Atheism & Logic

The Purpose of the Episode and the Bonson-Stein Debate

Welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host Eli Ayala and today we're going to be taking a look at the famous debate between Dr. Greg Bonson and Dr. Gordon Stein. It's an old debate, took place in the 80s.

I have also a while back was invited on Nate Sala's show, that's The Wise Disciple and he has a I guess a series that he does called The Debate Teacher Reacts and so I was asked a while back to come on the show and talk a little bit about this debate but we ended up covering a lot of different topics and so I wanted to do this video to kind of narrow in on what I think was a key moment in this debate and I think it's useful to to listen to and then expound upon a little bit so folks can kind of really understand the the power of the presuppositional method and the power of transcendental argumentation.

So there you go that's kind of what I want to do today and before we get started I really appreciate everyone who listens in and sends their questions. I greatly appreciate that. I've received wonderful emails of encouragement and I just want to give folks a heads up the podcast is being updated so I dropped I think four or five episodes that I have not yet uploaded to iTunes so folks can check that out if you usually listen by way of podcast and I will be updating that more today I'll be dropping a bunch at once since it's been so long and I will try my best and then keep updated on the podcast as I understand not everyone listens via YouTube.

All right well if you appreciate the stuff that we talk about and the things that we cover on this channel and you are looking to support Revealed Apologetics you can do that by going to revealedapologetics .com there is a donate button there and I think the link to that page on my website is in the description of this video.

That's a super helpful way to support. Also you can purchase my new course entitled Presupp Applied in which I cover a wide variety of issues in five lectures. We talk about how to navigate apologetic conversations, how to apply presuppositionalism to Roman Catholicism, presuppositional Eastern Orthodoxy, the cults and so forth.

So I did a lot of work putting my work into that series and so folks can sign up for that and order that on the website at revealedapologetics .com. Click over to the Presupp U drop-down menu and you can sign up for the course there.

And of course I also just appreciate your prayers as support and just the fact that you are listening in and sharing the videos, liking, subscribing, all that good stuff. I really appreciate all of that.

Logic, Transcendental Argumentation, and the Uniformity of Nature

So there you go. So let's jump right in to our topic for today. Let me get my coffee real quick. I have it now. This is my special mug that keeps my coffee hot. So that's the worst. I'll be talking about something and then I take a sip of my coffee and it's like cold or lukewarm.

It's not cool. So let me take a sip and we'll jump right in. All right. So we are going to be analyzing a key moment in the debate between Dr. Gordon Stein and Dr. Greg Bonson. In the famous debate between Bonson and Stein, one particular moment stands out I think to many people, but I think it's the particular point that I'm referring to particularly is illustrative of the power of the presuppositional method.

And this occurs during the cross-examination where Bonson effectively exposes the inconsistencies in Dr. Stein's worldview. But before diving into that interaction specifically, I want to provide a brief overview of the two significant debates that Dr. Bonson had engaged in.

One is the one that we're going to be looking into, the one with Dr. Gordon Stein. And another one, not as much known but still known, people are familiar with the debate, is the debate that Dr. Bonson had with Edward Tabash.

I think it's very fascinating to note how Bonson employs a transcendental argument in both debates, okay? Basically showcasing the flexibility and broad applicability of the transcendental argument by emphasizing different things.

So for example, when we take a look at the Gordon Stein debate, Bonson focuses on the laws of logic, okay? He argues that these abstract, universal, immaterial laws can be coherently explained within a Christian worldview.

And yet on the other hand, in his debate with Edward Tabash, it's the same argument but with a different emphasis, okay? Basically Dr. Bonson highlights the concept of the uniformity of nature as a fundamental presupposition for science, right?

And he basically contends that the atheistic worldview fails to account for the uniformity of nature, and it fails to provide an answer to the philosophical problem of induction, which was addressed throughout philosophical literature, but more specifically David Hume wrote on this, obviously no friend to Christianity.

And so this was a particularly important issue in that debate. Now I think Dr. Bonson's focus on these two issues in these two debates, on the one hand with Dr. Stein, the issue of logic, on the other hand with Mr. Tabash on the issue of the uniformity of nature and the problem of induction, his focus on those topics were not a coincidence, okay?

They directly relate to what we call the necessary preconditions for intelligibility. And so through these debates, I think Dr. Bonson effectively demonstrates the insufficiency of atheistic materialism specifically and the coherence of the Christian worldview as being able to ground these things that are necessary for rational discourse, scientific inquiry, and so on and so forth.

So with that context in mind, let's jump into the key moment in the debate with Dr. Gordon Stein and Dr. Bonson and kind of see, you know, examine how Dr. Bonson dismantles Gordon Stein's position. Now when we talk about this specific area in this debate, most people know what part of that debate I'm referring to, right, with respect to the laws of logic, but I want to kind of take a little bit more of the cross-examination and kind of analyze the kinds of issues that Dr. Bonson brings up and then explain why it's important.

And hopefully in doing so we can get kind of a good grasp on what to look for when having conversations with people. Now I want to warn you, okay, this is important. Debates are not the same as when you're interacting with a person, you know, face-to-face, okay?

So you want to take these principles and then, you know, contextualize them as I always say, all right? So that's very important. But be that as it may, I think it's still useful to kind of examine these particular portions of the debate that I'm going to highlight here, okay?

Now I would appreciate it if there are folks in the, who are watching, who can put a thumbs up if you hear the audio. The worst thing in the world is when you play audio and it doesn't go through. I want to make sure everyone can hear it and then I'll just, I'll allow it to continually play, but I'll be keeping my eye out in the comment section, okay?

So here is the particular portion of the interaction I want to focus on and then there's another part which is really the main, the main part which everyone is familiar with. Let's play this here now.

Okay, so I'm gonna stop here because I hear people say there's no audio. So I have to try to do something here. There's one person has a thumbs up. That's weird. So one person hearing it. Most people, if audio then logic.

Yeah, let me, let me try this again, okay? So I'm going to get rid of that and I'm going to try to do present again. Share screen. Let's see here. I think I have to do the window option. So let's see.

Let's share this. We're gonna do this and then we're gonna go back to 09. Okay, and you guys let me know. Thumbs up if it's good. Thumbs down.

If it's not. Let me know if you can hear that guys. Okay, so I'm being told, this.

Is where you know you do it live, being told that you cannot hear it. Okay, that's odd. Okay, someone say yes, I can. So no sound. Okay, good. Thank you for letting me know that. Okay, well this is, this is live.

So there we go. So let me get rid of that. I'm gonna get rid of this here. Stop the screen and then I'm gonna try it again. Alright, thank you for letting me know guys. I appreciate it. I'm sorry for those who are listening to this later.

That's just the way the cookie crumbles when you are doing, doing this live. So also share audio. Okay, good. Let's see here. Let's try the Chrome window. Okay, so thumbs up if you could hear it. Okay,.

I'm gonna press play now. Go back. I heard you mention logical contradictions in your speech. You did say that? I said, I used that phrase. You know if you can hear it? Are there laws of logic then? Absolutely.

Are they universal? They're agreed upon by human beings. They aren't laws that exist out in nature. They are. Are they simply conventions then? They're conventions, but they're conventions that are self-verifying.

Are they sociological laws or laws of thought? Laws of thought which are interpreted by men and promulgated by men. Are they material in nature? How can a law be material? That's a question I'm gonna ask you.

I would say no. Alright, so let's, so that's an.

Interesting kind of cross. Sorry for the sound issues there. Okay, but notice, notice what Dr. Bonson asked. I mean his questions are very specific and I think the point of what Dr. Bonson is getting at is he's trying to trap, okay, Dr. Stein.

This is not an illegitimate move in debate. Obviously he wants to trap Dr. Stein, not for, you know, any nefarious purpose, but just to show that his position is contradictory. So he wants Dr. Stein to affirm logic, these immaterial principles, and then press him for consistency, okay, with respect to his position as a materialistic atheist, okay.

So Bonson starts by confirming that Stein uses and acknowledges concepts like, and he uses this language, logical binds and logical self-contradiction. And this is crucial, I think, because it establishes that Stein is operating within a framework that recognizes these very principles.

And so by asking if Dr. Stein believes in the laws of logic, Bonson is ensuring that Stein cannot deny the very tools that he's going to rely on for reasoning and argumentation, okay. This is important because as an atheistic materialist, he's then going to press him as to how you can make sense out of something like abstract, immaterial, universal laws of thought within a worldview that is matter in motion, okay.

Notice also that Dr. Bonson asks if the laws of logic are universal, okay. And I think Stein's response reveals a significant weakness in his position. Dr. Stein claims that these laws are agreed upon by human beings, they're not just out there somewhere in nature, right.

And so he gives a kind of very ambiguous answer, which pretty much opens the door for Dr. Bonson to kind of press in a little deeper. I think with respect to the laws of logic, asking questions as to their universality, their universal application, is critical, okay.

If the laws of logic are merely conventions, that is to say that the laws of logic are merely agreed upon by human beings, okay, what's entailed by that? Well, that means they would lack the necessary transcendental quality of being universally binding, isn't that right?

Okay, and this would mean that logical principles, they could vary from culture to culture, pretty much undermining their objective nature. And so that's why Dr. Bonson is giving this line of questioning here.

Bonson then asks if these laws are simply conventions, and Stein's response is that they are conventions that are self-verifying. Notice what Dr. Stein says there, I think he's attempting to have his cake and eat it too, right, pretty much acknowledging on the one hand the conventional nature of the laws of logic they're agreed upon, and this idea that they're just self-evident.

Well, which is it, right? If they're convention, then if it's merely convention, then its logic is based upon the agreed, the agreement between between human beings, okay. Now Bonson's line of questioning I think is is pretty much designed to highlight the problem with this view.

If the laws of logic are mere conventions, they don't possess the objective unchanging nature required to function as absolute standards, okay. And then again he asks if they are sociological, you know, in nature, are the laws of logic simply an issue of sociology?

Bonson clarifies pretty much the distinction between societal constructs, are they constructs of society or not, okay. And Dr. Stein's admission that they are laws of thought which are interpreted by man, that's what he said, I think further entangles him in a relativistic position, right.

If these laws are subject to human interpretation, their objectivity again is going to be called into into question, all right. So if someone says the laws of logic are there because it's just these are rules that human beings made up and we agreed upon that these are the rules of thought, that empties them of their universal applicability and objective nature.

And of course the kind of funny part at the end there, Dr. Bonson in his final question in this clip, he asked Dr. Stein if the laws of logic are material in nature, right. And of course this is where the kicker is, right.

If Stein were to affirm that the laws of logic are material, okay, he would have to face the challenge of explaining how abstract entities like the laws of logic could exist within a purely materialistic framework which is his position, okay.

Yet on the other hand if Dr. Stein denies their material nature then he's gonna have to account for their existence within his atheistic worldview which typically denies immaterial realities. So on the one hand you cannot say that all that exists is matter in motion and then employ logical principles that are by your own admission not matter nor are in motion.

You know you can't have it both ways. Either logic is material and you have some way of making sense out of logic within, making sense of saying logic is material or reduced to something material. You either make sense out of that within your own world, you can't just say all that exists is material and then use logical principles and admit that they're not material, okay.

That's a self-refuting position to hold and I think that's really what Dr. Bonson is getting at here to show the problems with Dr. Stein's views. If you watch the rest of the debate this is kind of a theme that Dr. Bonson kind of harps on, this issue of consistency.

And in terms of just interacting with atheists and other people I think it's important to highlight those inconsistencies. Don't let those inconsistencies pass. You want to press the person who is on the one hand denying God with their mouths but then living and functioning and reasoning in a way that only makes sense if God exists, okay.

From a theological perspective that is the image of God within them. The unbeliever can't help but do that because he is made in the image of God, he lives in God's world and so he cannot function without using those principles.

He could deny them all he wants but is he denying them consistently, right? Are you on the one hand saying all that exists is matter in motion but then you think and you reason and you live as though that main premise isn't true, right?

That's a contradiction. You want to be able to exploit that and I think Dr. Bonson does that masterfully here in this particular portion of the cross-examination. Now he continues, now this is kind of the famous part of the debate that I think most people are familiar with, and let's take a look here.

I'm gonna grab my my coffee real quick. All right, let's continue to play it and then we'll take it from.

There. Dr. Bonson, would you call God material or immaterial? Immaterial. What is something that's immaterial? Something not extended in space. Can you give me an example of anything other than God that's immaterial?

Laws of logic. Can I ask that you hold that down, please? Are you putting God in the same, as an equivalent thing to the laws of logic? No, only if you think all factual questions are answered in the very same way.

Would you even assume that by thinking there are two immaterial things they must be identical. No, I'm not assuming that. I'm just assuming that because the laws of logic are a convention among men. Are you saying that God is a convention among men?

I don't accept the fact that claims of laws of logic are conventional. Is your God... Okay, so let's let's stop there. So that's kind of the.

The main zinger here. Now someone is asking, let me see here, let me try this here. Okay, so someone is asking who Gordon Stein is. Gordon Stein was an author, a physiologist, an activist for atheism, and he is a famous skeptic.

I don't remember the specific things that he is associated with, but he was author of books for secular humanists and the rationalist publications. He is also a critic of claims of paranormal phenomena, so on and so forth.

He's an outspoken atheist, publicly debated various Christian apologists and thinkers and things like that. He also served as the editor of the American Rationalist and was the librarian of the Center for Inquiry, which houses both the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal and the Council for Secular Humanism.

And so he passed away back in the day, I think 1996, so a little bit after, shortly after Dr. Bonson passed away, and I believe he died of lung cancer, if I'm not mistaken. So just to give you kind of a little context of who Dr. Stein was.

Okay, and you can look him up, there's information there online, you know, he's pretty fairly well known at the time. And of course he's infamous in terms of being the object of stories relating to this debate.

I mean, this particular moment was kind of a big deal when it happened, and it's kind of a famous portion, a debate clip, so to speak. Alright, so let's kind of take a look at this particular interaction.

So Dr. Bonson is asked by Dr. Stein, would you call God material or immaterial? And of course Dr. Bonson, you know, contrary to some people today, contrary to the Mormons and contrary to some people who think that God has a physical body, Dr. Bonson answers the question theologically accurately, okay.

You know, he says that God is immaterial. And of course Dr. Stein asks Dr. Bonson, what is something that is immaterial? And Dr. Bonson responds with, something that is not extended in space. Now here's the kicker, here's the moment where Dr. Stein says, can you give me an example of anything other than God that's immaterial?

Okay, and of course Dr. Bonson says what? He says the laws of logic, which again highlights the fact that Dr. Bonson, I'm sorry, Dr. Stein does not know what he's in for here, okay. Dr. Stein says, are you putting God in the same category as those of the laws of logic?

And of course he doesn't, alright. So let's let's take a look here. So let's back up a little bit, okay. Let's see here, let me make sure I have my notes in front of me here, so I don't get moved off here.

So okay, so Dr. Stein asks if God is material or immaterial, and Bonson replies God is immaterial, okay. Now this is important because it sets the stage for discussing non-material concepts within the debate.

We're talking about the difference between abstractions and say something like an angel or God, okay. Just because something is immaterial doesn't automatically make them an abstraction, and that's kind of, you know, Dr. Stein was trying to highlight the fact that perhaps Dr. Bonson was conflating the two.

What's the difference, you know, between an abstract object and an immaterial entity such as God, okay. And the point of Dr. Stein was, well, you know, if you think about it, abstract objects are causally effete.

They don't cause anything. So what's the difference between something immaterial that doesn't cause anything and something like God, okay. Now I think this question is important because it leads to the broader issue of whether immaterial entities can exist and what their nature is.

And this, again, is something that's continued, this line of reasoning is continued throughout the debate if you listen to the rest of it. Now when asked to define something that's immaterial, Bonson again responds correctly with something that is not extended in space, which I think clarifies that immaterial entities do not occupy physical space.

God is not a physical being. And of course this helps us to understand the differentiation between physical objects, abstract objects, and just generally speaking immaterial objects, all right. So Stein then asks for an example of an immaterial entity other than God and Bonson cites, of course, the laws of logic.

Now I think this response is crucial as it aligns with the immaterial entities like logic within a Christian worldview. Something like logic makes perfect sense in a Christian theistic worldview. They do not make sense in a materialistic atheistic worldview, okay.

And so by identifying the laws of logic as immaterial, Dr. Bonson I think demonstrates that there are non-physical realities that must be accounted for. Unless the atheist is going to say that logic kind of reduces to something material, you're gonna have to account for non-material entities within a materialistic atheistic worldview if that's your flavor of atheism.

I do understand that not all atheists are, reduce everything to materialism, okay. You do have people who at base will be materialistic but they have kind of, you know, an epiphenomenalistic view in terms of which immaterial realities are derived from fundamentally material things, which I think is, which I think doesn't work, okay.

But you want to make those differentiations. Then Dr. Stein tries to equate God with the laws of logic, okay. Alright, like I said before, so there's a difference between abstract objects like numbers or logical principles and immaterial realities like God, angels, and so forth, right.

But Dr. Bonson clarifies that just because two things are immaterial doesn't mean that they are identical, okay. This distinction, I think, is really important in understanding the nature of different immaterial entities, okay, from within a Christian worldview, alright.

You do not land a punch from a, from the atheistic perspective by simply saying, well, if the laws of logic are these abstract and personal things, what's the difference between the laws of logic and, say, something like God?

Well, within a Christian worldview there is a difference. They're not the same thing. Not all immaterial realities from within a Christian worldview are causally effete. The number six does not cause anything, but that doesn't mean because God is immaterial that God does not have causal powers, right.

We make a differentiation within our metaphysical outlook, alright. Now, of course, Stein suggests that the laws of logic are merely conventions among men. Again, this was a problem, pardon, in the previous line of questioning, pretty much implying that they're agreed-upon rules rather than absolute truths.

But again, Dr. Bonson rejects this idea, right, affirming that the laws of logic are not conventional, but they reflect an absolute universal standard, okay. And so by denying that the laws of logic are conventional, Dr. Bonson pretty much underscores the necessity of a theistic framework to account for their universal and unchanging nature.

Now, it's here where you want to be very careful because a lot of people will say, well, you know, the laws of logic just are. They're kind of just a brute given, okay. Now, from a Christian theistic perspective within a presuppositional framework, we reject brute facts, okay.

We don't think that any things are just brute givens without any explanation whatsoever to affirm that something simply just is the case, I think, is arbitrary. And of course, in any other context, arbitrariness is not allowed.

The Christian would never get away with saying, well, God just is and that's it. We can't really explain it. It's just, no, okay. God exists, and I believe that there is a reason for God's existing, and the reason is not found in something external to himself.

I agree with the idea that there are two explanations for why something exists, okay. Something exists either because it is derived or brought about by something else, or it exists by the necessity of its own nature.

And I think God is eternal, as the great I Am, as Scripture says. He exists because it is his nature to exist, okay. That's not arbitrary. We are giving reasons as to why we think that's true. One of the reasons would be, one of the justifications we would provide, is the transcendental argument itself.

If you reject this specific God in the world view context in which we understand this God, then you lose the foundation for the laws of logic, which are necessary for meaningful and rational discourse.

As expressed in the debate with Edward Tabash, you lose a foundation for the uniformity of nature and things like that, okay. It's not just a bare authority claim, which we are often accused of making, okay.

I suppose some presuppositionalists make bare authority claims without providing a justification, but when we use the transcendental argument, for example, as Dr. Bonson is using here in his debate, it's an argument.

You might not like the argument, you might not think the argument works, but it is an argument. And so to claim that the presuppositionalist is simply making an authority claim is just to miss the boat entirely, and it's to not engage in what's actually being presented, all right.

So those are the particular portions of the debate. I didn't plan to go further. Let's listen to the rest of the cross-x. Let me see if there's anything that I could add, and then I will. There are a couple of things I want to get to in terms of this interaction.

Let's see. Let's go through some of the comments here. Okay. We had a lot of comments about no audio, so sorry about that. I apologize. When I say we, I'm using the, you know, the royal plural. There's no one here but me.

When I say, you know, we're back on, or, you know, we will be doing this, it's just me. I just talk in the plural, I suppose. I don't have a team with me, so if something messes up, I need to work it out myself.

So let's see here. I got a couple of comments here. Let me make this bigger so I could see it. Scott Terry says, are performative contradictions fallacious ad hominems? Well, it depends what you mean by a performative contradiction.

Let me see here. Let's see here. Give me one sec. Thanks for hanging on, guys. I appreciate it. All right. Let me see here. So a performative contradiction occurs when the content of a statement or action contradicts the act of making that statement or action itself.

So this concept is significant in various fields. So a performative contradiction occurs when someone's actions undermine or contradict. Yeah, okay, I know what you mean. Okay. No, it's an ad hominem in a sense, but it's not fallacious.

So a lot of people who don't study logic, I teach logic. I teach a course on logic. That's what I do. I teach Old Testament for middle school students, and I teach logic. Not all forms of ad hominems, not all ad hominems are fallacious.

I'm going to say that again. A lot of people don't get this, right? So presuppositionalism is engaging in circularity. Well, dude, not all forms of circularity are fallacious. It's just a fact. Okay. Not all ad hominems are fallacious.

Okay. If pointing out that someone's actions contradict their position, you are attacking the person in the sense that they're acting in a way that is contradictory to what they're affirming. But that's not a fallacy because pointing out that contradiction is specifically relevant to, you know, proving the point that their position is unlivable or is inherently contradictory.

So a performative contradiction is an ad hominem, but it is not a fallacious ad hominem. Okay. I want to be careful too, because some fallacies can intertwine with other fallacies as well. So, but there you go.

Those are my thoughts on that. Thank you. Let's see here. Brenda says, Eli, do you have an answer to Alex Malpass yet? Recall you were asked to justify your, oh my goodness. I've justified my first premise a bajillion times.

There's a difference between offering a justification and whether someone agrees with it. Now, obviously no one's going to agree with how I provide a justification. Okay. If you're going to say, well, I don't think you've justified it.

Yeah. And I've had many people say, well, I don't think you've justified it, but they haven't answered anything that I provided. So if someone says, justify a premise, you offer a justification and someone says, no, that's not a justification.

Well, that doesn't really help much because it doesn't engage in, you know, engage in my attempt at a justification. So, so there you go. All right. Let me see here. And let's see here. Yeah. Right. Yeah.

Scott Terry says, imagine being asked to justify premises by people who can't justify their desire for epistemic justification to begin with. Yeah. Bingo. Yeah. Good. Let's see here. Let me see. Those are good.

That's good questions.

Questions. Sorry about that. Holy cow. My microphone falling apart all over the.

Place. So sorry. Let me see here. Can you hear me guys? Can you hear me? Okay. Sorry about that. All right. Let me see here. Okay. Let's see here. Okay. Let me see the question. Good to see you. Thank you, Jackie.

Jackie Griffith says, I appreciate these lives. Enjoy how you communicate. I really appreciate that as a teacher and as a public speaker. That is very encouraging. So I appreciate that, Jackie. Thank you.

Babyfoot says trying to balance listening, reading the comments and thinking and then working. It ain't easy. Yeah, I sympathize with that a lot. Yeah, that is very, very difficult. Let's see here. Looking for some questions.

A lot of comments there. That's fine. That's fine. Yeah. So to clarify, Scott says, thanks for answering that one, Eli. I asked it pertaining to Gordon Stein when he acts contrary to a stated materialism, just because he contradicts himself doesn't make materialism false.

Oh, I see what you mean. Yeah, it doesn't make materialism false. But if if his position is the inherent fact of materialism, OK, it will show that he's inconsistent. Right. If he's if he holds to materialism correctly, it shows that he's actually contradicting that that position.

Right. If if he's saying, for example, this is what materialism is and he's contradicting. So it would show at least his position is false. Yeah. All right. There we go here. Let's see. OK. All right.

Let me see here. All right. So someone asked the question, what does it mean to be logically prior, but not temporally prior, specifically in the Ordo Salutis? I don't understand how something can first come logically, but not temporally.

Yeah, I don't think there's a problem with that. I think the often example, especially within the respect to salvation, the issue of electricity and a light bulb, I think Matt Slick, I think he does a good job in explaining this.

He says something along the lines of, you know, just as a light bulb can't emit light without electricity, a person cannot have faith without first being regenerated by the Holy Spirit. And so I think that this the regeneration, OK, is logically prior to other aspects of the salvation.

Right. The Holy Spirit must impart life, enabling the person to respond to faith. So something could be simultaneous, but not. How can I say this? How can I explain this? You know what? Let me point you to there.

There's actually a really good article on Karm where Matt Slick explains this. And I want to see if I can put that in the link here. There we go here. Let me get that for you. Yeah. OK. Regeneration. Let's see if it pops up.

If I have to look too deep into it, I'll try to look for it later. No. OK, there we go. Let's see here. You see if I could find it here. There we go. OK, let me let me actually get this up on the screen, because that's a that's a great question.

Let's see here. I'm going to get this down. OK, and I'm going to present let me keep your question up on the screen there. Thanks for bearing with me. Let's see. Let's get this off and then we're going to get this on.

So share screen to do. There we go. I think this is a good, good explanation here. Let's see. OK, so here is I don't know if you could see that here, but in the article, I think he explains it well. OK, so Matt says in a light bulb, electricity must be in place in order for light to occur.

But it is not true that light must must be in place for electricity to occur. Light is dependent on the electricity, not the other way around. Therefore, the electricity is logically first, but not temporally first, because when the electricity is present, light is the necessary and simultaneous result.

Likewise, regeneration must be in place in order for believing to occur. When regeneration is in place, faith is necessary and simultaneous result. Finally, when we say logical order, we must clarify that it is not an order of temporality, but of logical necessity.

Logical priority is different than temporal priority, as with the light bulb and electricity. One is logically prior to the other, even though they are simultaneous. If, however, regeneration preceded faith temporally, let's say by five seconds, then we would have someone who's regenerated, but also not a believer for about five seconds.

And of course, that's problematic. Likewise, if faith precedes regeneration, let's say by five seconds, then we would have someone who is a believer, but is also not regenerate for about five seconds.

So you're the problem there. So with respect to answering your question, I think, in terms of temporal and chronological, temporal and logical order, I think that's a good summary. The reason why I use the Karma article there is it's not a scholarly source, but I think it explains it well, at least so you can understand the concept there.

So hope that's helpful. That's a great question. A little off-topic, but that's fine. No worries. Okay, let's see here. Eli with his James White impression. That's right. He does that when he's looking for something.

Let's see here. This is nice. Just see here. Okay, so the articulate apologetic says, sorry if answering this, if you answering, if I guess if you answer this already, sorry. How do you respond to those who say that the laws of logic are what we made to explain what we see?

Yeah, so I want to make a differentiation between the laws of logic, the words we use that highlight the principle, and that which the words refer to. Okay, there's a difference between the laws of logic and logic itself.

We believe that logic has an ontology to it. They're universal abstract principles, but they're not mere conventions. If they're simply what we made up to explain what we see, okay, then they would not have universal application.

Okay, what happens when people claim to see different things and to interpret different things? What we see is not agreed upon by everyone. You have people out there that think all reality is an illusion, so what you see is actually not what is the case.

So you have all different kinds of positions out there, rooting logic in mere linguistic convention, okay, and not based on something objective and universal is going to undercut the preconditions for intelligibility because then logic would not be universally applicable.

Okay, so that's what I would say in terms of reducing logic, the laws of logic, to simply linguistic convention, that we've constructed the words we call the laws of logic. Remember, the laws of logic, the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, law of excluded middle, those are words we use to express the laws, but logic itself, I think, is not the same as the words we use, okay?

For example, before there were human beings to utter words, I still think that, you know, a rock cannot be not a rock in the same way and at the same sense, okay? So logical principles hold true whether there's someone to express the laws or not, okay?