Chapter 3: Christian Apologetics by Van Til

Welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host Eli Ayala and today we're going to be diving back into this book. We've been walking through this book and summarizing some of its key points.

This book by Cornelius Van Til, Christian Apologetics. This is the book that I highly recommend people to get into if you want to get into presuppositional apologetics and read directly from the writings of Cornelius Van Til.

This is the point of entry that I suggest for most people. You can come at the works of Van Til from different angles. I mean, Greg Bonson is probably my favorite entry point. That's how most people have gained access to the ideas of Van Til.

You could also gain access to those ideas via John Frame who kind of takes some issue and differences in various areas. But Bonson, Frame, and others have been the entry point for many. If any of you guys are like me, one entry point for me that was kind of like a clincher that made me kind of really pursue this with more detail was the famous debate between Greg Bonson and Gordon Stein.

And so that got me interested in the topic. But if you want to jump into Van Til, this is the first book that I suggest everyone get their hands on. And this is a newer edition. It's edited by William Edgar.

I think I mistakenly said it was edited by Scott Oliphant. That might be the case that Defense of the Faith was edited by Scott Oliphant. I'd have to double check. But this one is edited by William Edgar.

And this is a part three, or chapter three rather. If folks are interested in my summaries of chapters one and two, you can check that out on the channel. It's labeled there on the thumbnail. And so what we covered in the previous videos was chapter one.

There's basically five chapters in the book. So it's a pretty small book, relatively speaking, and it covers a wide range of issues. And I'm kind of just summarizing in broad strokes. So this is not kind of an in-depth analysis, but hopefully it will be useful for folks who are just trying to get their bearings in terms of how a presuppositional approach looks and how it answers certain questions and so forth.

And so chapter one was the system of Christian truth. So we talked about the importance of how the Christian worldview is that it is a worldview or, as Van Til put it, a philosophy of life. OK, and so system of Christian truth.

He laid out for us the importance of systematic theology as the bedrock and understanding our worldview, the Christian philosophy of life, understanding the worldview as a worldview or a philosophy and all the things that are entailed in that.

And then today I'm going to be covering chapter three, which is called the point of contact. Now, this is really important because in Van Til's writing, there is a great emphasis upon worldviews and the fact that we all have presuppositions that impact how we interpret data, how we interpret fact and how we interpret truth itself.

How do we gain access to the other person? Anything the unbeliever is going to say to me, I'm going to filter through my worldview perspective and anything that I say to him, he's going to filter through the lens of his worldview.

And so where is the point of contact? How do we actually connect with the unbeliever to have a meaningful discourse when we disagree over such fundamental worldview issues? As a matter of fact, a very popular criticism of presuppositional apologetics and presuppositional methodology is that Van Til taught that in light of the fact that we are kind of isolated from the unbelievers because of our worldview and their worldview and so forth, that Van Til taught that there was no point of contact.

And of course, that is demonstrably false. Van Til did believe that there is a point of contact between the believer and the unbeliever, and that is what we're going to be talking about today. So I'm going to jump in by simply reading the first page.

It's very short. Our first page and kind of the beginning of the second page to kind of set the context for the rest that will follow in this video. And so this is chapter three of Van Til's Christian Apologetics.

He says,.

We have seen in broad outline what Christianity is. The question now is how is as to how it is to be vindicated as exclusively true and what follows. It will be impossible to deal with this question in detail.

Our concern will be with general principles only. And here's an important point here that sets the context for the rest of this chapter. The first matter to be concerned or considered rather will be that of the point of contact.

Is there something on which believers in Christianity and disbelievers agree? Is there an area known by both from which as a starting point we may go on to that which is known to believers but unknown to unbelievers?

OK, and so here is where we're brought to the crossroads of understanding the connection point or the point of contact. OK, now I'm going to give you just kind of the cheat sheet. We're going to move ahead and just I'm going to let you know what the point of contact was, at least in Van Til's estimation.

OK, first, I think it's very important to understand the difference between neutral ground between the believer and unbeliever and common ground between believer and unbeliever. They are not the same.

OK, Van Til taught, and I think he is correct on this, that neutrality with respect to the with respect to facts and so forth is a myth. There is no neutrality between the unbeliever and believer. And so many have erringly concluded if there is no neutral contact point, then there is no way for the believer and unbeliever to meaningfully communicate.

But that's not true. So for Van Til, there was no neutral starting point, but there was a common ground between the unbeliever or what we might call the point of contact. So the point of contact within Van Til's perspective is basically, OK, the built in knowledge of God that everyone has.

It's the common ground we can use to connect with people who don't believe. What is the common ground? What is the point of contact? The fact that the unbeliever is made in the image of God. And so we can appeal to the image of God within within the unbeliever.

OK, and what by do by doing that, the way we do that is to appeal to the things we know they know in light of the fact that they are created in the image of God. OK, now the unbeliever is not going to affirm that, obviously.

Right. But his non affirming that common ground does not make the common ground no longer common ground. The reason why I can speak to the unbeliever and he can understand me is not because the unbeliever's worldview is true, but because the unbeliever knows in his heart of hearts the God of whom we speak.

This is not my opinion. This is what the word of God says. So from a Christian perspective, who is we're affirming the word of God, we want to understand the unbeliever through the through a biblical context.

And the Bible teaches that all men have this knowledge of God. Now, with that said, what is the purpose of this specific chapter? What is what is this chapter all about? It is about how we as Christians, as apologists, right, how we can engage with nonbelievers.

OK, and in essence, we do this by recognizing that they because the Bible teaches this. They have an innate sense of God. They have an innate knowledge of God. Even if they deny it, their worldview still relies on the truth of the Christian worldview.

And our point is to show that when they do affirm things that are coherent and cogent and so forth, it's because they are relying on the resources of the Christian worldview, which they verbally reject.

Now, again, I could say this, but it is demonstrated through the fact that when the unbeliever argues against the Christian perspective, they are doing so while assuming categories that only make sense within the very worldview that they are rejecting.

OK, and so it's important to keep in mind. So for Van Tilben in this chapter, there is a rejection, a consistent rejection of the concept of neutral common ground. It's expressed in the chapter that the point of contact between the believer and the unbeliever cannot be found in any neutral area of knowledge or in some common ground that both agree on without reference to their respective ultimate commitments.

This is important. Van Tilben is saying here that there is no such thing as neutral ground. Everyone's reasoning and knowledge come from their foundational beliefs, their foundational commitments. For the Christian, that's going to be God's revelation in Scripture.

For the nonbeliever, it's going to be whatever, you know, whatever version of human autonomy and human reasoning they hold to. OK, and so the point of contact between believer and unbeliever isn't some neutral area of knowledge.

You know, it's rather this. It is the fact that the unbeliever is created in the image of God and has a knowledge of God within him. And this is wrapped up in the very important concept of the sensus divinitatis or the sense of deity that all men have expressed in this chapter.

The point of contact is found in the fact that man is made in the imago Dei and he therefore has an eradicable knowledge or sense of deity, which is what, as Romans 1 says, is being suppressed. OK, and so Vantil brings up this idea that everyone has kind of this sensus divinitatis, this inbuilt sense of God that all men have and can't escape from.

And so it's part of being made in God's image. People might try to suppress this truth, but be that as it may, it's still there. And as apologists, our job is to bring this suppressed truth to the surface and to show how non-believing worldviews don't really make sense without acknowledging the God that they know exists.

OK, so when we say that the unbeliever knows that God exists, this is not just a, you know, you really know, and that's it. You know, na-na-na-na, poo-poo, right? That's not what we're saying. The way we demonstrate the knowledge of God is by appealing to that image of God, appealing to the things that they know that don't make sense within their worldview, but only make sense if what we're saying is true.

OK?

Now, the idea that Vantil expresses, he says, it is therefore not to be sought in some sort of autonomous reasoning power which man possesses in virtue of his being man. Man is a creature, and as such, his reason is dependent and derivative.

OK?

Now, here Vantil is saying that human reason isn't independent. It is not autonomous. It's actually dependent on God. And so the point of contact isn't found on—it's not found in some self-sufficient human reasoning, but in the fact that our reasoning depends on the Creator.

And this dependency is something we can highlight when talking with non-believers. Show them that they're dependent upon those categories, even when they reject it. That's the task that Vantil is calling us to do, and I think it is demanded biblically as well in terms of how we ought to engage the unbeliever.

Because here's the thing. When we're doing apologetics, we are not—if we're doing it biblically and consistent with biblical teaching—we're not giving information to an otherwise ignorant person, but rather we are tearing away the mask of the unbeliever, showing that they're actually suppressing the truth in their heart of hearts.

Now, Vantil goes on to say, man knows God and yet does not know him. He knows God. This is important because a lot of people have accused Vantil of contradiction here. Vantil has said that man knows God, and in another sense, he doesn't know God.

Now, remember, this is not a logical contradiction. Remember, a logical contradiction would be something along the lines of a violation of the second law of logic, which states that a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same way or in the same sense.

Vantil would put forth the idea that there is a sense in which all men know God, there's a sense in which the unbeliever knows God, and there's a sense in which he doesn't. For Vantil, he expressed that he knows God as covenant breaker, not as covenant keeper.

So you are either a covenant keeper or a covenant breaker. Now, this kind of sounds contradictory, but it's really about the two-sided nature of human knowledge and sin. On the one hand, everyone knows God exists and has moral standards.

On the other hand, people don't truly know him in a relational sense because they're in rebellion against him. And so our job as the apologist is to confront the nonbelievers with this suppressed knowledge and call them to a true relationship with God through Christ.

And there are different ways apologetically to do that. Now, it's very important that we want to make clear that there is no neutral ground. We want to make clear the idea that we all have presuppositions.

We want to make clear of the fact that all men are made in the image of God and therefore have a sense of deity or a knowledge of God within them. We want to engage in apologetics, recognizing that the unbeliever is suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

And then we want to show that in the pretended autonomy of the unbeliever, they are not actually being autonomous. They're actually relying on the very tools that God has provided them with, all the while not giving thanks to God for those very tools.

And so this is what this chapter really is about, is recognizing that point of contact. The point of contact simply is the imago Dei, man made in the image of God. And so, therefore, it is possible to communicate to man, the unbelieving man, by appealing to that image of God.

OK, so in short, that's really what this the heart of the chapter is about. Now, there are a couple of things that I want to clarify. So if I'm saying all this and you're kind of like, OK, I kind of think I know what you're where you're coming from.

OK, now, remember, Vantill here is talking to Christians. This is a book on Christian apologetic methodology. I don't expect an unbeliever to read to read this or to say, oh, you know, yeah, you know, Christians would say that.

No, no, he's he's teaching Christians how to do apologetic consistently. I would tell something to the unbelievers here. We as Christians view you through a theological lens. OK, I view the unbeliever through a theological and biblical lens.

OK, what I believe about the unbeliever is going to be informed about what God says about the unbeliever. I'm really not concerned with what the unbeliever says about himself if it contradicts what God says about the unbeliever.

So this is something that Christians need to keep in mind. OK, but again, I want to highlight this fact that claiming the unbeliever has a knowledge of God is not a bare arbitrary claim. We are willing to try and demonstrate that by showing that they must rely on God in order to argue to even argue against him.

But again, just in terms of understanding what I'm saying, someone might be asked, well, what is this? You know, you're talking about these theological concepts and terms. What is the census divinitatis and how does it function in apologetics?

That might be a question that might be running through your mind. OK, well, well, let's explore this. OK, the census divinitatis, OK, independently of the idea that it's an important concept in John Calvin and throughout, you know, when you look at the history of development of Christian thought, it is especially within the reformed tradition.

The census divinitatis plays a very important role, but very simplistically speaking, it's basically built. It refers to the built in sense of God that everyone has. That's all it is. OK. Now, Calvin, I'm not sure if he coined the term.

Maybe he did. I'm not sure. Maybe someone could fact check that there. But Bantill uses it to describe how every person has an awareness of God in the sense that I've just laid out because they're made in his image.

OK, now in apologetics, this is our internal point of contact, as I mentioned before. So even if people deny it, they still have this internal knowledge of God. And our job is to bring that suppressed truth to light and show how their worldview doesn't work without acknowledging this God that all men have a knowledge of.

Another question that might be flying through people's mind is, well, then how do we engage with someone who claims to have no sense of God and the sense of divinitatis? I reject that. Right. They deny that inherent knowledge of God is is a thing.

OK. And there are a couple of things that we can we can do when someone says, well, I don't have a knowledge of God. I don't have a sense of divinitatis. I don't have an awareness of deity and so forth.

You have to understand that that is in direct opposition to the claim that God makes in his word. OK. And so obviously, when someone says that, we don't just kind of kneel down and say, well, I guess he doesn't have a knowledge of God.

Right. No. There are a couple of things we need to do. First, we need to challenge the assumed autonomy inherent in this. Right. The unbeliever often thinks of himself as kind of like, well, I don't have a knowledge of God, but I'm open to it.

Right. Just I just got to see the evidence. Right. We need to challenge that pretended neutrality. Right. Show them that claiming to be neutral or denying God is itself a presupposition they're not aware of.

Isn't that right? Everyone has foundational beliefs, even if they say they don't believe in anything. OK. Or they say, well, you know, I'm open to the evidence or anything along those lines. Notice the implicit rejection of the Christian worldview when someone says, well, I don't have a knowledge of God.

What they're saying indirectly is that God is a liar, because if the Bible is the word of God, God declares that they have a knowledge of God that is being suppressed. And so even the I don't know God claim is not a neutral claim.

And hence, when people make that claim, we need to challenge that claim. OK. We don't challenge it by simply saying, no, you know, God, no. We challenge it by exposing the fact that they are relying on the resources that they use that only make sense if God exists.

And so we want to also then expose the inconsistencies that are produced out of that line of thinking, point out how their worldview doesn't make sense. For example, things like moral values or logic or reasoning can't be explained.

And in purely if you're talking to an atheist, in purely atheistic or materialistic terms, right, press these points to highlight that they rely on concepts that only make sense within a Christian theistic worldview.

So on the one hand, the materialistic atheist says, well, I don't believe in spiritual, nonphysical realities if he's that flavor of atheism and show that actually he's presupposing immaterial realities, even while verbally rejecting them.

That is a contradiction on his own part, and it is a it is a indicator that they're actually relying on the very things that God has provided him. OK. So, again, even when we're talking with the unbeliever, it's important to also quote scripture.

Right. When someone says, well, I don't know if God exists. Right. That's not what the Bible says. OK. Now, I don't simply say that, but I think it is useful in conversation to say, well, the word of God actually says this.

Let's talk about that a little bit. OK, so you scripture, you know, quote something like a Romans chapter one verses 18 through 20 or a Romans to 14 through 15. I think those are those are good Bible verses that help us.

You know, it helps to show that the Bible anticipates their suppression of the truth. OK. And it pretty much asserts that God's moral law is written on their hearts. And so it's a good conversation point.

Well, the Bible actually says this. Now we begin to ask more probing questions. Right. Get them to think about their sense of morality, logic and thinking in those categories allows them to reflect. Well, how do I make sense out of those those categories apart from a Christian worldview?

Right. Those are good conversation. Well, I don't know if they're conversation starters, but they're they're useful things to use within conversation. OK, because the Bible does say that, you know, when we appeal to the image of God, the Bible says that that men have this knowledge of God.

We want to we want to expose the folly and the foolishness of the results of rejecting the very God they know in their heart of hearts. Now, what does Bantill mean by saying that man knows God and yet does not know God?

As I mentioned before, when people have read that concept in this book and other writings within Bantill, people typically think, well, that sounds very contradictory. OK, and I think Bantill statement about man knowing God and yet not knowing him is all about the double sided nature of human awareness in sin.

It's not contradictory. It highlights, I think, two things. Number one, it highlights the innate knowledge of God. OK, everyone has this innate knowledge of God because they're made in his image. They're aware of his existence and basic moral truths.

Right. Yet the second point, they're suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. Right. Because of sin, people actively suppress this knowledge. And this is what the Bible teaches. Right. And they reject and distort what they know about God, leading really to practical ignorance or even a denial of his true nature.

And so they know they know God in terms of being aware of his reality, but they don't know him relationally or redemptively because they're rebelling against him. OK, we would argue that the unbeliever is actually engaging in self-deception.

Now, if you're wondering, how can an unbeliever be self to how can they deceive themselves? I have an entire video that talks about the nature of self-deception. You can look it up. I think it's I don't remember what the video is called.

It wasn't that long ago. You can check it out if you search through just put up, you know, revealed apologetic self-deception. I'm sure it'll pop up. OK, now, another question that might be flying through people's mind that I think is the chapter three of this book would be helpful in addressing is if there is no neutral ground, then how do we effectively communicate with those who don't share our presuppositions?

OK, well, there are a couple of things that we can do. First, I think the basic point of presuppositional apologetics is that we want to acknowledge that everyone has presuppositions. And we want to be clear that the Christian worldview is based on the presupposition of the truth of God's revelation and scripture.

So we highlight our presuppositions. We bring out the fact that they have presuppositions. And we encourage the nonbeliever to examine their own presuppositions and the foundations of their own beliefs and and compare and contrast the coherence and explanatory power of the Christian worldview with theirs.

This is what Bantill says, that when we engage in the internal critique and we hypothetically grant the truth of the unbeliever's worldview and show that on its own basis, it falls apart. But then we invite the unbeliever to do the same thing, assume the truth of the Christian worldview hypothetically and see how beautifully consistent it is.

And then we answer questions and we welcome the internal critique. But internal critiques are an important part of that. We also want to include a positive presentation within our apologetic. We want to present the Christian worldview positively, demonstrating how it provides a coherent and consistent basis for understanding the world, morality, knowledge, human purpose, logic, and so forth.

And so it's not really an issue of simply asserting that the Christian worldview does, in fact, provide, as we may have mentioned before, when we talk about the transcendental argument, that it provides the necessary preconditions for intelligibility and so forth.

But actually walk people through how it does that. OK. All right. And I think an important aspect, too, if people don't share your presuppositions and you're trying to I think creating a relationship with those that you're speaking with as well is important.

OK, you have to understand the world of YouTube is not the same as the world of face to face personal interaction. Go out of the way to form good relationships with people. Have good, meaningful conversations that consist of gentleness, respect, mutual respect where you can actually sit down and talk about the issues.

Be there with your Bible. Talk to have a heart to heart with people and form friendships. It's not this kind of drive by theology or drive by apologetics so much of what we see online. Although I understand, you know, that's the nature of online interaction.

I get it. I get it. But we want to emphasize the importance of relationship as as well. All right. OK. Let's see here. Let's see. Let's go through a couple of things here. So that's my quick summary, by the way, as chapter three, the point of contact.

What is the point of contact? It's not neutral ground. It's common ground. And the common ground is that the unbelievers made in the image of God and therefore we can communicate with them and they can understand what we're saying.

Not because their worldview lens is correct, but because they're borrowing from the Christian worldview because they have a knowledge of God that's being suppressed, which is what the Bible teaches. OK, now let's go through some of these comments here.

Scott Terry says the image of God. John Smith says, I don't know that a God exists. Yeah. So I address this. I don't have a knowledge of God. Right. So let's take these as kind of test, you know, test cases here.

OK, so he says, I don't have a knowledge of God. Now, what I want to point out is that a person who comes from this perspective is not neutral with respect to the question, because to say that you don't have a knowledge of God is an implicit denial of the truth of the Christian worldview.

And so in essence, you're saying the Christian worldview is false because it's the Christian worldview that actually contradicts this specific proposition that John Smith is laying out here. And so this points out the non neutral nature of the dispute between the believer and unbeliever.

Now, it doesn't it's not enough to simply say, well, wait a minute. The Bible says you have a knowledge of God, even though you say you don't have a knowledge of God. Well, if I were talking to John Smith, I would I would engage in some further conversation asking him, you know, how does he justify the things that he takes for granted within a God denying worldview?

And we'd have to see if he if he has a worldview that functions and provides the preconditions for intelligible experience, logic, knowledge and so forth. Now, an important thing to keep in mind, that doesn't end the discussion, because just as I think in the implicit denial of the Christian worldview that's inherent in this this proposition here.

The unbeliever has a burden of proof, but I have a burden of proof as well. And so I would further engage in this discussion, not only challenging John Smith to provide a foundation for the things he takes for granted in the intellectual discourse, so to speak.

But it would be my responsibility as well to show that if Christianity were true, we make perfect sense of the very tools of the intellect and rational discourse and logic and so forth. OK, now there is no burden shifting because the burden is not being shifted away from me.

This is a common we'll get this up here, too. This is a common and I think very philosophically naive point. OK, the burden, the shifting, the burden of proof is removing burden from myself and moving it on to someone else.

And that's not what I'm doing at all. As I explicitly said before that I have a burden of proof. OK, now I could say this and people are going to still say you're shifting the burden of proof. No, I welcome the burden of proof.

What I'm pointing out is simply that you do not have a situation where the other person doesn't have a burden of proof because their position is an implicit rejection of my position. They are not neutral.

OK, that's all I'm saying. I'm not saying that I don't have a burden of proof. OK, that's not burden shifting because I welcome I keep my burden. I have a burden. That's right. And no. So, yes, again, how can it be a burden shifting if I've welcomed my burden to say you don't have a burden is a is to engage in the pretended neutrality fallacy.

Well, I'm neutral here. I don't have a I don't have a position to hold. Mr. Theist, you're making the claim. OK, and therefore I don't have any burden. Well, no, because in saying you don't have a burden and assuming a neutral position is an implicit rejection a priori of the other position.

Now, I welcome my burden, but I will put it out in the open because we are because we are engaging in worldview. OK, everyone has a burden of proof. I don't start with this silly nonsense that we're just you know, it's just you're making the claim and I'm not making any claims.

Yes, there are implicit claims in every claim and proposition. OK, again, and I would say this even if I weren't a Christian. Actually, I think it's true that if Christianity were true, then, yes, it does make claims about.

The nature of the unbeliever, and so by saying I don't know God exists, that's implicitly saying that the Bible is incorrect, and so there's an aspect of which I have to actually engage the discussion.

Now, it's not all on me because the Christian is making that positive assertion, but there is a certain level of burden on the other side as well. All right, let's let's move along here. I'm going to spend too much time on that.

Scott says, given the current state of philosophy, John, you might not be able to claim to have any knowledge at all. It depends on his position there. Here we go. So Jacob Glass says, is there a point where you stop evangelizing a specific person, a person who understands, still rejects the Christian worldview?

Do you continue to always pursue or do you let or do you let them approach you? Yeah, I think there is a point. However, Jacob, the point is not a clearly defined point. Someone says, well, when is that point?

I don't know. It's going to depend on the nature of the discussion, the relationship between the individuals and things like that. So I do believe that the Bible does warn us against throwing pearls before swine.

There comes a point where you're going to have to make apply wisdom and say, you know what? It might be better for me to move on and speak to someone else who seems to be more engaging in what I'm saying, as opposed to someone who seems to be completely cut off.

Now, we continue to pray for those people. We are sensitive to the fact that if they're within the realm of our relationships, we can hopefully be sensitive to the fact where it seems OK to kind of reenter that discussion.

But I think that applying wisdom to our discussions, you just need to kind of get a feel for when it seems like a good idea to be like, OK, we're going to move on and I'm going to move on to someone else.

So, again, there is no specific when that point is. It really is an application of wisdom at that particular point in time. OK, hope that makes sense. Let's see here. Materialism hasn't been refuted. I mean, I would be interested in seeing how materialist understands the laws of logic in a purely materialistic way, maintaining their universality or rejecting their universality and making sense out of a worldview that rejects its universality.

I'd be interested. Yeah. All right. This is really bad. OK. So here's another one. So you can't know God's nature. God could be a liar. See, now, this is a perfect example. This is kind of a textbook example of worldviews.

Right now, this person holds to a worldview in which it's possible that God could be a liar, but that's not the Christian worldview. Right. From within the Christian worldview, it is impossible for God to lie.

OK, now someone might say, well, wait a minute. Well, what if that's one of the lies? OK, well, if God could lie, the God of Christianity could lie. It's not the God of Christianity. Right. We need to operate on the worldview.

This is my worldview. How do I know he's not a liar? By the impossibility of the contrary. If God is a liar, then we lack the preconditions of intelligibility, knowledge and so forth. OK. I don't think we lack those foundations.

I do think that there are things that I know that are true. They're objectively true. And hence, you know, I can know them by the impossibility of the contrary. There are certain things within my worldview that it is impossible for me to be wrong about.

And it is grounded in the idea that God is true. Reject that position. Then I would be in the same position John Smith, I would imagine, is in. If he's an atheist, I would not imagine John or any other atheist has a firm foundation for objectivity and avoids the problems of philosophy that I think are inherent in all forms of materialism.

So there you go. Let's see here. Tony Torpa. Are you familiar with Gottlob Frege? I can't pronounce his name. I am familiar with him. I don't remember his views on logic off the top of my head since Gottlob is not typically brought up in conversations that I have.

But I am familiar with him. I have studied the history of philosophy. But maybe I'll return to some of the sources and maybe share my thoughts when I have gathered my thoughts with respect to his position there.

Yeah. Thank you for that.

Let's see here.

Right. So you need to demonstrate your claim before you can challenge me. Well, first we need to hash a couple of things out here. What do you mean by demonstration? Because everything you say is going to be worldview dependent.

So when I speak with John Smith, whoever he is, he has a worldview, in which case he has at least these three foundations to his worldview. He has a metaphysical outlook, an epistemological outlook, and most likely an ethical outlook.

The demonstration outlook is baked into the term demonstrate is going to be John's epistemology. And so first we need to evaluate what he means, what counts as a demonstration. And depending on what he says, I could either answer him directly or I can challenge his standard of what constitutes demonstration.

Oftentimes when someone says to demonstrate something, what's baked into that is their epistemological framework, which is self-contradictory and unworkable. So I don't know what you mean by demonstrate.

If you mean by demonstrate to offer an argument, well, I've offered the transcendental argument and have literally now this even if I were wrong. And let's say the transcendental argument was bunk. Ninety nine point nine percent, actually, no, 100 percent of the objections that I've heard online are not only wrong, they're laughably wrong.

So they don't even they're even close to the mark. I have no reason to believe that there is an inadequate response to the transcendental argument. Now, you could bring up the Stroudian objection. We've addressed that in this channel as well.

So even to demonstrate your claim before you can challenge me, the conversations don't simply work like that, as though demonstrate is kind of this all encompassing. Everyone knows what you mean by that.

I don't know what you mean by demonstrate. Are you an empiricist? Are you a rationalist? Do you hold to Kantian epistemology? Or I'm not sure. So I don't want to begin to do something but violate the standard you're assuming when you ask me to demonstrate something.