Responding to Online Critics of Presupp

All right, welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm just gonna Fix something here. All right, welcome to another episode of Revealed Apologetics, my name is Eli Ayala. And I'm the guy who does Revealed Apologetics.

Now just real quick I am a college educated individual and I realized that I had a brain fart in the misspelling That was present in my YouTube thumbnail, so I do apologize. I don't know what it says.

Let me see if I can find it. It says something weird. Well, you can probably I won't look for it. But at any rate, well I'm just gonna wait a few moments here to get a couple of people who are interested in kind of looking in and I will Constantly remind folks that if you have any questions with regards to apologetics theology or anything like that you can Share them in the comment section.

I'll try my best to get to them. And if you ask a question that I don't know the answer to I will give you an emphatic I don't know. I think it's very important by the way in apologetics, it is very common for people in their pride to try and give an answer to a question that They do not know and oftentimes We are guilty of shooting ourselves in the foot.

Humility in Apologetics and Responding to Criticism

So here's one thing with your if you're a Christian apologist and you engage in like debating and stuff like that. It is a great stress reliever To be able to have the ability to admit when you don't know the answer to a question.

So I think that's very important when we're doing a presuppositional apologetics more specifically. The vocabulary can become very very philosophical now on the one hand I do believe that presuppositional apologetics is an apologetic that flows out of the soil of Scripture, but when we are discussing Philosophical issues with unbelievers and people from different perspectives.

We oftentimes have to adopt the language of philosophy. And so when we do that, it can get very complicated rather Rather quickly and so I my training is in theology. I do have some background in philosophy, of course.

But there are some philosophical issues that I'm unaware of and I'm always open to learning and Being corrected on various issues. And I think that's that's one of the important ways that we that we grow that being said I do think it's important that we take the opportunity to respond to Criticisms open and honest criticism.

Sometimes the criticisms are not so honest. Sometimes there they come across very Snarkily or snarky a snarkily. I don't know if that's the right way to say it snarkily or snarky. But they can come across very snarky and of course Christians can be guilty of that as well.

And so if I ever come across that way, I do apologize but I'm gonna try my best to respond to a couple of objections that were Made in one of the comment sections and on my videos, which of course I welcome Those of you who have challenged me to a debate or have written an essay long response to something that I said in a video I do apologize if I don't respond right away.

It is very difficult for me to engage in like online like Prolonged typing wars. Some people have the time to do that I sure don't and so I try my best to address various issues in my videos. And when I'm able to get to those other things, I try my best to address them.

I'm oftentimes I actually reach out to people and I've spoken to people over the phone who've had various Criticisms of presuppositional apologetics and had some great conversations and I find through conversation A lot of times various confusions are are cleared away.

One of the things that I have greatly One of the things that I'm very happy about with this channel revealed apologetics is that It has provided a context for me to be able to explain as best as I can the presuppositional methodology to folks who have various misunderstandings of presuppositional methodology.

And so I've actually had instances where people upon respond Understanding what we're actually saying as presuppositional is saying at the end of the day saying oh, okay. Yeah, I could jive with that.

So and sometimes, you know people understand what I'm saying. They'll be like actually I still disagree with you. Strongly so that you know, you get all sorts of you know responses from unbelievers from Christians alike as well, obviously.

The apologetic landscape within evangelical Christianity and even within reform circles is very very diverse. You know, not all reform folks are presuppositionalist. There are people who are not reformed but are very presuppositional ish in their apologetic methodology.

So there are a lot of differences and diversity within the realm of apologetics. And I think when we are discussing the differences between the various methodologies that we are to navigate those waters With gentleness and respect.

Okay, but I think with the ability to take honest criticism. There are people who have criticized the presuppositional method and maybe perhaps how I've presented it and they've given me food for thought.

You know, I'm convinced of my position. But I mean if you bring a criticism towards the method or something that I said I think that's something I'd want to kind of you know. Think about and kind of mull over a little bit and formulate a response.

So I think it's important that we are that we are Hmm that we are honest with ourselves and humble enough to know when we could be Mistaken with regards to how we are putting forth our argument. Okay that is not to say that I grant the Hypothetical falsity of the Christian faith as you guys have heard me say in past videos in past debates that I've done I believe that the Christian worldview provides the necessary preconditions for intelligible experience and I think that Possibility and impossibility are regulated and defined by God himself.

And so there is no Contingency and possibility that stands above God such that there's something out there in the world that can falsify the Christian worldview. Okay, people have heard me say this before however that does not mean that the manner in which I present the methodology that I've done that perfectly or I've followed a Correct line of reasoning in every instance.

So I think we need to keep those distinctions in mind. Okay? So again, once again, if you have any questions, please leave them in the comments and I will address some of them. It is what is this 904 man, I'll take a question now, so someone is uh Has a question here then I'll get into some of the criticisms that I have planned to respond to there was a couple of criticisms of precept that Appeared in some of the comments on I remember which video it was.

There's so many insults and criticisms that come my way. I can't keep track of all of them. So so here is Is that Julio or Julio? I don't know how to Pronounce your name. I'm so sorry. I think that's mucy I don't want to say muki because that would be really weird or muci or you know There are different ways that might be able to be pronounced.

Jay Dyer and the Reformed Context of Presuppositionalism

But at any rate, here's a question. What are your thoughts on Jay Dyer's? Presuppositional method. Yeah, for those of you who don't know who Jay Dyer is Jay Dyer is a I believe he's a Eastern Orthodox Guy and he is very popular for his debates and especially with notable Atheists such as I think he had a debate with Matt Dillahunty, which I think he did very well.

I think Jay Dyer uses the presuppositional method very powerfully. I think he understands the logic of the arguments and So I do think that he uses the method very well, although me being a reformed Christian I would disagree with the theology and his worldview that undergirds the methodology itself, okay, so I think I I agree with Cornelius van Til and Bonson and other reformed thinkers that a truly consistent presuppositional methodology is going to Have its place within a reformed understanding and that's why you have Presuppositionalist who tend to be reformed now.

I do understand that Jay Dyer does disagree with that I think he he thinks it is a myth to say that Presuppositionalism is something that's necessarily connected to kind of a reformed understanding and and that in that regard I disagree with him.

I do think that one of the main things that van Til was was seeking to do because he equate he he Thought of as equivalent reformed Christianity and Christianity I mean Christianity for van Til was the reformed understanding of the faith and so he really sought to develop an apologetic method that flowed out of a consistent application of reformed thinking as as he saw was the correct Biblical paradigm in which something like our apologetic methodology can flow out of in a consistent fashion.

So so yeah, I think Practically speaking. I think when Jay does engage with unbelievers and things don't get out of hand. All right, if you if you're familiar with Jay Dyer, he tends to be quite Difficult sometimes and you know, you know many times Many times Personalities can get in the way of the contents of the debates and so sometimes unfortunately and in my in my opinion I think when Jay interacts with people I think Some of the personalities tend to get in the way and it kind of diminishes the strength of the argument.

He's trying to make so that's just my opinion but those are my thoughts on Jay Dyer and those are my thoughts with regards to The reformed understanding being the proper context out of which a presuppositional approach comes, okay.

All right. Well, I might as well before I get to my specific criticism. They already got a bunch of questions here. So let's Let's go through some of them now, so I'll make you wait. All right. Okay. So a flaming sword apologetic says the Apostle Paul used evidences such as appeals to creation does precept tie into evidential apologetics and work together.

Evidence, Evidentialism, and Presuppositionalism

Yes, right. This is a common misunderstanding a lot of people think that you can marry the The methodologies of evidentialism and presuppositional presuppositional methodology and that's actually not the case.

We need to be very careful to make a differentiation between the uses of evidence and evidentialism when a Presuppositionalist appeal appeals to evidence that is not to say that he is therefore appealing to evidentialism as a methodology, right?

A Presuppositionalist will appeal to evidence but he will appeal to evidence in such a way that it is consistent with his paradigm. It's consistent with his worldview framework. Okay. As Scott Oliphant has said Scott Oliphant who is a professor at Westminster Theological Seminary and is a very notable Presuppositionalist one of whom I've actually had on my show.

You should check that out. Just Eli Allah and Scott Oliphant. I don't remember the name of the episode. You could check it out and I really do encourage folks to Look at those old episodes but he is known to have said that Presuppositionalists are eminently evidentialist and that we literally believe everything is evidence for God.

Okay and so again whether you agree with presuppositional methodology or not if Presuppositionalism is the framework with which we're functioning in then yes we believe that everything is evidence for God and so therefore we can begin with any item of human experience and Seek to demonstrate that the Christian worldview provides the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of that specific item of human experience.

Okay, hope that makes sense. So so they do work together but we don't present evidences in a way that understands the evidences as neutral facts that can be understood independent of our broader philosophical and worldview frameworks.

And so there are two things we try to avoid when we are presenting evidences as presuppositionalist. We we avoid why do I do this? I could have totally did this this what's going on here. Okay, two things.

Two things we try to avoid when presuppositionalists try to present evidence, okay. It is the assumption of autonomy in human reasoning. We reject autonomy. And so when we present evidences we do so in a way that does not give the impression that man given his autonomous reasoning can come to various knowledge claims and actually know them given his Non-consideration of the existence of God and the fact that he reveals so we don't believe that man is autonomous and we try our best not to present the evidence in a way that gives the impression of neutrality a kind of no one knows as of yet Mentality where we can just follow the evidence where it goes, you know, we're kind of these neutral bystanders.

We acknowledge that everyone has presuppositions. Everyone has Philosophical bias that affect how we interpret the data. Okay. So all that being said we presuppositionalist use evidence now, that's not to say that other Presuppositionalist, you know, there are some presuppositionalist who I think are Coming at it from a an inappropriate angle I think that they're not coming at it with a full knowledge of what presuppositionalism actually is.

But you do have at the popular level many presuppositionalist saying if you appeal to evidence you're making, you know Man the judge and you know repent, you know something like something like that. And I think that that's not the full picture.

And unfortunately, that is the impression that many people have with regards to presuppositionalism. I think it's based off of Misunderstanding. Okay. All right. Well, we're getting into the questions.

Let's get into the questions first then. All right, I guess there we go. Let's see here. Okay, so Nate asked has Jason Lyle convinced you of young earth creationism yet, oh my goodness. Okay, so we had a really awesome episode where I had Jason Lyle who is a noted young earth creationist.

He also has a PhD in astrophysics. So he knows the science that undergirds all that all that stuff and then we had Hugh Ross Who is also a PhD astrophysicist and a very noted apologist? And they duked it out over the issue of the Young earth old earth debate and I was kind of against the fence now in my opinion.

Okay from a purely debate perspective and and I mean this out of respect. Okay, I think from a debater's perspective Jason Lyle wiped the floor with dr. Hugh Ross. Okay, that said I am NOT fully convinced although I see the strength of what he's trying to say and and it there's kind of a bias here because on the one hand.

Whereas I kind of sympathize with Hugh Ross's interpretations of scripture and things like that and kind of how there I think there's a little bit more subtlety in the text where I can see why he takes the scriptures to say what he thinks they say I Sympathize with Jason Lyle in that while I'm not necessarily a young earth creationist, you know yet.

Because I'm still kind of working through these things. I sympathize with him because he's presuppositional. And so I think he approaches the issue of the data with that kind of background. Presuppositional framework, which I jive with.

I'm like, okay I understand how you know the presuppositions plan to how we interpret things and while Hugh Ross says some great things I don't think he makes those connections in the way that that dr. Lyle does and so it's difficult.

It's hard I'm sorry. So so all that to say all that to get around to saying I am still undecided. But I often go back to that debate and I listen to it again and I try my best to understand. And so we're getting there.

We're getting there. I haven't come to. It's a conclusion there. Let's see here. Would you have a battle of the battle of the precepts. That just sounds like a really bad science fiction movie. Would you have a battle of the precepts with Jay Dyer on orthodoxy verse reform theology?

Well, personally, I don't think I would perhaps I'd moderate one. I Am I love debates and debate prep is something I take very seriously. And so it requires a lot of time. And even though I disagree with the opponent that I debate with I do respect my opponents and I think that that Jay is very very well versed in the history of philosophy and Church history and things like that, but I don't think that I necessarily would be the appropriate Debate partner for him.

I'd have to probably throw myself a little bit more into the studies and and as you guys have heard me mentioned in the past. It is kind of difficult just the stage in life that I'm in with my kids being very young.

When I do my live streams, it's kind of I have to catch this pocket of time and just do it. So, you know, I've been challenged to debates by various people that I had to turn down because they just don't have the time to prep.

And so so I probably wouldn't although I would um, I would moderate one. And maybe kind of within that conversational sort of style or I could interject and ask questions and kind of Move along. I think two people who really know their stuff I would love to see a James White and and Jay Dyer get together.

You know, I wonder if that that might be a good idea. I think James would be a better proponent in defending the reformed position. Just my opinion. Okay, hope that helps. Let's see here. Huh priests up priests up, let me see here.

How do you think? Okay, okay, I if you don't understand what I just said, I just read a question that's when I skim I make a weird noise. So, okay. So how do you think Scott Oliphant and James Anderson's understanding of priests up apologetics differ?

Um. That is a good question. I would say that Dr. Oliphant is probably more in line with Van Til and Dr. Anderson is is more in line with John frame now if you watch my discussion with With James Anderson, I think we explain how he differs from.

Someone like a Bonson someone like a Van Til and Oliphant and frame. But so he kind of addresses that in more details but you might want to look back at that video that that episode where I had James Anderson on and Watch the the interview I had with Scott Oliphant.

You could determine where you think the main differences are. It's very difficult because there's so much overlap. There's so much that we agree on that. It's really sometimes difficult to nitpick the specifics as to where we disagree.

So I hope that answers the question there. Okay, I don't know if this is a question but we're gonna it's gonna cover my face boom look at that. Imagine I did the whole thing like this. I'm just gonna do the you won't just there we go.

All right. I ooh, Jal Ray ooh, Jal Ray asks this question or he makes a statement. I just put it up there. I have no idea what I'm about to read. The pre suppositional approach to apologetics calls for the Christian and non-christian to engage in an Internal examination of their respective worldview and thus determine whether or not they are internally consistent.

The essence of presuppositional apologetics is an attempt to demonstrate that the non-christian worldview forces him to state to a state of subjectivity irrationalism and moral anarchy. Yeah, that's part of it.

We have to be very careful though that This is really important, okay, I want you to listen to this pointing out Inconsistencies in the unbelievers worldview does not automatically demonstrate the truth of your own.

Okay, I'm gonna say that I'm gonna say that again. That's so important. Pointing out inconsistencies within someone's worldview doesn't automatically demonstrate your own. There needs to be a little more work done in Answering the question.

I mean it's part of it. It's definitely part of it that when you show the inconsistency in the unbelievers worldview You can also show that even to make sense out of this some of the parts of their worldview that aren't logically inconsistent.

They actually have to be relying upon your worldview. And so you kind of get that transcendental critique showing the truth of the position by the impossibility of the contrary. But it's not simply pointing out Consistencies inconsistencies and things like that.

There's a little more work that has to be done in that regard. So I think it's important thing to Address okay. All right. Oh, I I had a plan. I I will address. There's a couple of things that someone had sent me and I want to address them.

But um, why not you there are questions here. Maybe if I get the head of the game I think there's only like two more questions or one more question. But let me deal with here. Are you going to address the charge of circularity and feed a ism to preset?

Circularity, Fideism, and the Transcendental Argument

Okay. One of the things this is one of the indicators. Okay, that tips me off. Okay. That someone doesn't understand presuppositional Methodology, okay. There's this one thing when someone says this one thing I It lets me know that they don't understand the methodology and that one thing is you.

Presuppositionalists are guilty of circular reasoning. Okay, that's one of the things that I know. It's like you've never read a Vantil or a Bonson or and if you do, it's you definitely didn't catch what they were saying.

Because Presuppositional methodology does not reduce to a fallacious form of circularity. Especially when you're dealing with like ultimate foundations that cannot be justified by an appeal to something more fundamental than it.

But what Vantil was doing was he was seeking to justify his presupposition by an appeal to its transcendental necessity. And when he appeals to its transcendental necessity, he seeks to objectively prove the truth of his position.

So it's not a fallacious form of reasoning that's where you make the distinction between narrow circularity and broad circularity or rather Virtuous circularity and vicious circularity. Okay again, this is something you need to do your homework.

Not you who's asking the question. Maybe you're asking on behalf of someone else but as someone who brings this whole notion of circularity up in debate. You need to do your homework. It's not as though presuppositionalists are like well God is real and the Bible is true because the Bible says God is real and the Bible is true.

And so again, some presuppositionalist might be complete and utter buffoons, you know, maybe I'm one of them, but they're not that stupid. Okay, they're not so dumb and blind to Ignore the fact that there is obviously a claim.

Okay, there's obviously a claim of of Circular reasoning that that we just are unaware of the fact that this is happening of course when someone says that the truth of the Christian worldview and the Christian worldview is demonstrated they by the impossibility of the contrary and we we talk about ultimate foundations and things like that, of course.

One would say well, wait a minute. You're assuming the very thing you're trying to prove. We we hear that This is addressed all throughout the literature. Okay, so I'm getting a notification here. Third paragraph.

I have someone feeding me information. I'm just kidding. I can't read the text. I'm so sorry. Um, I hope that makes sense. So so the issue of circularity is not. It's not a good objection now fideism is Based in this notion of circularity.

So say you have you have a worldview, right? You have a worldview. Okay, and my foundation here is in the middle. And so everything in my worldview is consistent with my foundation. Okay. Now if you push me, why do you believe?

Why do you believe? Why do you believe? Why do you believe? Why do you believe eventually? I'm gonna come to a stopping point where I This is kind of like my axiom now I'm afraid to use the term axiom because I know it has various connotations to it.

Especially within the the umbrella of presuppositional ism, especially with regards to someone like Gordon Clark. But when I use axiom, I'm just using it in a generic sense of like your yours your your first principle.

Okay. Now here's the idea of the fideistic claim the objection that that presuppositional ism is fideistic. Because everything anything you say from your worldview I'm just going to interpret within my worldview and so it's not going to you know.

It's not gonna hurt me right and then everything I say to you. You're just gonna interpret in light of your worldview. And so now we're locked outside. From interacting in a meaningful way because I'm in my worldview bubble and you're in your worldview bubble.

And so a lot of people will see see there's no way to get outside your worldview bubble. And so now you're stuck in kind of a postmodern, you know I'm postmodern, but you're in kind of this fideistic kind of trap.

Okay where you have. Where you have no way to get outside of your of your circle. Okay, that's where Bonson said. Bonson said that it's not as though the the believer is stuck in his is isolated his philosophical tower.

Loathing the other one who's in his isolated philosophical tower just throwing insults at each other. I don't like you or I don't know there is meaningful fruitful interaction and that happens through the The internal critique of worldviews and the transcendental demonstration of the truth of the Christian worldview again.

There's more that has to be done there. Obviously you have to be at the hash that out in more detail, but it's not this issue of just fideism. You're kind there's just no way to get outside your bubble.

You know, you're not getting outside your bubble the presupposition list is seeking to demonstrate the truth of his bubble. Transcendentally, okay now whether he does that successfully is going to be another issue obviously, right?

Obviously people who don't agree with the methodology or don't like the transcendental argument. They think it's an invalid argument, whatever they'll bring their various objections and you know. And then you're gonna have to kind of give responses in that regard.

So I Hope that answers the question. Okay, it's a good question. That's a common question as well. So here's another question Patrick again, I apologize. Is the H silent the H has to be silent, okay, I think the H is a do you Patrick sue?

Okay. All right. I'm so sorry. All right. Do you think tag is unique in form from classical arguments as opposed to John frame? Uh, yeah, I actually would agree with Bonson that the transcendental argument is unique and I would disagree with frame with regards to understanding the transcendental argument as kind of Somewhere along the line of the classical sorts of arguments, although There are ways that you can turn a traditional argument into a train a sort of transcendental argument so there is some similarities and differences, but I do think there are some unique features to the argument that You just can't clump it in with the rest of the arguments.

Okay, a dr. Anderson made mention of this if I remember correctly I think he agrees with that as well. But again, I encourage you guys to look at those past videos there with dr Anderson we cover a wide range of topics relating to this.

Okay. Let me see Tanner Terry says James White verse J would be fun. Yes. I totally think it would. Maybe it'll happen. You know, I do have dr. White's contact. Hopefully I can send him an email. Maybe I can moderate that.

That'd be fun. Or if someone knows dr. White and thinks that's a great idea. I'd love to host that debate. I think that'd be very fascinating. All right. Let's see here. I guess we're just gonna go down the line.

Apologetics, Evidence, and the Rejection of Autonomy

What further advancements do you want to see in priests of apologetics community that you find lacking? Now, that is a good question. Okay, what do I find? Lacking within the presuppositional community.

I would say What is lacking is the ability to go? more in-depth in what we're trying to say when we're arguing for You know the Christian worldview I think a lot of people online who do presuppositional apologetics for the most part they're very Presuppositional apologetics tends to be very popular within lay Lay apologetics.

I know you do have some scholars obviously, but a lot of the stuff online. They're very like lay apologies, which is fine I mean you're defending the faith, right? You're trying your best to you know Get the gospel out there and answer objections and try to use a method that you think is honoring to God and it's biblical.

I get that but I do wish that people moved away from a lot of the cliches of Presuppositional methodology. Okay we need to take the foundations that are laid for us in Scripture because I think it's scriptural and the foundations laid for us by someone like a Vantill or a Bonson or a frame and Expand outwardly begin to apply Presuppositional thinking to areas that are it's not often applied.

This is why I really appreciate the work of dr Michael Kruger which by the way, I Had dr. Kruger on the show as well. I highly recommend you listen to that episode because we talked about Presuppositional thinking applied to canonical studies.

That's kind of unique I mean, you don't really see a presuppositional methodology applied to something like that. And so I think what's lacking is the application of presuppositional apologetics beyond The mere discussions of like logic, you know, we're always talking about the transcendental argument.

Can you account for logic and God can account for logic and the one in the man? These are issues that I think are important, but I think what's lacking is showing that apologetic methodology has such a broader application.

I mean we're talking about worldview thinking of which logic and maybe a couple of things that people debate online over here. It's it's all encompassing and so there are so many different ways and applications that we could use the methodology that I think would push the method forward in terms of Clarifying misunderstandings and answering important objections that I think are put forth especially within the scholarly literature.

All right. There are many objections with regards to You know The one in the many that's another issue that can be hashed out more, right? We all we often speak of how the Trinity accounts for the one in the many and you know no other religion can do that and yada yada yada, but sometimes when we talk about that and I'm guilty of this too when I Bring it up and I do bring it up.

Not everyone knows what I'm talking about. You know, some people like what's the problem the one of many? I don't see that as a problem, you know and We can do a better job in explaining those things and making a broader Application in areas that perhaps we we haven't delved into before.

So that's how to answer that question. I think that's Let's see here A Pine Creek. Hey Doug, how's it going, man? Hi, can you steal man a skeptics mine basis for things like logic uniformity of nature, etc?

Well, I don't. I probably would have I would ask you questions. I don't really remember how you give an account you see Skeptics atheist as Doug knows Doug is gonna know he's gonna probably agree with what I say here.

But skeptics don't always give the same accounting for the different aspects of their worldview different shades of Skeptics and atheists and they have different, you know differences within their outlook.

They may answer questions in a different way. So I don't want to try to steal man a position simply from a text in question like this. Oh, sorry about that. All right. Let's see here. The free thinker.

I think that's Tyler. Hello Tyler. Okay. But Eli aren't precepts opposed to evidence and trying to reason with unbelievers some are. Some some of them are I mean How many people. I mean you can't show your hands but if you were in a room with me and I how many people have watched a debate between a skeptic and a presupposition list and it turned into a complete dumpster fire.

I Have that's a matter of fact. Most of the debates that I want that I listen to online YouTube and stuff. Not all of them. Most of them turned to a complete dumpster fire. Because depending on who the presuppositional is, they're just unwilling to reason with the unbeliever again, and I think the people who do this and I won't mention any names but the people who do this are coming from a What I think a misunderstanding of what presuppositional methodology is all about.

Okay. So again, I yes, I agree now Tyler is a funny guy. That might be kind of a joking like, you know, but what about evidence, you know, whatever. But if it was a legit question, that's my answer. All right.

Hope that's helpful. All right. Let's see here. Teeing him. Oh, there we go your team. Well, thank you. Thank you Tyler. I like when people tee things up and make it easy for me. Appreciate it. Okay. There we go.

Let's see here. Planting those bulldog. Yes have such cool names. My goodness. Let's see here. Okay, let's see so Doug is asking a question here again. Can you give any steel man position for any atheist I can steal a man you and sigh.

Okay. All right. Well great. I'm glad you can steal man me. Okay. Well, it depends but I mean if we were to use a very simple, I'm gonna use a simple example. Because again, there's nuance and and not everyone holds to kind of a kind of a a strict materialist perspective but when we say for example Can you account for something like immaterial laws of logic if you are a strict materialist?

I don't see how it's possible unless you ground logic in. Some kind of material foundation, which I don't think works when you understand what logic is and things like that now again. Saying that the skeptic who may hold to this form of materialism can give pushback.

Okay, and I've had people give pushback on this on this very point. And you know, that's how debate happens. But again hypothetically I mean, I would be better I would do a better job steel manning if I kind of spoke to like a specific person again.

We use a simple example if you're a materialist and all you know, everything is matter in motion. Then you don't get Transcendent laws of logic. Well, I don't believe logic is transcendental well then that's gonna bring us to a deeper consideration as to what the nature of logic is and whether that concept of Logic is coherent.

Okay. So again, it would probably require a little bit more in-depth Discussion there, but if you're able to steel man myself and sigh. Great and and I think that's a good thing. Right that we are able to properly represent a person's position and then engage in a meaningful fashion.

So if you if you genuinely try to steel man folks, that's appreciated right sharpens us a little bit more. All right. Thanks Doug for that. Let's see here. Tanner Terry asks, do you believe soul scriptura is necessary for the precept methodology?

If so, then how would you respond to the critique that you need the church and its history to justify what the canon is? Well, I don't know the necessary connection between solar scriptura. I would I would be inclined to say yes.

Okay. And when you talk about the issues of history again You're gonna we're gonna have a different presuppositional framework with which to understand that because when you say you need a church. Yeah, I believe that the church is a very important part in Identifying the canon and you know all those issues those that are involved in the historical issues.

But I do I reject the dual authority of equal Ultimacy of scripture and a church tradition because then you have the the constant objection that well You need the church to properly interpret the scriptures for you.

But then again that doesn't work because now you need someone to properly interpret the church's interpretation. So you need to interpret The church's interpretation and you're right back at the issue of how do we interpret unless you're going to accept the teachings of the church?