Response to Cringy Comments

Okay, all right, welcome back to another episode of revealed apologetics I'm your host

Eli Ayala and today I am joined with my good friend Joel set a case and he's gonna introduce himself in just A few moments, but first I want to give you guys a heads up Joel is a

Christian apologist and he is a presupposition list and obviously those who watch this channel are are interested in that in that topic

I just recently watched a debate Discussion between Joel and an atheist by the name of Ben Watkins Ben Watkins very nice guy probably one of my favorite atheists.

He's very respectful He's kind of a book nerd like myself. I know he had a baby not that long ago

And so, you know He felt that the real he felt the reality of a busy schedule and so he had to revert from his physical books to his audible his audible

Book so cuz when you're holding a baby, you know, you can't really you know Read your physical books and have your giant, you know fat philosophical text text in front of you

So I very much resonated with him on that. I seems like a really nice guy, but but I think

Joel exemplified in a in an excellent way the presuppositional approach and He was able to tie in the gospel towards the end.

So if if you are interested in looking at that exchange Perhaps Joel in just a moment when he introduces himself more formally he can point you guys in that direction

I I'm being serious If you want to see what a presuppositional approach looks like like in a in a rational respectful discussion very philosophical

They talk about ethics and things like that. You want to look at this interaction? I thought he did a stellar job, but enough of me gushing about my good brother

Joel Joel You are your mic is off. So be sure you turn it on But why don't you say hi to everyone and then share a little bit about yourself and where folks can find you, bro

I'm just so thrilled to be doing another collaboration with you spin. I don't know what what our last one was

Oh, you know what? It was it was after I did my Debate with Tom jump. We did we did a recap on that you were gracious enough to have me on and we

Unpacked that debate and before that I think it was we did a preset for the kiddos We did presuppositional apologetics for kids.

So it's it's great man. I love being on your show I'm obviously a big supporter of what you do.

I learn a ton from you you know whether I'm just watching your stuff or if I'm calling you before I have a debate like Eli like Help prep me, you know, like Kind of like how

I heard that that Trump recently called Tulsi Gabbard to help him prep to debate

Kamala So you're like the Tulsi Gabbard To me. All right. I Just I want

I want you to know how much that means to me. I appreciate that. Okay. Well, thank you very much for that That's awesome But I I am the president of the think

Institute we're a Christian teaching and outreach organization Primarily aimed at helping Christian men lead their families in the biblical worldview and answer every question and objection to the

Christian faith You can find out more at the think Institute or after this is done head on over to our

YouTube channel It's simply the think Institute where you can get all of our videos We've got tons of resources and stuff that we're doing for men's discipleship

Family Bible studies that sort of thing. So very very happy to be here. Yeah.

Well, excellent I appreciate you making the time to be here and folks I know we kind of do these introductions as kind of formalities and whatnot

But I I highly recommend if you have not checked out Joel set a case and the think Institute Please head over there

Even if you open up another window and then go over to his channel and subscribe that he's got some great

Content, especially after I listened to the I mean I I can call Joel so I have his number, right? I can call him and I could say hey and I did after his debate with with Ben.

I was like, hey, man I thought you did a great job but I Became a fan in the sense that like, you know what?

I gotta listen to Joel stuff I don't think I consciously listened to the content on podcasts And so I've been listening to past episodes and I think

Joel isn't is a is a wonderful resource So when people ask me what are some good resources on apologetics and things related to that?

I'm going to highly recommend the think Institute. So please go over there and support

Joel now without further ado I want to now set the context for this particular video now

Joel you did and watch the video That I made

That this video that we're on here this live stream that we're responding to comments to the video that I put out now

I don't know what happened, but that particular video is only a half hour long and it attracted almost every stereotypical internet atheist

Drive -by comments and at 17 minutes and 50 seconds I don't know if you don't have to know the timestamp, but I could

I remember me saying I'm gonna make a prediction Here's what I'm saying and here's what

I'm not saying and I bet you anything Someone in the comments will say Oh Eli So what you're saying is fill in the blank and I said,

I hope I'm wrong because I went be I went I bend over backwards To explain what

I meant and what I wasn't saying and I provided reasons for why I said

What I said, okay, you can disagree with those reasons. You can think my reasons are false okay, but to pretend

I didn't explain myself and Then just say oh, so what you're saying is

I'm self -deceived Oh, yeah, blah blah blah and I'm just like when I get the cuz

I have my youtube account Connected to my my watch. So every time I get a comment,

I get a buzz and I'm a teacher So I'll look down and I'll see all this cringy calm. I'm like man. Did the person even watch what?

What I did so can you can you summarize your take on what

I was saying and then we'll kind of Interact with some of the comments on that video

How did you take me in terms of what I was saying and what and what I wasn't saying? so I listened to the video twice and You know, here's how it seemed to me it seemed as though you were you were talking about There was there's an argument that is put forward by atheists if Christianity were true.

I would believe in God or I would know God. There's different variations of it. I Don't know

God or I don't believe in God therefore Christianity is false or therefore Christianity is not true and you started out by laying out that argument and what you said was this is a

Valid argument the conclusion follows the premises, correct? So, you know an argument is valid I know, you know this

Eli but for the virtue of anyone. No, no, please say it because I know Yeah, okay so a valid argument is one in which the conclusion follows from the premises and so the argument if Christianity then

I know God I Don't know God therefore not Christianity. That is a valid argument, correct?

And And so what you're saying is look that's Valid, but it's not sound and the reason why it's not sound is because the premises aren't true and you in a very gracious way

And I'll say to you what you said back. Well, you said to me earlier. I'll say it right back to you You handled it in a very gracious way

Kind of in your in your light -hearted You know Puerto Rican East Coast kind of way, you know

You just like like look with a twinkle in your eye just kind of explain Look, I take

I would take issue with one of these premises and the premise is that I don't know

God And then what you did was in very Greg Bonson fashion or Cornelius Vantillion fashion you explained how the the non -christian is

Suppressing the truth that he or she knows about God But in a way that leads to actual self -deception and you talked about first -order beliefs and second -order beliefs

And I'm gonna need your help unpacking a little bit what you said there I listened to it again this afternoon and I'm like, okay, I think I got it

But I was also listening to it at 2x speed. So I'm like, okay, I think I really Puerto Rican talking very fast

And but you were talking about how When someone is self -deceived, but they're suppressing the truth at a certain level they they know

God But then do they know that they know God do they believe that they believe in God and it's up here that there's there's suppression

Going on and unless I've got that backwards, but the idea is they they might not be conscious of the fact that they know

God, but then what you did was you showed how Their other beliefs about the universe about the the way the world works

Reveal that they do know God. So for example believe in absolute ethical norms

Not not every atheist you even mentioned atheistic idealists who would believe in immaterial

Moral norms and things like that, but for an atheist who's a strict materialist. Well, you don't get

Moral absolutes you don't get abstract objects like moral absolutes You talked about quite a lot about the uniformity of nature and how we assume uniformity

Everybody assumes uniformity, but that's a belief that makes sense within the Christian world Do you not in the atheistic worldview?

So you went you went through you talked about I believe you talked about laws of logic I believe you talked about science.

I think you talked about I know you talked about morality And so, um, yeah you laid that out and you said by assuming these things the atheist is revealing that Bottom level belief that they do actually know

God even if up here They're not aware of that belief for for various reasons and I don't right we can get into why that is

But right and and so what I wasn't simply saying and this is what I said in the video I'm not saying the unbeliever is self -deceived and that's it.

It's just a bare authority claim I offered what I think is evidence of that self -deception by giving examples

The job of the atheist then is to disagree with my examples And show that the things that I'm saying your world you can't account for you can in fact account for them

And I've had drive -by comments on the quote on the in the video. I can account for those things and that was it

I'm like, okay. So how do you account for them? Like you have an answer to Hume and problem of induction like where are they like they didn't give me anything, right?

So there's really nothing to respond to and the things that are that I'm we're gonna be responding to here.

I mean that again They're just they're just they're just not it shows that the people watching and commenting are not listening to what

I'm saying I'm not a perfect communicator But I am a teacher. I teach middle school students.

So I'm not a bad communicator Like I've bent over backwards Anticipating how someone might receive my argument and I tried to expand on that and stills it's not enough, right?

And so I'm trying I'm trying Joel right here. Here's a Comment from babyfoot here.

Thank you, baby foot for this comment because this is this is this is the comments I get a lot I hope you'll not only respond to cringy comments, but also to substantive ones

I've bent over backwards on the I don't even know if there's a channel out there That focuses on the details of presuppositional ism and answering objections as much as this one

Maybe there is but I try my best. I I've I've responded to the probably the most the most difficult

Objection to transcendental arguments the Stroud Ian objection. I've made videos on that I've made videos responding to the claim that that Presuppositional is presuppositional ism is fallaciously circular.

I've made videos that presuppositional is confused ontology with epistemology I've responded to that I've responded to the top

Arguments and then I'm told well, why don't you deal with the real objections? I'm like well Which one which ones are those because everything that I see in the comments and I'm reading them

They're really bad. Like I'm sure they're good responses where we can interact, but they just it's it's a drive -by commenting and they're just Showing at no evidence that they're actually listening to what

I'm saying and you can disagree with me. That's fine But if I were to say can you repeat back to me what

I they're not even close not even close So that's the impression I get it can be very challenging and I know why presuppositional is

Not you or I of course, right? But presuppositional is tend to come across very mean is because sometimes they feel like their words are being twisted

And now I'm feeling that a lot. So what do you think of that Joe, dude? You know, you mentioned this when we were talking the other day.

We were talking on the phone I was at the park with my kids and I'm talking to you and You made that that very same comment you list that I won't say

I won't say who we talked about but there's a few presuppers out there who it's like though the the weight of Having so many discussions and being misrepresented so many times and misunderstood and maligned

So many times has formed this hard Shell where it's just like Alright, all the the the graciousness is going away and you're just gonna get short terse answers

And I'm just gonna destroy your worldview and that's all you're gonna get and I Do see the rationale there?

I get it. I will say that the the people that I think of who to take that approach.

They don't generally come from I Think that I would come from a different theological tradition than them

I think my my theological tradition tends to be more evangelistic and maybe just my personality is a little bit more evangelistic

I'm always trying to connect Apologetics back to evangelism. And so for me,

I'm thinking there's a there's two verses that really Resonate in my head and I don't always do this perfectly by any stretch

But second Timothy to 24 and 25 talk about how the man of God must not be quarrelsome

He should refute his opponents, but he should do so gently and I'm paraphrasing but the hope is that the

Holy Spirit Will grant the person repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth. That's always what we're trying to go for.

But yeah, you could see how And and I think maybe where you see that in myself where I see that myself more is in some of the comments

I'll get I'll get comments on my youtube channel. Some of which are very dark and demonic I mean legitimately demonic but then some that are your drive -by angry atheists just trolling and I've Learned to just shut those down very quickly

Because ain't nobody got time for that. That's right. There's some great wisdom in that right ain't nobody got But but you know what people

I try to make time for that I deal with I deal with the good objections Whether you think

I successfully do it or not I try to deal with the good objections and I even try to a scour the comment section and be like this is pretty bad

But you know what? Let me offer my thoughts And yeah, I'll get hatred as well. And it's so funny when

I when I debated John Tom jump myself. There were two comments I don't I mean, I usually don't read comments in the atheist section on the atheist channel, but there were two comments

They were they were right after each other one said Wow This Eli guy seems like the nicest presupposition list

I've ever seen in in debate And then the next comment literally is this is the most arrogant presupposition list

I've ever seen How can how can you be seeing the same thing and come to complete oppa and and and I don't think

Tom jump thought that I was arrogant. I thought we had a really good discussion Yet there are people who?

Really take this extreme like oh you just because they disagree with you Then they also have to like project and say hey this person is a horrible person when there's no reason to go that route

Well and horrible by what standard? Yeah. Well, that's it. Well, yeah, don't say that because then there's a pre -slept script again

But yeah, okay. Well, let's well, let's jump into some of these Okay, so so my first the first comment here is was was given and by the way

The argument that I was responding to is the following argument Okay If God exists,

I would know that God exists because my argument as a Christian is to say that all people have a knowledge of God, right?

So if the Christian God exists, I know that he exists in the second premise. I don't know that God exists

This is the Atheist making the argument. I don't know that God exists Therefore God doesn't exist and as Joel said that is a that is a formally valid argument

The conclusion does in fact follow from the premises and of course, I was disagreeing with the second premise I actually agree with the first premise

If the Christian God exists and the Christian worldviews true part of the Christian worldview is that all men have a knowledge of God So I agree with the first premise.

It's that second premise that I took issue and then I gave my detailed response So here's the first comment

Joel. This is from golden alt alt 3166 he says so you think this is after I said everything

So people can be deceived about important religious issues. Is that because you've experienced that yourself?

All right, so So this person seems to think that my argument is boiling down to the mere

Assertion that people are self -deceived right and then that's my entire point Which of course I explicitly said that was not my entire point and I proceeded to explain right?

So that's not what I'm saying at all. I provided a clear rationale for why I argue that unbelievers are self -deceived

Okay, the accusation that I'm merely engaging in name -calling yourself deceive

Nana Nana poo -poo, right? It's on unfounded okay, my intention was to explain my reasoning in detail to prevent this very kind of misunderstanding and Unfortunately, it appears that no matter how thoroughly

I explain the position They're still going, you know, there's gonna be someone out there So this is what you're saying, even though I say that don't that's not what

I'm saying So, what do you what are your thoughts there? So someone you know, you you do a video like what I did and someone comes across with with a statement like this

How would you respond? I would say I Would lean into that I would say yes, absolutely

We can be self -deceived. You know how we know we can be self -deceived even as Christians first John 1 8 says that if we say we have no sin

We deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. So literally that phrase it's essentially it's self -deception

So what is self -deception self -deception is in John's example here it's saying that we have no sin

Well, why would we ever say we have no sin? It's because we're not listening to the Holy Spirit who convicts us of sin It's because we're not studying the word and we're you know, we're not reading those passages that would call out sin

In other words, we're getting away from God's Word. We're not listening to the Holy Spirit We're not spending time in prayer.

We're moving away from God when Scriptures message is very consistent when you move away from God's revealed truth

You move towards self -deception and you really have to there's only there's a there's only two ways of living you can live as if Jesus Christ is the

Lord of the universe or you can live as if you are the Lord of the universe and The only way you could possibly support that kind of lifestyle without going absolutely insane is to say things like well

I have no sin. I I'm good. I'm I deserve to be in this position It's the exact same thing that the atheist is doing or the skeptic is doing by rejecting

God rejecting his word He has to become his own standard. So so yes self -deception is a very real thing for us as well but it's not the same kind of self -deception as So for as the atheist commits so for us

Eli if we start to get too big for our bridges a little too haughty or whatever We can start to self -deceive but then

God's Word is there to pull us back on the Sunday sermon is there to pull us back You know your wife and your kids these all the people that God's put in our lives to humble us and to to bless us

They they pull us back All right and because we're standing on the foundation of Faith in Jesus Christ and we have the

Holy Spirit we come back to Jesus and we go and Lord I was so I was deceiving myself I was getting too big for my britches again saying

I didn't have any sin. Forgive me The self -deception of the atheist is is vastly different because whereas the

Christian is standing on solid ground The atheistic worldview is standing on shifting sand the the self cannot serve as a solid

Foundation but to be an atheist you have to imagine that it is you have to imagine that this the foundation of sand is

As solid as a rock you have to constantly be lying to yourself My worldview can support this conclusion.

My worldview can support that observation My worldview can support this belief or this lack of belief for this interaction, but it can't so you're constantly

Suppressing the truth and what ends up happening is you've got layers and layers of layers of self -deception at the end of the day

There's really nothing there. It's empty It's Ecclesiastes saying everything is meaningless, you know, everything is meaningless under the

Sun and so um, so that's that's my thought you is This something I've experienced myself

Yes, absolutely, but I go back to God's Word and I would call the atheist who's saying that and it's I get it

I get it. It's a sly comment, right? It's kind of like you get one point for the slyness for sure Oh as but but it's trying to equivocate between the

Christian life and the atheistic Position and you just can't do that. It's a false equivalency. Yeah, and and and We have a standard by which to measure and identify when self -deception is happening

Right, we can be brought back to the truth of Scripture even if you just you disagree with but but here's the thing Well, the atheist might be listening to this and be like, well

But how do you if you can if you admit that you can be self -deceived and how do you know? You're not being self -deceived about God and the answer is simple

This this is the answer is simple because we're dealing with the necessary preconditions for intelligibility

God is not the same as every as any other fact when we when we're talking about God We're talking about that which must be true in order for even to make sense out of the concept of self -deception

So while it's true that in my worldview I can be self -deceived it is false that my worldview allows for self -deception on every single issue there are certain issues that I cannot be self -deceived because they are that which provides the preconditions for the meaningfulness of anything whatsoever and the meaningfulness of the very concept of Self -deception and standards of truth by which we could measure whether someone is being self -deceived

So so it's it's different it is at a very deep level Joel. I think a confusion between the creator creature

Right, we're trying Because this idea where we're bringing

God down to the level of created things So for example, I can be self -deceived about you know

Horizontal things like my observation of the external world, you know I could I could hypothetically be deceived as to whether my wife loves me.

That's that's not impossible, right? But when we're dealing with something that is the precondition for intelligibility itself

It's self -refuting to say that I can be self -deceived about that because that's that's the bedrock that gives meaning to everything else

Even the idea of self -deception, right? So you can't know if something's false unless you have a standard of truth, right within the

Christian worldview We have a standard of truth and that's why we can self -correct or we have others that can help us

Correct our deceptions because there's a standard of objective truth in God's revelation his word and things like that So it is different as you pointed out.

Yeah, and the standard is objective to it. It's external to us. It's not You know, it's it's not internal.

I mean, yes as Christians You know, there's that song God's not dead. He's surely alive is rowing like a lion living on the inside, whatever it is

Okay, so yes God is inside. Yes, that's true, but I don't know.

I've seen some street preachers where I think that you know, that might be that might be true Um, I don't think

I want God to roar at me like a lion. I think that that sounds incredibly terrifying. Yes But that being said

God is God is internal, but it's also it's also true that God is in the heavens.

He does whatever he pleases God is God is external to us and he is Superior to us in every way.

He's outside us and above us. He transcends us and so, um You know

It's like our friend site and Brigham Kate says I know that God exists because God has revealed himself

To me in a way that I can be certain about There there is no there.

There is there is no certainty without Starting with God and there is no certainty

Stronger than the certainty that God is there because as you said to even Question whether God is there

We would have to use truth -seeking faculties our reasoning our five senses our our intuition

Which all three of those? Presuppose that we are created by God in order to seek for truth and that the world is the kind of environment that is favorable towards the seeking of that truth, you know, and that there's truth to discover and so Well by the time you get there man, like you've already presupposed the whole

Christian world view, you know Like that's that's that's Genesis 1 through 3 at least, you know, and so well well,

Joel even I did a video a while back with with sigh and I Provocatively titled it how doubt presupposes

God even doubting presupposes God because doubting again Presupposes, you know truth

You have to know certain things are true in order to even make sense out of doubting and so as I would say How do you get truth without God and I mean in a simple way?

That's it's a deeper debate and discussion. But I mean, that's it. That's a that's a good question. Yeah, but yeah So those excellent excellent points, let's move on to the next comment because then we'll never get through these things

But there's a great great stuff man. Great stuff. So here's another comment someone left on the video here The person says there are a few issues with your response to the atheist argument in this video the previous video that that I did

First I've heard you say a few times that the real reason you know that God exists is the inner witness of the Holy Spirit But the way you show others that God actually exists is through the transcendental argument

Oh, yeah, this is these are the worst kind of comments here, right? This is the next sentence here and I saw this one

Yeah, so this person says this I find quite disingenuous. It's like when people's

Presuppositional is so dishonest. Well presuppositional presuppositional ism is a methodology and It entails certain ways of arguing it's not honest or dishonest

It's a it's a methodology people can be dishonest, but the methodology itself is is not dishonest But nevertheless this person says

I find I find this I find quite disingenuous at best and downright dishonest at worst

Which is weird because I think they're kind of the same But anyway in light of that I'm going to ask you to explain why you claim to know

God exists. I'm sorry I'm going to ask you to explain why you claim to know that God exists because of the inner witness of the

Holy Spirit Yet you rely on scriptures that say everyone knows that God exists such hypocrisy now

Even if I was wrong, let's suppose I'm way off Does that mean necessarily that I'm dishonest?

Have you has this ever crossed your mind? Maybe I actually believe this stuff

And from your perspective, I'm wrong. Why does it have to be like I'm intentionally being dishonest.

It's so silly Dude, I about hit the wall behind me. I was rolling my eyes so hard at that at that last little

What was it? Such hypocrisy. Yeah, like, you know, it's it's funny.

I'm writing a chapter. I'm working on a book right now I'm almost done with it and I'm writing a chapter on on hypocrisy and I Mean can we just pause right there and just say okay,

I get there's this narrative Christians are the biggest hypocrites Christians are ever No, no Christian is honest and isn't that?

According and I know we're gonna beat this drum Till we're blue in the face, but according to what standard is hypocrisy wrong?

hypocrisy hip hypocrisy is Maybe the number one sin that Jesus Christ calls out if you hate hypocrisy

You will love Jesus Christ. Like you read the Gospels you need. All right, let me calm down for a second

Come down Joel. I'm playing into their hands. They want you to get angry. I know All right, so if they can get

Joel angry, you know All right, so hypocrisy

Hypocrisy is evil. Jesus Christ calls it out. And if you hate hypocrisy, you should love

Jesus Sorry, my daughter is coming with a couple right now. Thank you so much So got my think

Institute mug available in our Available now in the thing. I mean I got this Christmas mug.

I need a revealed apologetics mug. What's up with that? All right, get yourself a mug or better yet. You know, I get yourself a think

Institute mug. I could I could I Could do that Just making myself quick.

No, um, all right, so Yeah, so so hypocrisy if hypocrisy is bad than Christianity is true,

I mean we can talk about that but But the um, so I have some thoughts about this.

I really want to know your take on this How do you respond to that because you could imagine that this is a good faith question

Hey, you say that you understand that Christianity is true based on the inner witness of the Holy Spirit But you're trying to convince me the skeptic using this

Transcendental argument for God that seems like you know, if if tag is good enough for me.

It should be good enough for you I mean that you could imagine that that's a good faith strip away the insults and stuff.

How would you respond to that? Right. So in response to their their comments here first when

I say that I know God exists through the inner witness of the Holy Spirit I'm referring to a saving knowledge right that comes from being in covenant with God And so this is a unique aspect of the

Christian experience Okay, however, not everyone has that kind of knowledge because not everyone has the

Holy Spirit Okay, this distinction I think is important that people miss there's a difference between the knowledge of God that believers have which is through the inner witness of the

Holy Spirit and The knowledge of God that unbelievers have the latter is based on the

Holy Spirit But is not based on the Holy Spirit rather but it's derived from a general revelation right from the

Christian perspective All men have a knowledge of God, but not all men have a knowledge of God From the inner witness of the

Holy Spirit, right? That's just that's just a basic Christian theological perspective

That's not like a weird spooky presuppositional thing, right? I mean if you knew what we what we believe about, you know

The different ways in which people can know we can know God in judgment or we can know God in covenant peace

Okay so I would say that all men have a knowledge of God but not all men have a knowledge of God in the context of Relational covenant and so the transcendental argument on the other hand

I use as a tool to demonstrate the necessity of the Christian worldview for making sense out of knowledge, right?

People are familiar with my argument, right? There's nothing disingenuous about using different means to know and to show

Okay, even if I'm wrong about it, that's not disingenuous, right? so for the Christian the inner witness of the

Holy Spirit is a personal a Personal thing that it's subjective. I experience it

You can't experience my inner witness of the Spirit The transcendental argument is a rational demonstration that even the unbeliever who lacks the

Holy Spirit can't escape the reality of God's existence Okay. Now the accusation of hypocrisy really doesn't have any it doesn't hold water, right?

Yes, not everyone has the inner witness of the Holy Spirit, but that doesn't mean they're ignorant of God's existence

Okay Romans chapter 1 verse 18 through 20 clearly teaches that all people have a basic knowledge of God through what has been revealed in Nature, but they what what does the text say?

They suppress the truth and unrighteousness And so I think it's important that people know there are different senses in which one can know

God salvificly within the context of a relationship through the Holy Spirit and Cognitively given your

God -given tools you could apprehend God through Observing the heavens declare the glory of God and I would argue

You know God innately in light of the fact that you're created in his image. That's how that's how I would Respond to that comment.

Yeah, man, that is so good. And you know something that occurs to me

I'm looking through some verses here as you're you're talking just agreeing with you in Scripture, there are so many examples of Either someone asking

God to open their eyes Or or it's saying that their eyes were opened. So just one one quick example would be in Luke chapter 24

There are these disciples of Jesus who had been following Jesus for three years probably for a while.

They know Jesus and Jesus has been killed

He's been crucified and as far as they know, he's still dead But what they don't know is that Jesus has risen from the dead.

So these two these two disciples They're on the road to a town called Emmaus and as they walk they meet a guy who starts walking along with them

And he asked him what's going on? Well, what are you talking about and they say I do you must be the only one who doesn't know about Jesus of Nazareth He was crucified.

We thought he was the Messiah and this guy tells them Oh, you're so slow to believe all that the scriptures taught and then he opens up the scriptures to them and he shows them look, this is everything in the

Whole Old Testament that points to the Messiah this had to happen He had to be he had to suffer for sin.

He had to rise on the third day Um, he shares all this and then it says and this is

Luke 24 31 and their eyes were opened and they recognized him And he vanished from their sight.

So they were there they were they were talking to him. They were hearing his voice They were literally looking at him.

So when it says their eyes were open It doesn't mean that they were physically blind, but they couldn't see him because the

Lord hadn't opened their eyes, right? So there's something similar that goes on with an atheist or with a non -christian pick your brand of non -christianity

That they can they know this they have the same general revelation that you and I have but the eyes of their heart can't see

Jesus for who he is and they can read about him. They can hear the testimony. They can hear the best arguments

But their eyes the eyes of their heart aren't opened and then something happens where God opens their eyes and regenerates that makes them born again

Suddenly they have faith now They can see Jesus for who he is now all that stuff that they were taught in Sunday school and at church

Suddenly it makes sense and it's like oh Like Job says in Job 42. I had heard of maybe 38

I had heard of you with my ears, but now my eyes have seen you so It's a just it's a different level of knowing and one more thing on this to Eli there are times when

You and I might like we love transcendental argumentation, but there might be a time when we

Maybe that starts to falter and for us subjectively. I'm not seeing it Yeah, I don't know if I fully grasp that argumentation, you know, but the

Holy Spirit is still within us. Um maybe maybe we're Maybe there's some sort of sin that's starting to take hold in our hearts

And so we just we can't believe we the faith is not the same as it as it was We're not thinking clearly say don't do that to you.

It's called the noetic effects of sin and But the Holy Spirit is in us and he leads us and guides us along and and that is something that we have as believers that a non -believer does not have the non -believer is living in a state of what the

Bible calls the flesh and The flesh the mind that is set on the flesh cannot please

God You can you can hear the same arguments. You can read the same Bible It these are all things that should make sense and you know it to the extent that you are responsible for believing but because of your sinful heart you you are

Morally unable to believe and you often respond with vitriol when you hear the truth here

Let's take a look at some comments here. I don't think there's anything we've said that's been disrespectful to anyone

We're interacting with points, right and we're sharing our view. So here we have a comment by Kaylee price retard apologist and then

And I mean what what what how do you respond to that? Okay, I mean, okay you can sorry now now

Unfortunately, you know to insult it to insult our intelligence I guess it's not good to follow up this comment with really the

Horrible line of reasoning and questioning that this person continues to ask ready now watch this there is nothing that is transcendental

Well, let's pick this apart. Okay. I don't think Kaylee is retarded. I don't use that language

Although I do I can't say one thing that Kaylee Prince whoever this person is is completely and utterly ignorant of philosophy

Okay Transcendentals deal with the necessary preconditions of Intelligibility that is to say that there are certain things that must be true first in order for any

In order for something else to make sense. So let's say when someone says nothing. There's nothing that is transcendental

So in other words, there are no such thing as preconditions for other things. Really. Is that we're saying?

So there's no such thing as preconditions. So so my existence isn't a precondition for the very possibility of me having this conversation

Are you is this is this real? I mean this person has to be trolling if I was an atheist I would still affirm transcendental categories

This isn't hard right and then of course it follows up with the question, please name one thing that isn't physical

Logic the laws of logic. Those aren't physical the truth within propositions

That's not physical either. How about the request things that are not physical. How about the request?

To name one thing that isn't physical that itself. That is an idea. That's a mental idea

It's it's not just no, it's not Joel. It's brain activity, bro Right, right

Yeah, there's there's a you know, so that idea that that I that Propositions are somehow physical

Right, I've never even been able to take the first step towards understanding how someone can believe that wait wait

Wait, stop right stop right here. I apologize Even our fellow atheists in the chat

Her sentence isn't physical. That's correct Thank you atheist atheist.

Thank you. Yes. Yes So so a sentence a proposition a request a command

These are ideas that live in Minds they're not brain activity even if even if you could somehow reduce it to brain activity somehow it's getting from our commenter

Kaylee's Brain to our brain, right? How could a physical thing?

Not only travel into my brain, but then also travel into your brain as well

So it's somehow multiplying. Well, one thing we know about matter and energy is It's conserved so Where is the where is that extra mass or energy coming from?

In order to to take that idea and to multiply it into your brain my brain and the brains of everyone else who is reading

It in other words, here's what I'm getting at. I'm using this is sort of absurd but Ideas are by definition immaterial.

They are naturally they they are transcendent. So If you're communicating an idea like the idea that there is no such thing as a transcendental congratulations

You just used a transcendental Right, you just transcended the physical world, correct?

Now if someone says someone says logic can be reduced to physicality I mean you if I was kind of a nefarious person that wants to trick you fall right into my hands

There are a whole host of horrible problems with positing the idea that Conceptual laws that are universally applied are physical

Or if you don't think they are universally applied then I mean that has problems in itself as well. Okay, you know someone says here

None of these things are supernatural. However, you want to define physical. I'm not sure what that person's saying there, but Just just since you put that up Which one here the yeah the supernatural.

Yep. Yep. I was just reading about this today The idea that some things are supernatural and other things are natural

You know what? I was reading Francis Schaefer, which I would highly recommend. I was reading the book death of God I just finished it today

Amazing one of his lesser -known books. It was like his second or third published such a good book and I believe it was

Schaefer who was talking about In a very important sense nothing is supernatural because the all the transcendental laws and and propositions and qualities and categories, they're just as natural as This beautiful think

Institute mug, I mean there's Can be So Careful Joel because even joking like this you'll get the comment.

Oh, he's in it for the money. That's what I got recently You know something. Yeah, that's right.

I saw it in your video. I'm in it for that bling I'm in it for that bling. That's right But the idea that That there's natural and Supernatural you're really begging the question at that point because what you're saying is well

There's the natural world that we can see touch taste smell, you know, it's the world. That's part of our five senses

And then there's this supernatural realm which is you know open to mysticism and mystery and things like that But I think that our comment our commenter here conservative mirror.

Okay, that that's a fair point Yeah, say that they're not supernatural. That's okay That doesn't eliminate the fact that they exist and the only world view that can account for them is the

Christian worldview so So look, I'll push it even further the very idea that anything is natural

Presupposes the truth of the biblical worldview because natural assumes that these things have a nature that they are consistent uniform They behave a certain way dare.

I say the way that they are designed or intended to behave That's what it means to have a nature. So Okay, everything's natural, but you still haven't gotten away from the necessity of the truth of the

Christian worldview Okay, thank you very thank you very much for that let's return to the commenter that we just Responded to the person continues second your refutation of the atheist argument cannot stand with an atheist who was likely a former

Christian well versed in the scripture and who Could argue that your presuppositional interpretation of Romans 1 18 through 20 is fatally flawed in light of other scriptures

Maybe you could help me out because I I would imagine people would think that we are at least acquainted with the scriptures, right?

That other scriptures indicate that some people do not actually Know that God exists.

I would like to be made aware of these other scriptures. I've read the entire

Bible It seems pretty clear that the fool says in his heart. There is no God. Everyone has a knowledge of God It's foolish to deny that I mean, maybe if a person is familiar with the scriptures

They can pull, you know, they can pull evidence for you know The idea that there are people who don't know God from the book of second manipulations chapter 4 verse 3.

Maybe you'll find it there but I I challenge anyone to find a scripture text that teaches that people don't know that God exists and That that they can make the proper distinctions between the knowledge of God that I've made before the different senses in which people know

So so yeah, so I don't I mean someone's a former Christian well -versed in scripture like yeah

I actually prefer that person instead of the ignorant comments where people make passing comments about what they think the

Bible teaches So, you know a former Christian well -versed in scripture is not something to run away from I would challenge

Someone to bring me text that teach that people don't know that God exists Yeah, I like how you're calling that bluff.

Yeah, because what they're saying is oh, so you've got a really big gun, huh? Well, I bet you would never be able to win a gunfight against someone who had a gun ten times as big

It's like oh, yeah, I you're probably right. I wouldn't do you have one of those? Well, no, but you could imagine if I did

Oh No, I can't imagine that actually you have a former Christian well -versed in scripture that can teach the complete opposite of Romans chapter 1 and Using scripture,

I would love to see it man He's well -versed that's the He's well -versed.

Oh boy. All right. Now this next comment comes from my very good friend. He's probably the biggest fan of the channel

I think he's an atheist a gentleman by the name of Nick Jones Okay, Nick Jones always pops up in the chat all the time asking the same question over and over again

I answer it. He still asks it Accuses me of all sorts of things. I Still love you,

Nick I don't hate you at all, but your comments are still bad and worthy of refutation and response so there you go, by the way,

Nick Jones was the one that suggested that I I'm I'm Tricking people and doing this for the money because I I tell people to support what

I do Because atheists can can ask for support and get the support and have high quality channels

But when a Christian tries to look for support to have high quality content, we're money -grubbing

It's a very interesting double standard there But nevertheless, here's what Nick says. He says let me get the comment here.

Tell us Eli Can you justify the Christian worldview in reality or just within the

Christian worldview? I saw that one now that one stuck out to me like a sore thumb because I mean

I'll let you take this one. I mean, what's let's let's use this as an opportunity to teach the simple basic principles of logic

What's wrong with that statement as you read it there? I'm gonna read it to you again. Can't tell us Eli. Can you justify?

the Christian worldview in reality or just within the Christian worldview So Jesus Christ once said

He said that whoever is not with me is against me. Whoever does not gather with me scatters. Mm -hmm when

Jesus said that He was drawing a line down Humanity down the whole of humanity and he put everybody into two camps

As presuppositional so we talk a lot about the antithesis how there is no reconciling the

Christian worldview from all the other worldviews and What what Jesus is saying is that everybody is either on his side and to be on Jesus side

You are sold out heart soul mind and strength to Jesus Christ. You're reasoning you're thinking the questions you ask how you deal with doubts

How you love people how you respond to angry atheists online. Everything is governed by Jesus Christ the other side

Wants all the good things from the Jesus side, but can't have them because there's a there's a huge wall

There's a there's a chasm in between them if you will But everyone over here has to view the world

Has to try to make sense of the world without Jesus What they're what they need to do is they're they're trying to sneak over to the other side and take things over and Then what they'll say is our side we this is neutral world.

This is Reality, this is the side without any presuppositions or biases or prejudices.

We just look at things in an unfiltered way Okay what they're trying to do is they're taking the concept of impartiality and truth from the

Christian side and They're saying we want that so they take it and they they try to shake

God out of it And they bring it over to their side. They go now we've got the real reality What they don't realize is if they would stop and look around what they would realize is they're standing on the other side

They're not in neutral land. They're not in neutral territory. They're not dealing with the world in objective terms As a matter of fact, they now have to view the world across this massive chasm looking over this wall their view is actually very impeded of reality, but Before I stretch this metaphor too far

They have a worldview. They have a view of the world just like we do or I should say as we do and there it

I absolutely refuse to grant the idea that Any non -christian just deals with reality as it is as if they weren't filtering all of their interactions with the world through the

Presuppositional grid that they've that they've chosen or that's been been given to them.

Okay, so So can we justify the Christian worldview in reality? Well, the at the simple answer is yes, we can justify it in reality.

Like yes, this is reality and here we are justifying it We can do that. Okay but the only way to justify it is to Do so from within the

Christian worldview standing on the Christian presuppositions Foundational among which is that the

Bible is true Now you might say oh, but that's not that's not gonna work you

It's not fair that you can only do that from within your worldview. You should be able to do it from every worldview

Well, here's the thing. I Hear that objection if someone wants to make that objection in good faith, I get that but the answer is not only can you not?

justify Christianity if You leave Christianity, you can't justify anything

Christianity you can't justify non Christianity if you leave Christianity, you're you've you've lost all those transcendentals

We were talking about you've lost the preconditions for intelligibility and knowledge and everything else. You've lost moral categories. You've lost logic

You've lost preconditions for science. Do you have nothing left? You you think that you've been smuggling and taking all these things over from Christianity in reality

Your hands are empty. You have nothing with which to justify your your worldview So so yeah, we can only do it from within Christianity, but that's the only way to justify anything

It just so happens that the Christian worldview is the only one that can actually be justified. Yeah now

Thank you for that. And with the first thing that hopped out that popped out to me. Tell us Eli Can you justify the

Christian worldview in reality or just within the Christian worldview actually begs the question? It assumes the

Christian worldview is not the reality that we're in. Yeah It literally it literally does the very thing that I am endlessly accused of doing is assuming my conclusion from the beginning

Okay. So again, I mean I teach logic. This is I actually will use this in my law

I will cut and paste this and I will teach my tip my students to identify Statements that clearly beg the question.

Okay. Can you justify the Christian worldview in reality? Yes, I can Or just within the

Christian worldview which sets the dichotomy between reality and the Christian worldview Well, I think reality is the

Christian worldview and you think Nick that reality is not the Christian worldview Obviously we come from a different worldview perspectives, but your very question literally begs the question.

Can I justify the Christian worldview? Yes, how do I justify the Christian worldview transcendental argument?

What is the transcendental argument go through my the rest of the videos in? My channel But basically it's an argument that says that the

Christian world you must be true because it sets the standards and the preconditions For knowledge to be possible. How do

I go beyond mere asserting that I argue it endlessly on this channel I would suggest people watch those videos and interact with my actual points

Okay, so there are a bunch of different ways to respond to this now. There is a person in the comments here

I'd like to take a moment here Let's see here Did it to do let me see where was it now?

So when you began your answer Joel you quoted Jesus and so this individual here conservative mirror says his answer starts by citing

Jesus Yes, that's right. Jesus is the standard of all truth. And so we're going to quote that standard. So there's there's no problem there

He asks or she asked I'm not sure who this is. I can't see the picture. I do apologize What are the good things from the

Jesus side? Well, the Jesus side is the Christian worldview and it has all sorts of goodies It has a foundation for uniformity, which is the foundation of all of science

It can make sense out of abstract universal categories that make that give meaning to individual things that we see it brings together

Unity and diversity, which is perhaps the most paramount problem in the history of philosophy We've got answers for those and goodies for those

We have an objective standard for morality the atheist side doesn't as as hard as they bend over backwards to try to explain morality apart from an objective

Transcendent standard we have the preconditions for the very meaningfulness of your question

So yes, Christianity has all sorts of good things on its side Many of which are admitted from the atheist side atheist who are come to grips with their own position says yes

We can't make sense out of those things. I don't believe Christianity is true But if Christianity were true, I suppose it makes sense to say those things

I just don't believe it. So even people on the other side will say there are many goodies on the Christian side.

Okay Conservative mirror says we don't want or need God Well, you might not want my argument is you do need

God to make sense out of even your statement here Need need I go on? I mean, this is we can go on forever on this one.

This is Very easy to respond to if you understand the nature of the dispute.

I apologize for going on, you know a Shotgun here, but he says it if the only way let me see which which was a statement.

I lost it here Here we go, this is the this is the standard Let me see what second here.

This is a standard, you know surface level understanding of what we're saying Justify Christianity without presupposing it

Well, hmm, let's think about this if my argument is that the Christian worldview provides the only necessary Foundation for justifying anything if that's my position.

How on earth am I going to justify anything without presupposing the truth of Christianity? Oh, you're gonna call foul and say well, wait a minute.

You're engaging in circular argument No, I'm not engaging in circular argument because my argument is not fallaciously circular.

What is my argument conservative mirror? If you watched my other videos, here's a version of my argument if knowledge is possible

The Christian worldview is true knowledge is possible. Therefore the Christian worldview is true It does not commit the fallacy of circular argument because my conclusion is not stated in one of the premises

So what I would suggest Conservative mirror do is make the careful distinction between the presupposition of my argument and the premise of my argument

I obviously must presuppose my positions true because it's my position I don't start thinking my position is false, but I don't fallaciously have the conclusion of my argument in the premise

So yes If the Christian worldview is the only worldview that can justify anything then it's silly to ask

Justify Christianity without presupposing the very thing that is required to justify anything at all

Sorry for going in machine -gun fashion that he just walked into that I apologize and I mean that respectfully but there are answers to all of these

Okay, good. If you have any thoughts on that feel free. Sorry. I got a little excited there. No, listen, dude

It's so good. And again, we're looking at this This faulty assumption that there's the

Christian worldview and then there's neutral town, you know, well Surely we ought to be able to Just not presuppose anything and just sort of reason from the void to something solid, you know

Let's just look it is comments drip Assuming neutrality.

Yes, he just assumes it from the get -go Yeah, and you know again, I want to take him back to the words of Jesus Jesus said you either with me or against me and if you don't like that,

Jesus said that you're against him So you can't so that is the dividing line throughout all humanity

Is you're either with Jesus or you're against Jesus. Jesus does not leave you an opportunity to be neutral so If you if you want to say well, i'm not going to presuppose christianity

Then you have to be what we call epistemologically self -aware or self -conscious enough to say

I'm not going to presuppose christianity, but here's my system for how I account for the intelligibility of the world

Here's my system for how I explain the immaterial absolute objective knowable

Three -in -one laws of logic. Here's here's my explanation for why there are immaterial absolute unchanging interpersonal moral absolutes

You have to come up with your own system and you mentioned my my discussion with ben watkins

Look, I don't agree with ben watkins. I don't agree with his metaphysics or his conclusions about things I don't agree with his politics.

I've seen enough of his political posting to know that but we love ben. He's a great guy We love ben and he's a great guy and I would

I hope to have many more conversations with him But at least ben has a system, right? You don't have to agree with the system at least he has a system what

I want to see and I get You know, a lot of these comments are as you call them just drive -by comments Okay, and they're not attempting to lay out a whole philosophical treatise here

But at least you know my my atheist friends who are watching this at least go back in and Attempt for yourself to try to put together a worldview that can account for what is really real

What does it mean to be human? How do we get here? What is uh, what is morality? At least attempt to put together this worldview because if you're going to reject christianity bad idea, by the way, don't do it but if you're going to you you need to have an alternative you have to have something, um, and If I could be so bold as to say once you try to do that What you're going to come up with is you're going to come up empty you're going to realize this is vanity

This is an exercise in futility Maybe I ought to look back at maybe I ought to go to church on sunday and see if they have anything for me

Because there is no hope there's no solidity Right apart from the christian world, but at least make an attempt is what

I would say Yep, I agree with that just to go through a couple more comments here So we make sure we don't skip his comments here

If the only way you can defend christianity is assuming it it's probably not true So in logic, that's a non -sequitur.

Uh, you can't uh, if we have to assume something as a necessary standard for proving anything It doesn't logically follow that the thing is probably not true

Um, if an only way to defend the objectivity and universality of logic is by assuming it then logic is probably not a thing

Right, you see how that works that slaps you in the face the other way if you apply that same Line of reasoning and other things, okay

I don't mean that disrespectfully right but it's true If we were to follow this line of reasoning you would refute yourself in areas that you don't want to refute yourself in Uh conservative mirror says uniformity god can change the laws of nature tomorrow

And so the idea is that we can't really know that the sun will rise tomorrow because for all we know god can make it

Not rise tomorrow I have a entire video responding to this. I won't rehearse that there but conservative mirror if you are interested

It's literally a video called the problem of induction And so I explain uh from the christian perspective a response to this in great detail

I won't do that here conservative mirror goes on to say objective standard for morality. You mean genocide and slavery?

What does that presuppose that genocide and slavery are wrong? By what standard do you measure that they are wrong right now?

I could explain uh, you know and respond to the biblical text you might bring up But even let's suppose

I couldn't by what standard are these things bad? You can't say the bible has is not an objective moral standard because it violates some other standard that you're appealing to that's not objective

Uh, who's to say genocide genocide and slavery is wrong in order to say those things are wrong You need an objective standard by which to measure those and if it's not god it's going to be some finite human conceptual opinion

Um, let me see anything else here To do Uh, there's a juicy one here

If only if the only way to validate christianity is to start with it There's no way for anyone to arrive at christianity who isn't starting as a christian.

Here's the kicker conservative mirror That if you don't start with christianity

You can't arrive at anything That's the argument You get if only way to validate christianity is to start with it

There's no way anyone to arrive at christianity who is my argument if you don't start with christianity You can't arrive at anything to which you're going to respond

There are a bunch of people who don't start with christianity and arrive at all sorts of things Yes, because they're inconsistent with their own worldview.

Yeah, right So again, i'm getting a little excited i'm going to stop responding to conservative mirror, but I appreciate your thoughts there

Sorry if i'm getting a little saucy, but uh now it's good the uh The answer is to repent

Because Look I want to I want to just grant what conservative mirror is saying no one can arrive at christianity

Listen, no one can arrive at christianity. How are you? How are you a sinner going to arrive at the?

The conclusion that jesus christ is lord and you are not How are you going to go from a state of being in your sinful flesh that the bible calls it?

And then suddenly you're gonna you're going to get a new heart. You're going to walk in the spirit You're going to be regenerated. You're going to be

Baptized with the holy spirit. You're going to be given a new mind the mind of christ You're going to begin the process of sanctification.

How are you going to do that? I want to really just really drive this home. No one can arrive at christianity through your own efforts, correct now

Eli, if you watch eli's channel, you're going to get really good solid argumentation For why christianity is true and the fact of the matter is it's irrefutable and you're guilty for not believing in the truth of Of the gospel like you're responsible for that But I want to wholeheartedly endorse the idea that knowing that christianity is true is not the same thing as becoming a christian

So what you need to do then Is you need to hit your knees or fall on your face before almighty god and cry out to him lord have mercy

Beat your chest as jesus describes it and say lord have mercy on me a sinner and then you know what will happen

You'll find that the holy spirit has given you a new heart giving you the mind of christ started the process of sanctification

Has baptized you in the holy spirit has made you part of the family of god and the bride of christ He has made you a new man.

He has made you a new creation You didn't accomplish any of that. You just received it in faith.

So so conservative mirror that that's I know if I know I know eli agrees with me on this that is what we want to call you to Look, you can argue presuppositionalism all day long.

You will lose. I'm not I don't mean that disrespectfully but like The bible will win you will not win against god's word

You're just it's not going to happen But it's one thing to know that it's another thing to receive jesus christ and that's what we want for you

Receive jesus christ be saved become a new creation and that is open to you today. I hope you'll hope you'll think about that Yeah, thank you for that.

Thank you for bringing it back to the gospel. That's that's excellent um Let's see here

Faith is faithiest atheist says joel is correct Every single person has a world view it is made of the intellectual and moral standards

They genuinely think everyone else ought to follow that is correct. Thank you for the super chat, by the way and conservative mirror

Thank you for your super chat my time. That's awesome. I actually love channels like this Well conservative mirror, please don't interpret my excitement in responding to your points as though i'm angry at you

I just think that those points have answers and so um, and we've covered them, uh throughout the uh,

Throughout other videos and stuff like that. So I appreciate that and we have some great Atheists in this chat who are super cool not because you gave super chat, but I like these little admissions like hey

I disagree with you, but thank you and I appreciate that. That's what that's what we need to have fruitful

Fruitful interaction so I do appreciate that All right Let's see here.

Um So let's let's continue on uh with some more of the comments from the previous video so we can stay on topic

It's hard to ignore some of the comments on the side Uh, you know, but nevertheless, let's let's begin so Gabriel three six three says

I think that's the person's uh, Username ready ready for this one I don't know my objection to premise two

Is that eli could read our minds better than we can? Go to 1750

Timestamp 17 minutes 50. I predicted that this was going to happen and I clearly said that's not what i'm saying

Here's what i'm saying. Okay, so let's break down the original argument, right? If god exists, then

I know he exists. I don't know he exists. Therefore god doesn't exist This is clearly

An in uh an external critique of of the christian perspective, right? Uh gabriel and others like him don't seem to grasp the difference between external critique and internal critique from within my worldview

Which assumes that the christian worldview is the meaningful context in which I reason It makes perfect sense for me to assert

That someone is self -deceived with respect to God, and this is because within my worldview within my worldview within my system

There is a god who reveals this truth. Okay, you don't have to agree with my perspective

But it's important to understand that i'm not claiming that I could read your mind, right? What i'm saying is that if the christian worldview is true

Then your mind and your heart whether you acknowledge it or not has been revealed to us by god

Okay, I I understand that gabriel doesn't agree with my point here But it's crucial to recognize that i'm not making a claim

Based on mind reading i'm asserting a position based on the presupposition

Of my worldview, okay, and the dispute here is not about me claiming to some supernatural ability to read your mind

It's the based on the fact that god has exposed the hearts of men Okay, and so i'm not simply saying you're self -deceived without any basis.

I provided in the video specific reasons I provided what I took to be evidences if you disagreed respond to the points, right?

I provided data points to support my claim and I even offered a way to count look I helped

I tried to help I even offered a way To counter my points if you disagree, okay

And the frustrating part is that people, you know, they're not engaging with the actual things that i'm saying, right instead of saying

Well, I disagree with your your points and here's why rather it's being dismissed altogether and making

Making it appear that i'm saying something that I explained ad nauseum. This is not what i'm saying Here's why so it's a little frustrating but I mean those are my thoughts to to those that statement there any thoughts there

Um, yeah, do you uh, so I would I would like to know Um for people who want to argue that way do they know what the speed of light is in uh, the andromeda

Nebula or galaxy or whatever the would they know what the speed of light is? On mars, we'll just make it real simple.

What's the speed of light on mars? And if they say 186 Thousand miles per second I would want to say using their logic

Oh, so you've got a telescope you've observed the speed of light on mars

You've gotten out your your uh, finely tuned measuring equipment man I'm, really showing my my uh ignorance when it comes to how you measure the speed of light

But my point is this you need to get jason lyle here. We do need to get jason lyle here. You know what to say

Uh, what was that right? Well, I I so I I i'm thinking about jason lyle's book the physics of einstein

I've got it somewhere on my shelves here. Okay, but um But how do we know that the speed of light is 186 000 miles per second no matter where you go

Well, we know that because we've observed it here and we understand that it's constant throughout the universe Okay, so we know that with a relative

Relatively high degree of of certainty at the very least the the one -way speed of light

Uh, or no the uh, well, whatever as far insofar as we can measure it That's how fast light goes and you know, we don't know how fast it travels

Um towards the earth, but we can measure it away from the earth that sort of thing but um I don't have to have observed that particular beam of light to know how fast it travels because I have a standard by which

I I make judgments about the speed of light How much more can the christian make judgments about what's going on in somebody else's heart and mind?

Not because we can observe the inner workings of this person's heart but because we have a standard

We have an absolute authority that tells us what goes on in the heart of a man What goes on in the heart of a person who who claims to not believe in god?

so even if you don't agree with christianity at least understand that we follow the bible and we

We follow romans chapter one, which says that men Suppress the truth in unrighteousness, but they know god to the extent that they are

Unapologetus without excuse. All right. What i'm getting at is this You don't have to agree with christians

Although I hope that you will hope you believe the gospel but At least understand the claim that we're making

We're not claiming that we can read your mind. We're not we're not like supernatural empiricists or something

Okay, we we base our knowledge of what goes on in the human heart Based on scripture based on god's word.

So at least understand that that's the claim we're making even if you want to say Like no,

I disagree with what? What paul says in romans one? Make that argument but don't argue against something.

We're not claiming quite frankly. It looks very ignorant. It it looks frustratingly

Willfully It's it's comments like the ones that we've been reading that sometimes I wonder if the person's just trolling

And that I and that is it's a difficulty for me because i'm as a teacher I understand the process like when

I started learning the argument, you know pre -sub stuff I had questions and and I I had questions that I repeated until I got an answer that was satisfactory

So I kind of sympathize with like well, you know, there's some misrepresentation like well, let me maybe

I can speak to that you know, or maybe I could actually address because I know some presuppositionalist, you know, sometimes will will kind of Go over the head of the person or they won't even address what so i've been really trying to kind of listen to what people

Say and address it, but then it's become really difficult to know whether someone's trolling Because i've i've said in a very simple way i've kind of answered that I mean you could disagree with the answer but I have addressed it and then you have these questions and comments as though like I didn't even touch what they're asking and it's just so you have to kind of pick your battles

Do I interact with the comments or do I just continue to teach hoping that you know? The people who are listening are going to listen and the trolls are going to be the trolls

That's that's a difficulty that that i've i've been confronted with So, yeah, yeah, it it does it takes a lot of discernment it really does and that's yeah

I mean I'll usually go a few rounds with somebody before I just say like you get a sense.

Yeah, where it's like, okay now you're You're not wanting to understand here.

This is something that you you don't want to accept I get it. I can't change your heart. I can't change your mind, but I am going to turn my attention elsewhere

And i'll usually invite the person look if you want to continue the conversation Here's the link to do that through our website.

You can reach out if you want to I generally don't have people who reach out because They're not really interested in correct in pursuing that.

Yeah John smith says need to demonstrate a god to win first uh, well, I do think that god has been demonstrated through the

The justification that I offered is the transcendental argument. Uh now there's an important thing to keep in mind

John there is a difference between proving a point and being persuaded of the point You not being persuaded is not evidence that I haven't demonstrated my point and people who've been listening and commenting their

Non -persuasion is not evidence that I haven't proven the point and what's evidence that they're not persuaded

But it doesn't touch my argument is that their response is clearly misconstrue my argument, uh, they make

Very elementary logical errors. I mean, they're not even in the ballpark Yeah, even though they might feel cool when they you know drive by comment, uh here and throw an insult there um

You know the fact that I haven't persuaded you doesn't mean we haven't proven it just as greg bonson said Uh, even though you think

I don't uh, you know I don't have you in a headlock doesn't mean that I don't actually have you in a headlock, right?

You cannot be persuaded that I have you in a headlock, but that doesn't mean that's not the case. So, um, so there you go

All right. Let's continue here. Let's tackle another one question from gabriel. Uh, he says, uh,

Here was my original argument I suppose this is the person who originally gave the argument that I was responding to he says If the christian worldview is true

No one lacks the belief that the christian god is real. I lack the belief that the christian god is real

Therefore the christian worldview is false and then he adds I cannot hold the belief that the christian god is real and not real at the same time

So I have to go with what i'm experiencing right now The current video says I can believe and not believe the christian god is real and i'm diluting myself

It's like saying I really believe a square circle exists and i'm just diluted Can you give me an example of something else?

I believe exists and don't believe exists at the same time regardless It seems the justification of revelation for presuppositionalism is circular

We've addressed that a bajillion times, but nevertheless and there's no way to distinguish it from a feeling or a delusion of the brain

Most other religions. Sorry. This is a long comment. Most other religions have this delusion of revelation

But to other gods the atheist can easily say this revelation you have is you diluting yourself into believing the christian god is real

Okay, now i've explained there's more by the way, you called this in your video.

I call it literally Yes, so so he says the presuppositionalist has no transcendental argument for revelation

The presuppositionalist has nothing to base revelation on except themselves and they may disagree

Revelation is a feeling of realization. That's what revelation is That's because that's because when you look up revelation in a systematic theology book, that's good

That's what it says, I mean, you know to quote wayne grudem reveling grudem right here.

That's right. It's a feeling of realization I'm gonna look in here

If the presupposition look he takes He takes this false definition He says if the presuppositionalist is allowed a feeling of realization for the christian god

Then the atheist is allowed a realization of not the christian god Now there is so much wrong with this it's this is one of the reasons why

I don't typically interact with comments through like typing out my answer because there's so much

Of fixing and false assumption that I just I don't have the time. I wish I could but I just don't have the time but joel

The presuppositionalist doesn't have a transcendental argument for revelation. I guess I didn't understand.

I didn't understand that. I mean I that that to me is like I mean just Just take

I mean, uh Morality is a fine example. I mean we can we can make the argument.

I mean, okay uh, there are moral absolutes that obtain, you know that that that exist and morality is

Absolute and objective it's outside of us. It's um, it's interpersonal it's uh

Unchanging over time and it's it's known by us There are propositions like it's wrong to murder someone or it's wrong to steal that are known by us the only

Worldview that accounts for all of those conditions is the christian worldview with god as the ultimate moral lawgiver

Search the world's religions. There is no other religion that That has at its foundation a tri -personal ultimate

Uh an ultimate tri -personality, which is what well joel joel go ahead hindu religions have a triadic

Yes, I love I I I love that and they used to really throw me off man because it's like oh shoot like They do have kind of like three gods.

It's almost like a trinity when you really peel back the layers of that onion what you realize is You know all all is one atman is brahman and everything is ultimately maya.

It's all illusion And it's like man, they they almost got close like they almost got close

Okay, there's three and like there's sort of a oneness to the three and stuff when you really peel it back

Um, we're not at all talking about the kind of absolute perfectly good. Uh tri -yoon ultimate tri -personality

It's it's like man. They they tried you can almost see the influence of like some proto pre -christian you know, maybe moses worked his way over to india or something and it's like They some people think that that actually happened

I know I know i'm i'm kind of i'm kind of alluding to some of those theories but you know Uh, it's only the christian worldview that gets you all the way there and if so, the good news is if you start with christianity you get morality, but the idea that we don't have a a trick the idea that we don't have a transcendental argument for divine revelation

That's I mean that doesn't even pretend that I haven't i've been just Talking gibberish in all of my 300 and something videos ready.

Yeah, we don't have a transcendental argument for revelation Here's one ready if knowledge is possible christian revelation is true knowledge is possible

Therefore the christian revelation is true. How do I know the christian revelation is true? You take the content of christian revelation and it meets the preconditions for knowledge.

How do I know it's the only one? Well, if we're talking about necessary preconditions, you can only have one necessary So if the christian worldview does in fact provide those preconditions it follows it's the only worldview that can

Yeah, you can disagree with that but disagreeing with it is not the same as responding to it Okay Now obviously i've answered that in more detail i've given the thumbnail but to say that we don't have an argument is to ignore

The million times i've offered an argument. I mean, it's just it can be frustrating yeah, yeah, and um

There was something else to that. Oh, oh, uh How can I believe and not believe at the same time right well

Lest anyone think that we're positing a contradiction You you're not believing and disbelieving in the same sense at the same time um eli, you do a great job of breaking this down in your

Video the video that all these comments are responding to But we're talking first order beliefs and second order beliefs and I really recommend anybody who hasn't seen that video

I don't know if you're going to link to this and to that in the show notes, but you really should You guys really need to go back and watch that because he does a very good job explaining that but um your your disbelief in god is not the same kind of Let's say you you you might disbelieve in god but beneath that you know him you know him

You know him in the same way that everybody knows him god has been revealed to you in such a way that you were without Excuse and that is an internal revelation.

That is an external revelation and that's a transcendental revelation You your interaction with the world

Shows that you presuppose the world is as the bible describes it, right? Your indignation when somebody wrongs you shows that your conscience

Is as the bible describes it. It is not in line with atheism or hinduism or pick your non -christian religion

It is in line with christianity. So, you know study I want to say study these things for five minutes, but obviously

I mean it's going to take longer But really do a a comparative worldview analysis and see if There's another religion out there that accounts for even the way that you claim to believe that the world is

But this idea that we're saying you believe and don't believe in god. It's not what we're saying We're saying that you knew god, you know god you have knowledge of god and you're suppressing that Right, and I get it because you have to suppress it in order to keep on living in sin.

It's not an insult but for the grace of god there You know there go I? so Anyway, there's there's a lot there.

Yeah, thank you for giving that that perspective now I'm going to interact with gabriel's points here, but I see some comments here um,

I will I will break down my response to gabriel here, but uh smack dab says um

Let's hear a much. Uh, let me see. No, he did something here So he says I can only reason my way to murder is wrong if god exists is a weak moral foundation

Because it would fail in the scenario that god doesn't exist Well, okay.

Oh, okay. I mean, how do we how do we respond? Ben watkins brought up something similar in our conversation.

So how would you how would you so so again? I don't believe that there is a scenario that god doesn't exist

Now you're going to disagree with that but i'm going to ask you to make sense out of your claims and your moral standards assuming that god

There's a scenario in which god doesn't exist to say that there's a scenario in which god does not exist is to say that god

Is not metaphysically ultimate and metaphysically necessary Right. That's not the christian perspective. All right.

I don't think the a world in which god doesn't exist is intelligible or possible at all

Okay Um, so I think that you without a god No, there is no world in which you could determine that murder is objectively wrong

So if I were to hypothetically play around with the scenario in which there is no god Yeah without god, you couldn't determine murder is wrong because there is no objective standard

Yeah, okay And so here smack dab says a much firmer foundation would be one that leads to that conclusion and others whether or not

Any god exists so that presupposes the possibility of god not existing as a question begging.

Uh, uh foundation You've just offered there. I don't think that's meaningful at all. He says if we somehow discovered no gods exist

Would you still be able to reason your way to murder is wrong or should I worry? No, if we discovered no god exists

You would not be able to reason your way murder is wrong because you wouldn't be able to reason your way to anything

Hence the argument the christian god is the necessary foundation For reason itself that is the nature of a transcendental

Argument, you don't have to agree with it, but that's the argument Yeah, if you think you can make sense out of morality in a world hypothetical world where god does not exist i'd like to hear that that standard because People much smarter than both of us would admit that it can't be done

And you have people who think it can and I think those of you fails and I am willing to interact with those perspectives

Yeah Again, it's assuming neutrality Yes Falsely all of this assumes neutrality

Yes, it's assuming a perspective that like well we could imagine a situation in which god does not exist But murder would still be wrong.

Can we though? Can we? Oh question, isn't it? right um, so I got into this with with ben watkins and um, you know

What we ended up talking about and the point that I made and there is a name for this particular argument But I can just describe it without naming it.

It's it's that god by definition By definition the god of the bible exists in all possible or conceivable worlds

So to say the god who exists in every possible world doesn't exist in this possible world that i'm imagining

Where murder is still wrong, but god is not there That itself is a contradiction

That's a nonsensical nonsensical statement. And I mean that I don't just mean I don't like it or I I find it repulsive it's literally

Nonsense to say the god who exists necessarily in every possible world doesn't exist in this possible world

Is a contradiction of terms It's a it's a it's a it's a contradiction.

So You have to understand the god that you're describing You're you're trying to smuggle in this idea of polytheism like a world in which no gods exist and he keeps the g lowercase in in the comment to say no gods like like The lord god almighty jesus christ is just one of the many gods

But no god is categorically different than those gods if you were to describe

The god of the bible to an ancient pagan which paul did and many of the early evangelists did

They would understand that you're talking about a categorically different kind of being god is not like zeus

Right. He's he's completely different. So yeah, I can imagine a world in which zeus doesn't exist Sure, of course, but I can't imagine a world in which the necessarily

Right, I can even imagine a world in which you could you could know I mean hypothetically hypothetically

I don't think this is possible. But if zeus existed then yeah, there are moral standards that transcend zeus

You see zeus is not the necessary in greek religion. Zeus is not the necessary precondition for intelligibility, right?

He's limited and finite. So again, this is a this this um assumes neutrality every comment

We've addressed so far assumes neutrality without them even knowing it And it blurs the creator creature distinction because it brings god down to some finite level in which he's not necessary Their meaning can be can be had without him.

That's the whole argument If you think meaning can be had without them, you know, name that tune My argument my whole argument has been that you can't have that meaning right and i'm not just asserting it

I mean smack dab. I don't recognize the name I do apologize if you've been on here before but i've offered endless uh hours and hours of explanations as to Why I think my my assertions can be justified so i'm not simply just making the uh the statement

But I do appreciate I do appreciate it Nonetheless scott terry says thoughts on setting up tag as modus tollens to avoid typical atheist burden of proof posturing um,

I well the way I set up the argument is um If knowledge is possible the christian world view is true knowledge is possible

Therefore the christian world view is true. The first premise is the transcendental premise. I defend it by arguing transcendentally

So two two points I defend it positively showing that given christian the christian metaphysical picture

The christian epistemological and ethical picture actually provide the preconditions for knowledge so so i've i've i've

Taken my burden of proof and shown that given the truth of christian presuppositions The preconditions of knowledge are met

And then the the secondary negative aspect is I engage in the internal critique of the other person's position

So they can't say i'm shifting a burden of proof because i've offered my burden of proof christianity supplies those preconditions.

Here's how yeah Now the unbeliever's job is to say I disagree with that and then he has to go further and say

I disagree because There's this other worldview. That's not christianity that provides those preconditions and unfortunately

The atheists never want to talk about their worldview. They talk about some hypothetical worldview over here

Which is very interesting. So there is no burden shifting in the way that i've given the argument It's defended positively.

I give the reasons why christianity meets those conditions Your job is to disagree with it and give me a counterpoint every time

I ask for a counterpoint i'm clean i'm i'm blamed for Shifting the burden which is not what i'm doing.

Um, they just don't understand how to respond to the first premise so um, so i'm when

I saw this comment come in i'm trying to think about how to how to how we might Phrase like a transcendental argument in terms of modus tolens and i'm sure it's been done.

I'm sure it's probably been done a lot but um if p then q not q therefore not p

I guess you could say like if Atheism then

No transcendentals Not no transcendentals therefore not atheism something along those lines.

Yeah. Yeah, i'm not i'm not totally you could you could but I don't think You have to necessarily. No Yeah I mean,

I guess you could say eli if you're just if you're doing the internal critique of the atheistic world it's kind of like a modus tolens like it's kind of you know, because you're saying well, let's assume atheism for the

Sake of argument. Let's step and step down to the basement and look at the foundation and um

You know and and if atheism is true, then we ought to find, you know, certain conditions obtain, you know, like well, there there would be no absolute morality or there would be no

Objective laws of logic there would be no preconditions for science. Well, let's actually look at the world that we find ourselves in Oh, no, it turns out that's not the case.

Therefore. Atheism is not true or or therefore atheism cannot um Yeah, atheism is not true.

I think would be the natural The the logical conclusion of that. So so okay. So here's john smith just claiming you have the answers doesn't mean you do

It's clear burden shifting. Okay. No, I didn't just simply claim

That I have the answers I actually provided the specific answers.

Well, and that's It's true though. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what you say, you know, uh, john smith

You're correct. Just claiming you have the answers doesn't mean that you do that's correct But that's not what's going on here.

But thank that's that's right. That's a true point. Yes. So so good point excellent point

All right. So let me go back to gabriel's claims here. So gabriel gabriel said okay.

Are you how are you on time? I don't want to uh, uh, I got i've got like 10 minutes 10 minutes. Okay, so let's go

I'm going to share my thoughts here on gabriel's points here So gabriel says I cannot hold the belief that the christian god is real and not real at the same time

Well, actually you could if you were self -deceived And that's the whole point, right?

Well that that's okay. Can you unpack that? Can you explain that? Right. So in other words,

I cannot hold the belief that the christian god is real and not real at the same time there You're going to make the distinction between his first order beliefs and his second order beliefs

Your first order beliefs are your belief your direct beliefs about the world your second order beliefs are your beliefs about your beliefs right

God doesn't exist as a first order second order. I believe that god does not exist Now the point of my video is to show that there is a contradiction

Between one's first order and second order beliefs and that is where the self -deception is occurring So it actually is is possible

Remember when you say I cannot hold the belief that the christian god is real and not real at the same time You actually can that's not a violation of the second law of logic because you left off an important part of the second law

The second law of logic does not state that a statement cannot be true or false at the same time The second law of logic says that a statement cannot be true at the same time and in the same sense

That is the key. That's the kicker there I'm saying there's a sense in which you say I don't believe in god and there's a sense in which you actually do believe

In god and the way that sense is drawn out is showing the inconsistency Between your first order belief and your second order beliefs.

Okay, so you might verbally deny god's existence But your actions and reliance on concepts like logic morality, which are we argue are rooted in the christian worldview suggest otherwise

Okay, and so it's an issue of inconsistency between your first order and second order beliefs

That that is very well said and I wonder if we might want to go in this direction as well so the the point is not um

Like like we're not saying god exists and doesn't exist or something like that. I mean that should be obvious But the whole point of a presuppositional argumentation

Is to reveal that to the atheist That his beliefs actually are contradictory and they are self -referentially incoherent and inconsistent

So If you if it's a problem for you To believe in a contradiction god exists and god doesn't exist.

You really need to give up atheism because um Your worldview is incongruent with itself.

Your your foundation doesn't agree with the way that you live your life The the things that you tacitly endorse through your actions

You know when you get out of bed in the morning, you didn't expect to fly up towards the ceiling I know you're a a teacher eli.

I am as well. I teach high school. I I always make that That that uh analogy hey when you got out of bed this morning

Did you did you wonder if you were going to fly up towards the ceiling? No, because you understand that uniform the um that nature is uniform because you have an implicit belief in that Um, but then that same person that trusts that the world is going to remain faithful And held together

Is that going to go out and deny the god who holds it together? So if you don't like Contradictory beliefs.

Yeah, you should really give up atheism Yep, yep Gabriel then claims that the justification of revelation for presuppositionalism is circular and that there's no way to distinguish it from delusion

So here's what we need to we need to get precise here Yeah, the presuppositional argument is not circular in a fallacious sense.

So the argument goes like this X the christian worldview is the necessary precondition for y

Rational thought knowledge morality, whatever you want to put y in y is going to be something we agree

We all agree that there's knowledge. I don't know if there's knowledge. Okay, we all agree that there's intelligibility, right? You can put anything you want in y anything that's meaningful

Okay, we hopefully believe that there are things that are meaningful Obviously if we can't if we can't agree that there are things that are meaningful then there's there's no debate, right?

Okay, so you can say um x the christian worldview is the necessary precondition for y some fact

I like to use knowledge Y exists therefore x is true. The christian world is true Now this is not the same as saying the bible is true because the bible is true

It's just not the structure is not the same. There is no there's no correspondence there I know that atheists who hate presuppositionalists

And like oh they just have these like quick little snippets that they think what we're saying and it sounds cool And people who agree with them like oh, yeah, the bible's true

You can do that, but you're making yourself look silly if you think that's what we're saying

And i've and joel i've given the structure x is the necessary condition for y y therefore x and someone's like well that's circular

I'm, like how is it circular? And then they'll say well, you can't justify the the first premise.

Okay, suppose I can't justify the first premise How is it circular though? Nice sidestep, by the way

Now you're trying to get me and the first premise which i'm happy to do But you're trying to alleviate the pressure of your false assertion that it was fallaciously circular is what

I get all the time Yeah, that's good argument, which means it's based on the idea that the truth of the christian world view is necessary For the possibility of anything else to be true or meaningful if you disagree with my justification

Fine, but calling it circular just because you don't like the conclusion doesn't mean you're right

And that's it's just a simple case of logical and I don't care if if a christian says it it's circular

In a fallacious they're wrong There is a difference that the difference between vicious circularity and virtuous circularity

That's not like some weird presuppositional thing that that presuppositionalist made up I want to read something real quick joel, and this is a quote from greg bonson

You don't have to agree with greg bonson He's a christian obviously, but he's also an analytic philosopher that was in his areas in epistemology

You might not agree with everything. He says that doesn't mean everything he says is right But surely he knows the fallacy of begging the question in circular argumentation

Here's a quote from greg bonson pushing the antithesis page 104 124

The circularity of a transcendental argument is not at all The same as the fallacious circularity of an argument in which the conclusion is a restatement

In one form or another of one of its premises. That's greg bonson Pushing the antithesis page 124

He don't have to say he's right and everything you can disagree He's a presuppositionalist But regardless if you're not a presuppositionalist and you understand the argument you can still say

You can still say what bonson said you can the kind of circularity

That's being posited in the transcendental argument is not the bible is true because the bible is true That's just not what the argument is.

There's no one saying that so I mean people could keep repeating it But then I mean, it's just silly and i've just shown you i've even had someone say it's circular and I said

Can you please show very patiently? Can you please show me where the conclusion is baked into the premise and the person says?

Oh, oh my bad. I was wrong. That's right. You were wrong because there is a difference between the premise

And the presupposition of an argument I presuppose the truth of christianity We as as we all presuppose our view is true

But the conclusion is not stated in the premise and therefore it's not fallaciously circular. Go ahead. Sorry You know i'm looking at the car and I I don't want to I don't want to jump ahead i'm i'm looking at some of the comments and but I can't there's nothing

I can do He's talking about what you just said the bible I apologize, but I mean that I mean if you're saying the bible is true because the bible is true

That's my argument. I just showed you that it wasn't so if if knowledge is possible the christian worldview is true

Knowledge is possible. Therefore the christian worldview is true That's not logically equivalent in its structure to the bible is true because the bible is true if that's what you think

I mean, I can't help you. I mean that that's just elementary logic. Um, and and that would be true Even if my argument is false

Yeah, I mean just just think about it john smith just just really Just repeat it back to yourself a few times and just ask yourself.

Is this like is this Right, is this what he's actually saying and it'll it'll become clear.

It'll become clear. Just repeat it to yourself right Um, let's see here.

So, uh, he let me see Did I respond to that part so revelation in other religion, right?

So other religions do claim to have revelation, right? We acknowledge that obviously right the question is not whether they can make those claims right but whether they can justify them

Okay, so people say you know, yeah, but a muslim could use that same argument

Now you do realize that when you say a muslim could use the argument that i'm using That's not a point against my perspective.

You're simply stating the obvious Yes, a muslim could say if knowledge is possible islam is true knowledge is possible.

Therefore islam's true. That's not what i'm saying Okay, they can use that argument.

The question is as I like to quote. Dr. James anderson He says but can they pay the bills on that claim christianity can pay the bills we could actually explain how

It does in fact the christian world does in fact provide those preconditions. I would challenge that islam has huge epistemological problems and internal problems as well, which obviously is not the topic of this video, but um

There you go right And it's it's such a red herring to the discussion because neither one of us is an atheist

I'm, sorry, neither one of us is a muslim so Just whatever reasons you have for not believing in his islam

That's fine. Just stick with those and then let's let's get back to the subject at hand The question is can atheism make that same argument?

That's the worldview that you have to defend like If i'm, I mean just imagine if the tables were turned and we're debating with an atheist and we go but islam could use the same

Argument is you're making mr. Atheist Who would think that that's helping my case at all, right?

Do you know what i'm saying? Like this other non -christian worldview can make the same argument that you're making if you

So so what that doesn't connect in any way to what we're actually talking about Okay, this uh

It doesn't matter It doesn't matter It doesn't matter and look look at this.

Look look I don't have to defend atheism to evaluate your position but by some other neutral ground,

I suppose right, so so so You do have to defend atheism when you are a critiquing a transcendental argument

Because the very the only way you could respond to a transcendental argument is providing a counter foundation for the preconditions of intelligibility

So so if knowledge is possible the christian world is true you disagree with that Okay, you think it's false?

Okay or unproven? so When I give my explanation as to why christianity does in fact meet those requirements

The only way you can refute that is showing that there is something else that meets those requirements a or b

My worldview doesn't meet those requirements But when you show that my worldview doesn't meet those requirements

What foundation are you standing on when you are evaluating whether it meets those those requirements? That's you're gonna have to stand on a foundation

And me i'm gonna say well, I don't agree with that foundation and here's why you're gonna have to defend your foundation So in any other case you might be right conservative mirror

But this is not the case when you're dealing with transcendental arguments to say this is to completely misunderstand the nature of a transcendental claim

Nothing to add. That's great. All right. Sorry. I got more excited than I thought Thank you conservative.

I'm, so sorry. I love you Uh Okay, so I know I don't want to take too much of your time, but are there any final thoughts?

Um that you want to share? Oh, okay. I got I got you. I apologize there Um, are there any thoughts you want to share and leave something with?

Uh our listeners, uh to christian. How about you say something to christians to encourage them and uh,

Give something for the non -christians something to think about in light of in light of our discussion and I want to say now

Thank you very much for joining me. I always enjoy having you on brother Uh, believe me pleasure is mine to the christians watching

Uh, I would just say just keep trusting god uh Remember that scripture itself says let every let god be true and every man be a liar

God's word is the rock solid foundation of not only our worldview because we're dealing with like, uh,

This is a very meta very philosophical conversation But the the truth of the matter is when you get out of bed in the morning when you lay your head on your pillow at night you can rest assured that jesus christ is holding the world together as hebrews 1 3 says and As second corinthians 10 5 says god has given us the resources to demolish any argument

And any lofty or proud thing that sets itself up against the knowledge of jesus christ So You've been given the resources to tackle these objections and um

And rest easy in that keep reading god's word find out what god's word says And then and then you'll know the genuine article you'll be able to recognize the counterfeits but I think what

What you've seen here through this very video this very conversation Is that it doesn't ultimately matter what argumentation you give how much scripture you cite?

You would in your own power you cannot change a heart you cannot cause someone to come to repentance

And even if you lay things out in the most logically coherent sound argumentation

Ultimately that person's heart and mind is going to have to be changed by the holy spirit So be prayerful be mindful and I saw somebody else posted in the comments.

Don't throw your pearls before swine That's not just name calling that's legitimately saying a swine can't recognize a pearl

You know a dog cannot recognize what is holy Um, so when you get to that point, don't be afraid to shake the dust off your feet as jesus says move on to the next town metaphorically speaking and just trust jesus that he'll he'll

His word is not going to return to him without accomplishing his purpose. So trust god share the gospel

Be okay moving on. Don't worry. Did I lose the argument? They're not convinced who cares leave that in god's hand

You just be faithful. Let god sort out all those details Um, and then to our non -christian friends who are watching this whether now or you're watching later you're listening on the podcast

Um, thank you for listening this i'm sure this wasn't easy at certain points, you know, because it's never easy to hear people that um,

You very much disagree with and might I say? We may have been making some very good very challenging points.

I don't say that to pat my own Pat myself on the back or pat eli on the back. Um, Maybe eli not myself

But but my my point is that I know that at some points This probably wasn't very easy, but I want to challenge you if you're still here

Assume that that's for a reason God, I would posit to you god wanted you to hear this

And god wanted you to know That the bible is true that jesus christ really is lord that you really are a sinner and that you need jesus blood shed for your sins and I would say

Right now you can turn repent turn from your sin trust in the lord. Jesus christ. He will forgive you

He'll give you a new heart a new mind. He'll make you a new creation He'll lift those burdens that you've been carrying and I would say don't let another day go by Really take this message to heart.

Jesus is the way he's the truth He's the life and if you really want all the stuff that we've been talking about to really make sense

Bend the knee to jesus christ give your life to him Amen. Thank you so much for that. Joel. Um, it all boils down to the gospel

I mean we can talk endlessly, you know, I like how sai says you can talk endlessly about the complexity of the human eye

But you know when that person that person dies tonight, you know, where are they going? Um, so I think it's important to um to bring things back to the gospel.

So I very much appreciate it's very interesting So listening to you, um Especially the debate that you had with ben watkins.

What I see is someone who is knowledgeable about apologetics theology and philosophy uh, but what is infused in everything you say and this is one of the reasons why

I really highly recommend people check out your Content and uh from some of the comments some people have even said like hey,

I just found this channel subscribe and that's awesome is that what is infused in all of the

Intellectual stuff not to say that what i'm about to say is not intellectual. But what I see is a pastor's heart um at an evangelist's heart you you always bring things back to The gospel and and a lot of people have asked this question to me joel

How do we do presuppositional apologetics but then shift to the gospel? And when someone asks that question i'm like by asking that question shows that you don't understand

What we're doing that even when we're doing presuppositional apologetics the gospel must be front and center

And I think that you've exhibited that excellently not just in this discussion But in your past discussions with unbelievers and others on on different channels.

So thank you so much for that. I greatly appreciate it My pleasure, man. That's that's the message that we've been entrusted with we've been entrusted with the gospel

So we better get it out. And I I know that that's front and center in your own life and in your own message, too So appreciate what you do, bro

All right. Well, thank you so much ladies and gentlemen for listening in I appreciate and I appreciate the the comments in the the comments section uh atheists or skeptics

I mean, obviously I do try my best to address everyone's questions as best I can and I know i'm not gonna answer them to Everyone's satisfaction, but I just want to let you know that all of you are appreciated and I love how

People respectfully interact on the in the comment section and many of my videos and so thank you so much for that Love you guys.