Responding to Youtube Atheists on Presup

Responding to YouTube Atheists on Presuppositional Apologetics

Hey, welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host Eli Ayala, and today we're going to be covering some. We're responding to some videos Where some atheists try to take on some precept their understanding of precepts, so We're gonna flip through I think three videos and I will interact with them.

And of course, I think one is or two of them are a call-in shows. Where someone asks about precept and then I think another one is a video just Responding to what does it say? Is it precepts fatal flaw?

So we'll talk about that one as well. So Hopefully this is helpful. I'm not the kind of person that calls into shows like that. You know like the atheist experience or anything along those lines. I I kind of don't like when someone has the capacity to Boot or over talk.

I much rather enjoy either like a debate a discussion or You know face-to-face interactions, that's just me. There's nothing wrong with calling in to a radio show, but that's not my cup of tea. So what I'm gonna do here is hopefully I'm in my responses.

It will help folks know how to navigate similar things that might come up in your interactions with with unbelievers. So let's get started. And we'll take it from there so our first video is called Counter arguments to presuppositional apologetics, it's an episode of What's the YouTube channel here?

The YouTube channel is truth wanted and a caller calls in asking about a counter argument that they thought of. And I guess they're asking the atheist host whether this is a good kind of argument to use when engaging in precept engaging with Presuppositionalists, so so let's start the video here, and we'll take it from there.

I want to get to Chris in Missouri and Chris has a question that's come up on the show before. But I'm glad you guys are here to maybe kind of give your opinions on this. Chris is asking about counter arguments against Presuppositionalism, how's it going Chris?

Hello? Hey good. Yeah, tell us a little bit more about that.

So I have seen Presuppositional Presuppositionalists on the atheist community shows like Darth Dawkins for example and One of the things I've seen that I at least I noticed a lot is there's a lot of different ways to counter the arguments.

But I think there at least I think there's a major flaw that I've been thinking about that. I've always wanted to Talk to a presuppositionalist and see what they say, but I was just curious so it's called the wrong show.

I don't think any of us are presuppositionalists. Yeah, I'm just kidding, but.

Yeah, I just wanted to make sure that. It's not necessarily. There's nothing you know Irrational about it or something like that. Sure. So hey yeah, yeah, I was really Here, I'll just kind of go go through it.

But.

Basically from what it seems like In order you use logic to set up your arguments when you're talking about something. That's your basis. Yep, and When they're using God as their basis At least from my understanding in order for them to even talk about that they're also still assuming logic.

So when they're saying that You can't know that logic is true unless God's exists at that foundation the argument they're making already assumes that logic is the case and If they didn't do that then they could have a God that could lie and not lie to you at the same time.

And they couldn't tell the difference. No one could tell the difference and I'm not sure that I've never really seen it. It's in that kind of Way to talk about that. But it seems like it's almost like it's a similar argument to the way They do it because they say you're borrowing from that worldview.

But in order to even understand their own worldview they have to accept logic in the same way that everyone does.

Real real quick before Steven responds to this we can hear a stream in the background. If you could just mute that for us That would be awesome.

Yeah, here I just got a different room. Thanks.

So it seemed that what you were driving at Is the the presupposition the list must.

Presume.

The laws of logic before they can have God. Is that correct on what you were trying to get across?

Yeah, and they use it.

They use the God to get to logic. Yeah, so so it's either one way or the other. So it can be that you priest it depends on who you're talking to. You can Preassume God or you can preassume the laws of logic and if you preassume the laws of logic And then you say there's a God then you have to show it using that logic.

So in that case, there's no issue. It just becomes a burden of proof that needs to be fulfilled like any other whereas if they assume a God they need to say Why they assume the God before they assume the laws of logic and that's where things get interesting.

I think I think you'll find that it depends on who you speak with as to The way in which they approach it and they'll approach it in slightly different ways. If you want tips on a very specific way. Then it would be best for you to give us a little bit more of a feel for for what you're looking for.

Yeah, what I appreciate about What is this guy's name his what is it? Is that rationality rules? I forgot all of these atheist youtuber names. Yeah, what I appreciate about what he's saying. There is it is it is true that There's a difference between presuppositional ism and like You know the method and then there are people within that method that might Argue in certain ways that are different.

They're not necessarily the same. Everyone doesn't argue in the exact same way. So you want you need to acknowledge nuance within that perspective? So, you know, sometimes I've been accused Pardon of being a clarkian Presuppositionalist which of course is not the case and that is a big difference between When you're comparing someone who's a clarkian presuppositionalist and someone who's a vantillian presuppositionalist.

They're they're not the same and actually the difference and the nuance is of Vital importance it actually makes all the difference in the world in terms of understanding what a clarkian is saying Fundamentally and what a vantillian is saying fundamentally.

So what I appreciate here, but by rationality rules is he is asking for more context. Because it really depends. So I appreciate that.

Okay, I was just kind of curious, uh, what what your thoughts were. One other question that might be relevant is when dealing with. And I've seen this. I've seen this done on a live stream before. Where you use street epistemology to talk to someone who's a to someone who's a.

Pretty supple was a presuppositional list. I was wondering if.

Introducing all access your premium gateway to deeper apologetic and theological insights through Q &A sessions Theological lectures and exclusive bonus content all access takes your learning to the next level.

Support the ministry of apologia studios while unlocking incredible resources like ask me anything. Which is an interactive live stream featuring Jeff Durbin. We have the Academy featuring theological lectures from leading experts and exclusive content from shows like apologia radio and cultish.

With more exciting content on the way. There's never been a better time to join visit apologia studios .com and click join to get started today. Tell me back up before he kind of asks. Another question here.

So I wanted to let it go to give it context here. So his question is You know when the presupposition list argues that you need God for logic. The presupposition list has to use logic or presuppose logic to even make the argument.

So when we say something along the lines of that you either have to start with God or you have to start with logic. That's that's the question, right? And I think that's what he's bringing up the idea is that if we Try to argue for the existence of God we have to presuppose the laws of logic.

So we're not actually starting with God. We're starting with logic. Okay. This is a similar critique that was brought up by if I can give some context to the callers question I would imagine the caller probably doesn't know this but This was a common criticism brought up against a presuppositional approach by someone like RC Sproul.

So RC Sproul Accused the presupposition listen, I think fallaciously. So and I have an entire video just responding to RC Sproul if you're interested in that on this same topic is that the claim is that the presupposition list confuses ontology with epistemology and this whole issue of Proper starting points comes in.

Is it the case that we start with God or we start with ourselves or in this case? We start with logic. Okay, and So it's either starting with God or starting with self starting with God or starting with logic.

And so if you say I start with God. The idea is you don't really start with God because you have to use logic to even talk about God. So if you start with logic and not God then you don't need God for logic because you're using logic and doing logic.

And reason and rationality whatever without without God you have to argue to God. Okay, that's the context. So The problem with that is that it's a false dichotomy. Okay, and obviously so there's there's actually a third option.

So when you're given two options when in fact, there's a third option that is called a false dichotomy. And so this is predicated upon the idea that the phrase to start with is being equivocated upon.

Okay, you can start with something in different ways. For example, you have starting with in terms of chronology. Okay. You can chronologically start with something and and then move on to something else or you can start with something logically speaking so we have logical starting with or logical priority or we have chronological starting with and so the Assumption here is that when the presupposition list says that you need God In order to make sense out of logic, but then he has to use logic to argue about that.

That is talking the presupposition list is talking in terms of logical priority not chronological priority. Dr. Greg Bonson brings this up it clearly in his writings is obviously the presupposition list is not.

Saying that we don't start with ourselves chronologically speaking in order to talk about God that's obviously the case. What we're arguing is that in terms of logically starting with okay logical order logical priority not chronological order chronological priority.

We start with God logically speaking God and his revelation which provide the context a meaningful context for Understanding logic and and justifying it in in our worldview. Okay, so yes, no one is arguing that we don't start with logic chronologically speaking.

But we don't start with logic logically speaking in terms of the ultimate foundation. It is the triune God the presupposition list will argue. It's the triune God who is the metaphysical basis that grounds logic and his revelation.

Which is the epistemological link that links the all-knowing God the all-powerful God. We're linked in terms of knowledge. God reveals things to us. And we could know truth about reality not every single aspect of reality.

But the things that God reveals we can know it truly. Because God metaphysically grounds all things and we are epistemologically linked to God's knowledge in as much as he reveals it to us. Okay, so here is the false dichotomy.

You either start with God or you start with logic or you start with God and you start with self. False dichotomy. The third option is that you start with both simultaneously. Okay, the Calvin brings us up knowledge of self is impossible without having simultaneous knowledge with God.

God is the metaphysical context in which we can properly and adequately and meaningfully intelligibly understand the self. God is the ultimate metaphysical context in which something like the laws of logic are grounded and rooted now.

You don't have to agree with the presuppositional Argument that that maybe you think the argument isn't good or doesn't go through or doesn't account for the things that it claims to to Account for but it's very important that you understand what we're saying, right?

We're not saying you start with God and then move on to logic. We're saying that Logically speaking in terms of a logical order. Okay, knowledge of self is simultaneous with knowledge of God. The utilization of logic chronologically precedes God but not logically in the in terms of a worldview context our Metaphysical foundation is what couches and gives meaning to everything else that we do.

All right, so we do not confuse or conflate ontology. Are the nature of being and our metaphysic? With epistemology pardon rather we acknowledge their interconnected relationship. What I say epistemologically only makes sense within the context and backdrop of Metaphysics and everything that I say metaphysically is going to impact my theory of knowledge and how I know and all these sorts of things and so.

You want to make a distinction between the different senses in which one can start with something. You can start with something chronologically. You can start with something logically you can start with something in principle versus in practice and so you need to understand that distinction and that's the case even if you Disagree with what the presupposition list is saying.

I think it's just an important It's an important concept to be familiar with and understand its nuances if that makes sense. All right, let's continue here. I think they brought up like a street epistemology or something like that.

I was just wondering if Yeah, anyone had any experience. With how that might go and just you know asking questions trying to get down to how they come to that conclusion.

Well, I did talk to Darth Dawkins one time. He did call into the show and Saiten Bruggen Kate Talked about coming on. He never actually came on. Spoiler alert if you haven't seen that conversation, it didn't go anywhere and I think it doesn't really.

I mean There's there's different kinds of people. I think there's people who kind of find these arguments for the first time and they kind of find them convincing it and maybe you Can kind of talk about these things and then there are people who have been doing this stuff for years.

Who've been kind of doing the same script and stuff and it doesn't matter how many people they talk to. They're just going to want to keep talking about the same thing, right. Like and that's fine. I think I think if you show someone who is like Figuring this out for the first time who hasn't got this ingrained in their head and is honest With how they approach this stuff then you might be able to convince them.

The real problem is I haven't found like one complete epistemology one basis of truth and knowledge and yada yada that that Completely trumps like the kind of presuppositional is mindset because we're working we can work with different assumptions and different kind of frameworks.

I don't know. I don't know of a framework that doesn't have any flaws, right?

So this the whole issue is epistemology and of course metaphysical worldview, right? We're arguing worldviews now. I like how he admitted this. I mean, it's like I can't I haven't found a perfect epistemology.

Well We are challenging as presuppositional is the weaknesses of secular epistemology or non-christian Epistemology, right so admitting the weaknesses that that's what we're trying to get at and we're arguing that the Christian epistemology the Christian metaphysic Doesn't have the weaknesses that those other epistemologies have now you might disagree with that.

But remember. When we state our epistemology you need to offer because we're arguing worldview systems and internal critique and when that happens It's often the case at least in my experience that folks don't quite understand what we're saying when we appeal to say something like Revelational epistemology and on top of that if you are going to critique a perspective it would help that you yourself have an epistemology that does not implode on itself and the Presuppositionalist is just simply trying to point out those flaws in the secular epistemology or the non-christian Epistemology and trying to argue that the Christian epistemology the revelational epistemology just doesn't have those same problems.

Okay, and so that's where the the discussion of the debate typically goes for people who are at least familiar with the importance of metaphysics epistemology and all these sorts of things in these kinds of Discussions.

All right now. I I like how he's open about this. That's very very helpful. Okay. Now he did make mention of people who argue dishonestly and that's and that's something. Yes, you want to keep keep an eye out but you want to be careful that sometimes I see that when the Christian does corner the atheist and he and he does Sufficiently challenge their epistemology and they feel trapped then oftentimes they turn around and say oh, well, you're just being dishonest.

This is some weird script that I can't respond to and maybe I can't respond to it now. But there's something weird about it. No, just because you're stuck and trapped when you're being critiqued doesn't mean the other person is being dishonest.

It might mean that a true weakness has been exposed in your perspective. Okay. And if you think that there is not a weakness in the perspective and you have to argue those points. Okay, same thing when someone says the Christian epistemology is weak because and they offer the critique.

Okay, what I like to do is I like to evaluate is the critique being offered toward me. Is it an internal critique? Is it acknowledging the fact that no one is neutral and that it's trying to jump into my worldview and show that given the presuppositions? and aspects of my worldview Christianity falls apart if it's doing that then I need to be able to respond to the attempted internal critique.

Okay, but often the case is that the critique being offered against the Christian is an external critique. It does not hypothetically grant the Christian principle and try to judge it on its own terms.

It tries to assert some kind of neutral point or autonomous point and then impose that upon the Christian position say see it doesn't meet Those requirements and so here's a problem with the Christian worldview and that doesn't work, right.

When you're arguing worldview systems philosophies of life so to speak and paradigm paradigmatic issues. External critiques are not going to cut it. Okay and what the Christian wants to do is want to hypothetically grant the skeptics or the secular or the other non-christian religious respect whatever you.

Whatever it is. You want to hypothetically grant the truth of their perspective and then show that on its own terms it collapses now. Some Christians do it better than others some Christians get frustrated and they don't say what you know the appropriate things or whatever but that's different than You know, that's different than saying that there's a problem with presuppositional ism, right?

That's more of like how specific individuals argue. And so I agree with this host here that there are some presuppositions out there that don't argue in good faith and to that. Yeah, that's wrong. That's that's sinful.

It's actually contrary to the very worldview that they're trying to defend. You know, so so yeah, I would say that but that's irrelevant to the method itself. If that makes sense, all right, we'll let him finish up here.

I think no matter which one you kind of approach it to there's always going to be limitations to it. So unless there's some philosopher out there that can prove to me. Otherwise, I.

Think yeah, it's a great point. I think the best you can get when it comes to epistemology is I think therefore I am and then even then it gets even then it gets kind of yeah, I guess a little bit thing.

But but yeah, I would say that's the problem. That's the problem with skepticism, right? I mean, I've heard you know, someone like Matt Dillahunty. I think it was Matt Dillahunty. I apologize if I'm inaccurate there I think it is or it's like he wasn't even certain of his own existence.

All right, you see I think therefore I am he's even that has problems. Well, I mean if that's the problem, right? That's the problem with skepticism if you've heard in my other, you know videos, you know, if you and even Bonson Brought this up in various contexts.

I think in this book as well. It's brought up. Let me get this over here. Dr. Greg Bonson was a renowned Christian apologist philosopher and seminary professor and his life's work is now at your fingertips with Bonson you Bonson you aims to bring seminary level education to every Christian anytime anywhere.

Absolutely free gain access to over 140 courses covering theology apologetics eschatology and law featuring sermons Seminary lectures and more from the legendary. Dr. Greg Bonson. Now if you sign up today at apology of studios comm and join over 13 ,000 users already benefiting from this incredible resource.

You will not regret it and soon they're expanding with Bonson you plus and Bonson you live bringing fresh Supplemental learning and real-time engagement again, go to apology of studios comm and start your journey today.

Again, I've recommended this book multiple times. So if you're doing precept you want to get this book? Okay, the objective proof for Christianity and dr Bonson brings this and this is the problem that brings us up.

This is the problem with you know, the skeptical views. Okay, if you start with yourself with autonomy, then you will end with yourself. This is why the issue of solipsism comes up, right? How do you justify the reality of the external world?

How do you get outside yourself? You see a worldview that cuts itself off from the necessity of God in his revelation runs into those problems. The Christian worldview doesn't okay. We could account for why we know things that are genuinely and objectively true.

We could account for why a sense perception for example is generally reliable. Okay, those things are accounted for within the Christian worldview and when you do not adopt that foundation then yeah, you're gonna run into these problems that they are.

Admittedly saying that it's a difficult thing to answer and that's because they are difficult on that basis. Okay, and this is not something that the Christian points out. I mean, this is bored out in the history of philosophy Pardon.

So so yeah, okay. Let's continue here.

But the basic point is that you admit that you could be wrong on pretty much everything. And so when you speak with somebody and you say what do you know for sure which is a good question to ask talking about the street epistemology that you were mentioning and.

Then you can ask them why but when they say they know for sure that God exists. You know that you're. You're having an issue here because we know that humans cannot know anything for certain basically.

So, you know when you ask us the Christian If we Christian says I'm certain that God exists. You know, there's something wrong because we know that it's impossible for human beings to be certain about anything.

Of course, he's not even certain of that and he's not even certain of that and you get to an infinite regress. That's a problem with the atheist worldview. Pardon. That is the problem with the atheist worldview.

That's not a problem with the Christian worldview. Right. So so there you go. If the Christian says I'm certain of God's existence or I'm certain of the truth of the Christian worldview. You know, there's a problem because we really know deep down that no one can be certain of anything.

You see the problem. That's a tension there. That's a problem there. Okay.

Maybe there's I think therefore I am and then the whole but he's not certain of the maybe I mean, it's just maybe maybe not.

Right.

Conversation is going to be about that very small baseline and the fact that it doesn't often go anywhere.

Just illustrates how important it is at that baseline and I don't I don't see people talk talking about this point in particular. But like the idea of God itself is a socio-cultural Thing that like came up in history at least from what we study it, right?

Like we can show a time before people thought of the Hebrew God and the Judeo-christian God essentially and and people who come to it now. So like we at least have evidence that this was an idea that people came up with.

I don't know if we could say the same if we're talking about assuming that everybody knows God and like if you really believe. That everybody in their heart knows Jehovah specifically and like Yahweh and not any other.

Like I think you're missing out on the entirety of human history and you're completely.

Ignoring, but maybe we're not right on your own on your own basis. I'm not playing a script here. But like on your own basis, you're not even certain of that. You're not even most probably certainly like if you appeal to probability even probabilities presuppose certain certainties.

But if we can't be certain of anything then it really is a crapshoot for all. You know, the Christian perspective is correct. And the Word of God is true when God in the Christian worldview who knows all things created man in his image.

Know the nature of the fact that unbelievers suppress the truth and unrighteousness. That could be true on your view. Okay, and if you say well, it's more it's unlikely because look at all these people when we say, you know Do you know God and they say no, it's like well, I mean If the Christian worldview is true. God is exposing the heart of individuals.

And so you can't say on your perspective that that is very likely not the case or vice versa because again You're not going to be certain of anything. There's no reason to hold to be convinced of a perspective that has no certainty in any area even in the certainty of The results of certain probabilistic considerations, right?

So that that's a fundamental problem within a secular perspective. That's not a fundamental problem within the Christian perspective. Okay, you can reject the Christian perspective. But you're rejecting your rejection is going to be rooted in a worldview in which there is absolutely nothing we can be certain about.

Right just everybody who's ever said anything to the contrary and. You know, like it's hard to work with that. It's like, okay, if you're not gonna listen to these people I'm sure you're not gonna listen to me.

So, you know, and when you do talk to.

Presuppositional lists, I think it does actually have to require some form of straight epistemology because You need to get down to the how they've justified their worldview and so those are the conversations you're going to have to have.

Yes, so street epistemology is I mean I say this respectfully, but I think it's like a poor man's version of presuppositional ism. But I wouldn't even call it that. I mean it uses a similar approach to presuppositional ism but when presuppositional ism uses kind of like a Socratic approach where we're asking questions and getting to the foundation.

It's not it's not Primarily used as a tactic to get someone to the reason why we ask like for example, how do you know is because it gets? to the root of Someone's justification like what is your justification?

Okay, and it's you know, it's meant to kind of get at that fundamental worldview level now. Of course, the atheists can do this as well. It's it's useful if I were talking to a street epistemologist That would be useful to me because it will allow me to kind of bypass Some of that surface level discussion of like well Nobody's neutral and you know we interpret the evidence differently and then we go back and forth on that if we can just simply just at the start admit I Have a starting point.

You have a starting point I have presupposition to your presuppositions and there's where the argument really is going to be had at that kind of worldview level then at That point we're engaging in worldview analysis worldview comparison in internal critiques and things like this.

So a street epistemology at least from how it's typically used by many atheists is to Kind of use a Socratic approach and asking questions to get to the fundamental justification that the person has for holding to you know.

There are deep convictions in the case of Christians like why they believe Christianity is true and it's typically used to Create doubt right so that people haven't really typically ever thought at that deeper level.

And so they're kind of like well How do I know that and then of course the atheist can can take multiple tactics at that point, by the way I mean, there's nothing wrong with that. By the way, and I someone asked questions like the presupposition list is not the only person who's allowed to ask.

How do you know? Okay, when we ask how do you know we're asking really for your epistemology without using the word epistemology? Okay, and when the unbeliever asks, how do we know then we should tell them our epistemology?

Okay. Now depending on who you're talking to you might not say it and fancy philosophical terms. But yeah, you want to be able to explain from the Christian perspective how knowledge is gained and so we can lay that out.

All right. All right. Let's skip here like only a few minutes left I'm not sure if they get into anything of note after that. Let's see here. Okay in this second video This is why entitled why waste time with?

Precepts and I guess this is a call-in show. One of the host of atheist host is a man by the name of Eric Murphy I think an individual that I debated slash had a discussion with Some years back if you guys are interested in that interaction.

It is entitled a friendly dialogue with an atheist. I think that's what it's called a friendly dialogue with an atheist. I'll try to have the link to that video in the description of of this video. So you can take a look and it is what it is.

It is a friendly dialogue with an atheist Eric Murphy I had a great conversation with him. We were able to get into some stuff issues of presuppositional ism and transcendental argumentation comes up and things like that.

External versus internal worldview critiques all of that comes up in the discussion. So I highly recommend folks check that out. That was you know back when I was in my rookie days when I barely ever did stuff like that.

And I don't have time typically to do it a lot here. Now in the present day, but that was a lot of fun. It was a great discussion highly recommend folks. Check that out, but that's the the individual with the black curly hair.

You're about to see that's Eric Murphy. And he has his co-host there with him as well. And so they're taking questions relating to to precepts. So let's let's play that.

I know that you want to take North and I do want to talk to North but first I would like to talk with Tom. In Georgia because Tom's been waiting on the line for a while this whole time actually. Yeah.

So Tom you wanted to talk to us about talking to precept callers. Yeah, welcome to the show. Yeah, what are your thoughts?

So, yeah last week good old Robin called in and I've called to talk about precepts in general with you guys a few months ago. And I was I was looking forward to it. I was like, oh great, you know. Because you guys have probably made the most progress with precepts.

I'm peeling back the layers of what they exactly believe and getting them to you know cop to it. But it was just more of the same last week so I was talking to people on like the Facebook and chat stuff and it seems like Precepts have kind of run their course with you.

So I was wondering if you are, you know. Thinking about entertaining them in the future. And if so, I had like some argument ideas that might be helpful.

Yeah, well, first of all, thank you for thinking that we've made progress because it doesn't feel like that sometimes.

Bombshell was when you got him to say he was a Platonist and that opened up this whole other world like oh you believe there Is an apple that speaks for all apples like that's a whole other thing.

Oh, yeah, cuz cuz the thing is a lot of precepts and I'm not gonna say all of them but a lot of them don't really dive into additional forms of Philosophy or talk about things outside of that particular argument.

So they know the script really well, and they might even be able to justify that rationally in their own heads. But when you get them into the realm of well, are you a Platonist there? They might say yes, because they don't fucking know what that is.

All right. Yeah, so that's a great point. That there are people who try to engage in presuppositional apologetics and transcendental argumentation and that's kind of their only focus. So it's very weird and awkward for them to kind of engage in Issues that pertain to philosophy that are outside the direct domain of that kind of argumentation again.

That's not a feature of presuppositional ism. That is a feature of particular individuals. I mean you take someone like Cornelius Vantille. I mean the guy was Very well versed in the history of philosophy as a matter of fact.

Some of his students complained that every time he would answer a question He'd walk you through the history of philosophy To answer the question up until the point that by the time he gets to your question.

You're like, I don't remember what I asked, you know. So presuppositional is traditionally have been very philosophically Educated and kind of know the history and flow of thought Greg Bonson as well.

He comes from the more analytic philosophical tradition. Definitely familiar with Plato and Aristotle. I mean you have critiques of Plato and Aristotle and other Greek philosophers in the works of dr Bonson, but it is true.

And I think it's it's very helpful that when Christians interact with atheists You want to be familiar with a kind of a general overview of philosophy. Obviously, it's not necessary Philosophy in terms of knowing certain schools of thought whether it's Platonic philosophy or Aristotelian philosophy or you know More modern like Kantian or a Cartesian sort of rationalism all that kind of stuff they don't always come up in discussion, but it is good to be familiar with Kind of the basic outlines of the history of thought because I would agree with this with this Host here that a lot of Christians will engage in these discussions and not really be familiar With kind of the terminology and schools of thought.

All right, I'm just to lay it out real quick. I mean, I'm a Vantillian presupposition list. I'm not a Platonist. I do not believe in a realm of ideals. You know the forms that exist out there independent of a mind or anything along those lines.

But again, I can say that and explain it because I know what Platonism is if you don't you need to you know Pick up a book on the history of philosophy and edumacate yourself. I think that's very important and I think it's a good point.

The host brings up here. And I appreciate that the host makes nuance between certain presupposition list and like some of the ones you might find like online Interactions and things like that. So I appreciate that.

So it feels to me like that one of the reasons that I have hesitations around talking to precepts is because once we try and get out of that particular script and dive into the Philosophical implications of that script it kind of falls apart because that's not where they're prepared to go.