Presuppositional Apologetics: Q & A

All right, looks like we are live. Hey everyone, this is Jake with X garage the podcast. We're with Elias Ayala that is kind of a mouthful

Thank you appreciate it I'm just Jake. It's pretty easy, you know, keep the name simple over here

So you're you're over in New York, correct? Yes. I'm on Long Island, which is that a little fish looking island right off New York Awesome.

Yeah, so I thought it'd be fun to have you on and kind of talk about your approach to Christian apologetics similar

Mindset as you I love what's called presuppositional apologetics. Love Greg Bonson, but I'd You're you seem to be an expert.

You've been in a few debates and Handy yourself very well so I just thought it'd be fun to have a moment just kind of get your your thoughts on the the method and Maybe just kind of introduce people to what that is.

And yeah your approach Yeah, well presuppositional apologetics is a specific kind of apologetic methodology

That's usually associated with those in the reformed camp those who consider themselves Calvinists Calvinists are not exclusively presuppositional you have folks like John Gerstner and RC Sproul who are

Were Classical apologists. So the classical apologetic school, which is a two -step approach in which you try to demonstrate the existence of a theistic

God by using the traditional proofs like the cosmological argument the teleological argument the moral argument and then when you establish the existence of a theistic

God Then you narrow down the scope to try to demonstrate that the theistic God that you've just Demonstrated is the

Christian one. And so classical apologists would then appeal to The historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, right?

And so they would they would argue along those lines to demonstrate the truth of the Christian perspective Classical apologetics is a bottom -up approach where you work your way up to the conclusion that God exists

And this is very different than the presuppositional Method the presuppositional method is a is a top to bottom approach

We start with the truth of the entire system of the Christian worldview and we argue that if it were not true

You couldn't you couldn't know anything at all. In other words the Christian system of thought is The necessary prerequisite to know anything at all to prove anything at all to use argumentation

To know any specific item of human experience So we would we would argue that the

Christian worldview system is the necessary Pre -condition for intelligible experience in other words

But what the Bible says about the world must be true in order for our very arguing to make sense now

Granted we believe that unbelievers or anyone that does not hold to the non -christian worldview. We believe that they do argue

We we believe that they use logic We believe that they actually know things but not because their worldview is true

But rather because they actually are borrowing from the Christian worldview system in order to To ground anything that they're done, of course, they're not doing this explicitly, of course, right?

But that's kind of along the line So we believe the Christian worldview is the necessary starting point for everything else that we do and we argue for it

I'm gonna use a philosophical term here. We argue for it transcendentally when you argue

Transcendentally you are asking what are the necessary preconditions for anything in human experience?

What must be true in order for what we're doing right now to be true? And so we argue that the

Christian system must be true in order for argumentation Logic science or anything like that to be rational.

Yeah, I heard you Give your debates and in some your podcast you talk about how?

like an example of this would be Transcendentally you can know logic to be valid because deny it and you accept it

Can you kind of talk about that? Maybe give some more pragmatic examples of how this method a methodology could be utilized

Right when you when you demonstrate something transcendentally when you argue along transcendental lines

What you're doing is you're showing the truth of what you're arguing for by the impossibility of the contrary

So in the debate that I had with negation of P I argued that we could know the laws of logic to be true and valid by the impossibility of the contrary that that's known

By the impossibility of the contrary. How do I know logic is true? How do I know logic exists? How do I know logic is is valid is that if you were to deny logic you would demonstrate their truth by your very denial since to rationally formulate a sentence and Deny logic if you were to say

I deny logic the very sentence that you just uttered presupposes logic since language presupposes those logical categories like the law of identity something is what it is and it's not what it's not the law of non -contradiction a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same sense and The law of excluded middle a statement is either true or false

My sentences that I speak already presuppose those categories Even if you do not know what those categories are called, you know, people don't walk around saying the law of identity, you know

But you presuppose it in every word that you utter Right. So one of the first complaints you hear obviously is is it sounds very circular what you're what you're doing?

And then they would probably go straight Well, even if you can show that that's true about my worldview you're left in the same position.

How do you approach that? well Circular are and people don't know this

I'm surprised that people don't recognize this that all forms of circularity are not fallacious

That's just that's just the fact especially when you're dealing with ultimate foundations so for example

If your philosophical perspective is that reason is my ultimate authority and I were to ask you how to how do you demonstrate that?

Reason is your ultimate authority. Well, you're gonna have to use your reason to demonstrate that reason is

Valid and so you're gonna have to assume the thing you're trying to prove and in in regards to your ultimate foundations

That's that's unavoidable. If your ultimate foundation in your epistemology or theory of knowledge, so to speak how we know what we know is

Empiricism that all knowledge comes through sense experience and I say demonstrate to me that Empiricism is you know, your senses are valid.

We're gonna use your senses to prove your senses and that's circular, right? Right. So when we're dealing with ultimate foundations all circular all circles so to speak are not invalid if you were to say sensation is my ultimate authority

But then you seek to demonstrate the validity of your sense your senses by appealing to something other than your senses

Then sensation is not your ultimate authority The other thing that you're appealing to to argue for sensation is your ultimate authority

And so for example when I start with the truth of the Christian worldview I do not demonstrate the truth of the

Christian worldview by appealing to something outside the Christian worldview Then otherwise the Christian worldview wouldn't be my ultimate starting point, right?

So when we're dealing with ultimates, we're all we're automatically dealing with an issue that cannot be demonstrated by an appeal to something external to itself

Right on so one of the things I think it was our seats for all that said this in kind of his criticism of presuppositional apologetics in that When you look at evidence in this manner

It kind of leaves you stuck in your tower and the other person is stuck in their tower unable to really bridge the gap

It obviously there are some people that take that more Clarkian approach, right? How do you see you know kind of touches them a little bit, but how do you see?

so having your presuppositions and Assuming those assuming, you know

Kind of where you're going at the beginning. How do you bridge that gap between saying atheist and yourself?

Yeah, well, we have to understand that the dispute between the Christian and the atheist is not a dispute over Individual pieces of evidence people said well give me evidence

God exists and you know And and people will try to demonstrate the truth of God using arguments that lead to the most probable

Conclusion that that God exists right and they'll argue over specific evidences using certain arguments and things like that But we need to understand this is vitally important if someone is going to do presuppositional apologetics

Is that you need to understand that the nature of the dispute between the Christian the unbeliever is a disagreement over?

Worldview systems. I have an ultimate foundation. My ultimate foundation is the Word of God right, there's nothing higher for me than the authority of God's work and That is not unique to the

Christian for the non -christian the atheist He has his own Bible so to speak and his

Bible his ultimate authority is going to be whatever his Intellectual ultimate authority is for many atheists who are naturalists, you know, if they are metaphysical naturalists

They believe that all of reality is is fundamentally matter in motion their Epistemology their theory of knowledge is going to probably be something along the lines of empiricism knowledge comes through sensation

Right, and so for him sensation will be his Bible it is his ultimate starting point anything that I give from my perspective

That I'm that I'm gonna say is true if it's not validated through the census He's gonna throw it out why because my argument needs to be filtered through his ultimate authority, which affects how he interprets everything

Right. Our worldviews are the lens the intellectual lens through which we interpret all aspects of reality

So if his lens if he's operating on a naturalistic atheistic worldview, he's gonna filter everything that I say to him through that lens and I'm gonna filter everything he says to me through the

Lens of Scripture and so we're gonna have fundamental disagreement over literally every fact I would argue with some people from the atheist and the

Christian We would even disagree over what a cow is if we were to take the animal a cow.

What is a cow in? Practical in a practical sense we can talk about cows in a conversation, but metaphysically we're gonna we're gonna disagree

I believe a cow is a created thing whereas the atheist is gonna is it doesn't see the cow as a create so fundamentally we're gonna disagree as to what the nature of Specific things are because we have a different outlook on life.

And so you've been good Go ahead or even like the number one for instance

You get into the philosophy of mathematics and what's what is the ontological status of numbers?

If there is and are you a realist in regards to mathematics and non realist in regards to mathematics all of these things when you?

push Past the practical level there's gonna be a fundamental disagreement between the believer and unbeliever because we have different worldviews

And so the argument goes and the criticism goes if we have fundamentally different worldview perspectives

Which affect how we interpret things and the conclusions that we come to how can we ever communicate with each other?

Where is there common ground and for the presuppositionalist? We believe there is common ground between the believer and unbeliever.

What we deny is neutral ground We don't believe there's neutral ground that there's a there's any fact of human experience that we could

Understand in a neutral fashion we think that common ground is the fact that the unbelievers made in the image of God even if he rejects that and From the

Christian perspective because the unbelievers made in the image of God it is possible to communicate to him through Argumentation through appeals to logic and things like that while he cannot

Account for logic in his atheistic worldview. We know because he's made in the image of God He must use logic even to argue.

So my job is the apologist is to Not provide the unbeliever with new information

Like hey, how about you consider this and maybe you can come to the conclusion God exists My job is the apologist is to unmask the unbelievers suppression of truth to show him that he knows the

God that I'm speaking about and the way that we do that is to show that in the on the one hand when he denies

God with his mouth isn't his Argumentation his reasoning capacities and all these other things are actually being borrowed from the

Christian worldview and cannot be accounted for it within His own worldview and so the nature of the discussion is that I'm going to be peeling away the mask of the unbeliever to show that the things that you're doing only make sense if what the

Bible says is true and We try our best to do that by pointing, you know logic for example

How do you have immaterial laws of logic in a world where all there is is matter in motion?

if all that exists is matter in motion and you have Physicality, which is the fundamental aspect of reality.

How do you have transcendent immaterial invariant laws of logic? You you're arguing using logic as the naturalist does they use logic and sometimes they do it often better than than believers

But how do you make sense out of the utilization of non -material laws of thought in a world?

That is purely physical. You see you're using tools that refute your own worldview perspective

But can only be grounded within the Christian perspective and within the context of a respectful conversation.

I would point that out and And hopefully we can move forward in the discussion there great I think one of the things that they would probably come back to and I've seen this a couple times where they'll say

Yeah, but really your ultimate foundation is senses as well like even when you read the

Bible you're using your five senses Yeah, well we would make a distinction between and this is really important because people will say, you know

Reason is my ultimate authority and the Christian will say well the Bible is my ultimate authority and then the unbelievers gonna be like Well, you need reason to read your

Bible. So, you know clearly reason must be your ultimate authority Well, we want to make a very clear distinction between what we would call proximate starting points and ultimate starting points

Proximate starting points and ultimate starting points. My proximate starting point is my reason you're right.

I have the reason to to read the Bible, but my ultimate starting point is

The is the Word of God the triune God of Scripture as many presuppositionalist would would say and what that means is that while I use my reasoning to read the

Bible, I also affirm the metaphysical reality that is given to us in Scripture that that Metaphysical reality must be true to even make sense out of the reasoning that I'm using

So while I must use my reason in my sensation, I do not use that Independently from affirming the worldview system in which that makes sense

You see the unbeliever wants to use reason But he lacks a metaphysical context in which reason can make sense.

So for example Sorry, I'm getting an incoming call. Just cut that. There we go So for example, if you are saying reason is my ultimate authority

But you do not have a meta view of or a theory of reality, which we call metaphysics

How can you make sense out of reasoning? You need to know what reality is like in order to say that this makes sense within that context

Reasoning is not done in a vacuum logic is not used in a vacuum There's a metaphysical context in which those things must be planted

Otherwise, you're just arbitrarily using these tools, but you're not accounting for them a Christian worldview says yes

I use my senses I use my reasoning but these make sense and we could account for them given the metaphysical

Context in which I'm doing them. What is that metaphysical context the Word of God and the

Ontological Trinity that God is a Trinity. He is the Ontological and metaphysical context in which something like logic reason and all these other things make sense.

So we have proximate starting points Yes, I use my senses and I touch I smell but I can only make sense out of them because of the broader

Metaphysical context in which I find myself namely the context that's revealed to us in Scripture Great, and then so another common direction for them to go after that.

I in my experience is so what about Islam right so they have a similar starting point as you why do you think that you have a better starting point than they do?

Hmm. Well first we want to understand the biblical basis for the apologetic approach and I think

Greg Bonson who was a famous presuppositionalist he pointed out that the

The nature of our argumentation is very well reflected in the book of Proverbs chapter 26 verse 4

Which at first glance sounds very contradictory. Here's what it says It says do not answer a fool according to his folly or you yourself will be just like him and then it says

Answer a fool according to his folly lest he become wise in his own eyes So which is it?

Are we to not answer the fool or are we to answer the fool? Well, I mean, this is not a contradiction

I mean the the the not answering the fool is just the previous verse of the other the following verse answer the fool

Obviously the writer of Proverbs is not telling us contradictory things in just the next sentence so the

The issue is that both are true and they are applicable to apologetics for the presuppositionalist

We do not answer a fool according to his folly that is to say that we do not adopt Unbelieving thought categories when we're engaging with the unbeliever because if we do we're gonna be starting from a foolish starting point, right?

We'll be like the ones who build their house on the sand as opposed to one who build their house on a rock But then the

Bible says also answer the fool according to his folly Hypothetically grant the unbelievers position to show where it leads and when we do that we show that it leads to foolishness

This is what you call an internal critique We grant hypothetically the truth of the unbelievers perspective to show where that leads now when you're talking about the

Muslim The Muslim grants certain things namely the the writings of Moses and You know the

Injil the gospel of Jesus and when we appeal to Moses for example in Deuteronomy where he gives us the test of the true prophet, right

We see that Muhammad on his own basis fails that miserably he grants us For example, the

Quran teaches us that we are to test The words of Muhammad by what has gone before Right, and what has gone before?

Well the gospel of Jesus and the writings of Moses, but when we look at those sources they seem to Muhammad contradicts what has gone before and when you appeal to say for example the teachings of Jesus and is his claims to deity

And you look at what's there in the Gospels and what Jesus taught. What does the Muslim say? Well, the Christian scriptures were corrupted.

Ah So the Christian scriptures were corrupted So then how could I use the test that is given to us in the

Quran which says to test what has gone before? The Quran is telling me test what test what

Muhammad is saying by what has gone before But when I appeal to the things that have come before you're telling me they've been corrupted so now the the

Quran is teaching me to test by a Standard that now the Muslim is saying doesn't exist because it's been corrupted So now

I have to just now take what the Muslim is saying just on the Muslims own authority you see so it

Islam shoots itself in the foot and really There's no way to validate whether it's true by using the

Quran's own standard That's just one way we can grant hypothetically what the

Muslim is saying to show that it kind of late leads to a dead end also metaphysically because the

Muslim conception of God denies the Trinity you get into deeper philosophical issues of and we don't have to get into it here

But there's a deep philosophical issue called the one and the many and this was a question that Occupied the minds of philosophers throughout ancient

Greece where they tried to make sense out of both unity and diversity in reality Which was more fundamental?

unity or diversity Those who said unity was more fundamental

They would say unity is the most fundamental aspect of reality. And so diversity is illusory

It's illusion and so you have like Pantheistic views that that derive from that Then you have people on the other side of the spectrum that said the fundamental aspect of reality is plurality and so there you had the atomists those kind of like atheistic perspective where the fundamental aspect of reality is matter in motion these kind of these individual atoms make up the fundamental aspect of reality but then how do you make sense out of things that that unify unify things for example if everything is

Plurality then how do you get the laws of logic which are laws of thought which unify everything? So so if you were an atomist you couldn't account for logic if you were, you know

A pantheist and everything is one then you have to say that human experience is illusion So these

Greek philosophers tried to grapple which is more fundamental and on Islam You have to have the fundamental aspect of reality must be one since a lot is one

He's not a try unity of persons but the fundamental aspect of reality for the Christian is the triune

God the Ontological Trinity in which unity and plurality are equally ultimate one does not derive from the other

They are equally ultimate given the nature and essence of the triune God. And so from the triune perspective we can ground reality and the one and the many which provide a foundation for logic making sense out of the oneness of things and the

Plurality of things so that's a much deeper philosophical issue, but it is related to other things like knowledge

You know when I make a statement about something in a human experience that statement itself in a very profound way

Presupposes both unity and plurality. How do you account for that? You can't do it on Islam. How do you account for love on in on Islam love?

What seemed to be something that is based in relationship? But Allah being one in nature and essence doesn't have relationship unless he creates and so love is actually a contingent property for the

God of Islam whereas Relationship and love is an essential feature of the triune God since prior to the creation of all things

He was in eternal relationship within the persons of the Trinity So again, you can go in a bunch of different directions and they're huge and interesting implications by going off those rabbit trails

But that's how I would address that philosophical Internal critiques or a sort of you. All right

So if if any aspect of God is contingent on his relationship to creation like him

Needing another to love he can't be that property. So God would be unable to be love at that point

Uh, yes, I wouldn't say that contingent property isn't necessarily a bad thing

I think God may have properties. For example, God is Our Savior, but prior to creation there was no one to save So right ever say so see if it's not always a bad thing, but I know

Yeah, good. I was to say because I think you know if they consider Scripture to be still a

Foundational thing, you know, they still I think they would think of God as being love himself

But they are not able to justify that within their position, right? Right, and I think another important thing too when you're asking what are the preconditions for intelligible experience if the foundation?

Of your worldview is a God who is able to lie How do you escape the paradox of a

God who may be lying to you? You see from the Christian perspective people bring this up, you know, hey, mr.

Christian How do you know you're not being deceived by an evil God? Well again, this this brings up the issue of internal external worldview critiques to say that God might possibly be evil

Is not an internal critique of my worldview because within my worldview, it's impossible for God to be a deceiver

So what you're doing is you're critiquing my worldview with a hypothetical Example that comes from outside my worldview which is an invalid way to critique a worldview in the first place

But on Islam God can deceive Now you can say well, but the

Quran says he's this way that yeah, but maybe that's part of the deception So, how can you have a God who might feasibly be lying to you be the foundation for knowledge?

Because anything you claim to know may be false because it may be a product of the misleading of your

God Which is which is your foundation? So so there's a whole bunch of issues that are related to To that if you adopt a

Muslim perspective or or any other kind of perspective in which The God who is your ultimate foundation is able to deceive in that way right on and then just one last thing

So a lot of this gets really kind of up in the air Hard to understand for a lot of people how if somebody wants to get into presuppositional apologetics

Or approach things from what they would consider a more biblical approach Do you have any advice on how do you have conversations with your average

Joe that you know because it does get pretty easy to take these concepts and just kind of Yes, you know destroy people with them

Yes, and they can be very complicated and and of course I think the risk is to get bogged down in a lot of the philosophical terminology and and for me

I often I often do that because My access to presuppositional apologetics was through Van Til and Bonson which they were addressing a lot of these philosophical issues so we kind of adopt the language, however, one of the

The great desires of Greg Bonson if people who are listening to this don't know who Greg Bonson is They should really look him up a

Greg Bonson Bonson is be a h -n -s -c -n. And if you want to Introduction to apologetics.

What was that? I said, correct. You got I got the spelling, right? But if they're interested in kind of being introduced to they want to they really want to get the book always ready

Which is a series of articles a book, but it's a series of Bonson's outlines

Giving the biblical foundation for apologetics and how it's applied and he doesn't a very easy to understand way but one of the great desires of Bonson before he passed was to Really take presuppositional apologetics as he would call it to the streets so that the average person can use this now think about it if presuppositional apologetics is the biblical method and That that would mean that everyone who's a

Christian should be able to use it God's not going to command us to do something but then not give us the tools to actually do what he commands

So the principles the principles of presuppositional apologetics are right there in Scripture, you know

For example that passage in Proverbs 26 I think it's 26 for where it says answer the fool and don't answer the fool

You can use in a very practical way that method with anyone. Okay, if what you're saying about the world is true

Mr. Unbeliever, whoever you're talking to, you know, try and show ask questions try and show where that leads, you know show where you know

That it leads to foolishness now You ask questions and you you kind of you know, you need to kind of engage in conversation and things like that But the method is quite simple

Don't adopt the unbelieving thought patterns of the world stay committed to the foundation of Scripture But hypothetically grant what the unbeliever saying to show where it leads and you're gonna have to learn a little bit about what the unbeliever

You know Believes and ask questions and things like that but Bob Bonson was famous for saying that you know, let the unbeliever talk because He'll actually give you just the right amount of rope that you need to hang him

And of course, he didn't mean that in a violent way But but oftentimes the unbelievers will give you just what you need to show the absurdity of their own position

I'll give an example. I was speaking with a friend who was an atheist. He was a metaphysical naturalist

He believed all that existed was matter in motion. And so he believed that human beings were purely physical

That's it no immaterial aspect to man and so I had told my friend ready I don't believe that as a

Christian obviously, but I'm going to answer the fool according to his folly All right, so you believe that human beings are purely physical, right?

He's like, that's right. And I say do you know that? The physical body is constantly changing.

He's like, yeah, it's like your cells get recycled and stuff So physically you're not the same person you were a moment ago

He's like that's correct And I said so if you are constantly changing and you don't have anything that endures throughout time on your view

You have no enduring personal identity It's kind of like what

Heraclitus the ancient Greek philosopher said a man never steps into the same river twice You step into the water you step out but when you step back in the water that your feet was touching already flowed downstream and That's the same thing with physical objects

If you're purely physical then you have no personal identity since your purse your physical makeup is constantly changing and you know what?

He said he said yeah, that's right He says I don't exist because I don't have personal identity throughout time and I said that's interesting

So I guess I win the debate don't I he's like, what do you mean? He's like, well if you don't exist I'm not arguing with anybody and he's like wait, that's not what

I meant. Wait, I that's not what I meant I assumes personal identity throughout time you see

His view if we Granted it we can show the silliness of where it leads and that was one example

He saw precisely where I was going with that now a more a more

I don't want to say slick a More intelligent atheist who understands the implications of that perspective will not always

Tell you straight out, you know his view sometimes people that I've spoken with and this is not everyone, of course

They will hide their own perspective so that you don't have much to attack and then they'll bombard you with a bunch of questions

That's why it's important to ask Questions it is not your job as a defender of the faith to sit back and answer every single objection that the unbeliever raises

You know you have a right to ask questions too, right? And so we want to make sure that we don't get bullied into a corner answering objection after objection after objection

We want to be able to interact with the person and see what that person's worldview is Let them put all their cards on the table because as a

Christian, that's what we want to do. Hey, I believe the Bible I believe the Christian worldview you could ask me anything about the

Christian world This is what I believe sometimes people are slick and they hide what they believe So that there's really nothing you can shoot at and they they put themselves in a position where all they need to do is sit

Back and deny everything you say, but then when you ask them their own position, then they they don't do it They'll say something like well, you're making the claim that God exists

So that you know, it's the burden of proof is on you not me and you got it. You want to be careful for that? Yeah, I shared a meme today on or a couple days ago on our

Instagram page. That was somebody saying I Had a picture like of a lumberjack and basically saying

Hey, don't tell me it's fine If you believe what you want to believe but don't tell me that I should believe the same thing

Right, you know or don't don't tell me that I should do what you're doing and basically just kind of Finding those moments of self -refuting statements, you know where they're trying to tell you hey

Don't don't tell me what to do, but they're doing the same thing in the same, right? Right, don't shove your views down my throat and then you say fine

I won't shove my views down your throat if you don't shove your views Namely the view that I shouldn't shove my views down others down my throat

And it's really important to recognize self -reputing statements Because a lot of times

Christians who really haven't looked into these things don't know how to recognize them And there are common ones out there, you know, for example

You have the view out there called scientism Scientism is the view that all knowledge comes through scientific

Investigations and demonstration so they'll say something to the effect all knowledge comes through scientific demonstration

That sounds you know, like oh my goodness, well, I guess we haven't scientifically proven it do we really know it

But then when you reflect upon the nature of that statement if all knowledge comes through answer the full now, right?

If all knowledge comes through scientific demonstration or an experimentation what scientific experiment?

Did you did you do to come to that conclusion? So if the statement is true all knowledge comes through scientific demonstration

But they didn't come to that article of knowledge through scientific demonstration, then they don't know it. So if it's true, it's false so again being equipped with a little bit of logic and being able to kind of Show the absurdity is some of these kind of like atheist quips.

I think are helpful in moving the conversation Clarifying and things like that.

Great. Hey, well guys, I'm gonna wrap this thing up Thank you so much Eli for taking some time to talk with me about presuppositional apologetics

Where where can people find your stuff? Will you be writing any books ever all that stuff? Well, I'm super busy too busy to write a book right now, but it definitely is on on the the bucket list

Um, they can look me up on Facebook Revealed apologetics and I post videos and things like that.

I also work for the Historical Bible Society Which is this great organization where the guy that I work for is a trial lawyer, but on his spare time

He collects biblical manuscripts a museum quality stuff in which he brings and lays out all this stuff to wherever they invite him for free and he

Talks about the history and integrity of the Bible. So historical Bible Society org you can you can check there

We have an apologetics blog called take 10 on there where I write a lot of articles And you can would be very helpful if people are really interested interested in this stuff

They could download my podcast on iTunes Revealed apologetics and if they have any questions, or they want me to speak somewhere or whatever

They can contact me at revealed apologetics at gmail .com Well, the podcast is very good and by the way,

I think that the intro music is fine Cool all right.