(Debate): Is Christianity True? Eli Ayala (Presuppositionalist) vs. Negation of P

Debate Format and Opening Remarks

Everybody, today we are debating whether or not Christianity is true, and we are starting right now. Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here. This is going to be a lot of fun. Believe me, the most fun.

So, we have two guys who have had prior debate experience. They've been in different places, different channels, and this is going to be a really interesting discussion. Not only because we really, we've done a lot of Does God Exist, but it's been a while since we've done a Is Christianity in Particular True discussion, and I'm not joking, I think this is the first time that we've ever had a presuppositionalist, so that's also a really special thing.

I'm very excited to have a presupper, as that's how the kids say it nowadays, a presupper, I don't know. So anyway, they are both linked in the description. If you enjoy what you're hearing, if you're like, hmm, yeah, I like that, I want to hear more from either speaker, they are both in the description, so that you can click on their links, reach out to them, hear more of their content, we would welcome you to, I can tell you, I've had a chat with these guys, and very pleasant people.

I think this is actually going to be a really, like, just a really pleasant conversation. So, with that, we're not going to spare, we're not going to take any time, but we are going to jump right into it.

So, I want to say, right before that, I always forget, if this is your first time here, consider hitting that subscribe button, as we have a lot more debates coming up. In fact, we've got a really big one we're excited about, Aaron Raw is going to be having a discussion with Buzz Rana this Monday, for real.

I'm stoked about it. So, that's going to be out there, we've got a lot of other stuff. So, glad to have you here, whether you're Christian, Atheist, Republican, Democrat, Jedi, or even Sith, we are glad that you are here, we are trying to build an eclectic community of different people.

So, with that, Eli, we'll give you a chance to make your kind of opening statement for why you would say yes to the question of whether or not Christianity is true. Thanks for being here, gentlemen.

Presuppositionalism and the Transcendental Argument

All right. Well, first, when I talk about these issues, I like to lay out the groundwork as I see the nature of the debate, okay? And, of course, negation of P is going to be familiar with some of the buzzwords and things like that, but we're not reinventing the wheel, we're discussing issues that people have debated over and over again.

So, I'm just going to lay out the situation as I see it, and the situation as I see it is that we have the situation of worldview versus worldview perspective. Why is there a difference between the Christian and the non-Christian?

It's really because we are wearing different worldview lenses, so to speak, and you and I are wearing glasses. If our worldview was a set of intellectual glasses, everything in human experience is filtered through those lenses, okay?

And so, if I'm wearing red lens glasses, everything I'm going to look at is red. If I'm wearing blue lens glasses, everything that I'm going to look at is blue. That is necessarily the case. I do not believe that we can float in a neutral ground of a worldview independent situation in which we can make sense out of specific facts and things like that.

We are both coming to this discussion from a worldview perspective, different systems of thought, okay? That being said, I do also believe that there is no neutrality in this sort of discussion, so that it's often understood that the Christian is the one who's making the positive claim, and so oftentimes people interpret that as just the atheist or the agnostic just has to sit back and hear my case and, you know, I don't agree and I don't find it convincing, and then he doesn't really have to offer anything.

I don't think that's the case at all. I think, really, when you boil down to the issues, there really are only two worldviews. Now, I know that we have the Christian worldview on the one hand, and I would categorize the other worldview as the non-Christian worldview.

We can understand subcategories within the non-Christian worldview. Say, for example, we have Islam, who looks at the world through the lens of the Quran, right? You have the Mormon, who has their specific worldview perspective.

We have, I know atheists kind of have problems with calling their perspective a worldview, but I'm going to assume it's a worldview because I think it is, and if we want to interact on that, we can. Every perspective has within it, if we were to look at the situation as only two worldviews, the Christian worldview and the non-Christian worldview.

Every non-Christian worldview has implicit or explicit within it the assertion that Christianity is false. For example, if you are an atheist and you say God does not exist, that implies the falsehood of the Christian worldview.

If you are an agnostic or a little kind of a hybrid of an atheist agnostic sort of person, you say, well, I don't know if God exists. Well, that's an implicit assertion that Christianity is false, since one of the very important assertions within the Christian worldview is that in a very profound sense, everyone knows that God exists such that they're without excuse.

Now, you don't have to believe that. Well, I reject that statement from an agnostic perspective, but if you claim you don't know, we do have to grant this much, that that is an implicit claim that Christianity is false.

So when we're dealing with worldview against worldview, principle against principle, system against system, it's not this situation where just the one person provides a positive case and the other person sits back and just listens to what the other guy has to say.

I think in this kind of debate, when we're dealing with worldview systems, which have inherent within them ultimate foundations upon which everything else is built, we need to both interact with each other's worldview perspective, and that's going to include things like worldview critique.

We're going to have to internally critique each other's perspective. It does nothing to throw stones, so to speak, from outside the Christian worldview and disagree with it while standing on the non-Christian worldview foundation.

If you want to attack the Christian worldview and the claims that I'm going to make when I put forth my argument, the only way that you can do it is to hypothetically grant the truth of my worldview and then show, given its principles, that it cannot stand.

And like fashion, it does nothing for me to critique the non-Christian worldview from the outside of the non-Christian worldview. I need to hypothetically grant the truth of the unbelievers' principles and show that there is internal inconsistencies there.

This must be the case since we cannot speak merely of individual facts, since individual facts are not understood in a context-less context, so to speak, right? Every fact of experience requires a context in which it can be interpreted, and so we bring our worldview systems to interpret those specific facts.

And that's why, as we engage, I'm not so much going to be focusing on specifics. I want to focus on specifics in relation to a worldview system out of which we can make sense out of those specific issues that we might talk about, be it science or whatever the case may be.

So in closing, so I don't take up—by the way, I'm a teacher, and so I can talk forever, so I do apologize. The argument—and I'm sure negation of people will be familiar—my argument is quite simple. It's a transcendental argument, and my argument is that the truth for the Christian worldview is that if it were not true, you couldn't prove anything at all.

And so the Christian metaphysic, so to speak, provides the metaphysical context in which epistemological claims have grounding, in which knowledge is something that we could acquire, intelligibility makes sense, science, the coherency of history, philosophy, all of these things require as a necessary precondition, my argument is, that the Christian worldview is correct, that what the Bible reveals about the world, that is actually the case, and that metaphysical context gives coherency for every single specific thing within a person's worldview.

And so the truth of the Christian worldview is that if it were not true, you couldn't prove anything at all. One more thing before I close. There's a temptation to think that this argument is merely an assertion.

It's not an assertion, it's an argument. So if someone disagrees that Christianity is the necessary prerequisite for proof and knowledge and intelligibility, then we need to engage in worldview analysis at that point, so that you can ground knowledge and intelligibility within your own worldview, thus refuting my claim that the Christian worldview is the only precondition for intelligible experience.

All right. I hope that wasn't too long-winded. So there we go.

You got it. Thank you very much. We'll go right into open conversation with that. So ready for you, Negation of Key. Thanks as well for being here.

Worldview, Burden of Proof, and the Christian Metaphysic

All right. And guys, y 'all can call me Ned. Don't worry about the formal whatever. But I mean, Eli, I love what you said, because you're right about all of it. I mean, it's going to be wonderful. Not only are we teachers and we're going to be long-winded, so we're going to drive people nuts, but we're also going to agree from opposite sides of the fence, so people are going to be throwing stones in both directions.

But you're right. As far as sitting back and not making a case does nothing to help your side. And from that aspect, as far as making my case, like I said, I'll just open with, I agree that I have to demonstrate why, with the Christian God, knowledge, as far as it sounded like that's where you want to go, is transcendental and get into knowledge and be able to prove quote unquote things.

We definitely can start there, because I think I can show that because of the Christian God, knowledge is unattainable. You can't get there.

Okay. All right. Well, okay. So let's begin. Now, what makes this easier is that you've acknowledged that the situation that I've set up is an accurate depiction of what it means for worldviews to engage in internal critique.

So let's jump in. At that point, then, would you admit, then, that we both have a burden of proof? Oh, yes. Okay, cool. All right. So now we can just flip a coin to see who wants to go first. Let's build a worldview, you know.

Do you want to build a worldview? Let's go. We can just go. Well, I mean, what, and again, I don't, honestly, I don't carry the way, but it seems like since Christianity is the title, if you were to start with Christianity and go internal there.

And by the way, just for listeners who might be listening, I don't mind talking about my worldview. I like to lay it out when I have the opportunity. And with this issue of burden of proof, I'm not trying to shift a burden so that I don't have to answer anything.

I just don't want anyone to think that since we both acknowledge that we have system versus system. And so we both have something to defend. All right. So I was just kind of saying that to joke around.

But at any rate, all right. So the Christian worldview provides a necessary foundation for knowledge, because if we take a look at what a worldview is comprised of, we take the three foundations of a worldview, metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.

Now, for those people who are listening, let me just briefly explain what those things are. Every worldview has a metaphysic, an epistemology, and an ethic. Metaphysics asks the question, what is real?

What is the nature of reality? And it's very important to recognize that what you say about the nature of reality will spill over into your epistemology. And so we ask the question in epistemology, how do we know what we know?

And this is literally everything. How do we know anything about anything? So based upon the nature of reality, we then need to connect the nature of what we say about reality to the nature of knowledge and how it's gained, and then move into the ethics as to, in light of the metaphysical commitments and the epistemological commitments that we have, how then should we live our lives?

And when we lay those things out, it is important to recognize that they must be consistent with one another. And so what I say about reality must also be consistent with what I say about how knowledge is gained and how I should live my life.

And so our worldviews need to be consistent. So from the Christian perspective, my metaphysic is that everything is created by God. There is a creator-creature distinction that we make. I am not God.

God is the original. He created all things. Knowledge is possible because human beings are made in the image of God. And so we reflect God's nature in various capacities. One capacity would include the ability to be rational, to utilize logic, which is itself a reflection of God's nature.

And everything that we know about anything is connected to God's revelation, either in general revelation, the creative order, which includes literally the universe, the heavens declare the glory of God, and internally, our own rational and logical capacities are themselves a revelation of God.

My epistemology, in light of my ontology, includes the fact that God is able to convey aspects of reality to us such that we can know it. Okay? And in light of that, there are certain ways that we should live in light of that.

And that spills over into my ethics. So within my worldview, knowledge is based upon God's revelation and his ability to convey knowledge to image bearers. And so that's how I think knowledge is gained, through revelation.

And that means if I am to know that I'm holding a pen in my hand, my very ability to know that I would say is based off revelation as well, since sense experience was created for various purposes, that is itself a gift of God and the way God created me, that's a form of revelation.

So anything that we know would have a revelatory foundation. And so God can convey to us certain things such that we can know them. That being said, I do not believe we can know everything. And I can be mistaken about some things.

But there are certain things that I cannot be mistaken about, which I'm sure we'll get into when you cross-examine me. Okay. So I hope that kind of summarizes things in a, I can't say short, because I'm not sure if it's possible for me to be short in my explanation.

But I hope that makes sense.

And I'm not just rambling. No, that makes lots of sense. And yeah, I'll warn you, as long as you can go, I probably can double you every time.

So okay, well, you have a white beard. It looks like you have more experience in this than me. So you probably could. That's not a good thing, by the way.

I ramble way too much. So cut me off if I get there. Yeah, so to me, that was fairly clear. I hope the audience is on the same page as what we're looking at. Just a couple of points of clarity about God.

I just want to make sure that we're on the same page. Effectively, the God that you believe in is omni across the board.

God is omnipotent. He is all-powerful. But of course, omnipotence defined within a Christian worldview context. God is omniscient. He knows all truths and believes no falsehoods. And any omni that we could apply, if it's in accordance with how God has revealed himself, then I would say God has those omni qualities.

Okay, good.

Also, God has a plan. And that plan must be carried out. We can't nor anything else could thwart that plan. Correct? Right.

God has a sovereign decree. And so before he creates, if we can use the word before, we're going to be talking in popular parlance before anyone claims, well, that doesn't make sense before, you know.

God decrees everything that comes to pass, so that everything that happens in space and time is an unfolding of his own counsel and purposes. Okay, good.

I just want to make sure I kind of figured you were there, but just wanted to, I started dissecting, so to speak. Okay. All right, so going to, we'll start with the metaphysics, like you were saying before.

Speaking about what is real, what, I guess, I'm assuming that you're basing your reality on, for lack of a better term, would be uniformity of nature and inference, at least to a certain degree?

I would say that knowledge of God is immediate, not immediate. In other words, my knowledge of God does not come from a looking and seeing and drawing conclusions. I would say the knowledge of God is inherent within my system, and it's upon that foundation I can make sense out of everything else.

And so I'm not basing my belief on, say, the uniformity of nature, because the uniformity of nature is part of my system. So I hold that, and it has coherence because of other things within my system.

Right, and I should have been more clear on that. I'm talking more ontology at this point as far as what you believe about the reality of where you live and what we can glean from our surroundings, how, you know, water runs downhill.

All of that would be based on uniformity of nature, inference, that type of thing. That make sense?

Well, I'm going at the deeper level. All of those things I use, and they help me gain knowledge, but it's only because of the metaphysical context in which I'm operating on, which is the Christian context.

So that the world is the way that it is, and because the world is the way that God has revealed it, and because of that, it makes sense to use induction and logic and things like that, because I have a metaphysical grounding for them.

They're not just arbitrary assumptions that I hold.

Oh, yeah, and that's kind of what I was getting at, is it's based... Well, anyhow, we're on the same page there, I think. Um, now, I guess that's where my first pushback would come. If I've got an Omnigod, something that literally can, within his power, do anything, let's say, even if we constrain it and bound it by logical, you know, it's got to be...

He can't make a married bachelor. It needs to be within reason. But uniformity of nature evaporates. There's no such thing as uniformity of nature with an Omnigod. It's only uniform as long as he allows it to be uniform.

In fact, we see that with every miracle. So you could not base knowledge in any way, shape, or form in any kind of uniformity.

Yeah, when you said that there's no uniformity of nature unless the God is operating in uniformity for that, you know, in a regular sense, right? I mean, he can do miracles or whatever. Yeah, that's right.

There's uniformity of nature because within the Christian worldview, God's revealed to us that nature is uniform. However, when we say that nature is uniform, it is not necessarily so. In other words, the laws are stuck like that.

Otherwise, God would be locked out of his creation. And so within the Christian worldview, I expect regularity, but also within the Christian worldview includes the belief that God could and has intervened in specific points to accomplish certain purposes.

So I would say, for example, within the Christian worldview, I have justification for believing that the sun will rise tomorrow, most likely. But within my worldview, I could also say it may not if God desires to, but he's made promises that they will.

Seed time and harvest will come, and it makes that caveat that, of course, when Jesus comes back, things will change. And so I have a basis for regularity, but I'm not married to the regularity in the sense that the laws that God has put in place must be immutably so all the time.

So I could know things to a certain degree based upon God revealing. I operate in this way, but I also operate in this way. I could redemptively act and perform miracles and things like that.

Right, which speaks to the point. And again, I know, at least we talked a little bit off air. I don't think you're going to go, how do you know? How do you know? How do you know? But it does kind of get back to that question is that with most presuppositional apologetics, it boils down to how do you know with a capital K, X, Y, or Z, or anything?

And if we've got an omni-God that literally can do anything, include wipe us out of existence and do it in a way that effectively we never existed. I would disagree with that.

I would disagree with that. For example, if someone were to ask me, can God right now send everyone to hell right now? Right now, just like, forget about it. I don't want to deal with anyone. Send everyone to hell.

The answer to that question is no, because he's already made redemptive promises. So to send everyone to hell, including people who placed faith in Jesus, would actually cause him to go against his word, which would contradict what the Bible says in regards to his inability to lie.

So there are, so God cannot go back on what he has already promised. And history is unfolding, moving towards his redemptive purposes. He cannot go back on that. Not because he's not omnipotent, because omnipotence within the Christian worldview does not entail that God does the logically impossible.

And it is logically impossible for a holy and righteous and perfectly honest God to actually engage in lying, which would be the case if he just said, yep, I'm going to send everyone to hell.

It doesn't matter what promises I make. Okay, so basically outside of potentially, and I'm assuming you were talking on being Calvinist, being whatever, outside of doing something outside what you were talking about, taking the elect and condemning them to hell, taking the non-elect and welcoming them into heaven.

Those type of things, if you want to bound it by a logical inconsistency and say that's lying, okay, we're fine. We can go there. But what I'm saying is any knowledge outside of maybe that small parameter, I don't see how you can claim knowledge of anything, especially like with science.

Science, we don't prove anything. And we make probability claims based on inference, based on repeatability, falsifiability, all the stuff. I would say that you're at best in that same boat, but in reality, even worse off, because at least with a worldview that encompasses uniformity of nature, and as far as we can tell, those uniformities hold, I can have predictive capability.

I would say you can't because...

But wait, let me finish real quick. Sure. But the problem is, is like you said, and you said you did a really good job of this, saying that the sun will come up tomorrow probably. Again, that's the best you can get to.

And I mean, I find it refreshing that there is a presupp guy out there that goes, okay, we're talking in probabilities, we're not talking in absolutes, because that's usually where we get to.

Right. But probability presupposes certainty as well, since probability presupposes a foundation upon which we can make probabilistic claims. I'm not saying induction, and that's good enough to make predictions.

Induction has intelligibility because of the metaphysical context of a God who created the world to act in a particular way, in a predictable way. And so uniformity makes sense within a worldview in which God, who knows everything, reveals to man that we could expect nature to act a certain way.

Now I can leave it, even within that worldview, yeah, God can perform miracles, but generally speaking, He's revealed to us nature will work for the most part in this way. It's safe to assume in science, even as a Christian, when I engage in science, I do not give science the place that it does not seek to hold, namely to give me absolute certain knowledge.

Science doesn't do that. Science is a pragmatic discipline. And that's the case for a Christian. And so when a Christian uses science, I'm not trying to get to certain knowledge. What is certain is that nature is, I'm able to use those principles because God has revealed to us that He created a world in which that makes sense.

So God has created a world in which making certain predictions based upon probability makes sense. And He's created a world in which we can make certain knowledge claims about various things. So for my worldview, I could account for probabilistic conclusions and I could account for certain conclusions regarding knowledge.

Okay. So that, okay. I mean, I'm kind of stuck because I've got two ways I want to go here. Okay. And both of them are like, ah, which they're fighting. Okay. I'll start with the second one. You said you have certain, there's certainty claims that you can make.

Not scientifically. No, again, that's fine. What would you say from an absolutist sense you can claim?

You know, are you asking me what can I know for certain? Exactly. Right. That logic is valid.

Okay. Could it not be the case with an Omnigod that the logic that He is, for lack of, well, I'll use your word, revealed to you, could not hold, oh, maybe even other aspects that either you're not aware of that would conflict and in fact prove wrong some of your quote-unquote certainty just because God works in whatever way He wants to work.

And it's not so much He's lying, it's just that He's not going to reveal everything to you like you were talking about earlier. Just because you know certain aspects of a subject does not entail that you can be certain about that subject in its whole.

I'm certain that logic is valid. So I know that with certainty. That would answer the question. If you ask the question, what can I know with certainty? I know with certainty that logic is valid, even if that means that there are certain cases that I misuse logic.

So I can create a logical argument to which I have a conclusion that does not logically follow, right? I can misapply logic, but the fact that logic is valid, I know with a necessity because to deny it, let's say I couldn't know it, I'd have to affirm it in order to deny it.

Logic, I would say, is demonstrated by a transcendental necessity. It's true because of the impossibility of a contrary.

Okay, and that's where I'm getting at. How can you make that claim that it is transcendental and it is basic? In other words, it could not in any way, shape or form be revealed to you in a way that would show that the logic you believe is absolute in its correctness is not.

Is in fact false.

Basically what you're saying is, how is it possible within my worldview that logic is not absolute? No, that's not possible within my worldview since within my worldview, logic is a reflection of the mind of God.

We're creating his image and we think our thoughts after him. In my worldview, logic is a reflection of his thinking and so it can never be different than what it is. It can't be, for example, the law of non-contradiction is not gonna mysteriously become true.

That's inconsistent within a Christian framework.

But again, what I'm saying is, is that your perception is incorrect. Let's use the law of non-contradiction. Even though pure logic, what logic really is, is something that law of non-contradiction doesn't hold.

However we get there, doesn't matter. It just, in the real, real logic, it doesn't work. But because you only have access to certain parts that God has revealed to you, it would seem to follow that uniformity, or I'm stuck on uniformity of nature, that law of non-contradiction is an absolute truth.

Isn't it possible that with a being that is this, well, for like just so much superior and has such omni properties, that he understands that, if I were to enlighten them to the true nature of knowledge, they would not be able to comprehend it in any way, shape, or form, any more than a dog or a cat can understand calculus.

It's just not gonna work. So he piecemeals it together to where we get little bits and pieces that we can use, but the, quote unquote, omni, I don't even know what the word would be, but omni-logic would negate a bunch of the things that we think are because of our experience.

That seems to presuppose that the logic that I'm employing could be different than the logic that God is employing. No, no, no, it's only partial.

In other words, well, here's an example. If I ask you what is two plus two, or I'm sorry, one plus one? Most people, two. Well, I only gave you, you're right, if you're looking at a base 10 system. But if I say, oh, we're in binary, it's not two anymore, it's one zero.

So Yeah, but real quick, to interrupt you, I apologize. But even to talk about it, you're already presupposing the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of the middle. So even to talk, right, but those have to be valid even to speak about binary or whatever thing you wanna talk about.

That must be universal and unchanging. Otherwise, okay, good, good. Go ahead, share your thoughts. It looked like you wanted to say something. I don't wanna, I don't want you to lose your thought. No, I thought James was gonna say something.

Oh, I was just gonna say, just so, I don't want Ned to lose his thought. Just so, if you're able to wrap up, and then we'll kick it right back to Ned. So if you have that thought in your mind yet, Ned, you can go back.

I just wanted to make sure it didn't go too long. Sure, don't worry about it.

No, but you're right within our bounded world, the world that God has put us in, with the piecemeal of logic, that the small portion of logic that resides within our world, you're right, all of that works.

But the omni-world that is encompassing all logic, the biggest where God resides, it would, again, we're only looking at part of logic because the way that you're presupposing is that you do have access to all logic.

And I don't know what that means, Ned, access to all logic. Logic are the proper rules of thinking. In my worldview, I'm created in the image of God, whose mind reflects logic. And therefore, the mind of God within my worldview is revealed to me in the sense that I could employ these and know them to be certain.

Otherwise, if they don't hold universally, then yeah, I would be stuck in a skepticism because God can make something contradictory later on. I don't see what, within my worldview, what you're saying isn't a possibility.

You're saying, well, I'm limited and how could I know this? Within my worldview, God has revealed an aspect of his mind to us that gives us the preconditions for intelligibility and to know that these laws are unchanging and necessary.

And that's where I'm saying. Your problem is, is presupposing that God has enlightened you to all of logic, has given you everything that there is to do with logic, is without foundation.

There's no way you can make that claim. Well, if there's a God who reveals himself and has revealed to us that we're made in his image and that we can use these, then yes, I do have. Within my worldview, the claim is he's revealed it.

If, but there's no way you can say that logic holds universally when you're founding that on an if statement.

I'm not asking, well, I'm not, you use the word if, I didn't use the word if because I don't believe. Okay, so then if I did, let me correct myself. I believe my worldview is true since the argument that I use was transcendental, I believe it's necessarily true.

So let me correct myself. I will not say if my worldview is true, I believe it's necessarily true because within my worldview, I do not put contingency over God. Within my worldview, God is the one who determines what is possible and impossible.

And don't get it twisted.

I'm not saying there's contingency contingently placed on God. I'm saying there's contingency placed on us and our world that we reside in by God. And so the thing is, is all I'm saying is, is even with an omni-God, there is no way that from our perspective, from what we're looking at, we can determine what the true state of that existence is, what God's existence is.

What if God reveals it to us? And again, it would be, it would be, I'm trying to think of the right word. I want to say subjective in that it's untestable, unfalsifiable to know that this is the complete essence of, you know, whatever you want to say.

So say logic. There would be no way for us to determine if there is something outside that bounds, if we're bounded or unbounded. How do you know that there's no limits outside it? And the fact that it's not falsifiable.

Is not a bad thing. If something's necessarily true, then it's unfalsifiable. I'm saying that logic is necessarily valid for to deny it is to affirm it. When you say all of logic, just let me finish the thought real quick.

When you say all of logic, I don't even know what that means. That presupposes that there is something more than these necessary laws that we have. These are the preconditions to even have discourse or to make any truth statements.

So I don't know what it means.

It doesn't presuppose that they exist. It allows for their existence. In other words, it doesn't presuppose that they do in fact exist. All it does, all my statement does is allow for the possibility of the existence of outside more logic.

I don't even know what to call it. And you're right.

I don't know what that would be either. But from the Christian worldview, that's not an internal critique of my worldview. No, no, it is.

I believe it is because here's the thing. I have not done anything to mandate that your God is in any way, shape or form limited. If anything, you're the one placing limits and bounds on your God by mandating that he has, again, let me finish.

He has in fact revealed this to us in its entirety by saying that it's impossible that he didn't.

It's impossible Ned for the law of non-contradiction to be falsified by some extra logic in the mind of God, because then that would mean God can lie, which is a contradiction within the Christian worldview.

Okay, how do you get there? Well, if the law of non-contradiction, a statement can't be both true and false at the same time in the same way. When God makes a statement, he can't then just contradict himself and violate the second law of logic because he'd be deceiving us.

Within the Christian worldview, that's impossible. God does not contradict what he has established already.

Within, okay, again, within our bounded world, within our existence, you're right. But he doesn't do that, let's say. But outside this, there is another law that allows for both statements to be true at the same time.

I don't believe that's possible.

Since I believe that law of non-contradiction is universal. It's universal. It's not localized within my segment of the universe. It transcends the physical universe. And it reflects, I would argue, the absolute universal mind of God.