the

Christian presuppositions, with the Christian world, we could actually make sense out of these things that we take for granted, right? So it's not committing that kind of fallacy.

All right. So Nick Jones here. Okay. Oh, dear. Why would us decent people listen to anything you say when you're so dishonest that you try to use precept because you can't provide even the tiniest scrap of credible evidence of the

God you claim to exploit the simple -minded Christians for money?

That's right. I'm a rich man. I make so much money doing what

I'm doing. I'm so rich. You know what I'm going to do next time I go live? I'm going to wear my pure gold grills, my teeth.

I'm going to show my rings and my bling bling, and I'm going to flaunt how much money

I make, okay? Oh, boy. Okay. So apparently Nick Jones, I suppose, is an atheist.

If he is an atheist, I'd actually ask him, by what standard does he rank what is considered or who are considered decent people?

Can't even make sense out of decency on that world. He's pretty bankrupt. Why would you listen to anything you have to say you're so dishonest, okay?

Well, how do you know I'm dishonest, okay? Maybe I actually believe the things that I'm saying.

That's different than being dishonest, right? Apparently you believe in a supernatural worldview in which you have the ability to read my mind and my heart.

Wonderful. Interesting. Very interesting. That I try to use precept because you can't provide even the tiniest scrap of credible evidence.

No, I use precept because when we talk about evidence without talking about the presuppositions, we talk past each other, right?

Because what you consider evidence, what you consider credible evidence, okay, is going to be dependent on certain presuppositions.

It's going to be dependent upon your worldview, okay? I have not simply pointed that out as a presuppositionalist.

Non -Christians have pointed out the role of presuppositions in how it impacts how we interpret things, okay?

Nick, this isn't hard. This isn't, I mean, even if you think I'm wrong, that's fine, whatever.

This isn't hard, though, okay? What is credible evidence? I'm going to have to appeal to some data point.

And I'm going to appeal to some data point that I think is credible. And then you're going to say, well, that's not credible. I'm going to say, well, why don't you think it's credible?

And then you're going to say, well, because, and then you're going to give me your reason. And the reason you give, I'm going to disagree with that reason because I have assumptions that impact how

I interpret your reasons. And then on and on and on and on it goes. Why do I use presupp? It's not because of dishonesty.

It's because the presuppositions are the underlying reason why we disagree in the first place, okay?

And so, again, I think your criticisms and your statements that I've read throughout, they're just expressing an ignorance that,

I mean, to be perfectly honest, I don't know what to tell you. If you can't, if you can't understand the simple fact that our worldview, our presuppositions impact what we count as credible, like I can't help you there.

And I'll pray for you. I don't, I don't hate you. You know, I don't, I'm not, I don't, I'm not even doing that. I, you probably think

I'm coming off as condescending. I don't mean to do that either. Um, even though if I say, I don't mean to do that, you probably won't believe me and still think

I'm trying to do that. That's how this typically works. Um, I don't hate you. I'm not angry at you. I just think that a lot of your comments, they're just, um,

I mean, they're just bad. I mean, really, really claim to exploit the simple minded

Christians for money. Is it because I ask for support? Am I not allowed when I prepare a very long time to put content together, whether you agree with the content or not?

Am I allowed to ask for support as the things that I do cost my time and my resources?

Is that, is that wrong? Okay. When atheist channels ask for money and support, are they being dishonest and exploiting the simple minded for money?

I mean, is, is, is, do you not see a double standard there? Right. So, uh, I'm not sure how to, how to address you,

Nick. I'm sorry that you feel that way. Yeah. But I can assure you the money that I make from what

I do, it's not a lot. Okay. I'm not exploiting anyone for anything, but I do got to pay the bills because what

I do does take time. And when I'm doing this, my time is removed from something else that I could be doing as well.

So there you go. All the way. Also, I have a website. I have to pay for hosting that. I have to pay for various subscriptions that help me get resources to study and do all this stuff.

So, um, so yeah, I'm not exploiting anyone and I'm sure most people watching this would think that that's, that's pretty, pretty silly.

Um, so nevertheless, let's continue on here. Uh, let's see. There's more comments here.

Yes. Uh, is this really live? Yes. I watched the coffee for coffee precip video yesterday.

Is this a recap? No, this is live. Yes. I'm live right now as we speak. Okay. Um, and I just, um, went live on this video to respond to some comments made on that video to take the opportunity to walk through how we might respond to various objections to what

I was saying in the previous video. So that's, that's what I'm doing. Yeah. Okay. Let's see.

Okay. So Christopher Coleman says, but haven't I experienced and observed the future?

No. By observing and entering into tomorrows, which become today's, I think I'm on. Yes. Okay.

So, so thank you for, for asking that. No, you are not observing futures.

The future has not occurred yet. Now there is a future that once you experience, it becomes the past.

So when we say, how do you know the future that's unexperienced will be like your past experiences to say, well, the future has always been like the past in the past is not to tell me anything about the unexperienced future that has not yet occurred.

Okay. Now, if you're interested in this, look up the problem of induction and you can look up some various quotations from David Hume and Bertrand Russell.

Okay. And then read through those. And then maybe if you still have questions, you can reach out to me at revealed apologetics at gmail .com.

And I'll try my best to clarify anything. So, cause the point that I'm making that it's a circle, it's circular to assume the future will be like the past because it's always been that way in the past.

That's not a like uniquely presuppositional kind of Christian, you know, response that atheistic philosophers have pointed this out.

This isn't like uniquely precept stuff. Okay. All right. Thank you for that. Uh, yes, this is live folks.

Okay. Oh boy. Oh, I would rip you to shreds,

Eli. Okay. All right. Great. I hope you feel, you know, empowered that you could rip me to shreds.

Yeah. Okay. All right. Let's see here. Yes. Oh, wait a minute.

Eli's doing this for money. Dang it. Yup. I'm doing it for money. And thank you Aaron for your $20 super chat.

And I do appreciate your support. Eli is just here for the money. Dang tricked again.

Thank you so much. I do appreciate that brother. Um, yeah, that's silly. Yeah. Well, I'm going to stay in the safety of my, uh, my home so that, uh,

Nick doesn't shred me. Okay. All right. Let's see here.

Let's see what we got. Question. There you go.

So yeah, I think that just helped understand it. I'll try to read. Yup. Good. Read human and Russell on that.

Um, should be helpful. Let's see here. Okay. I was getting a phone call.

Yup. Yup. Yup. Yeah. All right. Well, okay.

There are only comments I do have is from Nick and I've responded to Nick a lot throughout the years, maybe the years.

I don't know how long, uh, but I won't, I won't give you any more, any more of my time. Um, I will give you, he's like, give me a syllogism.

Yeah. I've never given a syllogism on this channel before. Yeah. Hmm. Yes. There we go.

That's yes. Eli, when are you getting a private jet? Like Kenneth Copeland? That is something that I've been, uh,

I've been praying for. Okay. So if anyone feels led to send me a private jet or give me the financial resources to get a, a jet, uh, uh, please send it to me.

Yeah. Yeah. Don't. Yeah. Uh, I can't address you. That's right. Yeah.

Where's the syllogism? I provided the syllogism and I provided a valid syllogism. And when you challenge as to the soundness of my syllogism, okay.

Uh, well, I don't remember you ever giving me something that was worth responding to.

There'd be too much correction and teaching that would be required for us to even get past 0 .1.

Okay. I've given syllogisms. I've explained my position. I've explained through syllogisms as well.

Okay. You can look at past videos. I'm not going to do your homework for you and search my hundreds of videos to find the one for you.

Okay. Uh, you've been trolling my channel for quite some time. So, uh, right now, starting now, it's my last time

I will interact with you. And then you can go and run to your friends and say that I'm, I'm scared. Uh, cause apparently that's what a lot of you folks like to do.

So yeah. Yeah. Four jets. Oh, let's start. Sorry. I didn't mean to put that one up there.

Love your channel. You know, no, no, no. Where was the, where was the, uh, let me see here.

Uh, love your channel. Eli presuppositional apologetics is the way to go. Yeah, I agree. Uh, yep.

Dude is a troll. Yeah. I think he's a troll. He's a troll. Yeah. That's it. I won't,

I won't interact with him anymore. He can, he can take that and show his friends that he, uh, shredded me.

Let's see here. When am I going to start listening to Bethel music?

Oh boy. All right. Okay. Well that's the end of the comment section there.

Okay. And hopefully this was somewhat helpful for folks. Okay. Thank you so much for listening in.

I do, I will be responding to another argument with respect to the claim that I've made in past videos.

Um, about the fact that unbelievers have a knowledge of God. Okay. And they suppress the truth and unrighteousness.

And so there is an argument that someone posted, um, on as a comment and I will address it.

Let me see. Let me, I'm going to read it for you. Let me actually, um, let me actually get the argument here and then maybe that'll give you kind of like a, uh, here we go.

Okay. All right. So here is the person's argument and I'll do a video on this and hopefully it'll, it'll be useful for folks.

Okay. Uh, let me see here. Okay. If God exists, then

I know he exists. Okay. It's premise one premise two. I don't know he exists.

Therefore God does not exist. Okay. And then he goes on to say, claiming I know God exists is extraordinarily good evidence for me that there is no

God. It's a terrible approach. Okay. We'll talk about, um, you know, how to respond to that. Again, it's a bad argument and it's missing it.

Misunderstand it to, to think that I'm simply saying, you know, that God exists. And then to respond, well, no,

I don't. And then saying, no, I don't actually destroys the art to think that what

I'm saying is so simplistic is again, it's an, it's an issue of ignorance, but we'll take that argument.

We'll take a look at it. Um, and I do appreciate, um, because by the way, there's nothing wrong, uh, with that comment.

He ends up saying precept is a terrible epistemic path. I don't think he understands what our epistemology is and how it works, but that's okay.

I don't think that's a bad thing. I mean, he has an argument here. I don't agree with it. We're going to talk about it and that's, that's fine.

Um, I don't expect critics to actually agree with me and that's why we have rational discourse and so forth. So, um, so there you go.

So we'll, we'll be addressing that maybe in the next video or maybe somewhere down the line, but, uh, I do have this in my phone and I will try my best to address it.

Um, cause I think it'd be, it'd be useful. All right. All right. Well, that is it for this live stream guys.

Thank you so much for, um, your attention, uh, the comments and so forth and the support.

It's greatly appreciated guys. And, uh, until next time, um, let me know in the comments.

Okay. I know I usually wear glasses, but is it really weird seeing me without glasses?

Share your thoughts in the comments. Okay. Uh, yeah, let me see. Yeah, that's right.

Yeah. Uh, yeah. Let me know in the comments, uh, what you think of, um, of the look without the glasses.

So maybe it'll be something that I'll do more often. Actually, no, I, I usually like to wear my glasses, but we'll, we'll see.