Does the Triune God of the Bible Exist?

The Triune God of Scripture and the Christian Worldview

Thank you everyone ladies and gentlemen I want to humbly thank you all so much for coming and giving your time and attention to this vitally important subject this evening and given the fact that the triune God of Scripture exists and The nature of the uniformity he imposes upon this creation in which you find ourselves and due to the restraints of time that this creates I need to get right to it.

So let's do this. I'll start by immediately noting the obvious and make a concession right now to our dignified opponents by admitting defeat. If this were a competition over the most glorious beard Dan you win.

You're welcome. Yes. Our claim this evening is that the triune God of Scripture exists. We will not be defending a general form of theism and it is clear from the stipulated position that we are not arguing from a position of neutrality.

I'm given the nature of our opponents public claims about their professed atheistic worldview. And given the fact that they have chosen to publicly engage this topic as the opposition neither are they?

From a biblical and philosophical perspective neutrality is a myth. Biblically, no one is neutral towards the triune God because outside of a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. We are all fallen and in a hostile relationship with our Creator and thus the problem is not evidence For this God or a lack of light.

The problem is sin and suppression or holding down the truth, which is obvious to all of us. Philosophically speaking we have all we all have pre commitments through which we attempt to make our experience intelligible.

The question is not whether we do this. The question is whether our ultimate commitments are coherent Meaningful intelligible and can make sense of what we're all doing here tonight. We're defending historic confessional Christianity and the biblical worldview and our opponents are claiming to deny that the triune God of Scripture exists.

They are maintaining trust in an atheistic perspective of metaphysics epistemology ethics logic history Humans and more we're contending that because God exists this debate is possible. Given our opponents view of the world and commitments.

This debate would be incoherent meaningless irrelevant and wasteful. Why the descendants of highly evolved societies of bacteria would be exercising energy arguing for anything at all? It is ultimately purposeless universe should be perplexing to all of us.

According to them we're stardust in an environment with no ultimate purpose. No ultimate meaning no ultimate good or evil and we're the random results of evolutionary processes that didn't have us in mind their atheism and a public debate then is a form of philosophical absurdity and intellectual adolescence.

The claim of the triune God of Scripture is that he has revealed himself to us in the created order and that his creation is Constantly testifying to his existence presence and power he has revealed himself to each and every one of us to the degree that we're left without a defense or an Apologetic for our turning away from him and our denials of his existence he has revealed himself to us in history through special revelation and giving his self a testing word in Conscience and ultimately in the person of Jesus Christ who is God incarnate.

The claim in Scripture is that we all know this God and that there's the fool who says in his heart that there is no God, this is not a jab. It's a spiritual and intellectual assessment of a person who refuses to face the truth Reason properly and accept what is obvious to everyone that the triune God of Scripture exists.

According to Christian confession. God is a spirit Infinite eternal and unchangeable and his being wisdom power holiness justice goodness and truth. Scripture teaches us that God upholds the world and carries the universe along to its intended destination.

Therefore we have a justification that satisfies the preconditions necessary for the intelligibility of the uniformity in nature all human experience. Let me say it again all human experience depends upon the uniformity in nature or The inductive principle and that the future will be like the past.

Whether we're talking about the scientific method the laws of logic the laws of mathematics or walking our dogs All human experience is dependent upon the principle of induction. Our opponents will assume this all night.

They're doing it right now. They'll not however be able to justify their appeals to it given their atheistic Presuppositions and will demonstrate their dependence upon the triune God. The triune God of Scripture is completely sovereign over all events in history.

Declares the end from the beginning and causes all things to work together for good for those who are loved who love God and of The called according to his purpose. Therefore all of history has meaning and purpose.

Human beings were uniquely created by God and therefore have meaning value purpose and dignity. We reject the claim that fish became philosophers and That human beings are not ultimately different than snails dogs rocks or dirt as is the logical result of our opponents worldview.

Everything we see and can't see reflects the glory presence power and creative purpose of God. The Christian worldview denies what atheists like dr. Clark and mr Ellis claim about reality that it is simply matter in motion or that all that exists is the material universe.

The Christian worldview maintains that there are material and immaterial aspects to reality and our existence. Because the triune God exists it can make sense for us to assume a immaterial universal and invariant.

That's unchanging laws of logic and arithmetic the Christian world. You can make a coherent appeal to universal and immaterial laws that reflect the thinking of God. We can make sense of immaterial class concepts laws and unity with the triune God.

We can have the one and the many. Our opponents cannot justify their appeals to laws of logic. Because the triune God exists and they're made in his image. They will appeal to them. However, given their atheism.

They shouldn't be human value and dignity because God exists and we have his revelation. We have a basis to uphold human value and dignity. We have a basis to believe in absolute moral oughts and responsibilities.

Our opponents this evening do not. God is good and is a standard of good his laws a reflection of his own character and justice. This is important emotional appeals to suffering pain and evil in the world makes sense if the triune God of Scripture exists emotional appeals to evil in the world and pain and suffering have absolutely no Coherent place in our opponents worldview every time they appeal to human value and dignity.

They're stealing from our worldview Uniformity in nature because God exists. We have a philosophical basis and coherent justification for our appeal to the uniformity in nature. Nature is not chaos time and chance acting on random matter and mutations.

God is the sovereign and because he lives we have a basis for our appeals to the inductive principle. And we have a basis to see miracles as peculiar events. Miracles aren't strange in our opponents worldview.

Let's all commit to remembering that these dudes believe that our ancestors were fish and That non-living matter became matter our living matter. It's magic. We're arguing for the existence of the triune God from the impossibility of the contrary without him all human experience is unintelligible.

Deny him and make all of your appeals to logic science and mathematics human value ethics. Meaningless, I want to humbly encourage us all to be on the lookouts for every moment our opponents abandon their professed view of the world.

By complaining about logical inconsistencies moral failings pain and evil and suffering in the world. Watch for the moments when they assume human value and dignity and demonstrate complete dependence upon the triune God to make sense Of their experience here tonight.

For if they really are stardust if the world is as they say that it is and we're in this ultimately purposeless universe with no ultimate values then let us all Commit to responding to every argument they make with so what?

Watch for the image of God to pour out of these gentlemen in every appeal that they make To what is a denial of their worldview and can only make sense in ours when it happens I encourage you to point it out.

There it is. And there it is again. Thank you.

Historical Prophecy, Cellular Complexity, and the Regularity of Human Experience

I would like to put some feet on what was just said and to give you some examples three specific Examples to illustrate what my brother Jeff just presented to us. One is a historical example and it is the reality of an empty tomb outside of Jerusalem.

An empty tomb after a crucifixion that took place historically. Now people will debate whether that happened or not. I just want to show you something. I have here just an image I would like rather put up on the screen.

But this is the Isaiah scroll from Qumran this contains writings were written this one probably 200 years before Christ. But it it originally was was written Isaiah prophesied 700 years before Christ.

About what took place in Jerusalem now, how do we understand this? How do we understand that something could be prophesied if there is not the triune God who is in control of the flow of? History itself.

How can we understand that? All right, we'll pick up from there the second Issue that I'd like to present to you is a scientific issue right now in every cell in your body. Something called cellular respiration is taking place and the mechanism by which it takes place I can I can show you what it looks like but It is an incredibly designed mechanism that can basically Reconstitute the denisene triphosphate from denisene diphosphate it it uses a proton gradient and it spins around it it is an amazing and Designed Reality that is right there in front of us that anyone studying biology at this university is quite well aware of it is a scientific reality and then the third issue.

There are a couple hundred people in this room right now. Why did you come here? You came here expecting to hear reason you came to us. You came expecting that language was going to be utilized and it was gonna make sense that we wouldn't all be speaking different languages.

You came here expecting that the laws of logic would be followed that we would reason With one another that's why you came here this evening. You were expecting that kind of regularity in this conversation.

Now those three things in an atheistic worldview are just random realities. Did you you don't have any explanation for how you can have? Prophecy of an event seven centuries before it takes place that's just that's just weird and there must be an explanation, but you don't really know what it is and You know, there's tremendous biological complexity, but it's just random chance it just happened over time and and You don't have to have any type of intelligence behind that and and you all are here and you're expecting one particular thing.

But you might be disappointed and and there's really no Reason for you to actually believe that we would use the laws of logic or follow the laws of logic in our argument. But from a Christian worldview, those three issues are all related to one another the triune God who exists is able to prophesy future events as he did in Scripture because he's sovereign over events in time and It was his intention to bring about that empty tomb and to change the entire history of mankind that is the central point of human history is that empty tomb and the reality of how we are created the beauty and complexity of our physical life makes perfect sense in the light of the fact that the triune God is Intelligent and is in control of all things and all things in him hold together as we are told in Scripture he has the capacity to make that kind of nanotechnology and this evening each one of us in this room is made in the image of God and Because we're made in the image of God then we expect that reason and Logic is going to be utilized when our fellow image bearers seek to interact with us and so there is coherence and there is consistency in Looking at any aspect of human life History science, whatever it might be.

There is a basis for making it all Understandable within the Christian worldview. Whereas within the atheistic worldview. It's simply well Some of you might be Trekkies here don't admit it publicly. It's a dangerous thing.

But one of the descriptions Jeff has used were simply stardust. Others have talked about how we are just simply chemicals fizzing. But one of the descriptions that was used of an alien species as of us is that we are simply ugly bags of mostly water.

Why are ugly bags of mostly water sitting here quietly listening to me speak? Do we really expect there to be a transcendent truth that can actually be appealed to and and Recognized amongst us why if we all are just ugly bags of mostly water.

There is no reason Whatsoever for us to be here this evening, but you and I know that it's right for us to be here. You and I know that it is a proper thing for us to consider these things and to hear out the other side.

Why? What worldview makes sense? We are arguing from the impossibility of the contrary as soon as our opponents utilize the laws of logic and reason. They're making our point for us. That is the issue this evening.

Thank you very much for being here.

Presuppositionalism, the Trinity, and the Charge of Inerrancy

Right. So when Jason sends out the word Dr. Oakley's response is so what so in the beginning was the word. And the word was not Presuppositionalism. Presuppositionalism is Pigeon chess. I thought it was an exaggeration, but it turns out it's all too accurate.

Or as William Craig Lane like to say it is a logical howler that begs the question. The question is the question of tonight's debate. Which is what? Does the triune God of the Bible exist? Right, not just any God but that very specific God of that very specific text, which is also inerrant and infallible.

They complain that just by showing up we've lost the debate. They haven't even bothered to show up. They didn't address Whether this God is necessarily triune. They made no attempt to show That the Bible is inerrant and infallible and that's the charge of the debate instead.

They went right back to their howler their pigeon chess of Presuppositionalism so so let's just use a concrete example because this isn't a PowerPoint. This is a book and if we agree that this is a book and it's got three distinct personages.

Who among you? Jumps to the conclusion that this is actually really one person. Anybody. Buehler. Buehler anybody? This is a book. Do we know that these three people ever existed or could it be pen names.

Mark Twain is a pen name. Dr. Oakley. Whoops, my bad. I'm so sorry. I am partially blind. Is the pen name he uses to hide behind Mark Luke John. Do you really think that there were names like that running around in the Middle East 2 ,000 years ago?

No. No. People wrote this book. There's a lot of lines in this book. Does this mean that this book is inerrant? Does it mean that it's infallible? What does it take to show that a book is inerrant and infallible so by strange divine design once again, we meet on a Thursday, which as you know is Thursday right named after another God.

Well, but I didn't know until recently and you may not know so it's kind of an interesting factoid is Thursday is a renamed day. It's renamed it used to be named Jupiter Day. But the Germanic Nordic people thought that was pretty silly, right?

Jupiter this Roman God so they took it over and named it after a real God the God of Thunder Thor.

Right.

Thor the God of Thunder and so if I read to you an ancient Nordic text that said Thor thundered in the heavens he sent out lightning flashes in abundance and Routed them his enemies you would rightly say, you know what?

That is the superstitious explanation of a primitive people who didn't understand the forces of nature. That's what you're all saying about Thor. Well, guess what? That is exactly the wording used in Psalms this inerrant book.

This inerrant book. It says the Lord thundered in the heavens He sent out lightning flashes in abundance and routed them. And if you're having trouble telling the difference between one set of nonsense and the other because you can't see much difference.

You are right.

You are right and that is what they build their salary on is preaching that stuff. That is what is the money they're taking from you? No different from Thor. Actually, there is a little difference. You may remember Thor had a mighty hammer.

You may remember that Jesus was nailed to the cross Thor for the win. You may also know that Thor was also capable of resurrection. He resurrected the dead. So for all we know maybe it was Thor that raised up Jesus before he went flying into heaven.

You can't prove that it's impossible. That's what we're dealing with right. So what's interesting about that is not the silliness of Thor. What's interesting about that is That the very methods that theists use to reject other Supernatural claims are the ones that they so often rely on.

Right. In Christianity faith is a virtue.

Right.

It's a virtue. But here's the thing faith is actually a preaching that you do not have a reason For anybody to believe what you have to say and you all reject all those other faiths. There are over a thousand Christian denominations in the United States alone today.

There are over 4 ,000 religions in the world today. There are hundreds of thousands of gods throughout history and they reject every single one of them. Of course, but one their special God who's actually three.

No, he's one. He's three. He's three my lord two one three. What nonsense. What nonsense they didn't even try to address that they didn't even try to address that. They just made an argument by assertion that Godzilla is real and therefore he's real.

Oops. I'm sorry God is real. God is real and therefore he's real. That is the level we're dealing with. So what about another one? Right another claim revelation tells you so much the voices in my head said something.

It must be true. Joseph Smith had a reservation revelation. Is that true? Anybody here Joseph Smith's revelation. Is that true? No, that's bogus. But my revelations my God's revelation. Those are real special pleading.

Right. What about self referential stuff? The Bible says it's true. So it must be true. The Bible is the Word of God. God exists. Therefore the Bible is infallible and inerrant. Well, let's take a look.

The Book of Mormon says it's another testament of Jesus Christ must be true, right? What you all say is no. The Quran it says right here right in the opening first page. There's no doubt about this book and You all Christians go.

Nope. Revelation forget it self-affirmation forget it. So let's go to the Bible used by Jason Wallace's church, which he has personally assured me is Infallible. He has personally assured me It is perfect.

There are no mistakes in it and we open his Bible. Which he told me was no different from other Bibles that these guys use and I turn to the Bible and it says the most important Claim or the most direct claim for this triune God.

For there are three that best record in heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one. What more proof could you have that the triune God exists except for the fact that James White says that's bull.

He wants you to buy bull. Divine coincidence who knows but that actually is not inerrant. It's false. It's made-up man stuff but his Bible his Bible. That's perfect. Every single line every single word.

There are 31 ,000 164 verses in that perfect Bible and he has gone through and he has said every single one of them is perfect and infallible. No error is inerrant. So let's think about that. Let's say 50 chance.

The first verse of Genesis has six claims. What's the chance of one tale in a row. 50 what's the chance of six tales in a row one in a hundred. One in a hundred. What's the chance of 30 claims in a row about the first 10?

Verses of Genesis 1 alone 30 tales in a row. About one in a billion and he's going to claim that every single line in there is inerrant. Because if one line is not inerrant the book is not inerrant. If you went to just the first four books of Genesis.

The number of people that would have to flip coins in order to come up. Would be more than the number of atoms in the universe if every line in here were 99 .99 Correct the odds that all of them would be correct are less than one in ten thousand.

So that's his job to prove to you that every single one of these lines is more than ninety nine point nine nine percent. So let's take a look shall we in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Oops.

The earth didn't come till almost ten billion years later. You got proof. Otherwise, bro You got empirical evidence that the earth was created 14 billion years ago. When the Sun was created or the star the universe was created you got empirical proof.

No, he does not. He has got argument by assertion. That's what he's got. That's all he's got. Okay. That's nonsense, right? Let's think about that. Right? What how do you how do you begin to tell truth?

Well, Lucy Harris had a good way. It's not perfect. I'll acknowledge that empirical science is not perfect. There's humans that they claim are not inerrant so humans can make errors, right? So Lucy Harris actually believed in Joseph Smith's golden plates, and she said show me and He couldn't show her.

What a surprise. So then right the real truth of of what how he translated about was not with the golden plates. It was a magic rock in a hat. He put his head in the hat and read off the words of God one by one.

That's how Joseph Smith did it. And so Lucy Harris by some accounts took the first hundred pages of his translation and said do it again. Show me. What a surprise he couldn't. Now, of course, he said what Baptist preachers always say it's not God's will.

That's what I can say about Godzilla there in the corner. You all can see him. He's omnipotent. You have no right to question his existence. That's the argument. These guys use you have no right to even question his existence and you would see him except you are a sinner.

You are a sinner. You could see him. Otherwise and You all recognize that's nonsense. But y 'all pay him to preach that stuff. That's the reality. So let's open this book in the first day, right? There's no Sun yet.

Y 'all know you do know right? You do know what causes day and night, right? It's the rotation of the earth with respect to the Sun, but your God didn't know that. It's the day in the first night day two day three fruit trees are growing on earth.

Fruit trees are growing on earth. There's no Sun and stars yet. No Sun and stars. Where do the atoms even come from for these fruit trees on earth when I was in first grade? I knew that flowering pants didn't come before the dinosaurs.

That was a bit of a dinosaur fanatic. Right, your God didn't know that your God didn't know anything about the bacteria look in the Bible. There's not one line in the Bible that couldn't have been seen by the ignorant goat herders of century ago without divine intervention.

And it has occurred to you that the reason that there is no line in the Bible that couldn't have been said without its being known by the ignorant goat herders of Years ago, it's because you're right.

They knew nothing that the ignorant goat herders didn't know and then you move on and on you move to Genesis 2. And guess what in Genesis 2 it has a completely different order from Genesis 1. There's no plants and then Adam exists and that this is one of my favorite parts of the Bible.

God this omniscient being looks around. And he goes Oh Adam must be lonely. I know what I'll do. I'll make a you just for you a base beach to the field. Hey Adam. What do you think of this? She's white and delights them.

No way Yahweh wrong denomination. I'm a Baptist not a Mormon. How about that cow look at that rack? She's really horny. No, I'm not in the mood dad jokes, right proof that God doesn't exist. Right, so so these are the absurdities that they are going to prove with 99 .99 certainty for every single line of the Bible because otherwise like the King James Bible that they say is not inerrant and Jason Wallace says is who is.

Right, they can't both be right. They have trashed every other religious book as wrong and they've made no attempt whatsoever To match their ridiculous claims onto an empirical reality except once. They'll always do it.

When it comes to their lives being on the line. They will dump their religious claims to save their unholy butts time and time again. And I am going to give them the opportunity to show that they're wrong.

And so that will be my rejoinder to so what it will be. Show me dude, don't just slap the lips show me.

The Empty Tomb, Prophecy, and the Design of Life

Clarify immediately in regards to the visual aids my understanding and emails that was referring to PowerPoint or keynote Presentations so for the very few of you in the first three rows that even see what I was looking at Take a point off from us.

We'll we'll call that we'll call that even we have nothing to rebut the diatribe you just heard was nothing but pure anger and hatred toward God. There was not a Scintilla of rationality in it and I feel very sorry.

Because we have an opportunity of actually engaging in meaningful intellectual discussion on Important issues and that's not what we got. We got anger and we got a tremendous Amount of ignorance about this subject a tremendous amount of ignorance about this subject.

Let me just give you one example since it was brought up to try to create a distinction between Myself and Jason was the subject of what's called the Kami Ohanian. I can guarantee you that the good doctor has never looked at a Greek manuscript cannot read Greek has never studied the issue.

I spent the last program I did on the subject of the Kami Ohanian giving a rather an in-depth historical Discussion of first John 570s issues, but what's the problem? The problem is when you talk about the Bible the New Testament was written in Greek.

We're not talking about English translations that you can throw into a trash can someplace. We're talking about the Bible in the original languages, which was written long before there was such thing as an English Language and the assertion of inerrancy has to do with the original languages of Scripture.

Not with textual variants or historical issues in regards to the transmission of the text. Now I'm very glad to discover I'm glad you all came here this evening and we now recognize that Thor does not exist.

That is a great advance. I sort of thought his storyline the movies was going right down anyways. So it's I mean that last one. I mean really come on fat Thor that just did not work at all. So So I'm glad we don't know about Thor.

But here's the problem if there was a scintilla of seriousness and the interaction from the other side there would be a recognition of the fact that the God we are presenting is so different than the Anthropomorphic God of Thor that that never would have been brought up not once.

But it wasn't even recognized. There is no interaction from the other side with anything that we have said in regards to the coherence of Worldviews we had a lot of bluster. We had someone yelling at us rather than looking at you.

We're here for it he and I we're here for you. Okay, that's that's why we're here. We're not here to express our anger and hatred about people. We're here because this is a vitally important issue. Let me tell you something I took the time to listen to a multiple times to a lengthy presentation That dr. Clark gave at an atheist meeting.

When he was talking about God he used profanity he was speaking as quickly as he was this evening and then he started talking about his own work and a different person showed up a Completely different person that I respect the work.

He's doing is fantastic. But he was completely different when talking about that. Why. Well, I think we just saw it, but let me point something out as I listened to dr. Clark talking about the complexity of The work that he does and how much intelligent design has gone into creating even the things that he holds patents for.

I Could not help but sit back and go. Do you not see? Do you not see the life around you? Do you not see the reality of the the blood clotting mechanism and the I and ATP synthase that I was just talking to you about and all these things.

Do you not see that that far it goes way beyond? Any of the design and the studying that you have done to create your work? How can you not see this if it takes intelligent design on your part to create what you're creating?

It took intelligent design to make the original that got lost in an accident. We live in God's world and What you just heard didn't have a whole lot of I was expecting some borrowing from our worldview.

There wasn't almost anything because it was just simply angry bluster. But generally when you get arguments from atheism They are going to take from our worldview Regularity induction the laws of logic and try to turn them against the source that they are then borrowing those elements from.

Now I'm hoping that maybe after this point we can actually get into some serious interaction as To how the other side has a meaningful epistemology Knows what it knows can assert that something is true Without just simply yelling about it.

But let's stop with the misrepresentation. Let's stop with the saying. Well faith is just simply believing without having a reason for believing. Any Christian in the room knows that anybody who says that knows they don't understand what the Christian doctrine of faith is.

Because that's not what Christian faith is at all. Let's have a meaningful discussion from this point on let's holster the anger and let's focus upon What really has been said for the benefit of all of you who've come here this evening?

All right, that was exciting. Boy, this is fun. Dr. Clark. All right. So listen the debate tonight is not about whether our opponents like the Christian God and that's about all we got just now Dr. Clark.

Clark does not like the Christian God. It's also not about whether we like atheism our opponents disdain for their creator and my personal disdain for the folly of atheism. It's not a tough-minded and philosophically strong foundation for either position.

We're arguing here tonight about ultimates world views. You see he was concerned. We didn't start off with a defense of the triune God. But if you were all listening you heard me talk about it. I give a description of the triune God.

I anchored it in historic Christian confession. I even quoted because I love you the Westminster Confession of Faith. That's right. That's right. We did talk about the triune God. How many of you guys heard me call Jesus God incarnate.

Now if dr. Clark knew a little bit a little bit about historic Christian confession, he would probably understand that. But he's not in the debate yet this evening. He's just angry and his anger is not a basis for a philosophically rigorous defense of his position.

Dr. Clark wants empirical evidence. I want to see it. I want to know it's true. I want to feel it touch it taste it all the rest. He's matter in motion. He's a bag of fizzing atoms in the universe. It doesn't care about him.

He has no basis for the laws of logic. Consistency, dr. Clark, you're gonna have to justify an appeal to immaterial that is not made of matter unchanging Universal laws that are true tonight in Salt Lake City, Utah and in Iceland.

How do you do that in atheism? Is it by convention? We just merely stipulate that laws of logic today should be like this and you're all supposed to hold to them. Which kinds of laws of logic do we hold to dr. Clark's laws of logic?

Are they going to be the same a hundred years from now now are these laws justified within a materialist view of the world? I say absolutely not. He isn't in the debate yet tonight. He proved nothing.

Nothing. He talks about goat herders Joseph Smith chocolate rocks and all the rest. Dr. Clark. You should have known before you came tonight that we're not Mormons. What is necessary for this debate this evening?

What listen closely very important and I respect you enough to speak to you with humility at this point. Induction that nature is uniform. You see this isn't a problem. Dr. Clark doesn't like this. He doesn't like Christians doing this to him.

This isn't a problem presented dr. Dr. Clark by presuppositional apologists. I want to know what his answer is to the Scottish skeptic David Hume or to the famous atheist Bertrand Russell in his book Problems of philosophy chapter 6 he presents this problem to atheists like dr. Clark and he says I want a basis.

Don't tell me that nature is uniform because it always has been. I want to know how we know the future will be uniform because Everything depends upon it and don't tell me well it was always has been that position is a position of sheer ignorant blind faith and The Christian position rejects that kind of faith commitment.

Dr Clark has no coherent appeal to the laws of logic and he needs to start getting into this discussion tonight. What is his justification for the laws of logic? How do you justify them? Dr. Clark was very very concerned.

That human beings are being abused by religion. He's very very concerned and I by the way, I agree with dr. White. Incredible what this man is doing in terms of taking care of other image bearers of God making sure they have what they Can can have in a broken world to touch things grab things.

It is incredible, but that displays the image of God in him. He knows that that is an image bearer of God. It's not a snail rock horse or dog or dirt. It's worthy of our value dignity and respect and that's we plan to give them this evening.

Thanks, Jason. Thank you all very much for coming out. It's good to see you all here. This is a big turnout. I wasn't expecting quite this many people. So thank you all very much for coming out on a school night.

We won't try to keep you too late. This has been a lot of fun so far. I gotta say I Wasn't. I wasn't expecting quite so many fireworks. But it's fun. It should be good. This is my first formal debate.

Had I known that it was going to be a debate with presuppositional lists, I probably would have turned it down. Because it's almost like we're speaking two different languages. I'm dr. White clearly speaks more than one.

So maybe that's why It just it kills me when I hear them say things like Intelligent design is what gave us the arms that dr. Clark is now working on to Heal the amputees that apparently God can't or won't in the history of the world.