We Read Your Comments--Now It's Time to Respond w/ Joshua Pillows

Welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host Eli Ayala, and today

I have a special guest with me. He's been on the show before, my good friend Joshua Pillows.

And what we're going to be doing in this episode is we're going to be interacting with the

YouTube comments section, okay? That wonderful and beautiful place where people come to play peacefully and nicely and respectfully, and so we're gonna interact with some of the comments, questions, objections to presuppositionalism, transcendental argument, these sorts of things.

I have a list of questions that we're going to be or comments and objections, things like this, that we're gonna walk through, and obviously

I can't go through all of them. And when we don't go through all of them it's not because we are running away from your super cool argument, it's just that I'm a human being, this is why

I actually invited a guest, I just don't have the time to go through every single objection, that much of which

I've heard a million times, and really don't faze me one bit because they're just not good questions, and those questions could be answered if you read a book or two by Bonson or listen to a lecture or something like that.

So I just wanted to get that out there, okay? So there you go. With that said,

I would like to introduce my good friend Joshua Pillows to the show once more. Why don't you say hello to everyone and tell the folks a little bit about yourself.

Hey, well thank you for having me on, Eli. Sort of last minute, right? Well, it was last minute, but no,

I'm Josh. I'm a presuppositionalist, obviously. I was taught by Bonson. I was saved in 2016, and a year later, it was actually through apologia, speaking of you being partners with him,

Jeff Durbin mentioned Bonson's name. I've always had an affinity towards defending the faith, even before I was saved.

You know, my arguments weren't the best, obviously. So when I heard of Bonson, I started voraciously going through his material, his tapes, his books, his articles, and so what's it been now?

Eight years? Yeah, eight years this year, 2025, that I've been going through it as if I was a student in his classes, just tens of thousands of typed words, like a zillion articles, and now

I got a second book coming out. You might have seen my name on the first book, The Objective Proof for Christianity, which was released last year.

High praise for it, obviously not because of me. It's Bonson and Butler's words, and I only contributed my contributions in the footnotes in the appendix, so all glory goes to God for that.

This next book is, if you don't know, is going to be annotations on The Great Debate with Dr. Stein back in 1985.

It'll be more or less the same format as the previous book, and my commentary via obviously the full transcript, my commentary on everything that's going on about it and fleshing it out more, and then the appendix will be a mock scenario of the debate, should

Stein have actually done his homework and studied the transcendental argument, because that whole debate was just a disservice to the argument

Bonson was giving. He had to keep laboring the same points. Stein was not ready.

He just didn't even know what he was getting himself into, so it was the same stuff. It didn't have its full justice, so the appendix is an opening statement of Bonson again, but I would say 90 % of that material is from his material, so it's as if he's alive today and he's just writing a book on the subject, so it's his opening statement, a question and answer time, and then a rebuttal period with Bonson again, so it's going to be awesome.

I think February 11th is when it'll be released, the 40th anniversary of the debate, so that'll be coming out in less than a month from the time this is being recorded, so yeah, that's my story.

That's awesome. I should also mention that I'm a musician, so I'm an organist at a

Lutheran Church. I'm basically a minister of music there, and it's been great. I consider

Lutherans our reformed cousins, so to speak. Two and a half points of tulip voguettes, I'm like, okay,

I'll take that. Sure, why not? So yeah, my main trait is being a musician, organist, pianist in the

Church, and then I teach as well. Excellent. Well, thank you for that. Yeah, I'm really excited about that new book that provides the commentary there on that debate between Dr.

Bonson and Gordon Stein. What I find prevalent in a lot of atheistic thinking is that many of them lack the capacity, in my estimation, to think at a worldview level.

So they don't think broad enough, right? Oftentimes they'll say, you know, you Christians, you presuppositionalists will say, well, we can't account for, you know, the uniformity of nature, and we can't account for science, but I don't believe in your

God and I do science. You know, or you say that I don't believe in...if I don't believe in your

God, I don't have a grounding for logic. But I don't believe in your God and I use logic, as though that is a meaningful interaction with what we're actually arguing for.

As a matter of fact, this is precisely the point that Gordon Stein brought up, right? I don't, you know, I don't presuppose your

God, yet I do logic just fine. And that's to completely miss the point, because again, in my estimation, they're not thinking broadly enough.

They're taking this kind of isolated item and saying, well, I use this. Yeah, well, that's not the issue. That's not...we're not denying as Christians that you use logic or that you, you know, can do science and things like that.

That's not an issue that addresses, really, the transcendental challenge that we're bringing to the unbeliever.

What do you think of that? Yeah, I mean, it's an accounting for the very logic and reasoning and consciousness and so forth that you're using.

And that's one of the standard fair criticisms. And I don't take that. It's never with vitriol, really.

It really does come from charity from at least the opponents I've engaged in who don't understand. And I think it's one of those points that's easier to get across even for a layman.

That obviously, you know, presuppositionalists aren't stupid enough to say you don't know anything. It's just how do you justify the fact that on your worldview, on what you believe, how do you explain how you know everything?

Not whether or not you know anything, but how do you explain the foundation for you knowing anything or uniformity of nature or whatever?

We need to talk. It's been a rough ride from a culture bent on burning itself down to attacks from within.

But by the grace of God, we've been given a moment, a chance to make lasting changes. We can rebuild what's been torn down.

But we have to build with what will last, the gospel of the kingdom. This April, let's sit down.

Let's talk about what matters. And together, we'll build something that lasts.

ReformCon 2025. Tickets are limited. Lord willing, we'll see you in Tucson. Right. Yeah, that's well put.

Now, I want to highlight this first book that you mentioned. You have a second book coming out.

And this book here, I highly recommend, let me see here, The Objective Proof for Christianity, the

Presuppositionalism of Cornelius Van Til and Greg Bonson. I remember some years back, Joshua, I asked you, hey, you know, what set of lectures should

I really focus on when studying Greg Bonson? And you said, well, there's a lot of great material out there, but the heart of the presuppositional argumentation is the transcendental argument.

So you would do well, I don't know if you remember saying this to me, but you told me you would do well by just listening to Dr.

Bonson's lectures on transcendental arguments. And so I listened to those things over the years repeatedly, and it's interesting that he speaks so clearly in those lectures that he answers many of the objections that some atheists in the comments section or on various YouTube channels and things like that, they bring up as though it's some great insight, and Dr.

Bonson has addressed those, and other presuppositionalists have addressed those a million times.

They don't pose a challenge, we don't shake in our boots when we hear these objections pop up, and so it is really, in my experience, a lack of doing their homework or parroting what some other atheistic influencer has said with respect to presuppositional apologetics, and so yeah, that happens often, and I suppose

Christians can do the same thing as well, right? When we just assert by what standard, by the impossibility of the contrary, all appropriate phrases, but the presuppositionalist has to kind of go in a little more detail and explain what we mean by those things.

So perhaps we can do that a little bit, Josh, as we move through some of the comments here. So I have a list of comments that I collected.

I believe there is a total of 20 comments, but there are sub areas of each of the comments that are numbered, so we'll be addressing, if we get through all of them, about 46 points.

20 comments, but each comment has like a multiplicity of points, and we'll try to get through all of them, okay?

I don't know if we will, but I'll try, and of course, you know, if we don't get through all of them

I'll get more comments in the video, you didn't answer my question, you know? So life's tough, wear a helmet, that's my advice, right?

I mean, you're not gonna get everything you want. So let's begin to go through this list.

So the first comment I picked is in the context of how the

Christian world view provides the necessary preconditions for knowledge, and that we assert as Christians that given the truth of the

Christian worldview, the Christian metaphysical picture, given the truth of the Christian epistemology and an ethic and so forth, we have a foundation for knowledge.

And so the person commented, they said, well why can't the true explanation for why something exists rather than nothing be something that we are unaware of, something unintuitive, and something our brains are incapable of reasoning to?

In other words, I don't believe your Christian worldview provides those preconditions, but maybe there's some worldview out there, okay?

Now before you answer that, is this a new objection to a presuppositionalist?

No, right? Decades, yeah. Yeah, it's been around for decades. Is this something that no presuppositionalist has ever addressed?

No, no. I mean, at the lay level, a majority they wouldn't have, but the smaller part for sure with academia coming after presuppositionalism, that is more of an academic observation and very, very much credible for sure.

But I would say yes, it obviously has been addressed, especially in written literature, you can find it, but not as much as a mainstream conversation with the apologetic.

It's also addressed in here. Who would have thought, man?

Man, I mean, I wrote, compiled the book and I completely forgot, man. I just, you know. It's addressed specifically in here, like there's a section where it is addressed.

So just to throw that out there, I don't mean to be sarcastic, I apologize, but it's here, folks can check it out, there you go.

And I don't make any money when someone, when I promote a book, I don't make money off these books. Like, there's, you know, people think

I'm in this for the money and that I am driving a Lamborghini because I do Christian apologetics on YouTube, which again is an amazing claim.

But nevertheless, let's explore that. Why is it not the case? When someone says, why can't the true explanation for why something exists rather than nothing be something that we are unaware of, something unintuitive, and something our brains are incapable of reasoning to, what does that implicitly assume,

Josh? What do you think that implicitly assumes with respect to their worldview as they're asking this question?

Yeah, what they're not recognizing is that everyone approaches anything, at least the foundational assumptions and considerations from their particular viewpoint.

No one's neutral, you're not an objective bystander because you're a subjective fallible being, which means you're limited.

So when they ask that question, they are, of course, consistently coming from their atheistic perspective.

And to answer your question, that assumes skepticism, universal skepticism, which is a correct observation from the atheist perspective, because again, we're fallible and extremely limited compared to the entire universe.

So, you know, perhaps we'll never get to the answers, but there could be another explanation. So it's a consistent claim and inquiry from their perspective that obviously should be addressed, but it's a presupposition that the

Christian doesn't hold to, universal skepticism. And so if they want to answer that question, you can answer it in two ways, which we can get to after I make these points, but it's coming from their bias against our bias, because bias is inescapable.

And so at that point, that's where you go from that conversation. You have to first and foremost point that out. What I've noticed also is that when someone says, why can't the true explanation for why something exists rather than nothing be something that we are unaware of, something unintuitive, or something our brains are incapable of reasoning to, it implicitly presupposes, or he's implicitly admitting, that the worldview he currently holds does not provide the preconditions for intelligibility and knowledge.

In other words, there might be—what if there is some hypothetical worldview out there, undiscovered, that we are unaware of?

Well, if you are arguing that, the problem is that that assumes that the worldview you are currently using lacks the foundations for knowledge and intelligible experience, which actually is self -vitiating and undercuts your own perspective, and actually demonstrates the very thing we're trying to assert.

Namely, that without the Christian worldview, right, you lack a worldview foundation to make sense out of those very things or to justify them, okay?

And of course, the Christian is arguing that we do have, you know, the foundation for knowledge, intelligible experience, and so forth.

So I think that's an interesting kind of implicit admission. Now, of course, they're going to ask, and I think rightfully so, well, if the

Christian worldview provides the necessary preconditions for knowledge and intelligible experience, how do we know that?

How do we know that? And how would you respond to that, Josh? Actually, interesting, I just finished the appendix last night.

I sent it to Gary pretty late, and it's one of the questions in the Q &A that Dr. Stein hypothetically asks, so it's actually fresh in my mind.

There's this issue of what's known as the problem of criterion, and in simple terms, it's you can come to a conclusion either through the armchair method, you know, we all know this statue or picture where a philosopher's in his chair and he's philosophizing, and you can also come to conclusions empirically through your experience, what you see or sense with your five senses.

And the problem with the first one is, if you just take the armchair approach and come to a conclusion, you may make an argument, come to a conclusion in your head, in your armchair, that conclusion is purely subjective, right?

It's just your opinion. So who cares? How do you apply that objectively to the external world? And if you base your conclusion off of empirical observation, your experience, as I've said, is completely limited, and fallible, you can be mistaken, and there are other issues too.

So what they're assuming there with presuppositionalism is that it's purely analytic, it's purely, we philosophize that in our heads, and wow, we made it make sense.

It's awesome. We should definitely promulgate it around the world. It's what it is, but it's purely in our head.

And so that's a, that's a rightful observation. Well, if it's in your head, how much credit should we give the argument?

But the problem is, it's not completely in our head. The foundation and the source for our argument is an external thing.

It's something tangible in the world that we can verify with, namely the Bible, the book we've had for all of history.

Well, wait a minute, Josh. Wait a minute. Aren't you basing, I feel like I get like a migraine every time

I think about this. But aren't you saying that the Bible's true because the

Bible's true? Or the Bible's true because my Bible told me?

Like, is that the nature of what we're arguing? What, what's wrong with that picture?

What are they getting wrong when they just hand wave and make this very uncritical point against what we're arguing?

Dr. Greg Bonson was a renowned Christian apologist, philosopher, and seminary professor, and his life's work is now at your fingertips with Bonson U.

Bonson U aims to bring seminary level education to every Christian anytime, anywhere, absolutely free.

Gain access to over 140 courses covering theology, apologetics, eschatology, and law, featuring sermons, seminary lectures, and more from the legendary

Dr. Greg Bonson. Now, if you sign up today at ApologiaStudios .com and join over 13 ,000 users already benefiting from this incredible resource, you will not regret it.

And soon, they're expanding with Bonson U Plus and Bonson U Live, bringing fresh supplemental learning and real -time engagement.

Again, go to ApologiaStudios .com and start your journey today. Well, again, two more things.

The first one is, again, they are coming at it with their biases, their worldview. How do you know that you can't just take it for granted?

So they're not acknowledging the Christian position. The second point is when they point out or accuse the argument, the presuppositionalist of arguing circularly, they are not taking into account the metaphysical aspect.

We don't say the Bible is true because it's true, or it says it's true, or whatever. The metaphysical aspect is the Bible comes from an infallible being,

God. Therefore, it cannot be mistaken. And if this being is the ultimate infallible being and the source of all truth and all logic, and therefore the source of all fallacies, metaphysically speaking, on its own terms, on its own authority, it's infallibly true.

And that, of course, is still a type of circle. But it's not a begging of the question, because a begging of the question would be a purely linear consideration in terms of giving an argument.

And, well, wait a minute, the conclusion is in the premise here, and so forth. But the circularity here takes into account the metaphysical.

God exists. He's infallible. He's perfect. So his word, likewise, as an extension of him, is infallible and perfect.

That's the Christian position. And, of course, the atheist is bound to say, well, I don't believe that. You're taking it for granted.

And to which you say, well, you're taking some of your beliefs for granted. And we're, again, arguing over worldviews. So which one, on its own terms, makes sense of intelligibility?

And so, yeah, the twofold method, or the two points are, A, we don't just come up with this in our head, because if we did, then, yeah, it would just be purely conceptual.

And, B, the argument isn't circular, because the source is external. It's a posteriori, if you want to say it.

Or, if we can verify the claims, and it's infallible, because, metaphysically speaking, this God exists and is infallible.

And so his word is infallible. Now, and it's interesting, too, because what you said, it's not making kind of a linear line of argumentation.

This is the distinction between what we call direct argumentation and indirect argumentation. So when someone says that the transcendental argument, or the presuppositional argument, is a circular argument, that is not possible, given the nature of the argument.

Circular argumentation is a feature of direct argumentation. But if anyone's familiar with the writings of Van Til, Dr.

Bonson, and others, the transcendental argument is an indirect argument. So what you're doing is you're accusing an indirect argument of having a feature that is only prevalent in a direct argument.

Now, you can formulate the transcendental argument in a direct fashion. I've done that. You know, I've offered the argument, if knowledge is possible, the

Christian world views true. Knowledge is possible, therefore the Christian world views true. That does not follow.

The Bible is true because the Bible is true. The conclusion of my argument is not restated in the premise.

And so to keep calling it a circular argument is already, it's just, that's just not true.

Now you, and I said this a million times, and I'm sure you would agree with this, Josh, there is a difference between the premise of an argument and the presupposition of an argument.

That's right. So there's nothing in my argument that the conclusion is stated in the premise.

Now I presuppose that the Christian world view is in fact the necessary precondition for knowledge, but that's not fallaciously stated in one of the premises.

So what I have here is, if knowledge is possible, the Christian world views true. Knowledge is possible, therefore the

Christian world views true. And the first premise is defended transcendentally. Now I've been famously asked the question, and maybe we can talk about this, but what is the inference for the truth of the first premise?

And to that I respond, it is not inferred in a regular linear fashion in which

I offer another deductive argument to demonstrate its truth. It is a presupposition.

But then how do you justify that presupposition which is your first premise? We justify it indirectly.

So I have a direct argument in which there is a premise that is defended indirectly, and that indirect defense comes in the form of a transcendental argument.

So there is nothing within that that is circular. I'm defending and justifying a presupposition.

Now Joshua, I've been told, well if you're trying to justify a presupposition, then it is no longer a presupposition.

So what are your thoughts on the claim that you cannot justify a presupposition, otherwise it wouldn't be a presupposition?

How would you respond to that? The criticism assumes that there is a definition for that term, and the definition for that term typically falls in line with if it's a presupposition, then by definition it's unjustifiable.

It's an axiom, it's a foundational belief that can't be justified, but it's a foundational belief by which we can justify all of our other beliefs, kind of like foundationalism.

The problem with that is it assumes we cannot come up with our own definitions for words in certain contexts.

We're not asking to rewrite the dictionary or add the definition, but the transcendentalist can say in this context a presupposition can be justified, but only in a certain sense.

And so if you want to engage in the reasoning here of my argument, of course just like worldviews, you have to assume what

I'm saying is true. You have to accept my terms, rather, is a better way of putting it. Accept my terms in this context of the argument by which we can reach the conclusion.

You talk about inferences, so by which we can reach that conclusion, accept this definition.

There's nothing illegitimate about that or anything that precludes us from doing that. So yeah, it's just a matter of accepting our definition and entertaining it and saying, okay, well you're not supposed to justify presuppositions, so tell me from your viewpoint, how do you justify presuppositions if you don't follow that definition?

And then you go from there. Well I think the interesting thing is to say that you can't justify a presupposition is simply just to deny the possibility of a transcendental argument, because transcendental arguments are justifying foundational claims, right?

We're dealing with paradigms with entire worldviews. So to say that you can't justify a presupposition by definition is simply to say transcendental arguments are impossible, which you'd need a defense for that.

You don't just get to a transcendental arguments aren't arguments. They have a history in philosophy, they are actual arguments.

And I like what you said before, we don't—and I'm sure Dr. Bonson would probably lay it out this way—he'd say that you can justify a presupposition, but you don't justify them in the garden variety way, because of the nature of the claim that we're making.

So when we justify our ultimate presupposition, we are not doing so by appealing to something more fundamental than that presupposition, okay?

Rather we are appealing to its own transcendental necessity. Deny the presupposition and you lose the foundation for intelligible experience, knowledge, science, and all that jazz, okay?

Now the unbeliever is gonna be like, well wait a minute, okay? I reject that presupposition and I get along just fine, and that's fair.

I don't— I'm not saying that—obviously you're not going to accept the presupposition, but it's at that point where we need to then engage in the worldview analysis.

If my argument is that the Christian worldview is the necessary precondition for knowledge, there's a couple of things that have to happen here.

I have to show, given the Christian metaphysical picture, given the Christians epistemological picture and ethical picture, given our worldview, that which is required for knowledge to be possible is in fact accounted for, okay?

But at the same time, the unbeliever, because of the nature of a transcendental argument, doesn't get to sit back and say, well

I don't accept that. Yes, and the way you challenge my first premise, right? I do my work,

I have to show, you know, the triune God, you know, accounts for unity and plurality, he accounts for immaterial conceptual laws of logic, he accounts for these things, right?

We can provide a justification for that. But in attacking the truth of my first premise, you have to lay out your hand as well, which interestingly enough, atheists and skeptics are not very reticent to do.

They don't want to show their hand, or they lack sometimes the capacity to think broadly enough on a worldview level to even understand what the nature of the argument is, and that's why you get these kind of silly, the

Bible's true because the Bible's true, you just assume...it's like, you're not even getting the nature of the argument, okay?

So it's really difficult to kind of move on from there. Now, you can disagree with the justification that I provided, right?

So I can say unity and plurality is one of the necessary preconditions for knowledge. Christianity accounts for that in the doctrine of the

Trinity, okay? Induction, uniformity of nature, is a necessary precondition for knowledge.

The Christian worldview provides for that, given God's creation and providence in the world. Genesis 8 .22,

Ephesians 1 .11b, seed time and harvest will continue, and God works all things according to the counsel of his will, so they're both hand -in -hand on the

Christian worldview. That's right. You can deny that, but to say we haven't offered a justification is just false.

We've offered a justification, you just disagree with the justification, which is perfectly permissible, but then you got to interact then.

If you don't think the Christian worldview provides those, okay, and I've shown you how we provide the justification, interact with the actual justification, and then offer your own justification, since those are preconditions for knowledge.

Maybe you don't think they're preconditions for knowledge, maybe you don't have to account for unity and plurality, maybe you don't have to account for uniformity, okay, explain why that's the case.

Or maybe you agree that you have to account and provide a justification for those things, and your worldview does it.

Well, account for those things. You see, that's what's going on here that I think a lot of folks are missing. Yeah, in the book, that book, there's a, towards the end of that lecture or seminar,

Bonson quotes Van Til, I don't remember which one, but Van Til basically says, let the unbeliever step into the mic, right?

Bonson would say that. How does he account? And Van Til says verbatim, let him try and figure it all out so that he can quote, see the consequences, and Bonson tells the class in that seminar, underline that sentence, see the consequences.

So as you say, he can reject what we're saying, but now you give an account, and you will, as Van Til rightly said, see the consequences, and the equivalent of that from his protégé

Bonson, he would say, the mic, he'll hang himself with the rope at some point, he'll be able to do it.

So that's the consequence of it. So, okay, reject my position, it's absurd, now make my day. How do you explain?

And you will see the consequences, it's going to happen, it's inescapable, because he's fallible, he's finite and limited, he can't explain anything ultimately, definitively, absolutely, objectively, it's purely subjective.

And of course with differing religious views, if they have their own religious texts and so forth, you would deal with that differently, but in terms of mainstream unbelief, that's what you would see.

You will see the consequences. Right. All right, well there's more that can be said there, but obviously we have a lot to get through, so let's move on to another aspect of that very comment.

The commenter said, does Yahweh know why he exists? If Yahweh thinks he exists as a necessity, does he know why that necessity exists?

If Yahweh, Yahweh's necessity is explained by himself, isn't that circular and thus a fallacy?

How would you interact with that? No, because again, with circles there are metaphysical aspects, as we talked about with the

Bible. God's self -existence to society is not an argument, and so therefore it wouldn't be as a circle in an argument, like question begging, it's a basic metaphysical truth that he exists necessarily.

If you want to, if he's asking, he asked why he exists necessarily, I mean we could even incorporate our own human reasoning here and say that something must exist necessarily, and God presumably would say the same thing.

There must be something that exists. But at the end of the day, it really just goes back to John 8, 58,

Exodus 3, 14, I am who I am. You know, I exist, and I must exist, and I am God, and I cannot not exist.

That's the nature of who I am. I'm different from you. Again, it's a creator -creature distinction. You're applying the creaturely logic and saying, oh, it's circular, but the

Creator's on a different level. It doesn't necessarily apply to him. So self -existence... Well, wait a minute, Josh.

Once you say it doesn't apply to him, then the skeptic is going to cry special pleading.

That's special pleading. How would you interact with that? Well, again, that's two points, or one and a half points.

I'm always on these two points because I've studied these for years, so I've gotten really acute with these points, but it's obviously good.

The first point would be it's not special pleading by the very nature of who God is, and the second point is the reason he's saying that is he's, again, incorporating his presuppositions in the fact that it is a creature only.

We exist. We don't know if there's a God exists, so there's only one plane. It's human reasoning, and that's all we can employ. But again, that does not assume the

Christian worldview is true for the sake of the argument. There are two planes. There's the lower and the higher, and so therefore not everything on the creaturely plane applies to the potter.

Whatever applies to the clay doesn't always apply to the potter, so it's not special pleading. It definitely would be if we said

God is a man like we are, or a demigod, you know, some sort of half man, half

God, then maybe as well, but it just it's a fallacy. He's the one committing the fallacy, which is the irony because he's not assuming the two planes of Christianity.

It's just our plane, and that's it. Well, I don't subscribe to your presuppositions, so remember,

Mr. Atheist, you have to assume my position and then critique it internally. Otherwise, the only alternative you have is to critique it externally, and guess what?

That's a straw man fallacy. So he's the one committing the fallacy here, and if he refuses to stand on our position, he's just gonna go and commit another fallacy in the process.

So, and that's a testament to the Bible. Where's the wise? Where's the debater of this age? God has made foolish the wisdom of this world.

Now, when you say that he is presupposing that there's only one plane, and not the two planes within the

Christian worldview, it exemplifies what you just expressed, but it also demonstrates the fact that the person making that claim, oh, it's special pleading to say that God is on a different...it's

actually, you are actually expressing the fact that you are not neutral. You're presupposing a metaphysical picture that is in conflict with the

Christian you're interacting with. Maybe you're right, Mr. Unbeliever, but you're not neutral, and that's what we've been talking about.

Neutrality is impossible. To even suggest that we can bring God down from from his plane to ours and talk to him and talk about him in the same categories as human beings is already to express your non -neutral stance with respect to Christianity, okay?

And so neutrality is a myth, and of course that is an external standard, an external critique rather, in which at that point, you know, they're not going to really get that far, because,

I mean, external critiques when you're dealing with worldviews is not permissible at all, philosophically. So, all right.

So yes, I would say, and Yahweh doesn't engage in circularity either, because we do not believe as Christians that God thinks and reasons in sequential or, you know, linear fashion, all right?

Remember, this is blurring the line of the Creator -creature distinction. God knows all things.

God doesn't come to beliefs. He knows all things, so he's not reasoning in a linear fashion in the same way that time -bound creatures do so.

Now, to this point, Josh, I was asked, but how could you possibly know such a thing about God? Well, here again, let's talk about this again.

If Christianity is true, right, you don't have to accept it, but if it's true, what is also true?

Oh yes, that God has revealed Himself. So, I am in a position within the Christian worldview to know certain things about Him.

I'm not just speculating this about Him. If Christianity is true, He's told us stuff, and we can know about God based on the stuff

He's told us and based upon what we can logically deduce from the stuff that He's told us. So this isn't difficult or, you know, challenging for the

Christian. Yeah, Mr. Skeptic, you reject the Christian position, cool, but from within the Christian perspective, it makes perfect sense that I can say certain things about God and be in a perfectly good position to know those things.

Yeah, yeah, it's... you have to keep laboring neutrality, because no one thinks about that.

No Christian apologist thinks about that. No, your average atheist doesn't think about that. Let's just come to the table.

Let's see what the facts are. You come out of your trench. I'll come out of my trench. No man's land. These are the facts. Let's hash them out as objectively as we can.

It's impossible. It's not the case. You're biased. The atheist is biased. We can't be neutral. Neutrality just makes you an atheist.

You know, you gave up... the atheist has his biases. How do you be neutral? You can't, and so it's impossible.

You have to keep laboring to the atheist. Oh, oh, oh, your biases are coming out again. Remember, you're not being neutral.

You have to just ingrain it in their head, and once it is, then most of the time, the argument or the discourse, the dialogue goes much better.

It flows better because they actually understand it, but because people don't know that, you have to keep laboring the point, and I'm not saying you're stupid if you don't know that.

We just don't hear it. We all assume we're objective. We're not. We all have our biases, and it's inescapable, so that's why you have to assume

I'm right as a Christian for the sake of the argument, and then I have to assume you're right as an atheist for the sake of an argument, and let's see who can account for these foundational issues, or you could do it the other way.

It doesn't matter, but that's the point. You can't be neutral, so you have to assume I'm right. I have to assume you're right, and then we go from there.

Right, very good. Thank you for that. Here's another comment. Eli, do you care about truth?

Yes. I'll answer that. That's easy. I do. Well, if you care about Christ, who is the truth?

And I'm pretty sure you care about the truth, so... Yes, so I do care about the truth, so that answers. When people give you an argument you can't refute, do you go silent or type gibberish, hoping people won't take the time to sort through your response?

Okay. No, never do that. Never. I was thinking about that last night, too. What if I was on Eli's show, and someone asked a question

I had never heard of, and I'm like, you know, I really can't. Give me a few minutes, or give me a day. That is absolutely not a defect,

A. It's only a good thing, because it makes you smarter. You do your research. It increases discipline, too.

And B, it doesn't automatically prove the argument is deficient, and the atheists are too quick to say that.

I'll see your argument's false. No, no, no, no, no. There's a difference between presuppositionalism and a presuppositionalist, and I think we've talked about that on a previous show, that a presuppositionalist doesn't know the answer doesn't mean presuppositionalism doesn't have an answer.

So never try and defend yourself because you're getting defensive and don't want to look stupid, and because when you type gibberish, it's gonna happen again.

You're gonna mess something up. So be humble about it, and recognize there's nothing wrong with that, and let your opponent know that, too.

So that's a good question. Let me get back with you. And skeptic and atheist, if you've been hurt by a presuppositionalist,

I'm speaking to you. Perhaps you've engaged with a presuppositionalist who just keeps repeating, by what standard, or I don't have to give any evidence, or blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Know that that is a feature of that presuppositionalist. That is not a feature of presuppositionalism.

If you've been hurt, please call the number on the bottom of the screen. I'm just kidding. But you get the point, right? There is an important distinction to be made there, okay?

So when people give you an argument you can't refute, I don't know what argument he's referring to.

I mean, I've read through the comments. They're really, like, they're just not really good points. Of course,

I can't respond to all of them, so I don't go silent on purpose. I try to respond when

I can. I keep reminding people I don't do this as a full -time job, so if I don't respond to you, or if I interact with you, but I don't finish the conversation, that's not on purpose.

Now, there are gonna be people who think it is on purpose, and it's because I'm hiding, and I can't help those people, right, if you're not gonna believe me, right?

But I'm a full -time teacher, like in a school. Like, I'm not like a tutor or something like that.

I actually teach, like, classes. I have meetings. I have a family. I have other responsibilities, and when

I can, I try to interact. When I can't, I don't. So I'm not going silent to run away. Now, this claim of typing gibberish, hoping that people won't take the time to sort through your response,

I suppose he's probably referring to some longer responses that I've given. Now, I find myself,

Josh, stuck between a rock and a hard place. If I answer quickly and succinctly, I will be accused of not sufficiently answering the objection.

If I answer with a long, detailed response, then I'm accused of typing gibberish, hoping that people won't take the time to sort to my response.

Now, this is just one person making this claim. I have over 10 ,000 -something subscribers. You expect me to interact with everyone?

None of my answers is gonna please everyone. So either it's a short answer, I only have the time for a short answer, or I give a longer answer, and still that's not good enough.

I do that on purpose so that it can confuse people. I mean, this is why I can't interact with everyone, because there are comments like this.

I mean, it's just difficult for me to please everyone. So I try my best, answer when I can, and that's it. What's your philosophy,

Josh, in terms of responding to people? How do you adjudicate between folks to respond to and folks to kind of just like, eh,

I think I'm gonna move on? Well, you can't make an argument from ignorance there where pre -submissionist doesn't respond, so therefore there is no answer.

As we said, there's a difference between the is and the isn't. But you're a grown adult, for goodness sake.

Like, you have to understand, as an adult, A, to be mature and charitable, and B, to recognize that you will, at some point in your life, be in the same boat where you just don't have time to do everything.

So at the end of the day, it's not even a big deal. It's like, if you're vitriolic and hostile towards the opponent, yeah, you're gonna mock them, like, oh, you're too scared to respond, or if you respond too much, as you said, oh, you're just pontificating all your points, maybe to try and intimidate me.

But no, it's just you don't have time all the time. And even by choice, because I have time, even as a minister, a full -time job and a part -time teaching,

I have a lot of free time. And I just will choose not to respond. I'll turn off the notifications for that post, you know, as I'm sure you do as well.

I just choose not to respond, you know. So there are multiple reasons for whatever happens in the discourse.

And you cannot be hasty in criticizing your opponent. And you have to remember, you're a grown adult.

You're not a middle school bully. You need to be mature and charitable and recognize these issues that he just doesn't have time to respond.

Be charitable. Message that person, hey, I want to keep going. Did you just not have time? You sent a long response, and it just sounds like you're spewing all this.

Can you simplify? Be charitable, please. Like, you're an adult. Even if you're hostile, get past that and try and be mature.

Yeah. And that's if you genuinely want an answer to your question. Like, would you answer someone if they start with,

I mean, you're stupid or you're a used car salesman? That's one that I hear sometimes in the comments. I'm like a used car.

I sound like a used car salesman. Hey, I don't think I sound like a used car salesman. But if you start your question with an insult, like, why should someone respond to you?

I mean, sure, I try to respond even with some insults. I'll still interact a little bit. But I mean, if you really want to know a question, just ask.

It's not that difficult. That hostility, too, it significantly reduces the conduciveness of any meaningful discourse.

When you come out right out the gate or even in the middle somewhere, when the insults come out, you're only going to entrench yourself more in your beliefs, because now you absolutely refuse and you don't want to concede.

And never do that. And again, I don't need to tell you this because God's already told you this with gentleness and respect or reverence, as I think

Bonson's ASV has rendered in there. So, yeah, just be mature.

You want to see people saved. So now I'm going to flip it on to the Christian, the presuppositionalist or any apologist watching this.

You, too, need to be mature and I need to be mature. And many times I just I'm not having it that day.

And so it's just a matter of being mature. That settles every single point you're making at the end of the day.

Now, I anticipate that even saying being mature, there's going to be a comment. I hope this happens.

I search to see if my prophecies are true, right? Even in saying that, there's going to be some skeptics saying, well, that's the pot calling the kettle black.

Presuppositionalists are the most immature people. It's like even when you try to say, hey, let's be mature, there's still going to be someone who's going to take that.

And, you know, even the way I'm standing, if I'm if I'm smiling, people look at that, the cocky smirk he has, you know,

I remember in my debate with Tom Jump, I read a comment, which I don't typically read the comments in the

Atheist Channel. But one person said, hey, this presuppositionalist, referring to myself, is one of the nicest presuppositionalists

I've ever encountered. And then the next sentence was, this guy is the, you know, the the most arrogant dadadadada is like you literally had two things like back to comments back to back.

I'm like, I can't control how my facial expressions are or how the tone of my voice, you know, we're talking here for like an hour.

I'm trying to be animated. I'm like, you're going to be interpreted being some way. Like, I can't prevent that.

But if you, you know, with a little bit of charity, just, you know, be a little bit more respectful and maybe folks will interact a little more.

I don't know. That's that's my thoughts. I don't want to belabor the point. But anyway, let's let's go through this one here.

Presuppositionalism equals since I'm right, you can't be you can't even disagree with me unless you agree with me.

You can't invoke facts unless you have the thing I insist you need. And I insist I have. Let's start with the premise that I'm right and can't be wrong.

And anyone who disagrees is necessarily wrong. OK, is that what we're arguing at all,

Joshua? Metaphysically speaking, yes, because I last night in the appendix,

I put this in there to thank you, God, for giving me time for revisions. Truth cannot contradict itself whatsoever.

Right. So if I want to appease an atheist and say, OK, I'm an atheist like you, I believe in evolution without any deity.

It's true. Presumably the theory. Would you ever entertain the idea that evolution is also not true?

And there was another reason you would obviously say, no, there can only be one. And even with God, I don't believe

God exists. But hey, maybe your God does exist. It's like, no, there's one truth. There's one reality we live in. So if if I have the truth, if the atheist has the truth of evolution, then it is exclusive.

It is the truth. Unless you're willing to endorse contradictions where a God can exist and not exist at the same time or where you as a human can exist and not exist at the same time.

There is one objective reality we live in. So if I have the truth, if I have the blueprint to that reality, if I have the blueprint to the house, that's the blueprint.

That's the answer. There's not another blueprint for the house. There's one answer. So metaphysically, yes. Conceptually speaking, yeah, you could come up with an alternative worldview that is completely consistent.

Like, you know, this is the Lord of the Rings universe. It's completely consistent. That's the answer. Right. Well, just because it's consistent doesn't mean it's true.

So, yeah, conceptually speaking. Sure. Even the atheists could come up with something that's completely consistent. So conceptually, yes.

Internally speaking, you can have multiple answers. But externally, in terms of reality, no, there's one answer.

And that is the answer. It's true. It cannot contradict itself. So let me walk through this. So so since I'm right, you can't be.

That's true. I do believe I'm right. And I do believe the unbeliever is not correct.

That doesn't stultify discussion because I do believe we can rationally have discourse over what our positions are.

The next one says you can't even disagree with me unless you agree with me. In one sense, that's true.

I do think that disagreement presupposes principles that only make sense within my perspective. But that doesn't mean

I put my fingers in my ears and not listen to your disagreement. Like, I want to listen to what you're saying and interact with because I care about the person and I want to share the gospel.

That's fine. You can't invoke facts unless you have the thing I insist you need. You mean like the necessary preconditions for intelligibility?

You mean like we have to be neutral? Like what? Yeah. Like, I have to stand on your presuppositions to defend mine.

Like, excuse me. I want I need to go to the debate podium and debate on your standards and then conclude that Christianity is true.

Like, unless I'm just construing what that comment is saying. Right. Well, and he says here, so you can't.

I'm sorry. You can't even disagree with me. Okay. He says you can't invoke facts unless you have the thing I insist you need.

And I insist that I have. So. So, yes. Good. So the unbeliever in this case thinks he has what it takes to provide a foundation for knowledge.

And I'll accept it. You know, what is it? What is it? I'm not like you said, I'm not doing this. I'm wrong.

It's a Christian. My God does not exist. And you're right now. Explain to me why you're right. I'm not doing this.

I will accept everything you disagree with me about like a God doesn't exist. I'll accept all of it for the sake of the argument.

And you have the podium. I'm not going to let you not talk and I'm not going to let you talk and do this. So, you know, we

I will accept everything you disagree with me about and I'll make my day. So we're not being irrational in that regard.

Right. And again, if someone has ignored you in the past, again, that's a feature of that person.

That's not a feature of presuppositional ism, per se, because when in listening to your accounting or your attempted justification for your position,

I'm required to interact with that. Now, I'm not required to interact with it in the form of the bunch of comments

I get in my video, because I do apologetics in real life, too, like I actually interact with actual people.

So I have to pick and choose where I spend my time. But when you give your attempted justification, like some ask, you know, perhaps you have some form of empirical perspective or, you know, some philosophy.

Yeah, I'm required to interact with that. I just have interacted with a lot. And I think that they are very, very deficient.

OK, does that settle all matters? No. Obviously, I'm going to have to talk to people and get into the details. But of course, you know,

I have to pick and choose. I can't talk to everyone at once. But I have heard of just about every objection that you can launch against a presuppositional is

I've heard of. Some of them are good. I don't think they work, but most of the ones in the comments section at the popular, they're just bad.

And so that's why I don't I don't typically answer the same question a million times unless I feel compelled to, because, you know, people are asking the same question.

So we do a video like this and we share our thoughts on it. But I mean, I'm not going to continually respond to the person who says, so what you're saying is the

Bible's true because the Bible's true. And then I say, no, that's not what I'm saying. This is what I'm saying. And then

I'll hear it again. So what you're saying is that the Bible's true because the Bible's true. And I'll say, no, that's actually not the form of my argument.

This is what I'm saying. So what you're saying is this is I can't I can't answer the question.

I can't respond to that a million times. I mean, at some point I have to move on and choose someone else to talk to at that point.

Okay. What happens to me, Josh, is when I lay out my argument, for example, I'll say, if knowledge is possible, the

Christian worldview is true, knowledge is possible, therefore the Christian worldview is true, and then someone will say, that's circular.

And I'll say, actually, transcendental arguments are not fallaciously circular. Let's look at the structure. X is the necessary condition for Y, Y therefore

X. No. X therefore Y. Thank you, thank you. X therefore

Y. See, I can admit I'm wrong, too, so we can we can actually erase one of the questions because one of the questions is, do you ever admit you're wrong?

Yes. So X is the necessary condition for Y, Y therefore X, okay?

And then the person will say, but well, how do you know X is the necessary precondition for Y? And then

I'll respond, I'm not answering that question until you respectfully admit that it's not the fallacious circle that you just claimed it was.

And so they want to move to the next part of the argument, but I have no evidence that they are acting in good faith because they're still asserting something of the argument that I've asserted.

That's not the case. So we're not going to move down the line and debate ad nauseam if you can't even admit you've mischaracterized my position at the very start.

And so that's the reason why. I'm not avoiding answering the question. I've done videos on it. You've been on here before and we've talked about the first premise, the transcendental.

This isn't new, okay? It's just that if you're not willing to, you know, admit you're wrong in some cases, then why should

I continue on? I'm going to talk to someone who says, okay, that's not the argument. So can you tell me why

X is the necessary precondition for Y? And then we're off running. We can talk about it, okay? So there you go.

All right. Transcendental arguments are not, and most people don't even know this. Transcendental arguments are not one argument.

Transcendental arguments is two in one. So you give the basic syllogism and I can do modus ponens too.

If intelligibility is true, if there's intelligibility, then Christianity is true.

Intelligibility, therefore Christianity is true. That's just like the basic syllogism. But then you have to illustrate it because that's not illustrating it.

So then you have to introduce another argument. And the other argument would be reductio ad absurdum of the contrary position, which simultaneously show that our position, you're either relying on the truth of our position.

So it's two arguments in one. You can't just make the claim the first argument because that doesn't show it. You have to give the second argument via reductio arguments, showing that their worldview is absurd

A, but it's also assuming my worldview is true at the same time. So you have to keep that in mind. There are two arguments basically in one.

Okay. Do presuppositional apologetics, I'm sorry. Do presuppositionalists only interrupt, insult, gaslight and claim victory when the interlocutors give up?

No, that would be the distinction that we made before between presuppositionalists and presuppositionalism.

So I try not to interrupt. I have a few debates online. You can see I am not trying to interrupt the person or gaslight or insult or anything like that.

So there's a difference between people using the method and the method itself. What do you think of that? Yeah, it's the same thing.

I mean, the only caveat here is the atheist, who knows better, could say, well, listen, it applies to me, too.

I don't have answers to your questions, but that doesn't mean there aren't answers. And I think that harkens back to the first point.

But the problem is, since I have the answer already and I've shown it and you relying on my answers being true,

Christianity being true and truth can't contradict, then I have the answer. So that's the little caveat there is, well, it applies to me, too.

Just because I'm ignorant doesn't mean there isn't an answer. Well, the problem is I have the answer. You don't have the answer. So therefore, by default or automatically,

I'm correct. Presuppositionalism is lazy because it simply assumes the position without evidence and claims to know what others are thinking.

How would you respond to that? Well, we definitely don't just so we we assume it to be true for sure at the outset, but does not the atheist assume he's right when he goes to the podium?

Does he not assume in advance and take for granted that there are presumably no gods? Everyone begs the question, which goes to the second point.

Hello, there is no neutrality, which you see again. You have to keep getting it in. There's no neutrality. You're taking certain things for granted and I am.

So let's stand on our worldviews and compare and analyze and go through them. But Josh, you're misrepresenting an atheistic position because not all atheists will blatantly say that there is no

God. So what about those neutral atheists who look at everything objectively and try to follow the evidence wherever it points?

How would you interact with that? Yeah, well, I mean, I just said it in my last sentence where atheists presume there is no

God or assume there is no God. Anti -theists typically are dogmatic and say there is no

God, but they better better philosophers who are atheists and agnostics consistently will say we presume there is no

God, but we're not going to make the claim of Dr. Stein in the debates of the same thing, rightfully so. I hope this is somewhat helpful.

If it's not, I mean, maybe in the future we'll try to collect more and we'll try to address more, but hope this was helpful for folks.