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

Comments 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 presuppositional ism 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 4 .9

out of 5. 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 4 .9. 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 have 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 pre sup 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 pre sub 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 Presuppositionalist 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?

I say 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 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 or that 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 and 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. Okay. All right, let's continue on here

Okay, so ready, okay, so this is a comment with respect to a video I guess There's two hours long the person

Here's 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?

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 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 comments 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 New -atheist 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 alright 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 worldviews 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 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 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 the 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

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 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 them 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 presuppositional it's 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 and 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 read?

How do you know your reason these aren't trick questions? They are paradigmatic questions

We are we are asking how do you given 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 fundamental 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 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're gonna 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

Yeah 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?

Nice blacks what I 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 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 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 trying you the personal triune

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 triune 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 What 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've 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 is is it a fact that what is ultimate is a mind?

We're all 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 In 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 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 Vantill 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 and I noticed that the conclusion is in the

Beginning there, right? So that's fellatio. 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. Okay.

So again, this doesn't even this is not even close So that's not even within the ballpark of accurately criticizing

Presuppositional ism and transcendental argumentation if I was an atheist Didn't believe in God didn't you know didn't believe in God, right?

If I was an atheist as a little joke there I would still say this is a horrible critique of presupp

It's just failing to understand what precept what precepts all about Okay Now it is important to note that the

Bible does say that it's true and we believe what the Bible says because God speaks with Self -attesting authority, right?

We believe God's authority self -attesting. He's an ultimate authority But we're also saying that not only does the Bible say it's true

But if you reject its truth your worldview will be reduced to absurdity Right. Our argument is assume the opposite the biblical worldview is not true.

What happens? Unbelief reduces to skepticism. It reduces to subjectivism.

It reduces to absurdity presuppose the biblical worldview What do you get you get coherence you get unity you get intelligibility you get metaphysical grounding for the meaningfulness of all derivational facts you get a grounding for both unity and plurality and Epistemological tether between our finite experience in both internal and external reality

God reveals how the world is He gives us a foundation for for knowledge

Okay, so if you're gonna critique the claim you're gonna critique the argument you're gonna take the method at least understand

What we're saying because that means not even not even close not even close. All right Huh?

All right. So let's take a look. Okay, we're gonna go through some of the questions here.

There's not a lot and that's fine Let's see here. Oh Thank you so much

Tony hope all is well all is well, thank you very much appreciate that On bears you're doing well,

I do appreciate that appreciate that Let's see here Mike Brooke Brunstetter, I hope

I said that right. Hi Eli. I always appreciate your style and approach would love if you could interview. Dr Jason Lyle again, I loved when you moderated his debate with Hugh Ross Yeah, I highly recommend if you haven't seen that video where I moderate a discussion

And yes, it was a debate, but it was a moderated discussion So it wasn't like long opening statements and they were like went back and forth for like close to two hours

It's my most viewed video on the channel Let's see how many views were at on that video and I'm so happy that it did.

Well, I returned to that video a lot To kind of get a good overview of the differences between young earth old earth and all that jazz

So we're gonna type this in Okay, let's put Jason Lyle Hugh Ross Now just yeah, so right now we're at 52 ,000 views it's it's doing well, it's doing well

I always get notifications from the comments section on That video now there was a debate a formal debate between Jason Lyle and Hugh Ross and it was a really good debate

But it was almost impossible to find on YouTube. I eventually found it and listened to it and I loved it

I thought it was really good. But I was like, you know, I Wish we can kind of get these guys together and just kind of have like a back -and -forth just the back -and -forth

And I was able to set that up because I had had Hugh Ross on the show before And so I was able to I had the connection there and so I was able to set that up and Jason was

Dr. Lyle was super nice and was willing to do it. And what happened was a lively Informative discussion.

So I'm gonna had a lot of fun moderating it too. So so yeah, so totally folks should check this matter

In fact, let me put the link in the comments there just in case someone wants to click on that We're gonna share to do

Okay boom boom boom and paste if you haven't seen this

Highly highly recommended awesome discussion awesome discussion All right. So, let's see.

Let's continue on here a lot of hey Hello. Hello Imagine never being able to take off your paradigmatic hoodie.

You'd have to undergo a paradigm shift every wardrobe change. That's good Yeah, let's see here.

So Tony says he Eli how effective do you think Hume's arguments are against the classical approach?

Yeah, so so Hume being a strict empiricist I mean, he's not going to grant a lot of the assumptions that are inherent in many of the classical arguments

And again, there is always going to be a problem as I see it when you when you utilize for example

The classical approach and the natural theological approach You're going to be arguing on probability, okay

And when you deal with probability you always leave an escape hatch for the skeptic Okay, so there's like a 90 % chance that God exists.

Where's the unbeliever gonna run to he's gonna run to that 10 % But of course even probabilities presuppose certainties.

Okay, and if you can't have certainties with respect to different aspects of your arguments and things like that there

Someone like Hume could could perhaps poke holes in in the argument. It depends too

It depends how one is arguing when you say the classical approach Well, it depends.

Of course being a skeptic that that David Hume is you're gonna have to anticipate

You know his rejection of certain presuppositions that might be Used from the classical position.

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

Yeah, what is it as babyfoot says my daughter is just beginning to take some philosophy courses I need to bone up Yes, you do you need to but philosophy is important.

Do I have any philosophy text here? I have this old thing by Ronald Nash Life's ultimate questions an introduction to philosophy.

I like it. It's very easy to jump into It's got like study questions in the back.

It's old. I don't know if they still sell this thing Maybe they do and it covers. Let me see here.

It covers. Yeah, it covers naturalism Plato Aristotle Plotinus Augustine Aquinas Problems in philosophy law of non -contradiction possible worlds epistemology metaphysics the existence of nature of God The mind -body problem.

Yeah, I Highly recommend if you can get your hands, I like Ronald Nash, you know, it's kind of an older guy

Well, he's not around anymore, but I have enjoyed I've enjoyed his work in philosophy there.

Let's see here Todd bears says how would you approach the gap theory applied to Genesis 1 verses 1 and 2 presupposition

Lee? Well, I wouldn't so much get into the presuppositions necessarily I mean both the gap theorist and say young earth creationism if you presuppose the authority of Scripture You're going to understand the importance of following proper and appropriate

Interpretive rules as I think the problem with the gap theory is that the gap is inserted when it is not suggested in the text

Okay, so you don't get to impose random gaps. So as to Provide a context for explaining other things.

You see this a lot in Prophecy so for example in Daniel 70 weeks of years You know dispensationalist put a gap between the 69th and 70th year, but of course there's no gap

Mentioned there, especially when the 70 weeks of years parallel the 70 years of Babylonian captivity.

Okay, there's no gap there You know when when God says that Israel is going to be in captivity for 70 years

There's no reason to assume You know that God could have put a gap there and still would have been Correct when he said that they were in captivity for 70 years and like fashion

You have the theological parallel in Daniel 70 weeks of years putting a gap between the 69th year and the 70th year

Is to me it seems arbitrary so as to fit an entire theological paradigm that must continue

That must explain rather events according to someone's eschatological Paradigm, okay, we're using the word paradigm and paradigmatic a lot in this stream, but I would say interpretively

Give me a reason why a gap should be there textually and I have never heard a good reason

So so there you go, so I wouldn't focus so much on the presuppositions But if it's true that they both, you know a gap theorist and a young earth creationist or whatever

If you presuppose the authority of scripture, then you're obviously going to want to come at the scripture I'm in a way that you want to allow the scriptures to speak for themselves.

And so that will not allow for Arbitrary gaps being placed in the text and things like that.

Remember we want to engage in what's called exegesis as opposed to isogesis Exegesis is reading meaning out of the text and isogesis is reading meaning into the text.

I think it is an isogetical Move to insert a gap in Genesis 1 1 and 2

Okay, so I would point that out and ask for justification for that gap. All right All right

Let's see here. Well, there you go

Okay Scott Terry says I'm sure Eli has a good answer for that Tom bears But as an aside Bonson student

Michael Butler wrote an entire book critiquing gap and framework views of Genesis from a precept perspective I did not know that.

Thank you for Thank you for pointing that out Okay, let's see your baby foot really.

Thanks for your answer to my earlier question to make the approach work You would need to do a really good internal critique of opposing views.

Not sure you do No, I'm not sure what that the context there see here Let's see

Good This is an important very deep Philosophical and theological question folks.

Okay, and so we'll take this question here by Joshua pillows Why are you so good -looking?

unfortunately, this is one of the many mysteries of Existence, okay

There are many mysteries. There are many difficult theological difficulties One being how can we reconcile?

The very strong notion of divine sovereignty and human responsibility and freedom How do we understand both

God's simplicity and try personality? What is God's relationship to time is the a theory of time?

The correct view of time is the B theory of time the correct theory of time Which theory of time in other words

If you adopt for example a B theory in terms of which the past present and future are equally real what does that have what implications that have for time travel and Personal identity through time and and all these sorts of these are all very deep

Philosophical questions the the mind -body interaction How does the immaterial soul interact with the physical body and then of course the pinnacle of all mysteries?

Why am I so good -looking These again, unfortunately, I cannot answer this question for you.

This is do I when someone asked me this question Joshua? I looked them in the eye and I quote to them

Deuteronomy 29 29 secret things belong to the Lord, but the things revealed belong to you and your children's children

So, there you go that that's my answer to a very very difficult and profound question

All right, I think I got to all the questions I'm pretty sure I didn't I don't think

I missed anything Unless there's another one All right Okay.

All right. Well, if that's the last question, I mean, I'm guess I'm gonna have to call it a night All right guy.

I got nothing else. That was that was that was it remember so so April April 23rd

April 23rd. I'm going to have Anthony Rogers and Jeremiah Nortier Defend they're gonna come on.

We're gonna discuss the biblical defense of the doctrine of Original sin. Okay. I've been noticing more and more.

I know that the doctrine of original sin is rejected by Eastern Orthodox, but I've been seeing it more and more amongst

Protestants and evangelicals And so I you know, just listening to certain videos and interviews and and different things in the comment sections to various videos

I thought that this might be an important topic to to cover from a biblical perspective not so much arguing kind of like Theologically, yes, obviously we're gonna talk theology, but like what is the biblical basis for original sin?

And why should we affirm it? I most definitely do so And and what are the implications of that for say like something like total depravity?

Total inability. How did all these things work? you know Within our kind of our theological framework.

So so there you go. That's it for for now Thank you so much for all of your questions and your wonderful support

Please be sure to go over to iTunes and write a nice review Make sure you click the stars unless you genuinely hate what

I'm doing and you can give me a one star you're free to do that But make sure you do that. That's super helpful

And of course sharing the video liking the video all that good stuff is greatly appreciated until next time guys

I know this was a last -second live stream But if I decide to randomly come on again, I most definitely will try my best to let folks know a little early

Until then though, I appreciate it. Oh, you know what here so Scott I Wish I had more questions, but my mind body are both connected in meantime.

That's fair Scott If you want to come on the show, you've been in the comment section. I really enjoyed your your blog

I would love to take some of your blogs and have you on the show We can talk about them because I think you do a great job

Addressing certain issues. So please message me on Facebook and let me know if you're down if you're not down message me on Facebook So that I stop bothering you, but I'd love to have you on because I appreciate a lot of what you've what you've written

So, all right, man, okay. That's my open invitation to you. Alright guys until next time.