Presuppositional Apologetics Crash Course Part 2

But we'll review it real quick. Apologetics. The definition of apologetics is it is the branch of christianity that deals with the defense and establishment of the christian faith

In order to fend our faith we must be saved be bold and be ready We must sanctify christ as lord in our hearts having an attitude of gentleness to men and reverence to god

And we must keep a good conscience and that was all in first peter 3 14 through 16 The three different approaches to apologetics are classical evidential and presuppositional

And we went over who? forwards the ideas of these three different Approaches and we also

Favor the presuppositional approach. That's what we're going to be learning and what we are learning A worldview answers three basic questions epistemology, which is how do we know metaphysics?

What can be known and ethics what kinds of things are good or bad? A lot of these big terms we just define them.

They become easily understandable. So that's all all that stuff means How do we know what's around us?

What is the nature of reality? And how do we know what right and wrong are? We talked about ultimate authority and that's an individual's ultimate or final authority and it can be defined as his standard by which all is measured

And we we talked about um, we gave some examples of that But one of the easiest to understand would be morality that everyone has a sense that there is a right and a wrong everyone has a sense also that there's a logical and an illogical and we judge as c .s

lewis said If you want to know What a a bent stick is you have to know what a straight stick is, right?

So we have an ultimate authority. We have an ultimate standard by which We can judge what what a bent stick is

Uh in the same way if we wanted to know if our ruler is giving us accurate measurements of what an inch is

We would compare it to a standardized ruler something that has a measurement that's agreed upon by by everyone.

So If you you know want to know more about that go get the uh, the recording from last week and we went into detail

The non -believer's ultimate authority is not god's word It is in opposition to what he knows is the ultimate authority

Right because we read romans 1 so we know that everyone knows who god is they know truth about god

But they suppress it in unrighteousness. That's what romans 1 tells us. So they know that their ultimate authority isn't correct

They know that it resides in creation itself and it results In foolishness and that's the choice van till one of the proponents of presuppositional apologetics gives us

He says it's either god or it's absurdity. You don't have any other option You can either go with the god of christianity or you're going to be left with a worldview that winds up in contradictions and in arbitrariness um and all and all sorts of problems and romans 1 gives us an example of the moral lifestyle problems that results in A worldview that takes god out of the equation and replaces him with an idol

The believer's ultimate authority is god himself and is understood through god's word and it is self -authenticating

So we talked about the circular argument and what the difference was between a viciously circular argument and a virtuously circular argument

Does anyone remember the difference? I want to Be bold enough to explain it maybe to everyone

Is because this is a this is kind of a key concept, but it is kind of an involved concept So if you understand this you can kind of understand the rest

Yes Yeah Yeah I I know that's not enough.

Do you want to elaborate on that? Okay. Uh, well, well, I guess the circular logic man

Goes to himself as the ultimate authority but christians start with god and we end with god

But because god is the standard he gives it that escape hatch to make it truth Yes, there's more

I would add to it. But yeah, you're on the right track You said that it was saying the same thing only louder louder louder.

That's the viciously circular argument yeah, it would be It would be saying I remember I gave an example of a song.

I remember the song I gave right. What did I say? Jesus loves me this.

I know for the bible tells me so That's a circular argument, right? Because you'd be saying well,

I know jesus loves me. Well, why do you how do you know? Well, because the bible says it That doesn't get us anywhere, right? Here's where you add in the escape hatch.

I called it the escape hatch but and without him you can't prove anything in other words christ

In whom is hidden all treasures of wisdom and knowledge christ is the standard by which all is measured

And so to deny christ is to result in absurdity So you you don't have that option.

You don't have the option of denying the god of christianity because everything we All the preconditions of intelligibility everything we have to assume in order to get off the ground intellectually is

Based on the character of god So if we go to morality right a moral standard that is based on the character of god, we know that Morality is invariant.

It doesn't change If I go to mexico morality doesn't change maybe the people's practices change, but it's still wrong to torture children, right?

Morality didn't change We know that it's something that's absolute right it applies to everyone.

There's no person that is allowed to break the moral law And we know it's unchanging over time it's not going to change now

In christianity, we see this as something that is based on the character of god god is that standard that's absolute unchanging invariant

He's immaterial right morality. You can't find growing somewhere on a tree So we have to assume that the god of christianity exists in order to even have a moral framework

That's morality, but it applies also to the other preconditions of intelligibility, which would be the laws of logic

Laws of logic possess the same nature as morality They are also absolute unchanging invariable

They're also non -material just like the god of christianity, right? And the reason is because as romans 1 says god has given knowledge to Unbelievers even they know that these they can use these tools because the god of christianity exists and they know he exists internally

Okay, so to try to put it in a little maybe more nutshell to simpler terms

The proof for god's existence is that without him you cannot prove anything Or as van till said atheism presupposes theism

If you want to try to give me arguments for Any other god idol, right?

That is not christian or atheism or any other philosophical system that is not christian You have to start with the god of christianity

Otherwise i'd like to know where you get these invariable absolute unchanging standards Okay, so this gives you kind of a preview of where we're going and how we're going to use this apologetic

But that's the difference between the virtuously circular and the viciously circular argument the the viciously circular argument

Just says god exists because the bible tells me so why does the bible tell me so because god exists it goes in a circle

Okay, the virtuously circular argument says god exists because without him

I can't prove anything I can't even make sense of the question that i'm asking or the statement i'm making All right, and every worldview we talked about has that circle every single one of them has an ultimate standard

And for you to have an ultimate standard there can't be anything above it So it has to validate itself somehow

The easy one to understand is human reason when someone gives a reason for why human reason is their ultimate authority

They're arguing in a circle because they're giving you reasons for reason or they're using their memory to validate their memory and so Every unbelieving system has the same thing going on the difference is

Unbelieving systems cannot account for the preconditions of intelligibility They cannot give us what we have we have to assume in order for science to work in order for us to even

Brush our teeth, right? I remember I mentioned the toothbrush argument for god's existence. You can use anything in this world

And and you can show that it is the god of christianity that people have to assume in order for them to live their daily

Lives, okay reason I spent time on that is because it is it's a key concept, but it's also kind of a hard one

We're not used to thinking this way We just assume things right because that's the world god made but getting behind that and examining the presuppositions

And the ultimate authorities that's where we're just not used to it You know, we we start out with we all we all know that we can reasonably approach the world

Why why do we know that? Well, it's only only one god only one religious system can account for that So I don't want to move on until is there anyone that has a question about that?

It'll it'll it is a fog especially in the first session. It's a fog You still might be in a fog today a little bit

Hopefully by the end The fog will start to lift and next week when we're going to if you learn by applying next week

We're going to be applying we're going to be using these things. We're going to be doing role playing and Having mock conversations and you guys can bring up anything that you want to bring up.

Hey, my friend said this Okay, let's let's talk about that And and so if you still have a little bit of the fog today,

I think next week, um, hopefully we'll be able to Kind of shed some light All right. Yes, you just repeat.

Is it virtuous? As opposed to vicious. I I just said valid circular argument But um, but virtuous was one of the terms that mark spence used in one of the videos

I showed so That's a fine term to use The fallacy is the viciously circular argument, but when you're arguing transcendentally, it's called that's the philosophical term

Then you have to use a certain you have no choice you have to use reason in order to validate reason so So that's just called mark.

Spence called it the virtuously circular argument and I thought you know, it's it's a fine term. It's it It's better than transcendental argumentation.

Probably it makes more sense in our mind, I guess Whenever I can cut out a philosophical term It's probably best to do it to use a layman's term, right?

Because there's a lot of philosophy and um, and I can sometimes get confusing all these new terms So this week we're gonna talk about the myth of neutrality definition of the myth of neutrality

Non -believers frequently attempt to coerce christians into adopting a mentality in which both the parties are looking objectively at the facts

We call this compromise position neutrality It is widely thought in the christian world that through reasoning in a neutral way in which all biases are left out of the picture

The believer can through argument beat the non -believer at his own game In other words, the christian can objectively using only the facts make a case that the word of god is authoritative

What this approach fails to realize though Is that both the non -believer and the believer rely on their respective ultimate authority in order to interpret the facts

Thus there is no such thing as neutrality and to assume neutrality Essentially means that the christian is exchanging his ultimate authority the truth of god for a lie the fundamental principles of the world

Okay, so What does this mean? I don't i'm not sure exactly who that is.

Actually. I just thought it was a gangster. It is You okay? I'm a little too young I guess um

I just found it online though, and he's saying just the facts man. Just the facts. That's all he's interested in Uh, this is this is the non -believer when we want to talk about our ultimate faith commitments we believe in christianity

They believe in something different How do we reconcile? How do we have a conversation on what ground do we stand to be able to say?

Well, how are we going to resolve this dispute between us? right Well, this is the way that non -believers typically not we're getting into post -modernism a lot now, so this doesn't always crash out but There are still a lot of people that say well if we can just use the facts just what we know to be true right then

If we start there, then maybe we can build a case For either my worldview or your worldview and whoever has the facts on their side is going to be the winner

That's the way that we're used to viewing apologetics. Okay, is that fair to say? Most of the conversations you probably had have involved some something like that This is what the non -believer is asking you to do though Essentially, they're saying come over here to secular opinion, which they're going to call the neutral ground.

They're going to say this is neutrality Throw out god's word. That's our ultimate authority forget about that.

Let's not start with god's word Let's let's let's assume that that's that's your faith.

So that's a personal thing, right? That's not something that applies to everyone. They're going to assume that off the bat and they'll say now using just the facts

Argue for your position now this in my estimation. This doesn't make sense for a lot of reasons

One of them is though What happens when you get someone to the point that they believe jesus is lord?

Let's say that and of course we don't do that. The holy spirit does but let's say through the our Our apologetics god uses us to get someone to that point

Well now they realize that the whole process that was used to get them there was ultimately wrong, right?

Because they realized god wasn't lord in any of that You were assuming he wasn't lord in order to get them to a position that they were lord.

It's like a ladder It's like you're trying to get them to climb up this ladder when they get to the top You can kick the ladder away. We don't need it anymore

So here's some reasons. Um, oh actually before I get into the reasons I want to play for you this video Let's see.

Here we go Puddles here from apologia studios live ocean beach, california and san diego.

I'm asking people on the street If I think i'm a dog does that make me a dog um

Physically, no, but I guess In your heart you are right. Does that make me a dog?

No Why because you're not a dog but you can look like a dog free free. Uh, well, whatever you want

If I wanted to live as a dog does that make me a dog No, why? Uh, because you're a human if I wanted to live as a six -year -old girl

Does that make me a six -year -old girl now? What if I wanted to live as a woman? Does that make me a woman? Maybe if you attended your like sex change or something

But when I asked you about if I wanted to be a six -year -old girl and I had a sex change Would that change that answer?

No, that's weird So you would think I was crazy maybe yes, but here's my question if I wanted to live as a dog

I feel like i'm a dog. Does that make me a dog? It makes me a dog DNA and everything i'm a dog.

Yeah, if I want to live as a dog and I feel like i'm a dog Does that make me a dog? No, why not because you're still a human in a dog suit

Even if I say i'm a dog because you're not if I Feel like i'm a dog and I want to live as a dog

Does that make me a dog? Uh, wow, um only if you have uh operation, uh, you do you

So We are only humans because we are created by god in his image as humans

He did not create us as dogs He did not create male as female only as he intended only as he created us and only in him did we find our identity

It's a wacky world these days Yes All right, so it's a funny video right

Let me ask you the question if we're going to start with just the facts only the facts How do we navigate a disagreement with someone who thinks they're a dog

All we have available to us is just the facts You tell the truth. Okay, you we of course we tell the truth you proclaim what is true

But what i'm saying is where do we get any ground for neutrality? Remember the guy who had the dog he's like yeah, man your dna changes everything now.

What do we do with someone like that? If if we're gonna just say what do you have in common with me?

You you you really can't navigate a discussion with someone like that If you're just going to start with the things that he accepts as facts and the things you accept as facts

Because he's in a different world right So this is one of my favorite memes

Will we find intelligent life? Could it be right here on earth? Could it be this man? So do you did you just assume my gender and it says the search continues?

All right So so we could behave in that way right we could just say this is not worth my time

Uh, obviously I am not a dog. Obviously. I'm a man Right, we could just say you're crazy

But that's not giving a reason for the hope that is with you. They may be crazy. It's possible, right?

But the point of showing you this Is to say facts aren't the issue in this debate Facts had nothing to do with it.

The facts are the guy's a man in a dog suit, right? Did you hear how many people who wanted to say you're a man had trouble accounting for it because they know they're like well

Transgenderism is a thing so they were hesitating. They were like, where do you have to get a okay? An operation is going to change it or in your heart you are but not they were trying every which way to kind of keep

Transgenderism as something that's true while saying this guy can't be trans species All right, because that is an actual thing.

There are people who think they're other animals, right? So It's not the facts that are going to convince someone let me give you an example there's a man who is convinced

That he's going to die That there's nothing that can be done about it and he goes to the doctor and the doctor checks him out says you're not going to Die And he's convinced.

No, i'm gonna die I'm, i'm a very sick man Now the doctor can give him all the charts and the graphs and run all kinds of tech

Tests and show him you're not gonna die and he's still He he's uh going to to still believe that he's going to die actually saw in someone's house someone on dr phil who believed this that she was

Terminally ill and she self -identified as that Terminally ill needed someone to take care of her all the time

You can show her all the information in the world all the quote -unquote facts It's not going to make a dent because her worldview is um

Her worldview says that the facts don't really matter her presuppositions say I'm going to start with the the idea that I get to define myself.

God doesn't get to define me So if you get to define yourself from the beginning, then the facts aren't going to change anything if someone says that they're dead and you're trying to convince them they're they're alive and There's another story van till tells uh, and and it's a it's a doctor who's who actually

Shows the man that he's bleeding. He says let me cut you. Let me show you you're bleeding He says do dead people bleed and the guy said

I guess one of them does because i'm bleeding because he the facts didn't change What he thought about himself.

All right, so I think we belabored that point. So So if it's not about the facts, what is it about?

It's about Presuppositions and that's why we're doing presuppositional apologetics Why is neutrality physic, uh philosophically impossible?

Why can't we have neutrality with mr. Puddles? Well facts need a reference point all facts are interpreted in light of one's worldview

Creation itself demands a reference point in order to be understood correctly If man is the reference point everything is seen as it relates to man if god then everything is seen as it relates to him

It comes down to authority Who gets the right to define reality, right who gets the right to define us?

that's why things are breaking apart when it comes to the gender issue and pretty soon maybe a species issue because People are defining themselves

They've they've been growing up in a culture that says you can be anything you want. You are god And and so they've taken that literally and now they're trying to change everything around them to conform to their idea of what reality is

When generations before can't understand this because they were always raised with a christian worldview Even if they weren't christians, they were raised with the idea that yeah, there's a creator male and female.

He's given us Biological hardwiring that seems to mirror that but we're created for a purpose.

There's there's purpose in in this There's a theological underpinning that they believe and that's why

One side thinks the other is crazy So if there is neutrality, why do we disagree? If there is a neutral way of looking at the facts and if everyone starts from the same premises, then why is there disagreement?

Why is there such a wide divergence of theological and philosophical systems? If individuals are merely being inconsistent with their starting points disagreements should be infrequent and simple

Right, if all we have is the facts and we should be able to reason with each other Then we shouldn't really be disagreeing Right because we should all be looking at it objectively, but the problem is we don't look at things objectively

And and sin is what gets in the way of that sin perverts our understanding and says look at it this way

However, what we find when we look at the world are worldviews that are completely antithetical and that word antithetical just means in conflict

They're completely opposite of each other at war with each other So That's when a believer accepts a non -believer starting point

He is thus implicitly accepting their entire worldview assuming that the non -believer is reasoning in a way consistent with his starting point all that means is

If you accept one part of a non -believer's worldview if you accept the statement I get to define myself

Or I I am the god in my own universe Then you've given them everything There's no reason to argue anymore because you just lost you just there's no way for you to to gain a neutral ground a neutral Starting point by which you can convince them that the god of christianity is true because you've just shut him out

And here's here's some reasons that neutrality is wrong biblically Ephesians 4 17 through 18

So this I say and affirm together with the lord that you walk no longer Just as the gentiles also walk in the futility of their mind

Being darkened in their understanding excluded from the life of god because of the ignorance that is in them because of the hardness of their heart notice it's not ignorance because Man is just ignorant and he's a he's um, he can get off the hook this way.

He's innocent No, it's because of the hardness of their heart. They're purposely ignorant They don't want to see the truth number in john 1 the light comes into the world and what do men love darkness?

They don't want to see the light Colossians 2 8 see to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception according to the traditions of men

According to what the elementary principles of the world rather than according to christ So this is this is what neutrality is come and let's start with the elementary principles of the world

We don't start with that. We have to start with christ Ephesians 5 6 let no one deceive you with empty words for because of these things the wrath of god comes upon the sons of disobedience

So god commands us not to be neutral Neutrality is sinful. Uh romans 1 21 for even though they knew god

They did not honor him as god or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations and their foolish heart was darkened

Luke 11 23 he who is not with me is against me and he who does not gather with me scatters

Christ says there's only two choices. You're either with me or against me, right? There's no third option And then we got james 4 4 adulterers and adulteresses

Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with god? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of god and I suggest

That's what we do when we try to be neutral with an unbeliever is we're being his friend We're trying to be french friend and we should be his friend in a friendly way, right?

But not in the sense of friendship with his philosophical system with the world. We don't want to we make

We're warring against that. We're we're totally antithetical to what that means

So neutrality is sinful. Also man is sinful and thus darkened in his understanding making making his worldview unredeemable

Second corinthians 4 3 and even if our gospel is veiled it is veiled to those who are perishing

Ephesians 2 1 and you were dead in your trespasses and sins Colossians 1 21 and you who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works yet now he has reconciled

And then finally second corinthians 6 14 do not be bound together with unbelievers for what partnership Have righteousness and lawlessness or what fellowship has light with darkness?

So here's the conclusion to accept neutrality requires a compromise with satan himself first john 5 19

We know that we are of god and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one That means evil thinking the whole world.

All right, so this is pretty important stuff right now We're in the philosophical kind of stage and we're gonna hash this out a little more with some uh examples, but I want to Here's the the question that usually comes at this point if we can't be neutral with an unbeliever

He's got his presuppositions his ultimate authority. He has his worldview and we have ours

How can we communicate at all? Is that a fair question if we're not supposed to have any fellowship with darkness and the whole world lies in the power of darkness?

Then I guess we should just be the amish. We should just go to pennsylvania start a farm and never communicate with anyone

What's the problem with that? We have a great commission, right? We're supposed to go out into all the world

All right, so there's tension here, right? How do we then communicate with the non -believer? And how do we give them an apologetic an answer for the hope that lies within us if they ask us or challenge us?

Well Here's the solution We know a couple things about man and these things that we know about man are going to give us what?

I'm calling common ground. It's not neutral ground because we're not compromising anything I'm gonna use a star wars analogy if that's okay, right?

Remember, you know, the death star has a weak point Luke and the boys I guess know about it right because they got the plans for it

They have the secret plans that tell them where the secret point is and they can destroy the death star And it's this little bit you didn't you wouldn't think it'd be that significant this little bitty point

But if they destroy this one point the whole thing goes up in flames Well in a similar way now, we're not that violent, right?

We're not looking to go destroy. We're destroying philosophies but we're trying to save people and we have

A letter from god, right? We have the holy bible and it tells us something about man and it tells us

Where the weakness is it tells us that man? Actually knows god exists and because we know something about man and this applies to all men

Then we can have discussions with them because we actually do have something in common with them whether they realize it or not

They have to live in the same world that we live in right? and and they get up and they make their toast and have their coffee and get in their car and drive on the right side of the road and and uh

Do their job and when they get paid they want to make sure their paycheck has the right number on it Because they do believe in absolutes and they do believe in all the things that god tells us that you know are based on his character

So man is made in god's image. That's where we're going to start here Genesis, uh 127 god created man in his own image in the image of god.

He created him male and female. He created them Ecclesiastes 3 11 he has made everything appropriate in its time.

He's also set eternity in their hearts Yet so that man will not find out the work which god has done from the beginning even to the end

That that phrase he has said eternity in their heart means there's something every man has every man

Knows that god exists and has a sense of it somewhere That's why they keep trying to suppress it and they get these groups together that are professional

Truth suppressing groups some of them call some people call them universities. Some people call them false religions, right?

I went to comic -con today. I'm pretty sure it's there. I was there for 10 minutes I've never been to a comic -con and I had a free pass

All right so it was right next to where I work and they use our parking lot and I and so they said hey if you want to Katie told me actually if you want to walk over there and I said i'm not going to do it and I went and did it um

Yeah, they're crazy. They're crazy. That's all I gotta say. I I i'm doing a little tangent here, but it it applies trust me so I walked through a number of the booths and I was just looking at people like Like who

I don't even understand what that cost or how come every alien has to Show him how come they're all immodest and sexy looking every alien from an alien world

I think that's an excuse for people honestly But that's I was walking past that And I saw on my right hand side as I was walking down.

I saw a star trek area Now I kind of like some star trek stuff. So I was like, oh, that's kind of cool And then

I so I walked over there and as I was walking through I was like they have a lot of stuff there's like all the ships all the the phasers all the

Communication devices and just stuff I didn't even know about and i'm like this is from star trek And they had all this stuff and sign saying not to touch

And I asked the guy I said Who are you? Like, what do you they weren't selling anything?

So I was like, what are you with? What is this? And he said oh, we're we're part of starfleet command and he had a star trek uniform on I was like starfleet command

And I said look i've never been to comic -con before this is my first time and I just i'm so Like Blown away right now like i've never been in this environment where i've seen so many adults

There's like no kids in there. They're all between the ages of like 35 and 65 and I said i've never seen so many people in costumes and i'll and i'm sure i'm offending someone out there who likes comic -con, but anyways, so Um, so so I said starfleet command.

What what do you guys do? Well, they give to charities and they get together and they watch episodes of star trek and then they discuss these episodes with each other

And they discuss star trek news, uh with each other And and I said and they have a hierarchy they have captains and they are a local chapter and he said that's

I don't even remember the name they have a vessel and it's the name of their vessel and I was like I this is exactly what

I told him. I said You sound like a church I said you get together you do good things for people, right?

You have a hierarchy of leadership I said is it religious at all? And he's like he immediately he was like put off by that.

I was like No, no, he's like but you have to ask our captain. He might have a different, you know view of it And I was like, oh my and the guy's like 60, right?

so um I I just thought I was like, I don't know if he's getting paid but he's not selling anything

He's sitting there all day trying to recruit people into starfleet command Starfleet command doesn't exist, right?

Okay So then as I thought about it, I was leaving there and I said, you know what? There are a lot of complex cults and philosophical systems out there

Just like star trek. I thought star trek has languages Kleon is a language that was created, right?

And there's all these different things that you can know You can I mean you can read books and books about information That has to do with star trek and it never existed and I would hope that the people that know that they're part of starfleet

Command know it never existed, right? It's just the figment of someone's imagination, but yet it's so intricately complexed

I said that's a lot like cults. That's a lot like mormonism or Jehovah's witnesses, right or or um any any cult that has a very complex theology and they

They can sometimes seem like they're very smart even like a darwinist can seem very smart They know about all the layers of rock and it's very complex just like star trek is very complex but none of it's actually true and And so I thought you know

This is kind of like those who suppress the truth and unrighteousness except these guys know this isn't true and they're still doing it

But there's there's an extra level of deception when it comes to a cult, right? Because you're involved in a false religion, you know, it's internally, you know, it's wrong

But you keep suppressing it to the point you convince you it is right You you and on some level, you know It's the truth your belief about your belief is that it's true and I gave an example of that last week

So, I don't know just a little tangent there I've never been in a comic con but even people from starfleet command are made in god's image

Even if they have cleon masks on they're still men. All right, and they're made in god's image And man is made with the capacity to perceive creation psalm 19 1

Says the heavens are telling of the glory of god and their expanse is declaring the works of his hands so Men know because of what creation creation has given us knowledge that god exists and that he is a certain way and he has a character

What else do we know about man man knows god and we talked about this, um act 17 23 This is paul and we're going to read this later

But he says I was passing through and examining, uh an object of your worship And he says

I I also found an altar with this inscription to an unknown god This is paul at athens And he says therefore what you worship in ignorance this

I proclaim to you so paul See something in a non -believing worldview and says there's a hint there

There's a sense in which even these people know the god of creation And he's gonna he's gonna show them through even their false religion that in some sense

They know deep down that the god of christianity is the true god and he is the one that exists So if we know this about man, then we can communicate with man, but it's not going to be on neutral ground

It's going to be on common ground Though there is not such a thing as neutral ground.

There is such a thing as common ground We know that the non -believer relies on our worldview in order to make sense of reality

This is why a non -believer can be a proficient scientist artist or member of any profession imaginable and still be a non -believer

They are on borrowed capital so to speak. Let me explain this one of the questions That is asked a lot about presuppositional apologetics

Is if what you're saying is true, how can non -believers know anything if you're saying that you need the god of christianity to make sense of the world

Non -believers can be good scientists. They seem to make sense of the world So it seems like what you're saying is is not true

Well, here's the kicker. They they can make sense of the world to some extent The reason they make sense of the world is because they're relying on the god that they say they don't believe in They're relying on the god that they know deep down exists because we have that knowledge

We are able to show that the non -believer Is not being consistent with what he actually knows deep down and that is our apologetic

That's going to end up being how we communicate with them So within their own worldview is the seeds to its own destruction, right?

And borrowed capital I think is a really good term. It means that atheism presupposes theism

It means that whenever the non -believer makes an argument against the christian god He has to start with the idea that the christian god has to exist

Good example would be I use morality a lot just because it's so one of the more simple preconditions of intelligibility

To understand but when an atheist makes an argument that the god of christianity cannot be moral

What he is saying is that a moral standard exists and if a moral standard exists There has to be a moral lawgiver

And you don't have moral law without a moral lawgiver And that's the person that the atheist is trying to disprove

So he has to start with the idea that there is a moral lawgiver in order to prove that god does not exist pretty wild stuff, right so So we assume the god of christianity atheists

Non -believing worldviews assume the god of christianity in order to try to argue against him They are self -deceived

In their reasoning and they reason in such a way that while they deny god they actually know him We can use this common ground by showing the non -believer that they really do believe in the god of christianity

Though they suppress that truth What we must never do is join them in their error and somehow attempt to persuade them through their own feudal system of thought

So here's what neutral ground looks like This is what the non -believer thinks. It's like you you have your non -christian intellect your christian intellect

And you have the facts and if we we start with the facts then we'll be able to get somewhere This is what it actually is.

It's common ground the non -believer Is relying on christian presuppositions to make his arguments

Without the christian presuppositions with a god who is transcendent invariable absolute unchanging, um has a standard of morality and of of And is even a trinity that there can be unity and diversity and he can distinguish between himself and other other things all these things

Must be assumed by the non -believer before he can even raise an argument against the bible

Let's talk about act 17 Act 17 let's all turn there.

We're going to read an example of this Uh, let's start at verse 16 and then let's go to the end of the chapter.

So it's a little bit of a hunk there but try to pay attention to The story here as we go

Now while paul was waiting for them at athens his spirit was being provoked within him as it as he was observing the city full of idols

So he was reasoning in the synagogue with the jews and the god -fearing gentiles and in the marketplace every day with those who happen to be present and also some of the

Epicurean and stoic philosophers were conversing with him. Some were saying what would this idol babbler wish to say others?

He seems to be a proclaimer of strange deities because he was preaching jesus and the resurrection And they took him and brought him to Areopagus saying may we know?

What this new teaching is which you are proclaiming for you are bringing some strange things to our ears

So we want to know what these things mean now all the athenians and the strangers Visiting there used to spend all their time in nothing other than telling and or hearing something new

So paul stood in the midst of the of the areopagus and said men of athens

I observe that you are very religious in all respects for while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship

I also found an altar with this inscription to an unknown god Therefore what you worship in ignorance this

I proclaim to you The god who made the world and all the things in it since he is lord of heaven and earth

Does not dwell in temples made with hands nor is he served by human hands as though he needed anything

Since he himself gives to all people life and breath and all things and he made from one man every nation of mankind

To live on all the face of the earth having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation

That they would seek god If perhaps they might grope for him and find him though He is not far from each one of us for in him

We we live and move and exist and even some of your own poets have said for we are also his children

Being then the children of god We ought not to think that the divine nature is like gold or silver or stone an image formed by the art and thought of man

Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance god is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent

Because he has fixed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness through a man who he has appointed

Having furnished proof that to all men by raising him from the dead Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead some began to sneer but others said we shall hear you again concerning this

So paul went out of their midst, but some men joined him and believed among whom were

Dionysus the areopagite Yeah so Uh, I like the the last part here because it's encouraging not everyone got saved right?

But some people did so don't always expect you can give the best argument in the world and be an apostle of god

Right jesus Obviously everything he said was true and people can still oppose you it doesn't mean you have a bad argument necessarily but what we see in this passage is that Paul does not give them neutral ground, but he does

Assume common ground with them He says to them In verse 22, you're very religious in all respects

Uh, and and then he goes on he's saying you guys do worship I I see this attribute and then he says when

I was passing I saw an unknown god a statue there and um, a lot of scholars think that this is referring to Uh, they actually had a couple statues of unknown gods.

I'm we're not sure exactly how many but they're referring to um I think events that took place in athens

One of the the closest events was there was a plague that had broken out in the city and they didn't know which god They offended so they said let's just build a statue to the unknown god because we must have offended one of them

We got so many of them one person said of athens. You could find more gods there than people So they they said we'll just make if we left one out

We'll make one to the unknown god and that way we'll cover our basis and appease that one So paul sees this to an unknown god.

He said that's that's pretty much Like the athenians their view of of the true god.

He's he's unknown to them But they in some sense they do know about him And he says and and immediately he doesn't start with all right, let's give the cosmological argument

Don't you guys see there's design? Well, there must have been a design. He doesn't do that What he does is he just declares

What what you worship in ignorance this I proclaim to you the god who made the world and all things in it

Since he is the lord of heaven and earth. He does not dwell in temples made with hands Where do you think the gods in in athens dwelled?

Probably in temples made with hands right he immediately contradicts them Maybe he says you're you got you got one thing right here.

There is an unknown god you've left out and and you know something about him um But but you're worshiping him in ignorance and then he says

But you're doing it wrong. This is wrong worship. He he's not he he's the concept that you have of god is not

Is not the true god. He he's not so small. He's not in temples. He's the god of all creation

And he says nor is he served by human hands as though he needed anything since he himself gives to all people life and breath

And all things now notice where he's going here He's saying you rely on him in other words the preconditions of intelligibility uh athenian people

You are relying on this unknown god now Remember, they made the unknown god because he we didn't want to miss one.

We want to make sure we we appease all of them He's not talking he's he's talking past that now

He's talking about the god that they rely on the god that that gives them life and breath and all things

You think those all things include knowledge? Yeah He said he made from one man every nation that live on the face of the earth

So he's the creator god and and he's determined where they live. He's sovereign all these attributes

Look at all these attributes that are coming out. This isn't blank theism This is a different god than the god that's argued for in most christian contexts today um

He says that they would seek god if perhaps they might grope for him now There's his call to repentance first. He says god has expectations on you this god that that you know exists

He says verse 28. Now. This is I think where it becomes overtly presuppositionally says for in him We live and move and exist as even some of your poets have said for you're also his children

So he's saying you guys really do know you're intellectuals. You're poets. Those are poets would have been intellectuals at the time they

They know that That the the true god exists because he is the god that we rely on we move in him.

We exist in him Um, he he's the one responsible for everything. This is this

This is the system that we're trying to learn. They're the the system of apologetics It we're we're copying kind of what paul did here

And just so you know the epicureans and stoics these are these are philosophers and they're not that unlike philosophers we would have today

Stoics you think of the word stoic, right? I'm going to be undeterred by my emotions well that there's a reason that we think of that because the stoics, uh believe that That that was emotions were bad that we we the way the key to life was to be resolute

And and to get through it in a very logical way. Everything was logic. They were the mr Spocks, right if everyone if you get the star trek reference, it's all right um

Yeah Uh, the the epicureans were the ones that were live drink be happy We're gonna die eventually and then it's over.

So let's get the most out of life now, right? These these philosophies still exist and the epicureans especially they didn't they deny the existence of the supernatural

What's paul proclaiming to them the supernatural? He doesn't he doesn't say let's start with what you know to be true and what

I know to be true And we're he he says we're gonna go behind what you think, you know to be true And we're gonna go to what you really know deep down He says let's see

Uh again 30 repent. He's a clear clearing the people everywhere should repent

And and this is interesting. I think in verse 31 He's fixed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness

Through a man whom he is appointed having furnished proof to all men by raising him from the dead Now some people go to this and say see he gave the resurrection argument.

No, he didn't He's not giving the argument that because a man rose from the dead Therefore you have to accept everything that this man said

Because jesus was raised therefore this is proof. That's not what he's saying. He's using the resurrection as proof

For judgment, it's not proof for christianity. It's proof for judgment Because jesus raised from the dead and he's talking to people with a worldview that says the all that exists is the material world

He's saying there's life after this God god is showing you that there's life after this by having a man come back from the dead okay, so I just i'm the reason i'm throwing that out there is because some people try to go to this to say

His whole argument is hinging on the resurrection of christ. No, it's not That he didn't even need to put that in there.

He puts that in there as a bonus. You're really judged That's what he's saying Um, and now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead some began to sneer now

That's why would they sneer at that? Because they don't believe that there can be life after death.

They believe all that that's here is what's in the material world That's ridiculous. They don't like the resurrection from the dead.

It just doesn't make sense to them And then paul pretty much ends it there or they end him. I don't really know exactly what happens

And and at the end of it, it says there were some converts based on this All right. So looking at this whole passage, we just went through it really briefly, right?

We could have spent a long time doing like a bible study but we we see Neutral ground here and we see common ground here and we see that paul picks common ground because he didn't have to start there

He could have done what modern apologists like to do and he could have said you guys are reasonable, right?

Well, let's start an argument and he didn't do that. He just proclaimed And I think that's for us. That's the big application.

We start with just proclaiming. We just share the gospel We proclaim that there's going to be judgment um

We assume these things because we know deep down the non -believer Knows that these things are actually true.

They're sneering at them Why would they be sneering? Because they're trying to suppress the truth, right if they don't really believe it's true if it makes no difference

They wouldn't be sneering at him. They wouldn't have called him in verse. Um Where is it verse 19,

I believe or where they call him as uh this babbler Yeah, yeah, they call him an idol they call him a babbler which could be translated a seed picker a gutter sparrow

Someone who goes and has hashtag, you know, a ha hashtag Hashtag philosopher someone who goes and sifts through uh, basically feces

That's what the word means a sparrow that goes and sifts through feces to try to find something to eat

That's what they're calling paul, right? He's he's not intellectual. He's not like us.

They have a very smug attitude towards him But he he doesn't let that deter him. He still proclaims the truth to them

Any any questions before we move on? All right, we're going to go through this a little quicker So we're going to do some homework.

We're going to break up into small groups break out into small groups and um And work through a problem

Of sorts and see how we apply this next week is where we're really going to apply it

So next week we're going to learn the transcendental argument, which is the main argument and the don't answer answer method which sounds

Weird, but you'll see it's based on scripture and we're going to know how to approach any situation but Um, I want to kind of if we're not applying any of it it it just we lose it

So I want to try to apply some of this Uh, so we're going to go over a word that i've been using this whole time called the preconditions of intelligibility

So i've already kind of defined it. So Um, i'm just going to read this and then we're going to watch some videos

To make any rational sense of the world human beings must start out as knowers We know that certain things are true and based on these known facts

We build our worldview scientists understand this in order to know that a certain reading or measurement is accurate

They must rely on instruments through careful calibration The scientist fine -tunes his equipment to ensure proper functioning in order to know that a measurement is accurate

The scientist must first know that his instrument is accurate in the same way Human beings in order to know that they are that what they perceive is accurate must first know that their senses are reliable And that nature is uniform and that the laws of logic and mathematics are sound and that morality is upheld

Let me explain this for a minute before we go further In science when we're we're doing experiments in the lab

Does morality touch that? Do you think that has anything to do with morality? Yes Because if a scientist fudges his results, he's lying and if you engage in lying science fails

You have to have morality. Okay Science also has to believe that there's a uniformity to nature gravity's not going to change tomorrow

So we have to assume that there's something constant going out and there's no reason to assume that on humanism humanism atheism or any other worldview god has

In god that we find that there is a standard that does guarantee that the future will be like the past because god upholds creation

So science has to understand has to first assume that nature is going to be uniform What else does science have to understand or assume

I should say? How about the laws of logic Or and mathematics, right?

Now these are immaterial right two plus two equals four is an immaterial Formula, it's not something you can give me an example from nature, but you can't find that principle growing on a tree somewhere

So that's another thing that comes directly from the mind of god and science has to assume that these things are valid Now in order for their an experiment to get from the point of observation where now we're relying on all our senses

We're relying on our touch our sight Sound if there's sound involved in the experiment, we're relying on these things to give us truth

And and to get from the point that of us using these things to a data that we can now apply to reality

We have a lot of things that we've assumed that are not scientific Right, so science cannot prove itself

Everything we know that does not come from a scientific investigation Everything we know ultimately has to rely on some kind of assumption somewhere because even science has to rely on a lot of assumptions

So so when we talk about preconditions of intelligibility What we're talking about is how even the scientist has to start with knowing something before he can prove anything

We do that as non -scientists artists do that every profession does this they have to start out with certain assumptions

That's really all this is saying and the analogy given is is someone to will pretend a microscope would be maybe that's a good one

So if a scientist is using a microscope, how does he know it's in focus or out of focus? Well, he's the validator of it.

He he he turns it right until he knows. Yeah, that's in focus. I'm getting an accurate reading well, how do we know our our

What god has given us? The touch and taste and smell and sight and thinking how do we know that those things are accurate?

How do we know our senses are out of focus? Right. We can't do a scientific experiment because that's what we're trying to prove

How do we know well there has to be someone that validates our senses that fine -tunes them that that that upholds them

That we can base them on well, that's god because god thinks in a certain way. He's created us in his image

We are to think in a certain way. Does that make sense? This is the preconditions of intelligibility Is in order to trust the reliability of mental and sensory faculties a person must first know that they are valid These preconditions of intelligibility are only valid if they are upheld by some personal force outside the human being

The same way scientific instruments can only be trusted if they are first validated by the scientist

The word of god is this validator? It makes sense of the preconditions of intelligibility in such a way that humans can accurately make sense of reality

So god gives us revelation. Remember that's the escape hatch we talked about last week revelation from god

That was good timing All right, revelry i've lost my train of thought

All right, we're gonna watch a video Taken from the movie collision.

This stuff was just released apparently footage. They chose not to use I kind of wonder if christopher hitchens didn't want to use because wow, did he take a spanking from douglas wilson?

one one of christianity's Specifically horrible contributions to human mythology and delusion is the idea the terrifying idea that you could be tortured forever

Horrible by what standard? um horrible by Well, good question.

Yeah, I know No, but horrible well Shall I say let me ask you anyone?

Um here who doesn't think it's a horrible idea to put up their hand So it doesn't seem to require much explanation.

Does it as a horrible idea? Well, are you are you do you have a do you feel you need a standard to keep your hand down at the moment?

Or did I just say something that was so to speak morally self -evident? No, there's a difference between an emotional reaction to something every person.

I think they're using their heads No, there's there's there's a difference between an emotional reaction

Which all of us have everybody with natural affection thinks it's a terrible idea to think of people perishing eternally

That's not the issue. The issue is how do you give an accounting of what is good and what is bad?

When when you say if if the universe is on your accounting time and chance acting on matter

If all the universe is is matter in motion. What do you mean horrible? What do you mean by horrible idea?

Who cares? We'll take a break right now. So christopher hitchens can untie his tongue

That's called an appeal to the audience saying something to get the audience on your side see

I defeated your argument see no you didn't christopher hitchens

Absolutely stammering dancing because he does not have a response to where do you get your morality?

Why do we care a very good point? um, very good question, um I asked myself a lot why that is

I I think it's because I am uh, one of the higher primates What but that that's not that's not a rallying cry it appears to be no, it's not much of a rallying cry

But it's it has the merit of being true um, it appears to be the part of the equipment intellectual and moral equivalent of our primate species

That it does have a need to help its fellow creatures as well as to torture kill

Rape enslave and exploit them. It does have a feeling Okay quite a strong one, but there's a human need to help and you might need help yourself someday

So be nice to your neighbor. So why not now? Not everyone has this I mean there are quite a lot of people also presumably made in the image of god

I think a superfluous assumption to be making but also made in the image of god according to you who are born sociopathic they don't care about other people they just can't be made to they just Won't and don't they're a problem for the rest of us and then there are people who are born psychopathic who?

Who positively need to see others suffer if our have a bad time if our species has within it the seeds of a gregarious help

Help you give lend a helping hand and we have a herd instinct and we want to help out We have that instinct and we also have the instinct to go to war and and fight and do all these terrible things that we do

I've got instinct a and instinct b. What is it that tells you which one is right?

Same as you I would say god. No the God No, you knew you knew you knew all that before you'd ever read the bible

Well, I knew all that you knew all that before anyone ever introduced you to christianity Don't tell me you didn't or i'll have to be seriously alarmed about what you were like As a little boy, well, that would be good to do.

It'd be serious. No, come on. It's uh, here's here's the issue. Um, of course um,

I can feel a certain way before I can give an accounting of it, but what i'm asking for is

Given your premises given your assumptions given what you say the universe is Given all that.

How do you give an accounting of which way you go? Answer you can't you simply can't without an objective standard

So I think it was evidenced in that how an atheist in this case an atheist could not account for preconditions of intelligibility

He was stammering and one of the things greg bonson said one of the presuppositional apologists Actually, I think

I have his book sitting here if you guys this is the best book on Presuppositional apologetics called always ready by greg bonson one of the things he said though is

Let the non -believer talk you'll give him enough rope to hang himself And that's exactly what you saw there

Just let him talk ask a simple question that he can't answer and then look at everywhere He tried to go using logical fallacies.

He appealed to the audience. That's a logical fallacy I don't think we have time tonight to get to them. I have a whole list of different logical fallacies

He then had a I think it's the genetic fallacy. It's called where He says well we evolved this way

But if you evolve a certain way, it doesn't give you an ought it gives you an is this is how we are And then douglas wilson points out.

Okay, so we have all this way human beings have evolved to kill themselves And do harm and human beings have evolved the capacity to do good things.

So which one are you going to choose? Why why how does evolution tell you which one to choose it doesn't it just tells you

I don't believe in evolution biological, you know macro evolution, but But that that doesn't answer the question.

That's a fallacy so All he had was to jump around from fallacy to fallacy and that's why he was stammering and trying to talk

Oh and and keep talking to try to find something that's gonna gonna hook in all right, so Here's the answer the character of god

And is the answer to the preconditions of intelligibility this is why we can have objective morality

And and everything else that you see listed here I'm going to not go over all these references, but I am going to give you kind of the theology here

The here's some of the preconditions of intelligibility This is what the laws of logic so the law of non -contradiction there are no contradictions in god due to his honesty

It is the moral component of god that upholds the idea that there cannot exist two diametrically opposed propositions timothy is worn by paul to avoid contradictions and so the law of non -contradiction basically says

That you can't you can't have a and not a in the same sense in the same way You can't have a proposition.

I can't say the chair is there and it's also not there It's either there or it's not there, right? You can't have contradictions.

Well that why not? Well because we have a god who is not a god of contradictions that would amount to a lie god is not a liar

Whenever god identifies a thing as possessing a distinct identity from other things. He is upholding the identity does exist

So in other words, there is a difference between me and you Now a lot of eastern religions have a problem.

They say all is one. We're all the same thing Why is there any distinction then between me and the outside world? How come i'm thinking and I don't know your thoughts?

Uh there there's a problem there now in a trinity and a god who is diversity And unity we have a reason for believing that we can have diversity and unity.

We can have identity. I can be have personhood There's a little more philosophical, but we assume these things all the time

Um law of excluded middle the bible constantly affirms there can cannot exist a situation in which something both is the case

And is not the case That's very similar to the law of non -contradiction

Usually the law of non -contradiction is the one that we talk about the most uh laws of morality god is the standard for morality uh reliability of sense perception

Yeah, uh, we we can go to the new testament we can go to uh, First john what we've seen with our hands what our eyes have seen or what we've seen with our eyes

We don't see with our hands Felt with our hands concerning the word of life um sense perception is

Has its validity in who god is the way he is the creator. That's what this all comes down to really the uniformity of nature

Um god being the creator you can look at these references later if you want laws of mathematics

Again have their origin in god In addition, the preconditions of intelligibility must be invariable absolute and unchanging three obvious characteristics of the biblical god if they are not we have

We have reason to doubt them for instance The law of logic must always be in the same the same in every situation for us to make use of them

Science depends on this Let's uh get a little more of our friend here, but humanitarianism simply falls that's the first thing

So my question is this I because I don't see us really disagreeing at this point I believe that it was okay to kill amalekites

Right because it was not okay to not do it because god told them to kill the amalekites Uh, we would differ on there you are.

I've got you to say it. Okay Happy to say it and didn't get me to say it.

No, I know I knew I knew I knew you'd get a bang out of What I what

I actually get a bang out of is what i'm going to get you to say next And that is um, neither one of us has a problem with killing amalekites

I don't have a problem with it because god told him to do it You don't have a problem with it because the universe just doesn't care what happens to amalekites

No, actually that's not true because uh, what if I was an amalekite well that you're not the universe well, no

I'm, sorry, it still changes everything All right, so the first time

I ever used presuppositional apologetics that I can remember Uh was it was an evangelistic encounter with a bunch of other christians and they were doing open -air preaching

It was at an october fest and there was a lot of drunk people there probably wasn't the best place to do it But uh, there was a guy who was getting a little loud

And he may have I don't even know if he was he might have been getting a little tipsy And he was screaming against the open -air preacher.

He was sharing the gospel and this guy Just kept saying your bible Affirms slavery and hates women and all this kind of stuff.

So I was the unsuspecting. Um, you know person in the audience who he didn't know if I was a christian or not

So I walked up to him and because I know he was kind of distracting from everything and I was like, hey Hey, do you have a problem with what he's saying?

Well, yeah, I do because he's he's talking about the bible and the bible affirms slavery Now, what would most of us christians want to do?

You don't really understand the bible Okay, look let's get into the context of what hebrew slavery was hebrew slavery

Wasn't the kind you're thinking of you're thinking of of man capture and a system based on racism and and and that's not what the bible

Affirms the bible talks about slavery In and actually it's a welfare system. It was a good and you have to go through this whole education system for He him understanding slavery and at the end of it.

He's not going to accept it. Anyway, he doesn't care So instead of going that route and saying you don't understand the bible

I went this route. I said what's wrong with slavery with a straight face and He was like taken aback for a minute like who would ever ask that question, right?

Well, everyone knows it's wrong Well everyone and and so we I just went through every single Reason he tried to give

I would give a response that showed that reason wouldn't work If you try to hang morality on a final authority, that is not god you wind up in a contradiction

So everyone knows it's wrong. Okay Well, if everyone said it's good to jump off a bridge should we just do it because everyone says it

You know if everyone in nazi germany said it's it's right to kill jews or in turkey It's right to kill the armenians.

Should we just do it because everyone says it Well, that doesn't work So he went to well,

I well I know it's it's wrong. I know it's wrong. So I know god exists there That's the same if that argument works my argument can work too

No, that doesn't work and then It goes around and around but eventually he's going to run out of options, right?

Um, it's whatever causes harm if you cause harm, then it's wrong Well that just moves it one one step back from a checkmate because now

I can say What constitutes harm? What if I think it's it's harmful to for you to be arguing with me right now

Or what if I don't think it's harmful in my mind to shoot you now to end the debate It's not harmful because honestly you're causing a lot of harm to the people hearing you

What if I made an argument like that now, that's that's an appalling thing, right? But if you for someone with no moral standard or way to hang their moral standard up all they have is themselves

He can't argue against it Just saying I know it's wrong. You can make an argument for anything just saying

I know it's wrong I know unicorns exist. Is that a valid argument? No So where where else do we have to go to eventually?

He he just ran out of options and and he was stammering and he walked away from me And I remember he had a friend with him who was watching and his friend came up to me and his friend said

Hey, look, i'm sorry about my friend. I just want you to know you you totally won that But you know we and I said well, would you like to there's good news would you like to hear no, we're fine

We don't I we don't need that. We're good. You won like, you know, basically Let's go look our wounds and you go off and do your thing

He's he still didn't want to repent but I remember that was the first time I ever tried that approach and I was like Oh my goodness, like there's power in this and I didn't have to do hardly anything

I just let him talk and I just asked him questions And that's why presuppositional apologetics

Is a lot easier than any other method and because it's true. I mean, that's the first thing but it's also simple

Once you understand, I mean we're learning the philosophy behind it now But once you understand how to use it, it can become very very simple

Because you're just exposing what the person already knows. They know that it's god They know that that's what they they are and they're running from it and they have nowhere to go

They walk down dead ends all over the place And you had you were pointing out that those are dead ends

I guess I have another video here. Let's see People I think that your atheism betrays

Your own lifestyle. I think you're living in the world like you're god's creation, but you're denying them with your atheism

And I would encourage you to investigate because otherwise look Tyler Tyler Tyler you're going to be you're going to be in the position where you're going to go

For me altruistic behavior and the guy comes along goes but for me right now It's hurting you and then you say but you can't hurt me.

He says why not because for me, it's altruistic behavior He says but for me, it's hurting you behavior

And then what i'm saying is there are people like that. I know there is but is that evil? Again relative to me that is evil.

But to him that's fine if he hurts you I wouldn't like that. I would stab him back.

Okay, but because because he's offending you in some way Is he hurting you in some way? Do you have some value or dignity? He's he's hurting

With your nerves that flow through my body, I know it may be painful. I mean it may be painful

But I don't have a dignity that he's hurting right? So you have no value Yeah, yes you do or don't

I do not have value i'm irrelevant to the universe i'm just a speck of dust Okay So ultimately your evil your atheism

Sorry, I didn't mean to say that your atheism leaves you with no basis for good or evil and it leaves you with no value and no dignity

And that's what's true I think you're trying to be consistent. But I here's what

I want to say to you. I don't think That you'll live that way I think you'll you both will live in the world

Betraying what you just said because I think that you know him But you're living trying very hard to suppress that because you're going to walk away in a minute and guess what you're going to do

You're going to eat food today. You're going to love your friend. She's going to love you back You're going to you're going to drink water.

You're going to take care of friends. You're going to pay your bills You're going to live as though you have value and dignity and worth and that others matter too

But your atheism will deny that all of your life So I would just encourage you

To ultimately my call is just turn turn to christ and trust in him because when you do not only is there forgiveness and salvation

But there's a basis for science and logic and morality and all the things you live according to The interesting thing about atheism is that When you lose god, you also lose man

If you don't have a reference point to judge man for his value then man just becomes

Nothing man's no more relevant than a speck of dust, which is what she said I passed out some sheets

And this is more just for interaction if you if you understand it and you need to go I understand

But if you want to stick around Everyone has you're actually in groups is what's going on right now. Each of you have

Different scenarios you're going to just evaluate the situation here. It's very short It's a couple sentences of a scenario

And then what you're going to do is you're going to try to answer these three questions So you can discuss it amongst yourselves And say and figure out now if you don't have an answer, that's okay

We'll work through all of them. It won't take too long. But the first one is what kinds of things Can you tell about their worldview?

So you're going to try to figure out where's this person coming from? What philosophy are they advocating or religion? What problems do they have accounting for the preconditions of intelligibility?

All right. So this is where you're going to get a little more philosophical You're going to try to figure out what's the weakness here and what they're saying

And then how can you engage such a person using apologetics so you don't have to give me the whole scenario Just give me what what would the next step be?

What would you want to point out to them? All right, so we'll take a couple minutes not too long.

Maybe five minutes and do that. All right guys, we're gonna um, We're gonna go through these real quick and then we're gonna pray and end so Pick a spokesperson or just shout it out

If you have someone that from your group that wants to give the answers, here's the first scenario

You are in the line at the grocery store when you notice the person in front of you is shaking their head as they look

At one of the tabloids on the rack you notice the headline reads the virgin mary appears on toast

The person in front of you notices you looking at the same magazine They are looking at so she turns to you and states that's why you can't trust faith

Only science can tell us what's true and what isn't They use a

Cyclical reasoning of science tells us what we know because science tells us what we know kind of thing

And also they're having to because science tells us what we know they're having to borrow from the christian worldview of I know that tomorrow is going to be the same because science tells me so or the reasoning that I have

In science which I use my reasoning to prove science will tell me is true

And then to engage In apologetics with with this person you can just point that out you say um, okay, so How do you know that science tells us what is true and what isn't and um, then they would

Respond with something of well, you can look at the the facts and use your reasoning to do that Well, what where do you get your reasoning from how do you prove your reasoning?

Okay, you have them in that cycle of they're telling you that their reason is

Probably no I think I think that's really good. Especially your question. I think is really good How do you know science gives us what is true?

Yeah Um You're in the line though at a grocery store, too. You don't have time to explain to them Circular reasoning in the vicious circle and all of that.

Let me point something out here. Um at the top it says Her statement is that's why you can't trust faith.

Only science can tell us what's true and what isn't That's why you can't trust faith

She's now she's probably naturalistic in some way She's saying she's most likely saying there's nothing outside of the material world.

We can test with our senses spiritual world doesn't exist when she says faith she's

She she's saying it in a negative way faith is bad. We we can't trust that there's no truth value in it

Then what's the next statement? She makes is it a faith statement or a scientific statement? Only science can tell us what's true and what isn't what experiment did she run?

That told her that science is the only thing that can tell her what's true Did she run an experiment that compared science to other ways of knowing truth and science came out on top through an experiment?

There was no experiment. There was nothing observable testable repeatable. This their second statement has nothing to do with science.

It's all faith She says she contradicts herself. She says you can't trust faith.

Here's my faith I have faith in science Because science didn't give me a validator for science.

So what can you ask her? I think jeff's question is great You can ask her. Why do you have faith in science?

She just refuted herself. She shows that she doesn't really believe what she says. She believes She knows that god exists in some way.

Does everyone see that? All right, let's go to the next one You enter the break room at work to take your lunch break when you notice a few of your co -workers talking about a recent terrorist

Attack one of them says you can't just follow some book because it pretends to be the word of god There's no difference when chris that Then there's no different.

I don't know if I oh, that's no different. Sorry That's no different when christians who bomb abortion clinics because they think god told them to do it

You have to do what's right for you. Not some religion It's you guys, right? Who wants to be the spokesperson?

Um this person Definitely a little bit more she's against, you know,

I don't have the full fact just what you have

You walk into the break room, you don't have you can't give her like a biography like Oh gosh, you're fired as spokesperson.

All right No, no, it's all right. So she's so we know what her worldview is. It's probably naturalistic Also, she doesn't have a

She is irreligious she doesn't have a foundational morality for um, why is it wrong to bomb an abortion clinic?

Why was it wrong for this guy to commit terrorism to begin with? Okay, why was any of it wrong? How can you engage you could just ask those questions?

Well, what's what's what exactly is wrong with what he did? If if or you could even you could go into the abortion thing.

So, um, well if abortion is weird Okay you but that's a hot button issue too abortion

So you may not want to go there, but if I mean you can if you want So she's here's her statement

Um, you have to do what's right for you. Not some religion. That's her moral basis She judges everything based off of that.

What would the terrorist say to her? How would the terrorist respond? It was right for me So what's the question you could ask?

Why was it wrong for the terrorist to do what he did or why wasn't it right for the terrorist to do it?

What was right for him? She has a refutation in her own worldview She just said it's not right for the terrorist to do what he does, but you have to do what's right for you

She just gave the terrorist the best argument he needed to keep doing what he's doing, right? and also mindset of Yeah But she knows deep down it's not true, right?

Because she has a problem with the terrorist if she lived by it If she was Lived by it in a consistent way.

She wouldn't have a problem with terrorists if she does And she also has a problem with the abortion clinic bomber So that's good

All right, this one, uh as you pull did we have someone that had the mormon one in the back? Okay, as you pull it.

Wow, I think that was a more complicated one All right

As you pull up in your car after work, you notice there are two mormon missionaries at your front door They smile as you walk towards them and ask if you're interested in studying the book of mormon with them

You inform them that you are a christian and ask what they believe about the bible one of them states the bible

Is book the bible is book. All right, they are not I don't know where they're from The bible is book that testifies to the truth that joseph smith was a prophet of god because it agrees with the book of mormon

He goes on to tell you that he knows the book of mormon is true because of subjective personal experience He's had called burning in the bosom and that doesn't mean taco bell.

It means that he he I have i've had a lot of conversations with mormon missionaries.

Um And they talk about this quite a bit the burning in the bosom They just say I know that my mormon faith is true because I read the book of mormon

And god showed me because he gave me this burning this inside this it's a it's a very Self -validating thing and so I read the book of mormon and I told them

I did not have the burning in the bosom and um So I i've had long conversations with so i'm using the terminology they use if you didn't know understand what that meant i'm, sorry um

So what kinds of things can you tell about this person's worldview? What are what are they probably?

This is a mormon, this is the easiest question right if you said something else i'd have to bosom burners what

What problems do they have accounting for the preconditions of intelligibility? It doesn't it's good, you know, like that's good.

Okay. Any anyone else have anything to add to that? Yeah Yeah, so so how do they know truth so if you ask them how do you know truth

I got the burning I got the burning So, let me so here's my question, how can you engage such a person using apologetics

If they say I have my subjective personal experience, that's how I know truth. What can you say back to them?

I've got a burning in the bosom You don't have to use that term, but you can say I know that christianity is true because when

I received the holy spirit He told me that it was true That's the you can say the same thing back to them now

You just took their argument and you say well if if I can validate myself through emotional experience

Then i'll play that game. I have had an experience with the god of christianity and he's told me that he's true

Now you have to believe christianity right So they're being what they're what go ahead.

Yep. I was just going to say that Truth is something that if you're basing everything off your emotion

So there has to be something outside yourself to validate your belief Here's there's another there's another sort of uh death star trap here

He says the the statement the bible is his book that testifies to the truth that joseph smith was a prophet of god

Because it agrees with the book of mormon Look at that statement closely The bible is truth now this this is true.

This is from this is what mormons will tell you They believe in the bible. They use the bible right and it

Does not conflict at all with the book of mormon when joseph smith came he added revelation He gave us the book of mormon and and some other books and and that is also truth, but it is

Streamlined with the bible. It's all truth. Now. What can you easily do? Open up the bible say will you believe the bible?

I believe the bible, right? Let's find out from the bible if what the book of mormon teaches is true

According to the bible and what you'll find is the bible contradicts the book of mormon And there are other doctrine there are other um books the pearl of great price the doctrine and covenants in multiple places

So do a little homework on it you and this is what I did I actually I wish I I lent it to a friend so don't have it with me

But I have a book of mormon that's got tabs in it everywhere because I I read through it And everywhere I saw a contradiction.

I just put another tab in there and I put the bible verse down So I went to the mormon missionaries and I met with them again for like two hours after I did this and I said

Okay Here I I read it. I didn't have the burning in the bosom, but you say that you believe the bible

So I want to just make sure How does the book of mormon? um

When it says this Uh, and the bible says this how do you reconcile that and they couldn't do it and it all came back to well

We have this burning We have this experience. So then I just came back to well, I have an experience So where's where's the ultimate authority?

Is it the bible or is it your experience? For mormons try to say it's the bible, but it's not it's their experience

So that so that was a more complicated one. I'm, sorry that I Yeah, does that make sense though to everyone?

Yeah. All right And did anyone have this one the yoga one? Yeah, all right your friend invites you to a yoga class

He just started attending you respond by thanking her and saying that you already stretch at the at the gum It was one in the morning

What Yeah Now if they don't think you're weird they can say you do your gum stretching um

So your your friend explains That she doesn't go to yoga class just for stretching but instead

Because she seeks to become one with nature by freeing herself from all desires I read that totally wrong. All right, your friend explains that she doesn't go to yoga class just for stretching

But instead because she seeks to become one with nature by freeing herself from all desires

So it's not just stretching. She's going there for she's there's something spiritually going on Okay, what kinds of things can you tell about this person's worldview?

um some sort of eastern mysticism okay, and It's contradictory as well because she desires to not have desires bingo.

Um, yeah and She seeks nature so nature is her ultimate authority

Oh nature is her ultimate authority Oh because she wants to become one with nature that becomes god in her mind.

Okay, so nature is god. Yeah Yeah, that's really good So what what problems do you do they have accounting for the preconditions of intelligibility?

Um, the law of non -contradiction desiring to not have desires, okay bingo contradiction self -identity because Everything is distinct in its own way yet.

Her belief is that everything is one yes, um and the law of morality because in order to If you're free from desires, you're also free from Morals and the desire to want to do the right thing.

Yeah, that's great and some Questions that you could ask is well revealing that contradiction

Like you you're desiring to become one with nature you're desiring to let go of those desires

And also you desire to do everything in life you desire to Get up in the morning brush your teeth feed yourself survive um, so you can't completely let go of your desires

You could say, you know stop desiring to convert me into your yoga class. Yeah Yeah, I don't know yeah, leave me alone

That's really good. Yeah So, um, I don't think there's anything left to say there.

Does everyone understand that? Good All right, amanda's going to teach next week

Does anyone have this one you try to share the gospel to co -worker Okay, you try to share the gospel to co -worker

But as soon as you bring up the bible, he puts his hand up and states I only believe what I can see with my own two eyes and feel with these hands

Spare the religious talk unless you can prove it to me What kinds of things can you tell about this person's worldview?

atheist or agnostic humanistic, okay What problems do they have accounting for the preconditions of intelligibility

Actually, we had that I had that down what you um So, yeah the weaknesses he ignores anything outside of himself

He is the ultimate authority Um, there are no standards except for himself Um for truth except for himself and what he sees and feels

Can be misunderstood or changed and so there's a contradiction Yeah, that's good

How can you engage such a person using apologetics? Who would ask how do you know your opinion is correct?

Okay. Um, and what would be um What would how would you identify reality if you lost your sight and your hands?

He'd probably start doing gum stretches That's all he could do Yeah So there so he says

I only believe what I can see with my two eyes and feel with these two hands Spare the religious talk unless you can prove it to me

Now the statement he just made It's it. Is it a statement that he can see with his eyes and feel with his hands?

No now he can hold a paper where it's it's written there, but the the concept itself

It's a concept that he's coming his concept is you have to prove it Proof proof is the necessary component for knowing truth.

Can you feel proof? Can you see proof you can see things that prove but the principle of proof?

That that's something that is in the mind that's not something you see or you feel

Okay, that's something that is rational in here So so he's saying that he's not religious

In some way that that religious talk is bad. You have to prove it to me. Is he religious?

In some way he is right, how is he religious? Well, he has faith in Yeah himself

In his eyes and his hands are his bible Right. He is just as religious as you are except He doesn't have access to much because there's a lot out there that he can't see and he can't feel

There's a lot of concepts like the concept of love Or the concept of hate

Can you see these things? Can you touch these things? You can see the results of them, right?

You can see wars and stuff, but you can't see hate. Give me a jar of hate All right, you can't do it

All right, you can't give me a jar of love either You can demonstrate love to me, but you can't give me a it does not grow on a tree somewhere

So what would be a good question maybe to ask him? So you actually had some some good ones there, but what about another question based on what we just talked about?

What what could you what could you ask that would point out a contradiction right away? How do you know love if you can't see it?

Yeah, that's a good question. Yeah, I would say any any any other ideas on that? Is that your religious view?

That's a religious view that he's advocating there Is that your religious view? And he would probably i'm not religious or whatever, but then you could immediately go back to um

Do you do you trust your your hands and your eyes? Do you have faith in them that they're giving you something that's accurate?

Yeah, so you have faith You're religious Yeah So he doesn't have a problem with religion because he's having faith in something, right?

Yeah, does that make sense? Everyone? I feel like everyone on that one is kind of yeah So so he may be he's he's maybe angry at you this is the more the the angriest one that I put together, but But if you you can ask him a question that's going to stop him in his tracks

Because he probably isn't used to thinking that way, you know, is that is that your religious conviction? Is that your religious view?

Wait a minute. I just told you I wasn't religious. Do you have faith? Well, yeah, I guess I do in my hands and in my senses, right, okay,

I think that was the last one so This one Yeah Yeah, you can ask him that as well.

Sure Now if you weren't going to ask a question if you were going to just make a snarky statement

I would say I can't see your statement or feel it. So I'm, just going to go on with my day When when

I can see and feel your statement, yeah Yeah, there's a lot of little things you do

Yeah All right. So, um, we're it's uh, almost 9 30. So Um, was it worth it staying a little later just to do that to apply some of these things?

Okay next week I think is um The It's pretty much all application.

It's just going to be this kind of thing and we're going to learn Um the transcendental argument we're going to talk about the don't answer answer method

How do you answer a fool and then we're just going to go through scenarios And maybe we'll have a little couple little mock discussions so Sound good