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 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 they're 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 response 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 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 as 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 a

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. 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'm I 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 Um The reformed understanding being the proper context out of which a presuppositional approach comes, okay

All right. Um, well I might as well before I get to my specific criticism. They already got a bunch of questions here. So let's uh,

Let's go through some of them now. 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

Uh, yes, right. This is a common misunderstanding um, a lot of people think that you can marry, uh, 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, um as scott oliphant has said scott oliphant who is a professor at westminster theological seminary

And he's a very notable presuppositionalist, uh, one of whom i've actually had on my show. You should check that out. Um, Just eli ala and scott oliphant.

I don't remember the name of the episode. You could check it out um, and I really do encourage folks to um, Look at those old um episodes.

Um, but he um 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 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. Uh, so so they do work together um, but we don't present evidences in a way that um 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 I don't know what's going on here Okay, two things we'll just do two things.

We try to avoid when presuppositionalist 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 uh various knowledge claims and actually know them given his non, um 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 Um 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 um philosophical bias that affect how we

Interpret, um the data. Okay. Um, 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 um 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 presuppositionalists saying if you appeal to evidence you're making you know, man the judge and you know

Repent, you know something. I don't know something like that Um, and I think that that's not the full picture.

Um, and unfortunately that is the impression that many people have Um with regards to presuppositionalism,

I think it's based off of uh 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 Uh, let's see here um

Okay, uh, 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.

Uh Jason lyle who is a noted young earth creationist. He also has a phd in astrophysics

So he knows the the science that undergirds all that. Um all that stuff and then we had uh, hugh ross Um, who is also a phd astrophysicist and a very noted apologist

Um, and they duked it out over the issue of the um, 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 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 play into 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

Um, but um, I I often go back to that, uh debate and I I listen to it again and I try my best to understand um, and so, um, we're getting there we're getting there haven't come to uh,

It's a conclusion there Uh, let's see here Um, would you have a battle of the

A battle of the precepts what? That just sounds like a really bad science fiction movie

Uh, would you have a battle of the precepts with jay dyer on orthodoxy verse, uh reform theology?

Um, Well personally, um, I I don't think I would perhaps i'd moderate one.

Um I am, uh, I love debates. Um and debate prep is something

I take very seriously and so it requires a lot of time Um, and even though I disagree with the opponent, uh that I debate with I do respect uh, my opponents and I think that um that jay is very very well versed in the history of philosophy and um

Church history and things like that, but I don't think that I necessarily would be the appropriate. Um uh debate partner for him

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

I do my live streams, it's kind of I have to catch this pocket of time and just do it So, um, you know i've been challenged to debates, uh by various people that I had to turn down because they just don't have the time to prep and so Um, so I probably wouldn't although I would um,

I would moderate one um, and maybe kind of within that conversational sort of style where I could interject and ask questions and kind of um,

Move along I think uh two people who really know their stuff Uh, I would love to see a james white and and jay dyer get together.

Um, you know I wonder if that that might be a good idea. I think james, uh would be a better proponent. Um in defending the reformed position

Um, just my opinion. Okay. Hope that helps Uh, let's see here

Huh priest up priest up. Let me see here. How do you think? Okay Okay, I 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, uh, okay. So how do you think scott oliphant and james anderson's understanding of priest up apologetics differ?

um That is a good question. I would say that Dr.

Oliphant is probably more in line with van till um

And dr. Anderson is is more in line with john frame um now if you watch my discussion with um

With james anderson, I think we explain How he differs from uh, someone like a bonson someone like a van till and oliphant and frame

Um, but uh, 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. Uh 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

Um, so I hope that answers, uh 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, uh, I ujal ray ujal 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 Uh, the presuppositional approach to apologetics calls for the christian and non -christian to engage in an internal 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, uh

Yeah, that's part of it. Um, we have to be very careful though that um

This is really important. Okay. I want you to listen to this pointing out inconsistencies In the unbeliever's worldview does not automatically demonstrate the truth of your own

Okay, i'm going to say i'm going to say that again. That's so important. Um, 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 unbeliever's worldview

You can also show that even to make sense out of the 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 a position by the impossibility of the contrary

But it's not simply pointing out Uh consistencies, uh inconsistencies and things like that.

There's a little more work that has to be done in that regard So I think it's an important thing to um uh address

Okay. All right. Oh, I I had a plan. I I will address Uh, 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 ahead 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 fideism to precept? uh

Okay. Um, one of the things this is one of the indicators, okay that Tips me off Okay That someone doesn't understand

Presuppositional, uh 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 van till or a bonson or and if you do

It's you definitely didn't catch what they were saying um because uh 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 van till 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 uh 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

Uh, you need to do your homework. It's not as though presuppositionalists are like well, um, uh 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, uh, but they're not that stupid.

Okay, they're not so dumb and blind to um, Ignore the fact that there is obviously a claim.

Okay. There's obviously a claim of um, of uh

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

The the christian worldview is demonstrated by the impossibility of the contrary and we we talk about ultimate foundations and things like that, of course

Um, 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. Um, so, uh, i'm getting a notification here Third pair

I have someone feeding me information. I'm just kidding. Um, I can't read the text. I'm so sorry Um, uh,

I hope that makes sense so so the issue of circularity is not um, 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 going to 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 presuppositionalism, especially with regards to someone like gordon clark

Um, but when I use axiom i'm just using it in a generic sense of like your your your your first principle Okay.

Now here here's the idea of the fideistic claim the objection that that presuppositionalism 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 going to hurt me, right? And then everything I say to you, you're just going to interpret in light of your worldview.

And so now we're locked outside Uh 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 post -modern, you know, uh, uh,

I'm post -modern, but you're in kind of this fideistic kind of trap. Okay where you have um

Where you have no way to get outside of your of your circle, okay, that's where uh, 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 um 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 you have to 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 presuppositionalist 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. Um, and uh, 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, uh, here's another question. Uh patrick, um again,

I apologize Is the h silent? The h has to be silent, okay, I think the h is do you patrick

Sue, okay. All right. I'm so sorry. All right Uh, do you think tag is unique in form from classical arguments as opposed to john frame?

Uh, yeah I I actually would agree with bonson that the transcendental argument is unique um, and I would disagree with frame with regards to understanding the transcendental argument as kind of uh, somewhere along the line of the classical sorts of arguments, although There are ways that you can turn a traditional argument into 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 um,

You just can't clump it in with the rest of the arguments. Okay Um, dr. Anderson made mention of this if I remember correctly,

I think he agrees with that as well Um, but again, I encourage you guys to look at those past videos there. Um with uh, dr

Anderson, we cover a wide range of topics relating to this. Okay uh Uh, let me see.

Tanner. Terry says james white versus jay would be fun. Yes. I totally think it would uh,

Maybe it'll happen. You know, I I do have uh, dr. White's contact. Hopefully I can send him an email

Maybe I can moderate that that'd be fun. Um, or if someone knows dr. White and thinks that's a great idea

I'd love to host uh that debate. I think that'd be very fascinating Um, all right. Let's see here.

I guess we're just gonna go down the line What further advancements do you want to see in pre -sub apologetics community that you find lacking

Now that is a good question. Okay What do I find?

lacking within the presuppositional community, um 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 Um, 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 uh

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 um people moved away From a lot of the cliches of presuppositional methodology, okay

Um, 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 van till 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 Um, I I had dr.

Kruger on the show as well. I highly recommend you listen to that episode because we talk about Presuppositional thinking applied to canonical studies and 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 uh

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 are put forth

Especially within the scholarly literature. All right, there are many objections, uh with regards to um you know

Uh, 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 Um, not everyone knows what i'm talking about, you know, some people like what's the problem the one of the many?

I don't see that as a problem, you know, um, and uh, 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 um

Let's see here Uh pine creek, uh, hey doug, how's it going man?

Uh, hi Can you steal man a skeptic's mind basis for things like logic uniformity of nature, etc.

Um, well, um, I don't I I probably would have I would ask you questions. I don't really remember how you give an account you see skeptics

Atheists as doug knows doug is going to know he's going to probably agree with what I say here But skeptics don't always give the same accounting for uh, 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 I don't want to try to steal man a position simply from uh, a text in question like this.

So sorry about that All right. Let's see here Uh, the freed thinker, uh,

I think that's tyler. Hello tyler. Okay Uh, but eli aren't precepts opposed to evidence and trying to reason with unbelievers, uh, 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 presuppositionalist and it turned into a complete dumpster fire

I have as 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 turn to a complete dumpster fire Uh, because depending on who the presuppositionalist they're just unwilling to reason with the unbeliever um 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. I hope that's helpful All right. Let's see here

Um 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

Okay, I appreciate it Okay, there we go. Let's see here

Um plantica's bulldog you guys have such cool names my goodness Let's see here um

Okay, let's see. So doug is asking a question here again Can you give any steel man position for any atheist?

Uh, I can steal a man you and sigh, uh, okay All right. Well great.

I'm glad you can steal man me. Um, okay Well, it depends but I mean if we were to use a very simple i'm going to use a simple example um

Because again, there's nuance and and not everyone. Um holds to kind of a kind of 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

Um, I don't see how it's possible unless you ground logic in um 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 Um, and i've had people give pushback on this on this very point Um, 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 going to bring us to a deeper consideration as to what the nature of logic is and whether that concept of Of logic is coherent.

Okay. So again, it would probably require a little bit more in -depth. Um, discussion there But uh, if you're able to steel man, uh myself and sai, uh, great and and I think that's a good thing

Right, um that we are able to properly represent a person's position and then engage in a meaningful fashion

So, um, if you if you genuinely try to steel man, uh folks, um, that's appreciated right, uh sharpens us a little bit more

All right. Thanks doug for that. Uh, let's see here Uh, tan or terry asked do you believe sola 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?

um, well Um, I don't know the necessary connection between sola scriptura. I would

I would be inclined to say yes Okay Um, and when you talk about the issues of history, uh 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

Uh, yeah, I believe that the church. Um is a very important part in Um identifying the canon and uh, 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 dogmatically without asking questions and critically thinking about things I think the bible provides a foundation for sola scriptura

The bible provides a foundation for the importance of tradition But there's nothing in scripture that gives the impression that tradition should be held on equal level with scripture

And yes, i'm familiar with the second thessalonians passage and things like that Um, but again, those are just my my thoughts there

So I would be inclined to say yeah, sola scriptura is I think an essential aspect there. Okay, good question Uh, let's see here

Let's see. Let's see. Let's see Okay, okay some good questions here man,

I'm sorry i'm going through this quickly I know I I probably i'm not giving doing justice to some of your questions, but uh,

You know, you could never tell sometimes i'll do a live stream and there's like a couple of questions and then i'm like hey I'm gonna go and do something.

There's a bunch of questions. So, uh, that that's good. All right Uh, okay.

Let's see here He goes There we go, oh, oh doug doug strikes again,

I do believe logic is transcendental great, okay Um, well, I would be interested in knowing how you fit transcendentals within your worldview again

I don't know the details of your worldview So I don't know how you might go about doing that but if we were having a conversation

I would ask those sorts of questions Okay, um, so cool. All right You're not that sort of guy that thinks that there are no transcendentals there are out there so depends who you're talking to Um, all right.

Let's see here Do you think that the ultimate? I don't understand that question

Okay, uh patrick asks, what do you think of clarkianism well speaking of clark? I actually am going to have a clarkian on my show to talk about clarkian apologetic methodology

Okay, i'm going to be having doug doug dhalma. I think that's how you pronounce his name. Uh dhalma wrote a biography

I think it's the only I might be mistaken on this but I think he wrote the only biography on gordon clark, which by the way

I highly recommend Excuse me Water break one second. I highly recommend

Um folks read the works of gordon clark. Okay. I think you're really missing out. He was an excellent.

He was an excellent Philosopher now, there is a lot that I disagree with with.

Dr Clark, um, but he is a great philosopher and has a lot of great things to say that I think are very useful to folks

But at any at any rate, um with regards to clarkianisms, uh, you know clark's methodology

I don't agree with his understanding now when you think of presuppositionalism as fideism

Many people actually don't know that when they're referring to presuppositionalism as fideism They often have an incorrect understanding of vantillian presuppositionalism

And they inadvertently attack a clarkian presuppositional methodology because clarkian apologetic methodology is fideistic as a matter of fact

Dr. Clark embraced that very uh that very um, Title, okay

So clark would start with say an axiom the bible is the word of god And then he believed you can logically deduce from your axiom the rest of your worldview.

And so we argue that Um, the christian worldview was the most consistent It did the best job in answering the hard philosophical questions and gave the best accounting of of human experience

Okay but the thing with clark is that because he started with an axiom clark understood axioms as Your starting points that you do not demonstrate its truth.

You just dogmatically accept it as it's kind of a form of dogmatism, right? This is my axiom and you don't demonstrate the truth of your axiom because to demonstrate the truth of your axiom

You would have to step outside your axiom and appeal to something else to validate the axiom But you can't do that because the very moment you move away from your axiom

You're now your axiom is no longer your axiom. The thing you've now appealed to becomes your axiom And so that's an inappropriate way to uh to demonstrate the truth of your axiom.

That's why axioms are not demonstrated They are dogmatically accepted and according to clark you would logically deduce the rest of your worldview from that I disagree with that because I believe that the christian worldview is objectively provable

And so I would be more in line with um Vantill who would agree that we have first principles

He would agree that you don't demonstrate the truth of your first principle by appealing to something outside of itself

Vantill would agree with that but vantill said that you would demonstrate the truth of your your axiom

He wouldn't call it axiom, but your ultimate presupposition If you will you demonstrate the truth of your ultimate presupposition by appealing to its transcendental necessity

And that's where the transcendental argument for god's existence comes in Okay Now whether he did that successfully or not again

Obviously, this is a topic of great debate with it between christians and christians and skeptics and things like that Um, but um, so there's the difference there.

I think clarkian is more fideistic and vantill is not fideistic I don't think he's fideistic in in uh in any way.

Um, so um that that's what I think of clark there Okay Uh, all right.

I I think i'm going to um Move on to what

I wanted to talk I entitled it responding to my online critics. Well, I guess the questions are from people online

You guys are online. You're my critics. I had specific points. I wanted to address um

But let's see here Let's see.

Let's see. Let's see. I can't pick all of them Let's see Uh Uh, okay

All right, I have to scroll through these some of them are incoherent um

There we go Okay All right in order to prove that christianity is true. Does the priest supper have to disprove all other logical possible worlds?

Uh, no Um bonson addresses this in in uh his work. Which book did he address this in?

He probably addressed it in um Van till's apologetic, but I don't remember the page

I have a friend who knows where all the and he has books outlined. He knows where all these I know what page that is I unfortunately don't know which page he addresses it.

Um, but no, um, this is a common objection Um to prove to the transcendental argument that in order to demonstrate the truth the impossibility of the contrary you have to inductively.

Um, Demonstrate the falsity of every single worldview and that's impossible um, that's that's not necessarily true, uh when we're talking about the ultimate foundation or the

The worldview that provides the only preconditions for intelligible experience. There could only be one you can't have two ultimate explanations

That are equivalent. All right, but yet they're different worldviews if that's true Then you're still stuck in a form of skepticism because you have different accounts of reality equally and uh equally

Providing the necessary preconditions and I don't I don't think that's possible now. Some people might think I disagree with them Okay Now if you can demonstrate that christianity does in fact provide the necessary preconditions and that's going to take some unpacking

Then it would follow that it is the only one that can do that since you could only have one ultimate Okay.

Um now again that requires more fleshing out someone asked in a previous question What is lacking in the presuppositional community?

Well, one thing is lacking. Um, it's something that I want to try and um, Study up on and be able to explain with more precision

Um, but it's this idea that demonstrating the christian worldview does provide those necessary preconditions

It would follow that it's the only perspective that does so because you could only have one ultimate precondition for intelligible experience

You can't have multiple worldviews that equally do it because then you're just you're stuck right back in skepticism Okay, so again that could be hashed out a little bit more.

Um, and uh, perhaps that'll be a section of my book I'm in the process of writing a book and uh, that's actually one of the questions that I wanted to address it's on my list

So, um, definitely we'll try to unpack that a little more then. Okay, great question Okay, let's see here.

Here's another question. Does revealed apologetics think sai does precept apologetics? Well, I haven't seen anything except his interviews before um

I I I very much appreciate sai, uh, and we we talk every so often

Um, I think he at one level. I think he does a very good job He does have a different emphasis than I do.

Um, I tend to be more willing to talk about some of the deeper philosophical issues

And sai can tend to be a little bit more uncompromising even to the point where his debate opponent gets a little frustrated

So it it definitely wouldn't be the way I go about it If you say if you see for example

If you watch a debate that i've done and then you watch a debate that sai's done Um, we're kind of saying similar things

But we have a different way of kind of navigating the debate and and entertaining objections and things like that So I would take a different attack

But again, I mean there are a lot of things that sai does and I think he does it extremely well Um, even though folks disagree or they'll say oh, so there he goes, you know sai saying, you know by what standard you know

By the way, that is a cliche a presuppositional cliche, but it's true. All right, it's a good question

It's a good point, you know by what standard we need to have standards If we're going to be making various judgments and things like that So, um,

I do think that he does it Well, although I I would differ in some of the details as to how I actually engage.

Um, uh, the opponent Okay, and you can see that in my debates. It's it's different. Okay All right

Let's see here Pranky why you like yelling i've seen your video with lyle and doug as better Okay Okay I don't know what that means is probably the universe of brute fact the universe brute fact.

Yeah and appeal to brute factuality That's that's problematic here All right. Let's see here. There's some conversations going

Maybe the catholic church is the true church. Um psych I don't think so That's just my humble opinion.

I do not think the catholic church is a true church, but uh, you're free to post that I suppose How would you defend the certainty of the volcano?

Um any canon questions, uh dealing with canon, um, i'm not an expert in in Canonical studies.

Um, but if you haven't watched the discussion I had with dr Michael kruger we talk about those things and so I I would highly recommend i'll point you to that.

Um that interview Okay, let's see here a bunch of things. Uh, let's see.

Let's see. Let's see people have some

Awesome, doug. I I love I love your comments doug doug has some really Fun comments the way he's able to phrase a question or a

It's subtle, but it's funny. Okay, let's see here um By the way, uh, this is a great point

So, uh by proving the conceptual necessity of a worldview does not prove its ontological necessity I have a discussion with chris bolt and we bring up this very question at chris bolt on two times excellent episodes

We go into the details, um of that specific question that I don't think i'm prepared to go into right now

I'd have to read up on it a little bit. But if you've read michael butler's argument michael butler was uh, the professor's assistant of greg bonson

Um, he addressed this issue in his festschrift to bonson where he has an article.

Um, do I have that book with me? um, oh, it's probably in my Aha, wait, wait right here.

Wait right here Is that a normal thing do people when they're doing live streams just walk away from the camera here you go

This is the standard bearer of festschrift for greg bonson and there is a very lengthy article by michael butler on the transcendental argument for god's existence and he goes in great detail,

I want to show you how uh Okay, so a fesher if you have multiple articles that cover a wide variety of things, okay and michael butler's article is

Pretty thick and he covers that issue as a matter of fact That was one of the topics that I wanted to write my doctoral dissertation now

I didn't have the opportunity because of personal reasons Um, I wasn't able to do my phd but that was one of the things

I wanted to write it on So that's a really good question. But uh, chris bolt discusses that in my discussion with him

I don't remember his answer, but that's a great a great objection that I think a presuppositionalist should be able to answer. Okay Uh, okay.

Here we go. All right. What about parody arguments to tag? Um, yeah, there are a lot of planticas bulldog

I I didn't see the picture until I put your question up on that and there's literally a bulldog with a

A blurred out alvin plantica in the background, by the way a random alvin plantica thing.

I was walking Uh to work I parked my car and I walked uh had to walk around the block and I saw someone

Who looked exactly like alvin plantica? Uh, it definitely wasn't you know, when you kind of give a double look and you're kind of like well

Yep, I don't want to be that guy. I'd be like dr Plantica the person's gonna be like no it'd be super awkward. But um, that's made me think about that Okay, so what about parody arguments for tag?

So I suppose you are probably thinking about the christianity objection, by the way Discussed in this book.

Okay. So what about the christianity objection? You have a religion that is similar to christianity in every way except um that except god being a trinity

Um, he is a quadrinity. Okay Um now you have to understand something when someone is presenting

A hypothetical necessary precondition for intelligible experience against the christian worldview Now you have an interesting thing going on Because the person who brings up the objection is standing on a foundation

So if he's standing on a foundation that he himself cannot account for the intelligibility of his objection then

I can question his foundation And if he is putting forth a hypothetical I could ask him.

Do you hold to this hypothetical? Again, if he holds to the hypothetical then we can engage in some meaningful worldview interaction, but he doesn't hold to it

And so what he assumes is that he can float neutrally independent of a worldview commitment to hypothetically discuss this this

Hypothetical very similar to christianity worldview and that that that can happen if it's the only precondition

Your argument that is the only precondition then that means the worldview that you are currently standing on doesn't provide the preconditions

And so you don't even have a worldview that makes sense out of your question But then now if you hold to that other option

Then we could have a little bit of interaction there and engage in the uh, The internal critique of worldviews and the transcendental demonstration of the christian worldview.

So there's a lot to unpack there But yeah, there are parody arguments. Uh parody arguments are a form of external critique

So if you know anything about the internal and external, um, uh critiques if you're going to externally critique my worldview

Then that's not going to work. Okay, you need to because of my presuppositional framework You need to jump into my worldview and internally critique it but once you throw

The hypothetical possibility that there's a worldview that can falsify the christian one You're now throwing in an external critique in which case i'll just point out.

That's an external critique You're you're positing an impossibility and here's why and we would point that out, but that's addressed in the literature

Um, most specifically that's addressed. Uh, there's a whole section in this book um on the christianity objection and there are other forms of Uh parody arguments as well.

Okay. Good question. All right. Let's see here Uh, let's see a lot of um

Side conversations going on. That's fine. Let's go. There we go

Hello My dad, my dad is watching. Hello, dad. How's it going? That's my dad

Uh, what's he doing today this past week? Baptized by jesus asked me what's your thoughts on james white's debate this past weekend.

I did not um, is that with riddle? Dr Riddle, um, I I think that's the name.

I haven't seen it yet. Um, i'd like i'm gonna I want to watch it Um, I heard it was interesting. Um, and I always appreciate uh, dr white's debate.

So i'm definitely going to check that out Maybe i'll check that out later tonight. We'll see So no, I have nothing to say about that Uh, you think you can steal man smith's unapologetic apology?

You can thank stelman smith of that unapologetic, but yeah, that is a pretty cool picture i'd have to say that's a pretty cool picture

Uh, let me see here Uh, I mean, let's say a hindu says that in fact hinduism is the necessary precondition for logic in the same way

You say christianity is the precondition for logic. Uh, yeah, this is um an attempt to try and show see see this kind of um, this kind of objection

Uh, no, I guess not an objection to kind of this point of contention that maybe some other perspective Can provide the preconditions for for you know intelligibility and things like that or logic or whatever?

The objection assumes that what the christian is saying is just a bare assertion christianity provides the only preco

The only preconditions for intelligible experience and so it's just it's just an assertion so anyone could make that assertion

But again that misunderstands the whole point. It's not an assertion It is an assertion that the presuppositionalist is willing to demonstrate both by a positive presentation of his own view and an internal critique

Of the unbeliever's perspective now the problem with hinduism is that hinduism given its pantheistic and monistic undergirdings cannot um, it cannot appeal to uh, um itself as being the foundation for logic

I mean if you look at various forms of pan of pantheism of which hinduism is um is undergirded by um,

They think that distinctions are are illusory Now you you have you take for example the concept of maya all is illusion, right?

If all is illusion The distinctions are illusory because the reality is that all reality is one

Okay, so if all reality is one and distinctions are illusory then you have you have an issue of the law of identity

Okay, and the law of non -contradiction because the law of logic is applied to Distinct things and those rules apply as we as we use them in our in our in our thinking process

Okay, um, if you talk to a lot of eastern thinkers logic is um is denied in in some respects because of their monistic philosophical pantheistic perspective

When we think in terms of logic, we're thinking westernly those that's what that's how westerners think we think in these discrete logical categories but eastern thought is not um is is not

Um known for thinking in those categories because of their pantheistic kind of philosophical outlook their their monism.

Okay, so um Hindu can say that they that hinduism provides the necessary preconditions, but when you actually um,

Uh pull apart the undergirdings of that worldview You will find that the worldview itself does not provide the preconditions for the very thing

It's trying to provide the preconditions for which by the way Most hindus that i'm aware of don't try to provide the necessary preconditions for logic because of the various philosophical

Perspectives that they hold Okay. Um, but again good question. Uh, let's see here

Um, let's see if you want to Oh, yeah, yeah, that's true.

Yeah hinduism says all is one which destroys the law of identity. Yep. That's that's that's absolutely true. Yeah Let's see here

I believe some views and talents Uh, okay.

So tanner asked the question. I believe some views of divine simplicity like the tomistic conception lead to monistic conclusions

What is your view of divine simplicity? um I don't know. I don't know

No, I don't know what my view of divine simplicity is if I had to lean in a specific direction

I tend to to sympathize with the perspective of divine simplicity that is held by james dalazal in his book

Um god without parts. I very much uh sympathize with that version of it. Uh, but again, that's something

I really need to um, To dig a little deeper in I did address Um in my own personal studies the issue of divine simplicity when

I was studying the topic of molinism uh, because there's actually interestingly enough the idea of god having middle knowledge is actually inconsistent with Um certain views of divine simplicity.

So there's actually a connection there So I don't know specifically where I stand there But I think that is a very important topic that when you get deeper to these issues, um, it very it very much becomes uh relevant

Okay Um, all right. Well, let's see Okay, all right,

I think that is it uh For the questions now i'm going on Uh, 56 minutes.

Okay. I don't want to go longer because I have work tomorrow. I have work tomorrow. Um Let's see here.

I think because I would merely argue the laws of logic can't be intelligent still without god Uh, let's see here. Um, there's not a question, but I think it's a comment.

So let me address this real quick Um arguing that god created the laws of logic looks like an evidential argument to me

I would think that the precept would merely argue that the laws of logic can't be intelligible understood without god Um, I think the the biblical perspective on the laws of logic is that the laws of logic are not created

Okay so if someone says well did god create the laws of logic the the Biblical answer and the christian answer would be

That god did not create the laws of logic the laws of logic are reflection of his thinking And so because they're a reflection of his mind and god's mind god is eternal then logic is eternal

But they're grounded in god himself. And so it's not something that is this. Um, you know, uh, this thing that god creates

You know because then you get into the issue of well If god created logic then he can create a different set of logic in which contradictions are true

You know you get into all these types of things that people bring up so we wouldn't say that god creates, uh logic

Um, we would say that it's a reflection of his uh of his thinking tanner terry gave 10 bucks. Thanks for your time

God bless. Thank you. Thank you so much tanner. I I really appreciate that Um, and I hope uh folks who who don't give super chats.

That's completely fine Uh, but uh for other people who are enjoying, uh these live streams and me taking the questions

I really appreciate you guys asking even doug even pine creek with his his questions

Which every time I read a question by doug, I feel like there's a trap somewhere. So i'm very hesitant

Uh, I appreciate doug's questions. I think um, you know asking questions the way that he does.

Uh, I might have some issues with how he asked some questions but on one level

I think it it keeps us sharp and causes us to think a little bit more about a perspective and find ways to um

Explain ourselves with more precision. So so even doug. I appreciate you doug. Okay Uh and tanner, thank you so much for uh, the 10 super chat.

That's greatly appreciated All right. Let's see. Uh All right.

Well, I think that's it I did have planned Uh, maybe you know what? Okay, we're up on an hour.

Let me spend some time Addressing some of these points that someone brought up in my comment section and I wanted to address it

Um, and so, uh, let me take the time to do that and then after that i'll wrap things up Okay. All right.

So I don't know this person's name. I just kind of grabbed these questions and there are a couple of people's names mentioned Um that won't have to get into too much detail, but someone asked the question

Okay, any give me give me a second. Okay I'm a teacher And so when i'm teaching, okay

Uh I talk a lot. All right, and so my voice is hoarse I was teaching all day and now i'm talking for an hour non -stop.

So one second As a matter of fact, I have a student who is in the live stream right now.

Hello. How's it going? I won't mention your name to protect your identity. Okay, but um,

I see you there. Thanks for for listening in bud. Okay All right. So let's see here

Uh, where was that objection? Let's see Okay, so someone asked what's your opinion on presuppositional apologetics being nothing more than a tactic to dismiss valid criticism

And shut down honest discussion. This isn't a snide remark, by the way. Thank you for clarifying

Most popular presuppers like sai matt slick and darth dawkins say it themselves But I want to know what your opinion is.

Well That's an interesting kind of question and I do appreciate the question Um, i'd have to say that I would disagree

With the idea that presuppositionalists, uh, presuppositional apologetics is quote Nothing more than a tactic to dismiss valid criticisms and shut down honest discussion

I mean, hopefully people see me as a presuppositionalist who is willing to have an open discussion

I mean, I try my best to understand what the skeptic is trying to say or whoever i'm speaking with um, so I don't think that the method is

Uh, the purpose of the method is to shut down You know these kinds of things right? I welcome valid criticism.

But what is often the case is that uh, Presuppositional methodology and argumentation is often misrepresented and misunderstood

By both christians and non -christians alike. And so the reasons for this misunderstanding

Obviously the reasons for it vary but what I found Is that many fail to do their due diligence and read much of the actual source material from folks like cornelius van till and greg

Vonson and you'll know that when they put forth their arguments you can tell they're not ignoring important issues now

You might disagree with them, but they're not ignoring important issues And they are addressing some of these deep philosophical issues that I think are important to this discussion

Now with regards to cy, cy tenbruggenkate, matt slick, darth dawkins. I can only speak for myself

But having known each of these guys i've spoken to matt's a good friend of mine. Cy is a friend

Uh darth dawkins, I I would say he's a friend as well. Never met him face to face But i've had some interesting conversations.

He's a Believe it or not. Believe it or not. I'm gonna break the internet with this When when i'm talking to darth dawkins and for those of you who are on discord

You'll know who darth dawkins is the infamous darth dawkins. Um, believe it or not He's a really nice guy

I'm gonna break the internet with that and I know a lot of people, you know have uh, you know A lot to say about darth and of course

I differ. We definitely differ in the our approaches Um, but I have spoken with him, um just on a personal level and I have found him to be a

A nice guy so I can only speak about myself But having known each of these guys I can assure you that they would not they would not admit

Like what was suggested in the question they would not admit or suggest that presuppositional apologetics is simply a tactic to disobey

Disobey dismiss valid criticism and shut down honest honest discussion now that being said

Whether they employ the method such that valid criticism and honest discussion can be had or not is a different matter

So as I said before I can only speak for myself But in my estimation most criticisms of the methodology that come from both christians and skeptics

A lot of them are not only bad in many cases They're really horrible and just miss the point of the argumentation entirely

Because um, they haven't actually read the source material or taken the time to really understand What is the presuppositional is trying to say now if that's not you?

Then great if you've read the literature and you're really trying to understand and you're asking, you know, good question. That's awesome

I commend you and I think that's how things should be done. Um, but that's how I would respond to that Uh, this person

I asked the question is precept just something you uh, just as my favorite one Is precept just something to say back to the atheist because you know, you really know that the evidence for god is really lacking

Okay uh Okay, so precept precept is not something you say

Okay, so the question is is precept just something to say back to the atheist because they know the evidence for god is lacking

Precept is a methodology. It's not just something you say, you know, I don't precept, you know Because I really

I want to argue presuppositionally because really deep down in my heart there really isn't evidence for god so I need to adopt this methodology because it creates this iron shield that uh, you know, uh,

Diverts the arrows of the enemies and objectives. No that that again a question like this I think demonstrates a lack of understanding of what a presuppositional apologetics is seeking to accomplish in its argumentation its methodology so for instance why would uh

Presuppositionalism be something to put forth because really in the real case. There's really the evidence for god is lacking

Presuppositionalists believe everything is evidence for god. Like I on like i'm i'm I'm going to be honest with you.

I'm looking straight into the camera Uh, I am on I honestly believe everything is evidence for god i'm not just saying that as kind of a

A methodological trick now now there might be skeptics watching and be like you I have a hard time believing that well, that's fine

But um, you don't have to believe me, but I honestly think everything is evidence for god And so when I use the presuppositional method

I use it because I think it's a biblical apologetic not because i'm trying to divert Answering a question or getting into some deeper issue now

Some people might do that, but that's accidental to the methodology. It's not an essential feature to the methodology.

So I think that's important to um, To keep in mind. Okay All right uh someone okay, this question is a fun question because um,

I resonate um, I resonate with um

I resonate with the frustration. Okay with this question. So, uh, i'm going to um

Read this question here. I think so. Someone says can somebody please you can tell when someone's frustrated Can somebody please put the presub argument in premises and conclusion format?

It's impossible to address in the word salad form. We get from people like and he mentions, uh, some presuppositionalism

Okay well I understand the frustration. Okay, but remember presuppositionalism

Presuppositional method uh methodology is a methodology of which we employ certain arguments of which the transcendental argument is is

One argument, okay So, um, you know, we can form it in different ways and it depends how the discussion goes

But I understand the frustration people want to see like well, what are the premises and I suppose you can put um, you know

The argument in a kind of a deductive form that might be a little helpful to kind of See what we're trying to say so but with regards to the folks that he mentions, you know

Uh that they think it's word salad when they maybe it is, uh, maybe it is But again, I can only speak for myself. So I Honestly don't think that the argument is all that unclear.

Um, but I can understand that things get lost in translation so When the questioner someone asked the question refers to the presub argument

I take That he's really referring to the transcendental argument for god's existence So the transcendental argument is pretty simple to understand in my opinion

As it is simply arguing that the christian worldview of which the triune god of scripture is part of is its foundation and grounding

All right, uh for the intelligibility of you know, knowledge logic, whatever, okay It provides the necessary preconditions for intelligible experience, right?

That's it So the presuppositional apologist argues in essence that if one rejects the triune god Then they would have they would not have any valid justification for anything whatsoever knowledge would be impossible

But of course knowledge is possible and therefore I think that the triune god, uh, Provides that necessary precondition.

Okay. Now that said I understand the frustration of folks who want to see the argument laid out more formally

So here is a deductive argument that I can give Um that I think is is helpful at least to structure in your mind

You don't have to say the argument in this way. Um, but you can lay out the argument. Um, uh deductively, uh premise one, um

If knowledge is possible, uh, the triune god exists, okay, or the triune god of scripture

However, you want to hash it out So if knowledge is possible the triune god exists premise one premise two knowledge is possible conclusion

Therefore the triune god exists. Okay, so that's an argument. Okay. Now, how do we defend?

Obviously, um, we're gonna have to define certain terms So we're gonna have to define what knowledge is because that's a hotly contested term

Okay, and this is all part of clearing the debris within the context of a debate So you can kind of get to some of the issues

So if the skeptic read, you know reads your argument or hears you say your argument if knowledge is possible the triune god exists

Knowledge is possible. Therefore the triune god exists. Um, the the skeptic has a right to ask you

Well, what do you mean by knowledge? Okay. What do you mean by the triune god? Can you explain that? Okay, but for the most part if you agree on what knowledge is, okay

And say you you know, you have the knowledge as a justified true belief or whatever, okay The real weight of the argument in that deductive form

I just gave is going to be in the transcendental premise Okay, which is premise one if knowledge is possible The triune god exists is just a roundabout way of saying that the triune god provides the necessary preconditions for knowledge

So if knowledge is possible then the triune god exists because he's the necessary precondition for that Okay. Now the way we defend that premise would have to be through a transcendental argument

So I can start off with my transcendental argument or if someone says I want to see a structure So I could understand more or less what you're trying to get at Then I could lay it out in deductive form and then defend the first premise transcendentally

So i'd move right back into the transcendental argument worldview critique all that sort of stuff Okay, so it can be laid out in in that kind of way if you you wanted to all right uh, all right

There's there's some more but I don't want to go too long because then otherwise, uh, no one will listen to the rest of this so Um, so that's it then that's that's all

I have for for this live stream guys, I completely and honestly mean this Thank you so much for your questions

Um, I learn when I read your questions Now there's a lot of questions that people ask that i'm familiar with and then there are some great questions that um

I've never heard asked in a particular way And so it makes me think and so I do appreciate you guys as kind of my uh, my youtube community, you know

Uh who watches and kind of gives these very thoughtful questions gives me a lot of things to to study up on so Uh, thank you so much for sharpening me

And um, I hope that the things that I have to say are are helpful to you in some way Okay.

Well, that's it for this live stream. Once again. Thank you so much and um, I will Notify folks on youtube and facebook when the next live stream is going up and that's it for today