Presup vs. Internet

All right, welcome back to another episode of revealed apologetics, I'm your host Eli Ayala and Surprise this was a Last second decision to come on live as you guys know I come on when I'm able to come on and so I'm happy to be able to come on tonight and to Face off with the internet.

Okay, there are a bunch of things going on in my the comment section of my video Common sections of my videos. And so what I did was I collected a bunch of questions or objections or assertions and I'm going to interact with them.

Of course many of them are criticisms of presuppositionalism. Which of course are based upon misunderstandings, but of course that provides a wonderful opportunity to do some teaching And to get into some important stuff.

But before we do that, I'd like to take a moment to thank everyone who has contributed to the iTunes podcast Reviews. Okay. Now I'm a little I'm a little disappointed. Okay, I have right now revealed Apologetics is at four point nine out of five.

Okay, and that is not because The podcast received any bad reviews. It was because someone wrote a positive review, but they forgot to click the stars. So I'm gonna read through some of these. I think they're well, I'll read through some of the nice ones and And then I'll read through some of the wonky ones that I'm like, what's what's going on there?

So so if you go over to iTunes and again this this helps just like you know Youtubers typically say to click the like button share all that all that stuff that people tell the you know Youtubers tell people to do those are all super helpful.

And of course writing a positive review on On iTunes is super helpful. Look at that right there. So four point nine. I want to read a couple of these. Some nice ones and then the ones that are like completely like I don't know Who wrote that and it's very very odd.

So so let's take a look here. So here's a five star I Won't mention the person's name. I guess you can check it out. But the person says probably the best podcast on apologetics that I've listened to.

And I've listened to a lot and I think it's important to mention that he's not in his presuppositional ivory tower where you can't reach him. But he actually you see here. He actually Responds to your message and phone calls super genuine.

Just love it grace and peace. I very much appreciate that yeah, there's some people who've listened to the podcast and the YouTube channel who've reached out to me and had more questions. And so I'd love to connect with people that way.

People could also hit me up through my website revealed apologetics comm if you leave like a message right there on the home screen. It'll come straight to me. And sometimes I connect with people over the phone and we just talk about apologetics.

I'm totally down to do that. So thank you so much for that five star review one person says Great show there's five stars and now here here it is. So here's the one that caught my attention. So you can't really see it.

Okay, but it's got one star. It's my only one star review and I thought maybe okay. Maybe someone you know doesn't like the show for whatever for some reason then I listen I watch I'm sorry I read the the review it says Eli has been a huge influence in my dive into apologetics.

He could explain topics in a way that can be understood and he brings on some really good guests and then it's got one star. Then it says on the top best apologetic show come on you gotta you gotta write the review.

But you got to put the stars man, you know it. It matters it matters, right? So so there you go. I thought that was that was pretty funny. One person said this is dope. Thank you. Okay, Eli knows this stuff.

I appreciate that. Thank you very much. Let's see here. Oh, oh, this one's my favorite one. So so five. Five stars, okay five out of five get this person such a random random review. Here's what the person wrote.

Okay, this is true doctrine. Asia Necessary learning Latin language the era of 34 BC. Not 21 is the educational learning thread of biblical putative outline learning curves. The mind blowing option credentials of and then it mentioned some weird name was found in the early In the early Romans dating from 1887 DC DC to 1901 AS additional information points to becoming localized to its influence on Quranic backgrounds which grew from early 1700s and then it's got The name of the thing it says language is true.

I have no idea what's happening there. I Don't know what's happening. What thank you for the five stars. I appreciate it, but my goodness. Or another person says here Eli provides an excellent breakdown on how to give a biblical defense of Christianity the transcendental argument for God entails and Looks at worldviews or foundations.

The Christian worldview is the only belief system that could account for any intelligible experience Eli delivers this biblical apologetic at a level anyone could understand that's very helpful to me.

I know some of the some of them have grammatical errors. That's fine I kind of know what you're saying, but it is very useful to me to To tell me that when I do explain stuff people understand it and that's really really the goal, right?

I mean when we talk about apologetics in general much less presuppositional apologetics. It's very difficult sometimes to Take very complicated and sophisticated Topics and to kind of bring it down to the level that the average person who's not typically kind of initiated into this Area of study can understand so I very much appreciate that.

Okay I won't read through all of these but a lot of great positive reviews. And so I really do appreciate that Just make sure when you when you when you write the review You know Make sure you click the stars as well that that matters.

So I appreciate it. All right. Well the title of this episode is pre sup versus the internet and so I'm going to go through some comments on the various videos that I had put out and I'm gonna interact with them a little bit.

Okay, and I hope and hopefully you mean you might you might ask why why go through? The comment section where you're gonna get the worst of the worst now granted there are stronger philosophically more robust objections to the transcendental argument to presuppositional ism.

But there the common thing that we're going to see are these very very blatant Misrepresentations and people who are just getting into this topic really don't know how to respond to those things. So I think going over bad objections is still very very useful.

Okay so hopefully this will be helpful to people who are just getting started and And perhaps somewhat seasoned but um, you hear these sorts of things so some of them are pretty funny, too. So I kind of picked them and I thought one or two of them were funny.

So let's take a look then and jump right in so on my video entitled presept for dummies someone tried to quickly summarize The presuppositional apologetic methodology now the video I meant to I Originally intended to just go on for like an hour ended up going really long and I had fun.

It was a great It was a great time. I think People enjoyed it. I enjoyed doing it, but the person says here presep apologetics We assume the conclusion with ad hoc reasoning there. I shortened your video.

There we go well, whoever wrote this thank you for shortening my video, but I'll You don't have to help okay because that obviously is not what presuppositional apologetics boils down to right? We assume the conclusion with ad hoc reasoning, of course not, right?

So we don't simply assume right our conclusion from a presuppositional perspective we presuppose the truth of our conclusion and this is a key distinction because a Presupposition is a fundamental assumption in one's reasoning and it's not simply kind of any old run-of-the-mill assumption like My assumption that most people who are watching this video understand the English language.

Okay, I assume that but that's not a fundamental presupposition. Okay furthermore I challenge anyone to point out any formal formulation of the transcendental argument that either I or any other Presuppositional list has has laid out in which the conclusion of the argument is stated in one of the premises.

Okay, because this is the common claim, right? We just assume it we're begging the question. We're engaging in a circular Argument, okay. Or circular reasoning there's different nuances there and it's important to keep those things distinct.

But you have to understand something that the transcendental argument Rarely at least within Vantillian lines is rarely presented in a deductive form. You can you can formulate a transcendental argument along deductive lines that can be done you could have premise one premise to conclusion and one of the premises is really kind of the Transcendental premise that the the one that we're going to defend using kind of a transcendental principle.

Okay, but Typically, that's not that's not typically done. Okay. Remember we're talking about the transcendental argument. We're talking about Something that is meta logical. It's actually dealing with something more Paradigmatic than simply, you know, the laws of logic or something like that.

We're dealing with the preconditions of Intelligible experience itself. Okay, and so we're not simply You know Dealing in terms of deduction. We're actually asking more fundamental question. What are the necessary preconditions for deduction?

What are the necessary preconditions for induction? What are the necessary preconditions for logic itself? So we're asking a meta a meta logical question. All right, so I don't think this accurately kind of captures, you know, the essence of what's going on here.

And of course, we're not dealing with You know circular argument at all, right there's no formulation as I said that begs the question in this blatant sense in which the The conclusion is found in one of the premises when it's laid out and say like a deductive form.

Okay, so we don't so we don't simply assume something arbitrarily, right? There's a reason why we presuppose the fundamental foundation that we do as Christians. Okay and of course with respect to circularity there's a difference between a presupposition of an argument and the premise of an argument of Course I'm gonna press a presupposition list I'm gonna presuppose the existence of the triune God and his revelation if I believe and argue that they're the necessary precondition for intelligibility and knowledge.

Right, and if I didn't do that, then I would be literally refuting my myself by arguing on some other grounds That provides intelligibility and knowledge and then proceed to argue that only the Christian God and his revelation provide those preconditions.

Okay, so which is it right if I argue on some other grounds that provides intelligibility that's not the Christian worldview and then proceed on that basis to argue that only the Christian worldview provides intelligibility that would clearly Undercut and contradict the whole point that that I'm arguing.

Okay, so I'm not surprised that someone doesn't see that right? So Again, there's a difference between a presupposition of an argument and the premise of an argument. I presuppose the truth of the Christian worldview.

But that presupposition is not explicitly stated in the premise so as to be accused of the accusation of engaging in circular argument. And also this whole accusation of engaging in ad hoc reasoning and of course I don't understand this at all, right?

I'm not even sure what this person's even saying here with respect to that when we speak of for example The ad hoc fallacy, right? We're not so much talking about a strict error in logic, but rather We are talking about fallacious rhetorical tactics in terms of which the person presents a new explanation.

That is unjustified and unreasonable in an attempt to Rescue their original claim after evidence that contradicts that claim is presented, right? So I give an argument and then you give a counter argument.

Then I have to reshape my view to adjust to the counter argument that's just presented now that of course is not what we're doing right given that we're talking about issues of a Paradigmatic nature entire paradigms any contrary evidence that's presented.

Okay will be worldview dependent. And so we're not ad hoc Lee responding to contrary evidence rather we're challenging the contrary worldview context required to meaningfully interpret the facts such that it can be used as evidence for or against any Position whatsoever.

Again, we always got to bring it back. We are dealing with not just any fact that's under dispute. We are arguing over issues of what must be true in order for experience itself to be intelligible. Okay, that's kind of a different issue.

We're dealing with more Fundamental issues. Okay, so I think that's that's very important. So I hope that makes sense. Kind of going through these pretty quick. But I don't want to spend too much time side blabbing if you know what that means, right?

You know, I'll I'll read something or I'll or I'll Formulate an answer to some question and then I'll go off. He's like kind of reminds me and then I go off the I want to stay focused. So I see I just did it right there.

So so let me continue. So here's another one. So someone says the Bible Doesn't claim anything for itself. The Bible as we know it didn't exist when the different books of it were Written. Okay. Now this of course is Blatantly false.

The Bible in all its stages of being progressively revealed asserts its own exclusivity. Okay, even prior to Revelation being written We still had both general and special revelation right as God has revealed himself Personally from the beginning in Genesis before Genesis was written.

It was true that during the events of Genesis God has revealed himself personally Okay to Adam and Eve now in all phases of Revelation. It came with God's Revelation came with the assertion of its own exclusivity, right?

It claims exclusive truth in comparison to say other claims. Now, of course, we have the benefit of the scriptures in its entirety today. But the progressive nature of Revelation does not exclude Okay, the Exclusivity of its claims as they unfolded throughout redemptive history.

That's super important now. The Bible was the Bible even before its completion. Okay God revealed only two books that would still be the Bible in the midst of its progressive unfolding and by Bible I mean like the Word of God, right and and I understand there are different ways to understand the Word of God.

It doesn't necessarily mean written but this is the context of what I'm using how I'm using it here. It just so happens that what was called the Word of God was being progressively revealed throughout history.

And so when more books were written and added they would still appropriately be called the Bible. Okay, so I think that's an important thing to keep to keep in mind there. Now. Here's a here's a funny one I think I hinted to this.

I think I hinted to this At the end of my last live stream, okay. Oh good. I just got some confirmation here. So Just to give us a heads up on April 23rd April 20. I'll say this now before I forget April 23rd.

I will be having Anthony Rogers and Jeremiah Nortier to Talk about the biblical defense of the doctrine of original sin. Okay, so I'm gonna have Anthony Rogers and Jeremy Jeremiah Nortier to talk about the biblical defense of the doctrine of original sin.

So don't want to miss that's April 23rd. So sorry, I'm kind of doing that in the middle here I wanted to say that before I forgot as I just heard the ding Notification here So just wanted to get that out there.

Why “Tap-Dancing” and “Sky Wizard” Miss the Point

Okay. All right, let's continue on here. Did it to do? Okay. So ready? Okay. So this is a comment with respect to a video I guess There's two hours long the person here their comment is two hours of vacuous tap-dancing.

Okay, and then they say you just can't argue Sky wizard into existence. Okay. This is kind of like the the epitome of like pop Skepticisms pop atheism, right? You know the sky daddy, right? Well, you believe in the sky daddy this sort of nonsense, right?

So but there's I said two hours of vacuous tap-dancing. I try not to tap. I can't even tap dance. I can't dance All right, which is very weird because I'm Hispanic you you would think that I'd have the natural ability to do that But unfortunately not I I don't get it.

Okay. This is this is honest. So two hours of vacuous tap-dancing. I Maybe maybe you don't agree with what I have to say and that's fine. And I I go on YouTube and I expect that But to accuse me of just tap-dancing kind of just you know, playing word games just jumping around the issues I think I've tried really hard to get into some of the details of the issues of say transcendental argumentation and presuppositional apologetic methodology trying to go through what it is as Opposed to what it is not contrary to popular opinion.

I try to do that But to call it vacuous tap-dancing. I mean goodness gracious. I mean, I'm I'm trying here. Okay, just cut me some slack, right? Of course, we're not told Why I'm tap-dancing. Unless the reference here the second part of the comment here is as two hours of vacuous tap-dancing.

You can't just argue sky wizard into existence. Now, of course, that's correct, right? We're gonna agree with our interlocutor here, right? That's correct. You can't argue a sky wizard into existence.

But of course right no one is claiming that one's arguing something into existence, right? When I provide an argument for God's existence I don't think the argument is what produces God being you know, becoming coming into existence, right?

We're providing an argument. We're providing an argument for why we hold the position that we hold. As Christians right now, of course if I'm giving an argument for the existence of God I'm also at the same time.

I also believe that God exists, right? Otherwise, I wouldn't be trying to offer an argument. Arguments don't have The magical ability to bring things into existence, right? But obviously if you hold to the existence or truth of some fact, you're gonna want to offer an argument, right?

Isn't that what we're supposed to be doing? I mean for crying out loud. Okay. By the way, it's true that you don't argue something into existence. But we do provide arguments to try to establish why we think God exists.

Isn't that right? I mean what's wrong with that? At least try to do that for crying out loud right respond to the arguments then. It's very frustrating when you spend two hours trying to make an argument and then of course, you know.

You got the person in the comment saying oh you didn't give an argument. No, I gave an argument and you disagree with it. That's this how debate works, right? You disagree with the argument you need to interact with the argument.

You don't just get to hand wave and say an argument wasn't made kind of reminds me. You know Richard Dawkins and kind of these like, you know, the you know, the the new atheists which are I guess at this point now.

They're pretty old, you know, there's there's no evidence for God, right? And then here's some evidence. Okay, and then they wave their hand again. There's no evidence for God. Well, we'll hear some evidence.

Well, there's no evidence for God. Well, well golly we're giving you evidence. You disagree that it's evidence. So interact with it. You don't get to just hand wave. Hand wave the opposing position away.

That's really not how things work. But unfortunately, this is what we get in the comment section. So, all right. Here's another interesting set of comments here. One person said I'd like to hear the argument that other world views Cannot have just so accounts for the origins of why things are the way they are.

Christianity is not the only religion that offers explanations. Of course. What are your arguments that your explanation is correct now when I read this I thought this was this is weird. Okay, just be perfectly honest is weird so so no one is arguing or even suggesting that you know something as silly as you know the idea that other world views cannot Have just so accounts for the origins of why things are the way that they are.

Of course, there are countless just so stories, right? There are countless just so stories that try to provide an explanation for you know reality. Okay, the issue really is whether those explanations are given.

Right, are they justified? Okay, when this questioner asks, of course, what are your arguments that your explanation is? Correct. The answer is from from my perspective now you could agree he could disagree with this.

But what what are the justifications for my my just so story, right? Well, it's the argument it's a transcendental argument. The transcendental argument is the logical and Intellectual justification for the truth of our position.

Now, you could disagree with the argument. You can provide counterpoints to the argument, but you're missing the train. If you don't see that we are in fact giving an argument. This is this isn't difficult to follow, right?

You don't have to agree with the argument, but you can't pretend that there is no argument. Okay, and the argument isn't let's go back to our first our first one, right our argument isn't. We assume the conclusion with ad hoc reasoning that's not that's not what we're saying.

Okay, this isn't you know, this isn't hard. Okay. Sorry. Sorry for being sarcastic there, you know. It just gets me frustrated sometimes. So again It I'm befuddled that's some of the the comments and Points that some people try to make okay.

Presupposing God, Neutrality, and the Myth of Autonomy

So another person says Thinking a little more about this after sleeping on it in case thinking in terms of something I presented with respect to presuppositional apologetics. He says if you start By presupposing God's existence and argue from that position.

Isn't it virtually true that any worldview that denies God's existence is absurd because it contradicts the presupposition. I'm having trouble seeing any substance in this apologetic approach Eli. Can you sort that?

Pardon Eli, can you sort that out for me? Okay. And so I like the spirit of this question. I like when people are grappling with stuff and like hey, man Can you really clarify this for me and I I will try my best to do that.

But that's really the the right attitude to have right? So I'm gonna read it again so people can follow along and then hopefully you can follow along with the answer that I'm about to Provide. Okay. Yay, babyfoot says.

Baby foots, I love screen names babyfoot. Babyfoot says that's my comment. Cool. Well, hopefully this will be helpful. Okay, I'm gonna repeat the question and then I will share my my thoughts here. Okay.

So thinking a little more about this after sleeping on it if you start by presupposing God's existence and argue from that position. Isn't it trivially true that any worldview that denies God's existence is absurd because it contradicts the presupposition.

I'm having trouble seeing any substance of this apologetic approach Eli. Can you sort this out for me? Okay, so now the questioner says if you start presupposing God's existence and Argue from that position right there you there lies the mistake.

Okay. No. What we are saying is that everyone starts by presupposing God's existence. Okay, it's not something you just start doing later on in life like, you know, I'm just gonna start out. No, everyone has a knowledge of God.

This is what the Bible teaches and this is because because everyone has a knowledge of God. The problem is that the unregenerate man suppresses the truth and acts as though they can reason. They act as though they can think and argue and have a worldview without him.

And so we're not saying that there is you know. This point over here where the unbeliever doesn't know God and reasons independently and autonomously from him for a while. Until the Christian presupposition looks comes along and convinces him otherwise and then the unbeliever starts presupposing God's existence.

No, he knows God and he suppresses this truth of Expresses this knowledge that he has. Okay now with respect to the apologetic situation. We're seeking to expose the fact that the unbeliever is suppressing this knowledge of God.

Partially by using the tools and gifts that only God provides and trying to detach them from its only source and meaningful context. Okay, remember when the presupposition list speaks of the myth of Neutrality and autonomy we do not actually believe people can genuinely be neutral.

Genuinely be autonomous. It is a pretended neutrality a pretended autonomy. Even in thinking as though neutrality and autonomy are true. The unbeliever must be relying on God to do this. But in doing this the unbeliever is simply committing idolatry in his thinking.

Now, of course simply saying all of this Doesn't make it true. Isn't that right? That's why we offer a particular line of argumentation one in which Forces the unbeliever to reason at the most fundamental level and account for the very things he take that he thinks he could have without the God in whose image he was created and that's the nature of the transcendental thrust of the presuppositional apologetic methodology and argumentation now if you start with a worldview.

If you start with a worldview that says anything contrary to it is false and absurd. Yeah. That would be trivially true that if you assert the necessity of one worldview then competing worldviews that disagree.

We would believe that that they'd be false. But of course, that's not the nature of what we're arguing. We're not simply claiming that one needs the Christian worldview in order to have intelligibility and knowledge.

We are arguing that fact. We're not simply claiming that fact. We're not making a bear. This is so important. We're not making a bear. Authority claim we're making an authority claim that we are also arguing Can pay the bills on the claim.

Whereas the contrary worldviews cannot and although we encourage them to try this is exactly this is precisely why we ask the sorts of Questions we do. How do you know what you know? How do you justify, you know your reasoning and all these these sorts of things?

Okay, these questions that presuppositional list ask about how do you trust your senses? You know, really? How do you know your reason these aren't trick questions? They are paradigmatic questions. We are we are asking how do you giving your worldview context?

Justify and make sense out of the very tools necessary to utter a meaningful statement. Okay, that's not a trick question. You might think it's a trick question because it's difficult to answer. Okay, but that's not a that's not that's not the trick.

There is no trick. It's a fundament. We're asking fundamental questions. Now people feel uncomfortable answering fundamental questions. That's that's another issue. You might not agree with the Christian response, but at least we try to answer those fundamental questions.

Okay, this is I mean it's for the Christian. This should be this should be easy. Okay, it doesn't matter if people disagree. We have an account if you disagree that our account is correct. Then that's where we're going to have to have some intellectual combat going on.

We're gonna have to be we have to engage in the debate so to speak. Okay, so so there you go. Now for those who are listening in let me just take this 10 seconds to say if you have a question if you want me.

To answer a question if you have something on your mind. Feel free to preface your question with the word question and I will try my best to take a couple of questions. Okay, I can't take too much because I have to preserve my voice.

Which doesn't help when I when I'm doing this but You know, if you have a question feel free or not just a question if you have a comment. Something something to add. I wouldn't mind sharing that on the screen and letting folks Hear your thoughts.

Okay. All right. Here is a question that I received. I don't remember which video this is from. But it says here Scott says I want a t-shirt that just says Paradigmatic. Yeah, you know paradigmatic is a fun word to say it is a very fun word to say.

Yeah, I would buy that t-shirt. More about more of a hoodie sweater guy though get up maybe a Hoodie. Hey in the comments. Let me know if I had Revealed apologetics hoodie sweaters. Would you wear it?

All right, a nice black sweat was thinking of maybe doing that on the website. There's like a section where you can purchase clothing, but I've never no one has nor have I ever purchased anything. Perhaps we'll see what's up.

I think I think a revealed apologetics logo on a black hoodie sweater would be pretty dope. Just saying All right, so here is the next Question or next thing here from the comments. Is it a fact that what is?

Ultimate is a mind and then of course they follow this question with another question. What? Grounds that fact. Okay. Is it a fact that what is ultimate is a mind and then of course what grounds that fact?

Okay. It's a screen you would have to make it very revealing and that would prevent me from what. Yes, okay revealed apologetics where there's the hoodie sweater. It just drapes over your shoulders and it just ends right there.

So it's like your whole stomach is revealed. It's just it's I Don't know how well that would sell that probably wouldn't sell very well. Thank you for that though. All right, you're distracting me you're distracting me.

I there's a serious question. Okay, so the person asked is it a fact that what is ultimate is a mind what grounds that fact now? I would say yes, it is a fact that what is ultimate is Personal. Okay, I would say the ultimate metaphysical foundation of reality is personal and that's because I believe that the try you the personal try you and God is the the one that all derivational facts Derive from.

Okay a derivational fact is any fact that derives from something more fundamental and so yes I would say that what is ultimate is personal the try you and God is Metaphysically ultimate. Okay, but now if we take a closer look at this question.

You'll see how it's completely wrongheaded and misguided right the person asks and you pay attention to this. What grounds that fact what grounds that fact? Okay, so Is what is what is ultimate a mind and what grounds that fact?

Okay? What fact? The fact that what is ultimate is a mind the fact that what is ultimate is personal. Okay, now I want you to think about this if it's true that what is ultimate is mind is Personal then it doesn't make sense to ask what grounds that which is ultimate does it?

Okay, you say what is ultimate? Ultimate is Personal ultimate is mind and then you ask the question. Well, what grounds that? Well that that question doesn't make sense because if I give a grounding For that which I have assert is ultimate then that which I've asserted as ultimate is no longer the ultimate the thing that grounds.

That asserted ultimate is ultimate. Okay, so so so the entire question is wrongheaded. Okay, for if there was a grounding for that which is ultimate then that which we asserted was ultimate would not in fact be ultimate.

What grounds the asserted ultimate would be ultimate and then one would be fallaciously stuck with an infinite regress of groundings? And most importantly this would undermine intelligibility and knowledge as it would be impossible to justify or ground any fact given that there would be an infinite number of justifications needed to do so.

Hence, ultimately no fact would be justified now in my debate with suras the skeptic. Which is one of the first debates I've ever done on Marlon Wilson's channel game is an atheist. We had a nice respectful discussion when I pointed this out.

That if you don't have if you have an infinite number of justifications, you've never justified the the first fact in question. He asked me what is wrong with having an infinite number of justifications and the the answer should be easy.

It makes your assertions arbitrary. You've never justified the specific thing under dispute. Because you say well, it's justified by this and that's justified but then you go infinite infinite. You have no starting point.

You have no stopping point. Okay, then it hasn't been justified. Okay, so so there you go. Someone says it is is it a fact that what is ultimate is a mind or a Christian? I'm gonna say yes, and what grounds that fact that question doesn't make any sense since you cannot have a grounding for that.

Which is metaphysically ultimate. Okay. Hope that makes sense. All right. So here's another one. And this one we've heard a bajillion times now bajillion is not a real number. But it should be because I've heard this this many times.

Ah. Yes, the person sarcastically writes boil down precept equals ready. Check this out as though we've never heard this one before the Bible is true. Because it says so and then they they finish with useless.

Okay. All right. They say they continue to say If you intend to make a defense, which is what an apologetic is then just saying the Bible is true Therefore what it says is true is no defense against the claim that it isn't that is the problem with precept if you won't give Reasons why then you aren't giving an apologetic at all?

Okay. Did it just saying the Bible's true? Is this a repeat if you don't give me? Okay. Yeah, so the person continues. He says if you intend to make a defense which is what an apologetic is then just saying the Bible is true Therefore what it says is true is no defense against the claim that it isn't.

That is the problem with precept if you won't Give reasons why then you aren't giving an apologetic at all. So William Lane Craig and this is response to a William Lane Craig critique that I gave so William Lane Craig is correct that in those Situations assuming that which you are trying to prove is circular.

If you believe the scriptures you should have a better reason than cuz which is all precept has on that. Okay now if the person says the Bible is true because it says so Useless I'm going to say as an argument Yes, that is useless because the Bible is true because it says it's true is not a good argument, but of course, okay.

That is not my argument. That is not the presuppositional argument. That has not been the Answer that Bonson has given that's not been anything where van Til has ever asserted this James Anderson or John frame or anybody?

Okay, so this particular statement is coming completely from a Complete and utter ignorance of what presupposition lists are saying, right? So I'm gonna address all of those points together, right because it follows a similar line I would say yes.

It would be useless to argue that the Bible is true because it says it's true now notice that the conclusion is in the beginning. There right, so that's fallacious. That's a fallaciously circular argument.

Not what we're saying, right? No presupposition lists use this argument. All right, as a matter of fact Bonson himself in many of his lectures he even gives that as the specific example of what we are not saying.

I'm gonna say that again so the idea that the Bible is true because it says it's true and that's our argument. Bonson uses that multiple times in His lectures as the example of literally what we're not saying.