Responding to Youtube Atheists on Presup

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 Awesome.

Yeah, tell us a little bit more about that. 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 you 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 true. 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 exist 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 presuppositionalist 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 it's either one way or the other

So it can be that you priests 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. I appreciate that Okay, I was just kind of curious what what your thoughts were one other question that might be relevant is it 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 pretty suppositional 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 the 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 Monson 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 inadequately 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 I'm 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

Our need 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 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 presuppositional 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 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 Yeah, it's a little bit thing.

But yeah, 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 .com

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 .com 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 and 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 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 sociocultural thing that like came up in history at least from what we study it read 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 before 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 most 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 worldviews 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 You know and when you do talk to Presuppositionalists, 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 presuppositionalism

But I wouldn't even call it that I mean it uses a similar approach to presuppositionalism but when presuppositionalism 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 I mean 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 in 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 or 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 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 two 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 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 Vantill.

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 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, 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

Well, that's not what's where some people are prepared to go the philosophical implications That's something we should be willing to go because that's where all the juicy stuff is, right?

What justifies our claim to say that the Christian worldview is true and provides the necessary?

Preconditions for logic for knowledge intelligible experience so on and so forth So it is true. Some people are not equipped to kind of get into those philosophical

The you know, what is inferred from the things that we are saying now? I'd lost my track at my train of thought here

Let me just rewind it just a little bit a couple of seconds back so I can get what she said Topical implications of that script it kind of falls

Yeah, so it's a mention of a script a lot of people make mention of the script like the precept script I'm not sure what people mean by that.

Maybe it's it's referring to like The presupposition list has this thing they want to go through like this like line of reading

They're trying to get across and they kind of talk about that specifically. Um, there's always confused me. Um We're not talking randomly, right?

Isn't it the case that everyone has quote -unquote a script like when I get into a conversation with someone there's

Somewhere I want to lead the conversation To right I have a destination Okay, there are reasons why

I ask specific questions And I anticipate a kind of a certain range of answers that I might possibly get and then depending on the answer

I want to move somewhere else as well. I mean, is that what it means to have a script? I mean in that case,

I don't see why you wouldn't want a script. I mean surely when they talk to atheists I'm sorry when they talk to Christians, there's a script

There's certain things that they are anticipating and they're trying to get a certain point across. I don't think that that's inherently wrong

Now, can you use a script to be deceptive? Sure, that can be the case but again, that's different between there again,

I keep saying this there's a difference between presuppositional ism as a methodology and Presuppositional ist in terms of how specific individuals use that methodology.

Let's see what they say here And it's useful to highlight that but it also can get very repetitive if the entire conversation is you're on a script let's get off the script and talk about like what you're actually wanting to talk about and like what the

Implications for that would be and they say no we were gonna stay on the script like yeah.

Yeah Yeah, or or When someone says well I want to stay on the script

Sometimes the things that the atheist or skeptic brings up is in fact Irrelevant to the main point that we're getting at in case you want to be you want to be careful

Now sometimes it's not sometimes they're bringing up something that is relevant and important and you want to be able to address it But sometimes and in my case many times things that are brought up are moving away from the core aspect of what we're trying to argue and so you want to you want to make a distinction between a

Genuine bringing up of a legitimate issue and a red herring where someone is bringing up something that is going to derail the

Conversation and debate from what needs to be discussed. So you're gonna need to have some kind of level of you know

Nuance in terms of how to navigate when you know when those issues come up in discussion, okay, and don't just say

You know, that's a red herring explain why you think it's irrelevant Okay, so if you're gonna accuse the unbeliever of committing a fallacy you want to be able to explain why that's the case and allow

Them to respond as well. Okay, but but they do often I mean anybody can do this right Christians do this, too

We can often bring up issues that really aren't related even though we might think well This is this is so important when in fact, it's not actually addressing the key issue

And so that's gonna just take a little bit of experience and having those conversations to be able to navigate when those things come up it's

Ultimately, I think that there are a couple of things that they're bound up that are bound up in this conversation And I would love to take this opportunity to address a few of them

One of them we've gotten a lot of comments saying you're never going to convince the caller. So why are you wasting your time?

Stop, you're not convincing the caller We don't have expectations that we're going to be convincing callers when somebody calls in I don't

I don't look at the you know At the call log and go I have a really good chance of of convincing caller three

And so we're going to talk to caller three, right? That's a great point that Eric makes is that there is a difference between like proving your point and like persuading someone

So there is a distinction between proof and persuasion, which is what the presupposition list says all the time, right? When I engage with people,

I don't I'm not automatically, you know convinced that I'm going to convince this person in this specific

Instance right, but that doesn't mean I haven't proven my point In case you want to keep those two things distinct proof and persuasion are not the same thing

Presuppositional to say that and apparently non -presupposition list acknowledge that as well That's an important point to keep in mind because that's not useful.

And if you're gonna change your mind on a dime like that That's not healthy. And so if you know for people who are watching that are saying

Oh, well, you're arguing with this priest up and you're never going to convince them all no duh We're having this conversation because a lot of people don't get to see them hat out and don't get to see you know

What happens and that's a really interesting conversation to see hat out You know, especially for a lot of people who the only people they know our family members, you know, crazy uncle

Joe who is you know, really really going down this one rabbit hole if you

Don't want to damage your family dynamic, but you still want to see how that conversations had That's what we want this channel to be useful for So first off first off is that for people who are saying well, you're never gonna convince them.

Well, no duh That's not what the show is about I mean, it's a bonus like we try but it is but if somebody says, you know,

I was watching and you positively influenced the way that I Look at the world and I have a more critical eye because of what you've done on the show

Awesome advice first for the Christian too, right? I can prove my point That doesn't mean I'm gonna persuade someone but in the discussion if I were to show some of the merits of my position

Which which has happened before right? That that's a win right ultimately We rely on the sovereignty of God right

God uses our words, right? God uses means to accomplish his ends But I don't go into every discussion thinking everyone that I'm gonna speak to is going to be convinced, right?

But there is fruit in the discussion It's part of the process so to speak and there's still benefit to have those discussions now, of course

There's not a benefit. I mean, well, I suppose there can be benefits to you know, the the derailed discussions

I suppose you can find good reasons to to have those but not intentionally Of course, you don't want to intentionally get into discussions which are getting nowhere, right?

There's value to give your response, even though the person is not convinced at all, especially for people watching and things like that But I you also you also want to choose the context in which you engage wisely

Okay people who are like intentionally argumentative It just becomes like you're just trying to shout over the other person at that point

I think you need to kind of move on People ask me this all the time Eli when's the best time to move on in a discussion and the answer is

I don't know I don't have like a you know a rule like well when the atheist says this this is when you end it

It just really depends. It takes experience and having conversations with people. We need to learn to kind of keep our cool

I mean, I I resonate a lot with what they're saying in terms of maybe not these individuals But some some people bring up that it can be very difficult talking to presuppositionalist and the difficulty is not necessarily in reference to The argument they're giving sometimes that's the case.

Some people will admit. Yeah, they're making this interesting argument I'm not sure how to respond to it I need a little time to think about it but sometimes the difficulty is in the character of the person that the the aggressiveness of the argument is coupled with the aggressiveness of the character and the person can come across as just really really annoying

Obnoxious and at that point if you claim to be Christian you need to kind of put yourself in check

And really evaluate whether you're doing what you're doing for the honor of Christ, or are you doing it for your own pride?

Okay, so so in that sense I kind of resonate it can be difficult to talk to some to some people when they're doing that awesome

Number number two. There's a big difference between a select group of precepts and all precepts

Not not all precepts are going to say I'm offended that that you aren't following my script not all precepts are going to Be pushy and bossy and rude evidence of that is my discussion with Eric if you

Listen to our discussion. It was like literally the title a friendly dialogue like it literally was that it was a great dialogue we're able to talk about a lot of stuff and It was very useful.

So yeah, I appreciate that distinction In fact in that case, let me limit it I'm sorry

Let me just limit it into the Darth Dawkins flying monkeys because the question then is you know Are those conversations useful and I'm of I used to be of the opinion that yeah, you know

Let him talk and kind of expose this you know point of view that they have but now I think it's just going nowhere and I I think you're at a disadvantage because you're trying to argue honestly

And and the best example I saw of turning the conversation on you know I'm turning the script on its head was

I saw you to clip where a guy said look Let's just assume that I'm completely wrong about everything

All right my worldview is based in absurdity and I don't have a rational thought in my head now tell me about Jesus and Supernatural revelation or whatever it is that it's right if you admit that the presuppositional is right

What is not entailed by that or what is not inherent to the presuppositional perspective? Is that suppose your your view is wrong?

We don't say you don't have a rational thought in your head Right, that's not the position, right? So it's not the Christian presuppositional position that the unbeliever doesn't know anything, right?

That's a caricature of the of the position but if you were to grant the presuppositional perspective is true and you say well just tell me about Jesus then yeah the

The presupposition lists are just the Christian in general should be willing to do that I'm very careful to sometimes we're so focused on like kind of the apologetic aspect of the interaction that we don't understand

We don't recognize a good transition to kind of like well at this point if this person just wants to hear about Jesus Like let me tell them about my lord

Let me tell them about Jesus Christ and how salvation can be had by placing our trust in him so on and so forth

And at that point, you know You don't you're not necessarily having to give or continue the argument that you did now the argument that you presented as to why it's true

Right when someone says well, okay. So then why should I believe that then you're offering a justification? So that's that's different, right?

But you want to be able to kind of understand that nuance and shift in discussion when someone says, you know Okay, I understand.

Let's say I'm wrong. Tell me tell me about Jesus. Okay, that's a great. That's a that's a great transition

I think you should be willing to go into it, you know has convinced you and keep You know, keep it on them.

Yeah Yeah I love that you called in Tom because we had this conversation literally last night

And I was talking about how we cannot argue honestly with somebody like that and that an argument that is meant to Flummox and not to communicate so false.

So an argument that is meant to flummox and not communicate now again You need to make a distinction between individuals and the actual method and argumentation

Okay, what is the centerpiece argument for the Christian for the presuppositional list? It is the transcendental argument

Now if you look at the history of transcendental arguments the purpose of transcendental arguments are not to flummox and confuse someone

Okay, someone might present it in that way and couch it in that kind of language But that is not the argument right the argument follows the basic structure of any transcendental argument obviously the

Unbeliever is not going to accept what we fill in as Christians what we fill in the

X and the Y right then X is the Necessary precondition for Y Y therefore X or whatever.

You're obviously going to dispute what we put in those letters so to speak But the argument itself is not for the purpose of confusion, right?

You don't you don't want to conflate the argument versus like how people argue for it is

Going to be a better tactic moving forward. I Agree because their thing isn't to you know, argue honestly, it's to prove that atheism is wrong

So if you start out with yeah, you know what atheism is wrong now, tell me about Jesus So I've seen a bunch of different approaches that could be really beneficial

It just Depends on whether or not we want that conversation with that specific group of people or if other precepts want to call in, right?

We're not going to take that track with other people just because they're a precept in fact A lot of Christians just in general tend to have presuppositional list beliefs without even knowing that that's what they're called

So this is definitely something that is reserved for those that we know are being dishonest because we have actual

Frickin video evidence of it, right like right. So so there you go They are following a principle which

I would agree with that. You want to choose your Conversation partner wisely if you think someone's being dishonest and being manipulative

Then don't engage if you think that that's what they're doing And if you find someone who's like hey I'm willing to actually kind of have this discussion or have this debate and then you know

You choose wisely and you have that discussion the same thing, right? They recognize it. We should recognize it as well And I think that's a good rule to to follow.

Okay, kind of running down. There's only a few more minutes here Let's move on to our last segment here.

This next video is called precepts fatal flaw Precepts fatal flaw.

So let's take a look at what is going. What is Precepts fatal flaw. Let's see Have you ever had a strong desire to bang your head against the wall?

Do you love talking to people who love to try and dominate others in conversation? Well, have

I got some news for you These desires can be met and more all you have to do is try to engage a presuppositional list on the

Internet to be fair Not all precepts are as obnoxious as some of the knuckle -dragging examples online.

Oh, thank you. There we go I've been saying this all all you know for years right and not everyone's the same.

Okay, there's a difference between the person Using certain argumentation and the methodologies so forth itself.

There's a clear distinction there So I appreciate that Mine might lead you to believe it's possible to find a few cordial ones and those who actually participate in academia are often much more

Nuanced and generally seem to be likable people James and Anderson of RTS is one example, but this unfortunately is not true of many others philosopher

Alex Malpass explains the best representatives of the presuppositional apologetic are trying to elicit a

Copernican shift in the way that the worldview is argued for That is a That is a correct evaluation if I understand them correctly

Dr. Malpass is correct here The best representatives of the presuppositional apologetic are trying to elicit a Copernican shift in the way that the worldview is argued.

Yes the Vantil's presuppositional ism has often been referred to as a Copernican revolution in the realm of philosophy and apologetics

Okay, so I would agree with dr Malpass there the worst representatives are not trying to do this what they are up to is trying to confuse the

Non -christian instead of addressing the actual arguments against Christianity any Confusion on the part of the interlocutor is then pounced on as evidence that the argument has been won by the

Christian There is conceit behind such tactics now. Yeah, so I mean it depends what you're trying to say

So, okay, so let's say let's read this here. So what they are up to and this is the worst representatives They're up to trying to confuse the non -christian

Well, I guess there are some people who could engage in that right instead of addressing actual arguments For a presupposition list you should not avoid

Objections you shouldn't avoid them now You should address the presuppositions that underlie them because oftentimes the objections are predicated upon presuppositions that need to be challenged

But we should not avoid them. All right, if you are simply avoiding objections, then you're not engaging in Apologetics from a biblical perspective.

I mean the Bible doesn't teach us to avoid Objections, I mean first Peter 315 says to always be ready to give a reason for the hope that's in you if anyone should ask

So if someone asks, what's the reason for the hope in you? Well, what about what about what about you need to be able to engage those?

What about? Of course not doing so without addressing the presuppositions can be a problem okay, but I think sometimes the unbeliever will interpret our addressing the presuppositions behind their objection as Avoiding the specific objection in question, and that's not true

That's not true at all. Okay, when someone says, you know there's no evidence for You know the

Christian worldview and I say well, what do you mean by evidence? Oh, well, you know what I mean by evidence No, well evidence is interpreted in light of worldviews.

Oh, there you go with your script I mean, that's you know, that that's you need to kind of stand your grounds like wait a minute

We have a we do have different worldviews and our worldviews and presuppositions impact the way we interpret these things

So since we're debating worldviews here I'm not simply going to assume the categories of Neutrality that you bring to the table and kind of engage you at that level because our difference is really more fundamental than that in that sense

It's not meant to Avoid it's meant to clarify and that we're not acquiescing to the unbelievers presumptive

You know, you know this presumption of neutrality. Okay. Now if people are doing this to avoid

Objections and yes, I would agree. That's that would be the worst You know, you'd be you'd be in that category of the worst representatives if you're simply trying to evade which we shouldn't be doing

There's any confusion on the part of the interlocutor is then pounced on of evidence that the argument has been won

Yeah, I guess I mean I'd have to see a specific example of what he's what he's talking about there I'm such tactics

Consider this example of I well -known presupposition list blockhead sides and bruggen Kate Before we go any further.

Let's be clear about definitions when we use terms like reason or reasoning What are we talking about in philosophy?

Reason refers to a faculty or ability in virtue of which one makes appropriate Doxastic judgments that have a high likelihood of approximating to truth

It's important to keep this definition in mind as we return to the topic at hand There are only two options for someone when asked size question

Either fall into the trap by trying to use their reason to demonstrate that their use of reason is valid Circular or admit that they can't do it.

Once this happens the right so let's get back to I mean you can't hear it. If you listen to the podcast, there was a reference to sigh.

Let me see here. Let's get to You see if I could find that There we go

All right Okay, so what's coming up on the screen here is I guess a tweet by by site and broken

Kate says without using your reasoning Can you demonstrate that your reasoning is valid? Yeah, people don't like that question, but I think it's a perfectly perfectly valid question

Right and in other words there is if you answer yes, then obviously there's a problem if you answer no, there's there's a problem

Okay, I mean basically what sigh is trying to point out. I don't want to speak for sigh himself, but at the fundamental

You know paradigmatic level then. Yes, there is a certain level of circularity now I would make a distinction between vicious circularity and virtuous circularity a distinction not made up by Presuppositionalist by the way, but I would make that distinction

I just think that people don't like this question because they don't know how to answer it in a way that Gets them out of the challenge.

That's that's my that's my opinion. Okay and so Yeah, I don't think there's a problem with the question at all and you're gonna see

Well, let's see how they address it here and why this is so why do they find a problem with this? I guess he's challenging them at a fundamental level people don't like to be challenged at a fundamental level

And so when you challenge them and press them at those pressure points, you know, they'll accuse you of you know Well, you're not really debating or that's not real philosophy or whatever the case may be

But I think that's a perfectly valid question to ask Presupp generally begins to act like they have a way out of this problem and they will start describing the attributes of their

God and how Rational he is how logic is part of his divine nature and he created a rational world

And that were made in this his image with a innate capacity for logic and were designed with reliable cognitive capacities but here's the

So when when you ask the priest of this what they do is they provide in a metaphysical

Ontological and epistemological explanation as to how God does in fact and the Christian worldview does in fact provide the foundations for logic

Yes, that's that's what we do. Yes that that's true. That's that's what we're supposed to do. By the way, it's not as simple

So so a just so story we're arguing that that story

Must be the case because it does in fact provide those preconditions for the very things that we take for granted

You see the unbelievers job is to disagree and give their justification which they often do not want to do

Okay, so yes given the ontological status of God being all -encompassing. Okay He is the immaterial grounding of logic.

He has revealed himself He is the foundation for knowledge his ontological status as an universal all -encompassing

Being and ground of all reality and creator and definer of all derivational facts. Yeah, that's that's a justification

How does that justification? How is that? I guess that picture that the Christian paints.

How is that justified? Well Transcendentally reject it and you're in the same pool.

So to speak of the unbeliever, which let's see Let's see how they respond to this. Here's the rub when they give you this just so story

Notice that they invoke their God as the guarantor of the reliability of their cognitive capacities and inferential procedures or magically zapped knowledge

When they do that just point out politely and without rudely interrupting That they have in the very act of explaining all of this to you

Used and relied upon their own cognitive capacities and inferential procedures in the very act of demonstrating there

Whoa the old Ontological epistemology confusion right presuppositional is confused ontology with epistemology.

That's obviously not the case. We addressed this Before okay. So again, this is kind of old hat kind of stuff

I mean if you're familiar, I mean RC Sproul brings this up and we've responded to the billion times It's not a hard objection.

Although it can be difficult if you're not familiar with the interplay between Ontology and epistemology, but it is not a difficult question

I'm not going to rehearse the answer here as I addressed it before but surprise surprise, right? And thus they've argued in a circle

The moment they know there's a difference between reasoning in a circle and arguing in a circle

There's no argument from a presuppositional perspective in which the conclusion is baked into one of the premises

Okay, no one is arguing in a circular fashion in that sense Okay, two things the presuppositional argue the transcendental argument as formulated by Cornelius van

Til and explicated by Greg Bonson They argue that it is an indirect Argument transcendental argument is an indirect argument now indirect arguments are not typically laid out in kind of like a premise premise conclusion

That's cut. That's what you call direct argumentation So if the transcendental argument is traditionally formulated as an indirect argument

Then how can it be guilty of something that is a feature of a direct argument? Okay. Now, let's suppose we do lay out the transcendental argument in a direct fashion.

It's then at that point It's not fallaciously circular because no direct transcendental argument when it's formulated in that way

Has the conclusion baked into one of the premises? Okay, it just isn't

I mean That's just not the the nature of the of the argument form So again, this is all assuming things and mixing categories that really have no warrant moment

They said set out using any reasoning rely upon their memory present premises posit or presuppose anything

They're engaged in reasoning They will be in that moment Assuming the very reliability

Supposed to demonstrate in their conclusion. Yeah, that's right We we assume the reliability of the eye to correct the eye.

That's right Well, if it's a presupposition though, then you can't justify it. Well again, there are many things that are

Presupposed and also evidenced and justified like the laws of logic, right? I'm going to demonstrate to you the reliability and validity of logic.

I have to presuppose logic to do it So I presuppose it and we argue that logic is Is is valid and necessary by the impossibility of the contrary if you reject it?

You have to assume it in order to rationally reject it And so we'll have failed to satisfy their own challenge which they put before you

Don't fall for the naive intuition that we all have that there must exist some way of defending reason

That doesn't itself assume the reliability of reason. Oh, that'd be night. Yeah, it is naive Let's let him finish yeah,

I don't want to interrupt you let's Don't fall for the naive intuition that we all have that there must exist some way of defending reason

That doesn't itself assume the reliability of reason There is no such argument that isn't itself circular

The presupposition list can't do it either. No, well No, we do it transcendentally, right?

How do we justify our ultimate presupposition? All right. He's just assuming that just that presuppositions cannot be justified when someone says that challenge that assumption

Okay transcendental argument Pardon is trying to do just that it's trying to provide a justification for ultimate preconditions

Okay, someone says it's impossible to justify a presupposition. That's just to implicitly reject the possibility of transcendental argumentation

Ask them what is your justification for denying the possibility of transcendental argumentation?

Okay, you don't just get to assert that right? So Yeah, again, all of this is

Based upon a misunderstanding of the nature of transcendental argumentation. I mean, this isn't chance. This isn't difficult

I mean It just takes a little bit of knowledge in terms of what transcendental arguments are trying to do and what they're what they are

Right when someone says, you know, the pre sub argument is meant to confuse

It's like well if we're using a transcendental argument, that's not the purpose of a transcendental argument, right? You can't pre so you can't demonstrate presuppositions actually you can

Transcendentally, maybe you you don't agree that the Christian has done that successfully But the but that is irret that's irrespective of the idea that we're trying to justify presupposition

Okay, we're justifying a presupposition through argumentation disagree with the argument and validly critique the argument

But to say that we can't even do transcendental arguments, which is the implicit Implication of what he's saying itself needs to be justified and he's admitting that at a fundamental level

Yeah, there is a certain level of circularity But again, there's a difference between circular reasoning at the fundamental level and circular argument when you lay out premise premise conclusion there's a difference between a presupposition of an argument and the

Premise within an argument when I give a transcendental argument for the existence of God I don't not presuppose the existence of God that would be self -refuting for my own position because if I'm arguing that God is the necessary precondition for Intelligibility and I have to presuppose that in order to even meaningfully and intelligibly give an argument

But in my presupposition, I don't lay that out in the premise There's nothing in the argument itself in which the conclusion is also stated in the premise

That's just not the case and that is if the argument is presented in a direct fashion

Okay, if it's offered in an indirect fashion then obviously the Assertion that we're engaging in circular argumentation doesn't fly

So whether it's indirect it doesn't fly and if it's a direct it doesn't fly either. So So there you go

How does he know we're all in the same epistemological boat up I'm sorry Presuppositionalists are not allowed to ask the how -do -you -know question because that would be our

Script. Yeah, right When you ask, how do you know don't be annoying and keep repeating it over and over and over and over again

But don't be bullied into thinking that by asking the question you're not doing real philosophy. How do you know is a fundamental epistemological question if you don't know how to answer it then perhaps you need to be careful with this with the kinds of assertions that You make same thing with the

Christian the Christian says God exists. The Bible's true. How do you know? How do you justify that we need to be able to have a justification?

What is our justification? Well the transcendental argument. Well, I don't agree with the transcendental argument great So now you're going to respond to the transcendental argument and our attempted justification with a counterpoint, right?

And of course, it's at that particular point where the unbeliever is not going to want to show their hand now

Some who do want to show their hand and say here are my presuppositions Here is how I make sense out of that then we need to meaningfully interact with with what they say

Which is what we want to do what we should do but often the case when it we never get that far, unfortunately

Put another way they've fallen into the very trap. They've laid for others Using their reason to give you reasons that their use of reason is valid how you might be wondering could some people make such a crucial

Oversight. Well, it turns out that when people are more interested in using rhetorical tricks to beat others into submission

They tend to make bumbling errors. There's a rhetorical trick to ask someone to justify their ultimate foundations.

That's a rhetorical trick So so what is not a rhetorical trick is just to grant them their ultimate foundations, which is the very thing

They're going to use to try to argue against our position. So grant them that right? You're basically granting them a small island of neutrality and autonomy so that they can get up and then argue against your position, right?

Yeah, that's not a rhetorical trick. That is actually asking someone to justify their Worldview we're not simply asking you to justify reason we're asking you to justify reason within the context of your professed worldview

Okay, it's another thing oftentimes people will kind of focus on like reason or logic remember when we're debating and discussing the difference between Christianity and like atheism or skepticism or agnosticism or Islam or whatever we're engaging in an analysis of Philosophical systems.

We're not simply arguing over one specific thing. We're arguing with the skeptic For example, how do you justify your reason given your worldview?

Okay, your metaphysic your epistemology your ethic your entire system of thought. Okay, it's not a trap

It's asking you to justify your view if you don't like to be asked those kinds of questions like that's fine

But then don't engage in debate don't engage in the discussion unless you're willing to actually provide a justification

Right, and that's that's I mean, this is this isn't this isn't hard, right? I mean the

Christian is gonna give his justification the non -christian is gonna disagree and then you don't just get to disagree you need to then just Demonstrate why the thing that the

Christian has put forth as the explanation the justification Okay Why it's wrong and then the

Christian in turn needs to then interact with those criticism that that's that's how debate happens

But there you go. All right, let's let the let it finish. It's only a couple seconds left here Who knew oh and by the way, here's an entire playlist of me responding to apologists, so there you have it

We covered a bunch of things there hopefully this is helpful for folks Remember matters want to end with this never be afraid to ask

How do you know but as a Christian you need to be willing to answer the question when it's turned around on you when it's asked in good faith then you know interact and Provide the justification that the

Christian worldview provides us with okay And of course you want to choose your interlocutors wisely, right?

So so there you go. All right Well, I hope this is helpful if you like these kinds of videos and you want me to respond to more things

You know click the like button subscribe if you haven't subscribed and maybe put some pardon put some links either in the comment section or You can link you can email me at revealed apologetics at gmail .com

a video You would like me to respond to and so I want to try to do a little bit more of these I think this is useful for folks.

Hopefully I mean, I hope it's useful for folks And you can send me a link to a video. Just make sure it's manageable

I mean the videos I responded to there's like a clip here and clip there I've used if you kind of dude, I want you to respond to this thing and it's like two hours long

Obviously, I'm not gonna be able to do that But if you have a clip or something that you want me to interact with you could email me at revealed apologetics at gmail .com

Guys, thank you so much for listening in with me. I hope this was useful to you guys until next time. Take care and God bless.