Apologetic Methodology

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation if you'd like to talk with dr. White call now at 602 973 4602 or toll-free across the United States.

It's 1 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. And now with today's topic here is James white. And good afternoon. Welcome to the dividing line here on a well, I normally say a Thursday afternoon, but it is Tuesday. We moved it back to the normal Thursday time just to complete all of the confusion concerning time.

You all once again played with their clocks. We did not and they don't do that in Hawaii either. They don't play with their clock. So they bounce back and forth between time zones, but nobody knows what time zone they're in.

Anyways, so it doesn't really matter a whole lot when you're all that far out. I Got on an airplane around 11 o 'clock last night and Flew back across the Pacific and got in around 8 o 'clock this morning, and I've gotten a little bit of sleep but Not a whole lot.

So I'm not quite certain how sharp we're going to be today. I would like to start off of course by thanking very very sincerely the folks both in Hilo, Hawaii and in Honolulu for their tremendous Kindness toward me over the past that was about Eight nine ten days I was in Hawaii.

Flew to Hilo first was that Berean Bible Church and Daniel Daniel and the elders there were very kind to me and had a great time there and Got some good rides in. He was very rainy all through the Hawaiian Islands.

Even the Hawaiians were saying this is rather unusual, but I managed to dodge stuff one way or the other. I got 139 miles 11 ,500 plus feet of climbing in and that's not bad when you're when you're away from home get that much in that's I don't feel like I've lost anything anyways when I get back, and it was gorgeous and in fact What we'll be doing partly on the program today.

I prepared while climbing stain back highway in Hilo, Hawaii that's when I listened to this initially and said you know what we need to do this on the dividing line and Again encountered so many people that listen to this program.

It's just amazing to me How many people listen primarily to podcast, but we do notice that our numbers continue going up on the regular? Live links at least when we do it when we're supposed to be doing it and so Had a wonderful opportunity doing that.

I was not listening to anything While riding in Honolulu because I was in the middle of traffic, and so I wasn't wearing anything in my ears. I was Watching my rearview mirror very carefully. I carry a rearview mirror on my glasses, and I was listening.

I it was called survival and I posted about the one the one climb. I did it is second climb than yesterday pastor Shane Sowers and and another gentleman from the church, and I Shane drove the van and we rode up Tantalus Drive, which is one of the most famous rides there in the Honolulu area and Thankfully the rain held off and so I was getting toward the bottom of the descent.

Actually, it's actually started drizzling a little bit as I was going down, and that's you know you're on a bike you don't know on a quiz to twisty turny descent, and it's raining and So things get slick and that was that was exciting, and then I just got soaked coming up I mean I went up a second time and just swam the rest of the way, but had a great time with everybody there and Much discussion of Of doing this much more regularly, which I can I could live with this I could I could live with that I there's much.

We only we only covered basically Mormonism Jehovah's Witnesses because there's there's a lot there on the island islands and there's lots of other topics that we need to address and we're going to see if we can't get somebody from the University of Hawaii to debate and Plans within plans and so very very pleased and also very thankful my wife got to come out for a couple days anyways and Have some have some good time there in Honolulu especially so that was very very exciting so back For a little while let me please make sure y 'all know Thursday night, I I don't think I blogged this yet.

I know I I I Put it on Twitter, but I I didn't blog it yet Thursday night At 8 o 'clock Eastern Time I Will so 8 o 'clock Eastern Time that's gonna be right. Let's get 5 o 'clock our time that means That's gonna write and run right into the end of the dividing line.

No, it's not good timing because it's done by video, so I have to be set up for video before then. So we have to have somebody in there Setting up the video so I can just come running in there and do the program here that we're gonna have to.

I think it'd Be better to bump Thursday up half an hour. So I have time to do this because we need to set up Skype video For a debate on the Aramaic broadcasting network. It's for sure Eastern Time because I thought they were like central.

No, I checked on it. It's Eastern Time. So we're I will announce right now. We were gonna have to go 3 30 to 4 30 on Thursday for the dividing line to have enough room for me to get set up on Skype. I'm going to be debating a Muslim scholar on surah 4 157 and So not really sure even right now what the time parameters are going to be as far as that kind of stuff.

I need to get that information tomorrow. This was set up very very briefly. But I'm you know working on the book, so it's not a big deal, but then a week later in Toronto I'll be debating Shabir Ali's so On did Jesus claim deity which I'm sure will end up being.

Can we know anything that Jesus claimed? Because we really can't because of all the liberal theories about redaction criticism and the alleged contradiction is synoptic gospels and all that kind of stuff.

It won't be like most of your conversations with Muslims. It'll it'll be a little bit different, but anyways that's what we've got coming up, so I've got that I've got Toronto. Then I've got Cincinnati.

The travel stuff really kicks in here for a while, and it's it's going to be crazy. So keep an eye on the blog and on Twitter those are the best ways of knowing when the dividing line is going to be on so like that today on the program I want to briefly talk a little bit about Paul Copan's article on the gospel coalition concerning presuppositional ism, and then I want to start looking at Something even beyond you know doing Bart Ehrman we haven't gotten to Adnan Rashid yet.

I've got so many things on the plate that we want to talk about. But I as I said while I was climbing the stain back highway in in Just outside of Hilo. I was listening to a Reasonable faith Symposium.

I believe it was the University of Florida. It was in Florida somewhere at a university the William Lane Craig had not been before and it's approximately an hour and an hour and a half long and As I listened to it. I was struck once again by what the usefulness would be of Responding to dr. Craig's answers as an illustration of the differences between when you define when you create your apologetic methodology on the basis of your theology or when you create your theology based upon your apologetic methodology I do believe that there is a substantive difference between a Had what terminology you want to use here?

Obviously I would say biblically consistent apologetic what I'm referring to is the the fact that I believe That we should define our apologetic methodology first and foremost in light of what we affirm Theologically the fullness not just not just a bare skeleton of theological beliefs but the the full In-depth beauty of Christian theology should be what gives rise to our apologetics and what I see in the popular forms of apologetics in the world today and I mean very popular the most popular the ones get all the attention the big names.

What I see is a philosophical Priority that results in a diminished emphasis upon The theological richness of The Christian faith, it's this mere Christianity stuff. It's let's just defend the basic concepts of bare theism, and that's B a re not be a are bare theism.

And You know a surface level Trinitarianism and something about the resurrection and Anymore, let's not worry about the gospel that that's just that's just way way way way too much to incorporate into our apologetic methodology, and I just I don't see that and When we listen to dr. Craig there will be times when I go alright.

Yeah, that was that was very good. And so this is what causes confusion amongst people is is that he will say things That are that are excellent, and you go. Oh, you know we're not as far apart as we thought and then the very next question The answer he gives will be so far removed from What we would even begin to understand that we are lost as to why this is it goes back to certain foundational presuppositions and That's what we want to look at but first just rather briefly.

On Yesterday's gospel coalition blog dr. Paul Copeland who is the current president I understand the Evangelical philosophical society Wrote an article called questioning presuppositional ism now. They're already some rather full responses on the web.

There's one at the choosing hats blog from razors kiss that has already been published that he couldn't sleep last night. So he worked on that. What I really but really concerned me is That You know as much as I love RC Sproul and His way of teaching and what he's done for reformed theology.

Everybody has their blind spots and It seems that when we come to Presuppositional ism there are a lot of people Even within the reformed camp though. I would say they're much more minority in the reform camp.

But certainly outside who are just they just really have some major blind spots as to what we are saying when we talk about the necessity the biblical necessity and I say it's a biblical necessity of Recognizing that we cannot we dare not pretend That there is such thing as moral neutrality in doing apologetics because there isn't we are we are denying the Lordship of Christ we are denying a fundamental element of our belief when we say that there is a a neutral ground upon which you and I as Human beings can stand and then judge the existence of God.

I Think it is a denial of biblical truth and When dr. Copan here. And I realize it's a blog article. But even in a blog article you can be accurate in your representation of the position that you're denying he does not accurately represent presuppositional ism just as Classical apologetics, which was co-authored by Sproul and Lindsay and others.

Likewise It was just it's just amazing if you've actually read Van Till you've read Bonson. You you've you've listened to the debates and you you've maybe made some application and you've worked through utilizing a Presuppositional approach and arguing with an atheist and then you read fellow Christians Trying to criticize the way you've done that and you go, but that's not what I believe.

Wait a minute. No, I don't I don't believe that. What why did you come to that conclusion? Where did we ever say that didn't dr. Van Till say this didn't Greg Bonson say that and and it's like They're not even listening To what we ourselves are saying in defense of Of our own methodology and let alone are they listening to how we're doing Apologetics, it's just it's frustrating.

It really is frustrating To read these things and You know, I mean, I mean to say To it's it's a very simplistic thing. I'm looking at the article here. It says in his objections. He says first it engages in question-begging assuming what one wants to prove.

It begins with the assumption that God exists and then concludes that God exists. Such reasoning would get you an F in any logic class Worthy of the name if you really think that that's all we're talking about.

That we're just assuming the end to get to the end then you don't have any idea. Why it is that we we say? that the entire Christian message is based upon the reality that we are creatures and If the biblical teaching is true That the the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and If the biblical teaching is true that we are creatures made in the image of God which comes up in the second part.

Second objection then that has particular impact it has to you can't you can't make that secondary and He then goes on to talk about Logical laws and and yet he never grounds them in anything. They just sort of exist and and we just all share them in common.

Well, why the Christian has an answer for that the Christian has a grounding for why these these? laws of logic are Binding and universal and they're not just the consensus opinion of human beings and all the rest of this stuff.

And so it's just it's just amazing That that it could be said well It just begins with the assumption that God exists and then can see it concludes a gut that that is. Wow, that's just not where we're coming from at all and even later on it says Indeed the statements of Scripture themselves presuppose the validity of logical laws of non-contradiction and excluded middle.

They also appeal to criteria beyond Scripture the Court of Appeals of historical evidence for Jesus resurrection things were not done in a corner. I Here's where I? again think that First and foremost the first skill that an apologist should seek to be developing is not that of a philosopher, but that of an exegete and To think that the Apostle Paul is actually grounding the divine authority of the proclamation of the gospel in something that is above Scripture as.

If those historical criteria that are as he puts here criteria beyond Scripture Have a validity that is either higher than Scripture or even equal to Scripture is to really misunderstand what the Apostle Paul is saying and That is one of my biggest critiques of the leading Evidentialist apologists is that I'm sorry by and large They are lousy exegetes.

And that also is reflecting the fact that the vast majority of them are not reformed in their soteriology which likewise has exegetical issues. But what I really wanted to look at was second Christians share common ground with unbelievers Who are likewise made in God's image, which is not erased by the fall?

And I just have to get so frustrated. You you have to be utilizing secondary sources. To not recognize that your criticism is of a straw man. I Mean have you not read Vantil? What what is the common ground.

The common ground is the fact that we're made in the image of God? It's not it is not the idea that as a result. There is some kind of moral neutrality. Because there is no Morally neutral ground there is nothing that God has not created.

There is nothing that is not what it is because God intended to be there that way there is nothing of which the Lordship of Christ does not reign supreme and therefore there is no Morally neutral ground I can stand on to say let's reason from this point the existence of God because the ground I stand on was Made by God for the very purpose of me standing on it and.

So what was then? What what have we said over and over and over and over again as presuppositional us. The point of contact is that you're dealing with a creature of God Who is suppressing? His own knowledge of God and his own creatureliness.

That's the point of contact. So why is it an objection on the gospel coalition blog from the president of the Evangelical? Philosophical Society. Second Christians share a common ground with unbelievers who are likewise made in God's image, which is not erased by the fall.

Why does anyone think that? Reformed people Really do believe that the image of God is utterly eradicated. It's just like they keep repeating this to themselves, and we keep saying no. No, we don't know we don't do it at that.

No. We don't believe that marred in the fall all those things yes, but but Eradicated I mean Hi. Yet in some reformed circles the doctrine of total depravity seems to leave no trace. The Imago Dei where?

And if you're if you're critiquing Vantil why not quote Vantil saying that because you can't because it's the very thing He said was the point of contact for crying out loud. It's just like I just don't understand this these people have all these degrees and yet when it comes to something that has some element related to reform theology I see the exact same attitude on their part toward us as I see from theological liberals and people like Bart Ehrman who come into a debate with me and they don't even Google my name because they don't think we have anything meaningful to say and And and hear it and hear it it's happening as well and It just you know.

There's just so much that could be said about that. But I want to be actually brief on this and get into the William Lane Craig stuff. But I just wanted to point that out. You know he says as a cloud of apologetical witnesses can testify God has used philosophical arguments for his existence scientific supports of the universe's beginning Big Bang and It's fine-tuning and historical evidences for the resurrection of Jesus to assist people in embracing Christ.

Just as God uses the preaching of the gospel now that let me let me mention about that just as no sir and oh sir, not just as Don't you don't you? Please folks listen to me, and I hope you hear and I hope Paul Copan does not believe this maybe he does but when you put just as in italics it sounds like You are making these apologetical witnesses such as philosophical arguments scientific supports fine-tuning and historical evidences you're putting them on the same par as the preaching of the gospel and it is not in any way shape or form and Cannot be we are born again by the proclamation of God's truth.

We are not born again by philosophical argumentation and in fact the direct assertion of first Corinthians chapter 1 is that in God's Good pleasure men by their reasoning by their wisdom will not come to know him we come to know him not by our philosophy, but by the foolishness of preaching and I don't get the feeling that first Corinthians 1 and 2 is One of the favorite texts of many people who are very caught up in this philosophical methodology today God uses the preaching of the gospel to save period full stop end discussion now can he use means of Preparation well first and foremost without the work of regeneration you're not to get anywhere.

But God can use many other things there are many things that in a subordinate way Point to the truthfulness of Christianity, but when you replace the power of the gospel with the idea of the greater probability of the existence of a God.

That is where you see the fundamental difference between the apologetic methodologies we're discussing today. Because this method this methodology is well You know you take this argument you put this argument.

You know this argument has about a 70 chance at 70 30 okay? And then this one's about a 60 40 and you put them together, and you've got a little better probability and and this somehow becomes the greater probability of existence of a God and once you've got to a God and then maybe we can and That's just not how it works at all.

That is unbiblical it is it is a clear evidence of someone starting with a methodology and creating a theology that matter than having a full-born biblical theology and then creating an apologetic methodology that accurately communicates that theological truth without compromise and I would submit to you that it also very much touches upon very pragmatic issues that is.

That methodology looks at what will work and Very often I hear coming from these folks a well. That's not going to work. That's not going to work all. Assuming that the real mechanism by which someone becomes convinced of the truth of Christianity is Not the change of their heart and mind by the gospel of Jesus Christ, but it's something else it's the it's the comprehensiveness and and and power of my my argumentation and I I simply I simply absolutely Reject that now.

It's interesting. He started he finishes with saying Forth it is important to distinguish between the confident ground of our knowledge of God and the highly Probable public case for the Christian faith.

I don't think there's any difference. That's where that's another major difference between us. We don't have in our little conclave Confident ground of our knowledge of God, but that's just that's just us.

We that's not we proclaim to others. We proclaim them something else a highly probable public case for the Christian faith. He says the witness of the Spirit not a host of intellectual arguments is what ultimately gives us confident knowledge we belong to God.

Yet this does not exclude the spirits using highly probable or plausible Public evidences for God's existence or for the resurrection of Jesus to what end? It doesn't say To what end does he use that?

Knowledge in one area does not exclude knowledge in another. Having warrant for belief by the Spirit is not the same as showing my belief is warranted using evidence and reason really. Well, what's what's the final court of appeal here anyways?

So, you know, there's a there's a sort of a tip of the hat to well You know, we need the witness of the Spirit but it in this in the same breath It's in essence saying but the witness of the Spirit is insufficient without these other things.

Well to accomplish what once again your theology determines the answer to this question the theology here is you can have a basically moral neutral person a morally neutral person and It's good to have the witness of the Spirit to get them farther down the road of Christianity but to get them started the work of the Spirit's not enough we need to have these other external things and That person is in a proper position to make judgments about the God about his knowledge.

He's already suppressing anyways. That's what? The the criticism of Presuppositional ism here if you really listen to it goes back to a fundamental starting point in your theology and I have I know I have young apologists out there Who are torn because they they hear the one side and they hear the other side and and look one side gets to go to A whole lot more conferences than the other side.

And there's a whole lot more money Supporting the evidentialist Armenian side. I understand that I simply say to you that if you are going to call Muslims or Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses or atheists or Buddhists or Hindus or any of these people to Consistency then you must be consistent yourself.

And if you are in a Context where You are Recognizing that apologetics comes from it comes out of Theology. Don't compromise your apologetics must reflect that Very very important. So with that I want to I want to press on and I want to look at The listen to this reasonable faith a Conversation that took place at the University of Florida.

Hopefully it will It will be of assistance to you and I'm gonna start off With an illustration that theology matters and it is more important than philosophy. This is actually the very end and this was Well, let's just let's just listen and I'll.

Hopefully be able to come at meaningfully at the end of it. I'm a Christian and one of the things I That's really difficult for me as I witness to unbelievers is Giving a good analogy of the Trinity. Are there any good analogies out there?

Second that can represent the Trinity.

Yeah, at least somewhat. Well, I have one. Though it's it's. It's sort of controversial a little bit, but I yeah, I do have one and I I lay this out in JP Moreland in my book philosophical foundations for a Christian world On the Trinity sitting down and I think a good analogy for the Trinity is the mythological Dog that guarded the gates of Hades in Greek mythology named Kerberos.

Hercules is one of Hercules's task was to go and capture Kerberos who guarded the gates of Hades. Kerberos was a three-headed dog now. That's really interesting because what it means is Kerberos had three minds canine minds.

Obviously, but we could invest these minds with self-consciousness and self-awareness if we wanted to so that you would have three Canine persons and yet clearly Kerberos was one dog. He was one animal.

And these three minds had to work cooperatively in order for Kerberos to be an effective guard dog. At Hades, so it seems to me you have a very nice analogy here of three persons in one being. Which is the doctrine of the Trinity that we have three persons that are one God.

Thank you, dr. Gray.

I Don't even know how to start. I really really don't know how to start. But you just listen the man who is Considered to be the the leading Apologist in the English-speaking world today. Give as. What he thinks is a great analogy for the Trinity a three-headed dog from ancient mythology, hmm, that is um, I and Unfortunately, that was the last part of the presentation.

That's how it all ended was with that and I was as I said, I was. I Don't think I it's I think I may have. I don't remember where I was on Steinbeck Highway when that when that hit but It was undoubtedly dangerous as I as I listened to that that is not a meaningful analogy for the doctrine of the Trinity on any level that I can possibly think of as long as you actually understand the doctrine the Trinity and you you understand being in person and the the relationship of the persons and I can't begin to Understand how anyone could even think? That it is a good example of the doctrine of the Trinity.

I just if if that young man had asked me that question, I'll I'll never I I really well I'm not gonna say I never I I did a pastor's forum in Honolulu just just last night and they asked excellent questions.

So I guess I but I won't ever have the opportunity of being you know All the big guys because I do this. Because it's it's politically incorrect in our day for me to be reviewing somebody else and saying I don't think so.

But I think it's absolutely necessary if that young man asked me that question. I Illustration of the Trinity that is going to function because the doctrine the Trinity is absolutely unique and what you need to communicate to someone in the apologetic context is that since God exists absolutely uniquely if there was an illustration of the Trinity, he wouldn't actually be unique and Therefore this is God's revelation of himself to us we need to accept the parameters of his revelation of himself and I would want to try to inculcate in the mind of that person a need to respect the not only the the Range of God's revelation.

He has revealed himself in this way. But also the fact that he is under no obligation to go beyond What he has revealed to us and to answer every single other question that we might want to ask and That is that's how I would respond the idea of going to cerebrus and Which some there's in case you haven't noticed there's two different ways of pronouncing Latin C's Cerebrus and cerebrus would be you know, it's like Cicero and Kikaro Etc Anyway would never cross my mind and I don't think should cross anyone else's mind either.

I Think the 800-pound gorilla sitting in the middle of the room is that people are wondering is if you were sitting on the stage answering questions and the guy who went before you answered that question and then you're next in line to Say something.

What would you have said? Well, I would have been stuck it if it was a question and answer type thing and you have a panel I Obviously could not possibly have kept my mouth shut. I and that's why that people ask me.

Why aren't you at this big conference? Why aren't you at that big conference? This is why I could not have kept my mouth shut I have commitments that would just I couldn't do it. I'd have to correct that and that's that's dangerous that's a loose cannon see and and that's politically incorrect and that's why it's normally just me myself and I but no, I I cannot Imagine The theologically sound folks in the audience and what they were thinking when this thing ended Going wow, what was that?

How did that happen? I don't I don't know but there it was now. There was a good response In here, too. So I suppose I should balance The face planting you've got to be kidding me element with the a Good one, and I think this is it I I can't figure out how to edit the names of my markers in this program yet I need to find that out, but I think this is the one if it isn't I'll stop and start Let's see if this is the one where I went.

Hey, that was a really really good response After the panel that you appeared on with that's not it. No, that's a funny one.

Maybe it's this one. The Bible is authoritative and.

Divinely, and no, that's not it. Let's try this one. Come on, let's get to this one here. Let's try that one or a simple question and I'm kind of loaded. Why is Christianity? No, that's a that's a good question, too hard.

Free person. God.

After the panel that you and. My question has to do with the religious history of the religious history in the Mediterranean and it appears as though the Jesus bio as it was was going around the Mediterranean for thousand years before him as well as I mean.

For example, Osiris his son Horace has pretty much the exact same bio and I was wondering how you know reconcile your faith and Historical accounts of the time, you know, I.

Have to say in all gentleness that that's just based on misinformation this is. This is garbage that spread on the Internet that just isn't true. And what's really funny about this is that these people who say this kind of thing?

Never seemed to quote the primary sources. They tell you that this is in Osiris and or Horace. But you never see the primary sources quoted. When you look at the primary sources you find out they're not at all parallel to the Gospels and this movement to try to explain Jesus of Nazareth and Christianity against the backdrop of pagan mythology Greco-Roman and other religions was Very popular back around the late 1800s or so it was in Germany.

And the movement soon collapsed for two reasons. One was that when you examine the primary sources closely, they weren't really parallel the parallels were spurious. There's nothing comparable for example to the resurrection of Jesus in pagan religions.

Secondly in any case there was no causal connection between these two between these myths and Jesus of Nazareth or the earliest disciples. In fact, one of the things that is characterized Contemporary scholarship about the historical Jesus is what has been called the Jewish reclamation of Jesus.

What has happened is that New Testament scholars have come to understand that Jesus of Nazareth? Was a Jew and all of the disciples were Jews and that therefore it is against the backdrop of first Palestinian Judaism that Jesus is to be properly understood not against the background of pagan Mythology and pagan religion and so what scholars have come to appreciate is this earlier approach back in the late 1800s.

Which is completely wrong headed because it it didn't understand the Jewishness of Jesus. And when you read Jesus against a Jewish milieu the credibility of the Gospels has been Tremendously enhanced and this is as I say a movement that is in part being spearheaded by Jewish Scholars and historians and I spoke with James Crossley at the University of Sheffield a couple of years ago.

About this Jewish reclamation of Jesus, and I said, why do you think it was that this approach to Jesus in? German theology. Use this this pagan mythology as the interpretive grid for Jesus. Why it when it's so obviously wrong, and he said it was because of a German anti-semitism.

And all of a sudden the light just sort of went on for me. I thought oh Man this is exactly the same sort of anti-semitism. That led to National Socialism in Germany right up through the Second World War they wanted an Aryan Jesus they didn't want a Jewish Jesus and so New Testament theology was derouted into this this Interpreting Jesus in the framework of these pagan religions, which is a total distortion of who Jesus really was so I would encourage you you you should just divest yourself of this this point of view.

It's utterly outmoded among scholars. There's a very good article that I can refer you to on this. It's by Mark Foreman and It's going to be in the volume called come let us reason Which is being edited by myself and Paul Copan with Broadman and Holman It's coming out probably in a month or two and Mark has a wonderful analysis of the Zeitgeist movie have you heard of that movie Zeitgeist it it makes this claim about Horace and Egyptian religion and Mark Foreman just takes this to pieces.

I mean it's a piece of theological and historical Dismantlement so look at Foreman's piece. If you don't believe me and and and and see if it doesn't if what I've said isn't correct. So I.

Agree a thousand percent. Excellent response. I loved out how. Straight off. He says that's just this is bunk. That's just that's just ridiculous and Even though the guy had said he was a history major or something like that.

So, you know hats off. That's great. Unfortunately, that was the minority of Stuff in in the conversation, but I I thought that was. I thought that was really well done now. Well, listen to some of what they did is they they had a guy from the university interview Craig and they went back and forth.

And they started taking questions. It was about 50 50 actually a little bit less than that about 60 40 60 40 just those two talking and 60 questions. This one I found was a little bit interesting.

Because it was obviously a guy that it was you know was prepared he had all the quotes lined up and. Well, I just found interesting because I've faced similar accusations, that's let's listen to it.

After the panel that you appeared on with the late Christopher Hitchens. You referred to him in an interview with Christian radio as quote and this is on YouTube. Weasley oily and lacking an intellectual substance.

You then referred to in your debate with Richard Carrier while he was there to him as a hack. You also referred to fans as Richard Dawkins in an interview and this is also on YouTube. Dawkins is so popular because he because people are so unsophisticated.

Inept sophomoric they cannot think logically. Uninformed silly ignorant. And the result and this is your words of an educational system that has been dumbed down. Miss Craig quite frankly is this hypocrisy or is this just a glimpse of the real William Lane Craig?

Well, I I think it's a glimpse of the real William Lane Craig. No, no, I don't know that but but no. Maybe it's important to describe what an ad hominem is that means literally against the man and what an ad hominem argument would be is that the reason you reject his Conclusion is because you attack his person.

Maybe like attacking me, you know for these aspersions. No, wait, not let me let me finish. It would be like saying that my conclusions are wrong. Because I've said all of these nasty things see that would be an ad hominem argument.