Atheism & Logic

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. 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. 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.

Okay 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 gonna 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 watch 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 you 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 that's very important but be it 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 209 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 all right 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 nature they are there conventions but there are conventions that are self verifying they are laws of thought which are interpreted by men and promulgated by men are they material in nature how can the world be material that's a question

I'm going to ask you I would say no all right 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 you use 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 a as a 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 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 we all 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 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 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 all 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 it's 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 or 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 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 it 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 if you if you watch the rest of the debate this is kind of a theme that he that dr.

Bonson you know 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 be 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 as though that main premise isn't true right that that's a contradiction you want to be able to exploit that 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 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 examine dr.

Bonson dr. Bonson would you call God material or immaterial material what is something that's immaterial something not extended in space you can give me an example of anything other than God that's immaterial are you putting

God in the same and as an equivalent thing to the laws of logic now 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 okay 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 did it did it did it to do 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 outspoken atheist publicly debated various Christian apologists and thinkers and things like that he also served at the 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's 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 of stories relating to this debate

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

Stein asked if God is material or immaterial and Bonson replies God is immaterial okay then now this is important because it's that 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 a you know dr.

Stein was trying to highlight the fact that perhaps dr. Bonson was conflating the two right 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 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 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 a 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 is 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 epi phenomenalistic 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's God with the laws of logic okay all right 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 bought the 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 all right 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 a feat 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 all right now of course

Stein suggested 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 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 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 that no okay

God exists and I believe that there is a reason for God God's existing and the reason is not found

X something 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 that is his 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 in which worldview 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 presupposition list make bare authority claims without providing a justification but when we use the transcendental argument for example as dr.

Bonson is 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 presupposition list is simply making an authority claim is just to 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 look 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 either 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 to do we had a lot of comments about no audio so sorry sorry about that I apologize we when

I say we I'm using the you know the royal plural there's there's no one here but me when

I say you know we're back on or you know we will be doing that 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 to do let me make this bigger so I could see it

Scott Terry says our performative contradictions fallacious ad hominems well it depends what you mean by a performative 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 various fields so poor guys isn't when someone someone's actions undermine or Kanye I can't 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 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 gonna say that again a lot of people don't get this right so you know pre suppositional ism is engaging in circularity well dude not all forms of circularity are fallacious it's just 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 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 there are 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 gonna agree with how

I provide a justification okay if you're going to say oh 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 did it to do 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 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 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 okay it will show that he's inconsistent right if he's hot 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 okay 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 yeah

I think Matt slick I think it does it 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 can that this the regeneration okay 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 huh how can I explain this you know what let me point you to 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 okay 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 okay there we go let's see here you see if I could find it here there we go okay let me let me actually get this up on the screen because that's a great question let's see here

I'm gonna get this down okay and I'm gonna present let me keep your question up on the screen there thanks for bearing with me let's see here let's get this off and then we're gonna get this on so share screen to do there we go

I think this is a good good explanation here let's see okay so here is

I don't know if you could see that here but in the article I think he explains it well okay 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 used the karma article there is it's not a scholarly source but I think he 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 that that up to do today he does that when he's looking for something let's 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 and we believe that logic is as 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 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 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 is not the same as the words we 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 that's wrapped up in the age -old philosophical question if the tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear it does it make a sound there we go we won't get into that okay let's see here okay just answer that okay so Ravi says here thanks

Robbie for your comments here so let's take a look at this so he's a sure Stein didn't see it coming but now we all know about precept and not only is it easily defeated by atheist but most

Christians reject precept arguments and it's not growing it's a bad argument well there's there's a lot of things that we could say here yes he is correct

Stein didn't see it coming now we all know about precept and it's easily defeated okay so where's the refutation point to me to a refutation okay now

I'm not the perfect expositor of presuppositional ism and transcendental argumentation but most of what

I hear by way of critique that everyone's like oh this is silly because precept is and they fill in the blank it shows a complete and utter misunderstanding of what presuppositional ism is and what transcendental transcendental arguments are if I wasn't a

Christian or I was a Christian and I did not hold to presuppositional apologetics or use the transcendental argument but I understood these things

I would still respectfully make use this hyperbolically I would laugh at 99 .9

% of the attempted refutations so I would be interested in seeing how it's easily defeated by by atheists and have atheists within their particular version of atheism have they provided a coherent worldview foundation out of which they could even make sense out of the counter arguments that they offer right have they answered questions with respect to the uniformity of nature and the problem of induction and law an immaterial principles like the laws of logical

I'm guaranteed they've tried but I would argue that they do not succeed at all

I think in my perspective naturalistic materialistic atheism is is fundamentally flawed and is a superficial irrational position to hold so so there you go

I don't know what how it's easily defeated I mean if you give me a link somewhere that's not like an encyclopedia if it's so easily refuted why don't you show me and I would read it by the way if you show me a link that I could read or a quick video clip easily dismantling what we're arguing as presupposition list at the same time actually demonstrating knowledge of what we're actually saying because I'm not very hopeful given the fact that most of what

I've heard by way of critique isn't good the best the best critique out there

I would probably say is the stroudian objection and I don't think that that works either anything other than that I'd have to take a look at it but I'm not convinced at all so I'd be interested if you left a link somewhere okay all right let's see here let's see here some of the questions are getting way off topic let's see here let's see yeah so Lewis says

I can't sit through a church service anymore in which the focus is solely on preaching the Word of God okay

I don't know I mean focus is solely

I mean I would think that the preaching is his Center I mean if you're preaching from the Word of God that's God speaking to us

I think that's a that's a beautiful thing however I'm curious of this word wording solely

I think that a good balanced church service would involve worship okay would involve a balanced view of the

Lord's table and Lord's Supper a balanced emphasis on the importance of baptism and these sorts of these sorts of things and then of course a healthy emphasis on the importance of preaching the

Word of God and speaking to the people of God from the Word of God so I don't

I would if a church service is only focused on the preaching as important as preaching is

I think that would be an imbalance that's not warranted in Scripture but I don't think that there is that's not inherent within kind of Protestantism broadly speaking right a good balanced

Protestant church will emphasize the things that Scripture tells us to emphasize and that would include a wide variety of things but I do think that preaching is a centerpiece of Christian gathering as it is

God speaking to us through his word as the Word of God is being expounded I do think that there can be an unhealthy focus on the

Lord's table and baptism to the exclusion of preaching I think that's wrong as well I think a healthy balance is to follow biblical categories so if that's in relation to why you're converting to Catholicism you know you're not going to get much of the preaching of God's Word in the average

Catholic Church you'll get a lot of ritual and all that other jazz but good balance okay

I think is something that follows biblical mandate I don't think the Catholic Church does that at all

I think the Catholic Church is not only imbalanced but is in error in the most fundamental issues relating to the gospel so so there are my thoughts there

Lewis okay observing God's cream please never stop this channel has been so helpful thank you so much

I really appreciate that thank you yeah so solo scriptura says

I'm a fan of Gordon Clark and his scriptural ism in my apologetics any thoughts I do have thoughts but I'm going to reserve my thoughts because I actually want to do a video on comparing

Gordon Clark and and Van Til and then perhaps speak to this issue of scriptural ism as I used to be

I used to be a Clarkian back in the day so yeah thank you for that and I hope

I hope your name is solo scriptura and not solo script are you a solo scriptura guy interesting interesting all right let's see here okay here's a question greetings from Eastern North Carolina very cool

I'm from North Carolina as well thank you for your question James what are some helpful thoughts hopeful or helpful what are some hopeful things we can look look out for when talking with atheists and agnostics topics or lines of thought indicating

God's Word is getting through yeah okay I mean this is that's a difficult question

I mean inner transformation is something that happens inwardly you can see external evidences of it but you want to take those you know with with caution right okay you know an interest in continuing the discussion is helpful okay you're gonna have to learn how to read people okay look for body language what are the sorts of questions that they're asking you know there's a difference between someone who's asking a whole bunch of you know intellectual questions and they're grappling with you can kind of get a feel for whether it's genuine or not not all the time but if you do it enough you can kind of get a feel for that you can kind of get a feel for where people are coming from with their concerns and the certain things that they bring up in discussion so I would say kind of just paying attention to those sorts of things would be helpful as indicating that God's Word is getting through I mean

I had a friend who I used to share the faith with and you know he was a friend and I knew that he respected the things that I said even though he disagreed but there were moments where yeah

I felt completely I didn't have to be guarded in what I said because I knew that because he was my friend he would listen and consider what

I had to say so I really got this impression that when I said something to him he took it seriously and eventually he became a

Christian which is awesome like years later so sometimes you'll see indicators sometimes you won't

I think your job James is to be faithful you know proclaim God's truth and trust that God is working you know in the heart of a person right that's that's we we can't read people's hearts but there are some indicators and I think some of those things would be useful to to pay attention to okay thanks for that question let's see here the refutation is it begs the question right so the number one thing that I know

I look for when someone critiques presuppositionalism and again I was not a presuppositionalist this wouldn't be the reason why

I wasn't the claim that it begs the question events is such a gross misunderstanding of what presuppositionalism is doing and it misunderstands the the reality of ultimate foundations it also it also fuses together the issue of argue circular reasoning and circular argument okay the claim that it begs the question is really laughable it's not in any fallacious sense it's really laughable

I don't take that objection seriously so if that's the best the other side's got I mean okay I mean we've responded to those a bajillion times no presuppositionalist shakes in their boots when this is brought up you know there are some good objections that would make a presuppositionalist pause and be like okay

I still think my position is strong but here's here's how I could navigate this one isn't one of them so yeah

I am sorry Brenda that's the best you got I can't help you there okay yeah not even yeah oh even

William Lane Craig says it's a it commits a logical howler yeah as much as I respect dr.

Craig his objections to presuppositionalism aren't good either and I've listened to a bunch of them

I've listened to a live listen dr. Craig for a while and I love dr. Craig I really appreciate a lot of the things that he's done but he is not at his best when he is critiquing presuppositionalism not at all and not even in his portion of the five views on apologetics put out by a crossway so yeah there you go but if dr.

Craig said it then it must be true yeah dr. Craig also said that Cornelius van Tille wasn't a philosopher

I mean Cornelius van Tille wasn't a philosopher okay let's take a look here okay dr.

van Tille is not a philosopher let me see here let me see let me see let me get this up here just to be to be specific yes okay so so let's take a look at this at this claim here okay

William Lane Craig said that that van

Tille was not a philosopher okay van Tille earned his PhD in philosophy okay until received his doctorate from Princeton University where he studied under the direction of renowned philosopher a a

Bowman and his doctoral dissertation was on the subject of idealist philosophy specifically focusing on the work of the British idealist philosopher

Hastings Rashtal okay van Tille is not a philosopher at his PhD in philosophy people who criticize van

Tille just don't do their their homework and it shows again I'm not saying this because it makes me angry oh my goodness this kid no it's just that when people it's interesting when people criticize presuppositionalism it just shows a lack of understand and again

I would say that if I wasn't a presuppositional if I wasn't a presuppositionalist I would be embarrassed still for people who critique it in the way that they often do now there are some there are some attempts to honestly deal with van

Tille okay and to deal with transcendental art which I appreciate and I respect but the majority of what's put out there you know it's not very respected respectable now

I don't I'm not saying I disrespect I don't respect the person's making the claims you know I respect you Brenda I respect

Ravi I respect everyone in this chat here but I do not respect ideas that just are are not up to snuff in terms of their criticisms okay all right let's see here right yeah so William Lane Craig also said in the same book that there was an argument to be had as it relates to to precept yeah he did say that yeah so as a

Christian what are the laws of logic are they reflections of God's character yeah they are a reflection of God's of God's nature and that's why they share similarities with God logic is immaterial

God is immaterial God is the metaphysical grounding for these immaterial abstract principles yep that's what

I would say Street Dog says

Ravi is a troll I wouldn't call him a troll I think he disagrees and thinks that he has good points and tries to make them and we respond

I think that that's fine I hope he's not a troll I every time he comes on I do try to put his questions up there and interact with them so so yeah let's see here let's see to do that's it

I don't see any other questions let's see this is so bad it's so cringe priest up a hundred percent commits the question fallacy it's easy to defeat this is a joke oh my goodness

I'm so sorry I don't mean to come across this way it's just it's quite laughable yeah hmm oh boy you know yeah that's a fair question so Ravi says why is precept so unpopular amongst academic

Christian philosophers yeah I would I would argue one of it there might be multiple reasons misunderstanding is definitely one of them

I mean that that's fine but I think a major one is the theology out of which it comes reform theology these days is not very popular for a number of reasons people have theological objections to reform theology they have what they see to be logical logical objections to reform theology especially with respect to the reformed understanding of the relationship between you know human freedom and divine sovereignty these sorts of things you have many other reasons for example some people

I would argue reject reform theology because in affirming reform theology it makes it can make apologetics challenging so some people who reject reform theology because it is apologetically more pragmatic to hold to a different perspective because your theology informs what you believe in a bunch of other areas now of course

I disagree with people who take that route and I have reasons to disagree with them and I don't think there are arguments against reform theology work although I think a fruitful discussion has been had in many quarters with respect to reform theology and various concepts within reform theology and discussions between people who disagree and things like that I think there are good good things that are brought up but ultimately

I don't think it's problematic at all okay so I think that precept is unpopular largely because of the theology out of which it flows and of course you have people who think that it's logically problematic and of course the critiques that are offered

I don't think work very well and the ones that are really good you know something that is more kind of academic in its approach and is more specific and see gives evidence that it has an understanding of Vantill and transcendental argumentation

I think those are better and some people are convinced by those things but but I'm not I don't think those objections work through and I think the large portion of this channel and and others

I think we try to address them but but again there's a difference between proving your point and then making someone persuaded of your point you know

I've responded to the videos that I do Ravi a lot of them are because they're related to people who object to the method and so I try my best to address all people say that I don't address this that or the other thing

I mean I'm trying I can't address everything in one video right but I've addressed the issue of circularity I've addressed the issue of the difference between circular reasoning and circular argument and all these sorts of things you know and and there you go

I haven't I haven't seen great responses to those things and a lot of the responses

I said before just events a huge misunderstanding of of what we're saying yeah so I literally it's this it's this bad

Ravi I can say ready as a presuppositionalist we are not saying this and then fill in the blank and then of course someone will put a comment

Oh presuppers say this or this is what you mean I'm like no no that's not what we mean and I can keep saying that but then people just keep nope this is what you mean and that's not what

I mean okay every time you say that when someone brings up a point there's not what we're saying but you think that's what we're saying so every time you bring it up I'm just going to dismiss it that's not what

I'm saying so it's not a good critique but again as I'm sure you're familiar with Ravi there are people on the internet regardless of the position that you hold to right they just won't listen right so I mean

I'm doing my best hopefully people understand where I'm coming from and even if they disagree at least understand okay he's not really saying this so maybe

I shouldn't use that objection but what about this what about that okay that's the best that's the best that I can do yeah so thank you for your question

Ravi I appreciate it let's see here there we go

Brenda says true Vantil was an evangelist theologian not a philosopher by the way that's a false dichotomy you can well trichotomy evangelist slash theologian

I mean yeah is is William Lane Craig a philosopher I mean William Lane Craig gives his testimony at the end of every debate so does that not make him a philosopher that this is ridiculous see the these

I'm sorry Brenda for using as the example but these are the sorts of things we have to deal with on the internet right he was an evangelist not a philosopher he the guy has his

PhD in philosophy okay not a philosopher because you know philosophers are the objective neutral thinkers who don't bring in their deep commitments into their this is is ridiculous very superficial doesn't understand how worldviews work okay someone can be a philosopher and an evangelist and a theologian all at the same time right again unless you by default define philosopher in such a way that you eliminate those categories by definition but that would be a convenient way of defining philosophers same people say you know well someone who believes in God can't be a real scientist right because scientists you know and then they define science in a specific way right the scientists that are real scientists or the

Sun are the people who already agree with my position see how silly this is these are the sir and by looking at this comment hopefully even people who disagree with me should agree that this statement here is silly

I mean it hopefully you could agree with that much you could hate precept you could hate transcend that please agree with me that I'm hoping there's hope out there in the world please agree with me that this statement is is silly right he's an evangelist and theologian not a philosopher dude has his

PhD in philosophy he's written in the scholarly literature he's dealt with some of them well in his day some of the the most difficult philosophical concepts you don't have to agree with them you you could think like well he wasn't a good communicator so but to say he's not a philosopher

I mean that is just it's just silly yeah there we go yep yep yep yep that's true too

Thank You Christian James popularity doesn't determine an argument or methods truth value that's true yeah that's true

I don't care if priest up isn't popular okay I want to know the reasons why people reject it when I hear most of the reasons they just they just aren't good there you go some there we go there we go

Vantil did not practice philosophy he was an apologist another fallacy right am

I the only one seeing this am I am I being mean am I being sarcastic here I'm really trying not to he did not practice philosophy tell me

Brenda how does one practice philosophy how does one practice philosophy and are you telling me that philosophers aren't apologists don't fall out hold on let's examine don't philosophers defend their particular philosophical theories and constructs and is that not the same as apologetics to have you know

Brenda that apologetics is not a uniquely Christian discipline you have atheist apologist

Muslim apologist atheist defend their views too and that is offering an apologetic a defense for a position see yeah these are the things we have to deal with we have to deal with oh boy okay let's see here here we go priest up is laughable okay well that's not an it's not an argument right atheism is laughable there you go debates over by the way this is one of the people wonder why when they write comments in my videos and I don't interact with them this is the reason why is because of comments like this it's so they're so shallow that you actually have to correct and teach before you answer their question so and it takes a lot of time

I don't have a lot of time for that so again you are witnessing right now the reasons why I don't interact too much in my comments the you know typing things out oh boy let's see here there we go okay so professional academic philosophers misunderstand something you totally get at what point would you start to think maybe you have the misunderstanding now just because I'm not a professional philosopher okay there's nothing wrong with me saying

I understand a concept that an academic philosopher doesn't just because I'm claiming an academic philosopher misunderstand something right that just because I'm not an academic philosopher doesn't mean

I don't have the right to do that especially given the fact that I'm very familiar I don't have a hundred percent omniscience in all things

Vantil but I know it enough that when I hear an objection like that's way off that's not even like almost on point that some of the objections are just super bad so yes academic philosophers are not immune to making logical howlers to use the language of William Lane Craig okay maybe

I can say maybe it's me who has the misunderstanding when I actually hear an objection that makes sense and gives evidence that the person understands you know the issues okay so so yeah yeah there you go so it doesn't again doesn't doesn't follow there all right let's see here that's true that's true

Christian James proof does not equate to persuasion that's true often critics of the position conflate to do yes that is that is true that is true yeah it's true if you ever want to make an atheist seed just bring up tag yeah it's true that is one way to make atheists eat there we go let's see here oh boy yeah there there we go

Vantil not a philosopher literally gets his philosophy degree from Princeton and not a philosopher yeah there we go even planning is very yeah yeah solo scriptura even

Alvin Planting his argument on evolution right is naturalistic argument against evolution is a presuppositional esque type of thing yeah absolutely and some people have tried to kind of co -op both

Vantil and plan to get together because they both had some great insights on certain issues so taken together there's some some good benefit to be had in terms of various philosophical concepts yeah let's see here let's see here okay all right

I had a bunch of other things that I was gonna get into but there's so many interesting things and the comments here yeah no

I know yeah Scott says Brenda is just regurgitating discord nonsense and learning that it doesn't work well in print yeah no it doesn't yeah

I've been on discord before it's lame you know a lot of the well unfortunate lot of Christians on discord don't conduct themselves in an appropriately

Christian way but with discussions on precept and stuff like that yeah I think discord the atheists on discord are not impressive yeah and I would say that if I was not a presuppositional list yeah there we go that's one of the fallacies we teach one can be either an apologist or philosopher yes that is the bifurcation fallacy right the either or fallacy yep that's a simple elementary fallacy

I teach to my eighth graders but yet here we are in the comments which I presume these people are adults and this is the sort of stuff we have to deal with let's see here did it do all right yes he did also say that as well so William Lane Craig actually went on to say that presuppositional ism as he understood it provided a powerful argumentative strategy yeah let's see here

I'm almost I'm almost here down to the end and then all right that's it

I don't see any more questions quite apologize if I missed your question I've tried to cover them all right well yeah there we go so Brenda said here

I did not reference discord I referenced dr. Alex Malpass yeah and I'm familiar with Malpass again

I don't think his arguments go through but I do respect dr.

Malpass at least in the interactions I've seen he is a courteous individual and has meaningful discussions with people as far as I'm aware of but if you can give me something specific with Malpass then maybe we could interact with it maybe

I'll do a video in the future as well on dr. Malpass so all right well yeah we go boy so Scott says one thing that's great about dr.

Malpass is he doesn't engage in all the disingenuous bravado practice by his would -be yeah that's true I agree

I agree when I listen to Alex Malpass I see someone who is honestly interacting with the issues respectfully and asking meaningful questions whereas people who often quote him don't seem to be as genuine in their line of questioning and things like that yeah but again don't get it twisted guys

I mean Christians can do the same thing as well all right and this is why our where was

I going to that we all basically our standard of behavior must be Jesus Christ that's that's our standard we don't want to compare ourselves to other sinners okay although there are great examples and role models within the

Christian Church our ultimate standard as presuppositional as Christians is going to have to be Jesus himself right and so we want to be able to interact with these individuals who we disagree with with gentleness and respect as first Peter 315 says and avoid you know the sorts of arguments and discussions that are equivalent to as the

Bible says throwing pearls before swine I'm not calling anyone in the chat swine that's not what I'm saying but the biblical principle is true we need to know when it's time to kind of move on to you know someone else in terms of our discussion follower of Jesus that unironically like sardines asked what do you think of the

I guess objection that the precept assumes that you need your precept in order to be able to interpret the facts yes that's right so my position as a presupposition list is that presuppositions are required to make sense of anything and then you have people who think that you ultimately you don't need it right there's brute factual brute facts and so forth okay now that is a perfect example of highlighting the reality that there is no neutrality okay

I will I will affirm that we need a worldview presuppositions and so forth to interpret any fact and that is a direct opposing view to someone who affirms brute facts and so what do

I do well I highlight that antithesis okay I highlight that antithesis and then we engage in the worldview critiques if you hold to some form of foundationalism for example you know

I think there are problems with that maybe I'll do a video on foundationalism why I disagree with it I think there's something I think I have something on this channel on that anyway but yeah there are people who say you don't need ultimately you know an ultimate foundation that engages in kind of a foundational circularity and things like this yeah you have those positions out there that's not the presuppositional position there we highlight the difference the antithesis between those two perspectives and then we engage in the internal critique to see if in fact such a position that says we don't need presuppositions at that ultimate level if they actually do so consistently okay and of course that's an ongoing discussion and debate within philosophy and so forth and apologetic methodology but I think those things are healthy to have especially when you're talking to someone who genuinely and respectfully is interacting with you and so forth so so there you go all right well that is it for this live stream guys thank you so much if you like this channel please subscribe we're almost at 10 ,000 subscribers what do we have so far let's see here super exciting been doing this for I don't know four five five or six years maybe

I'm not sure and right now revealed apologetics is at nine thousand seven hundred and something doesn't show the whole number subscribers so super exciting yeah

I really appreciate the support everyone here in the chat I appreciate you guys remember to interact respectfully and engage in a meaningful in a meaningful way and those who disagree with me thank you for coming on as well

I appreciate you as well and please if I sounded sarcastic or anything like that I don't mean it against you as an individual but there are so many things that people say that I'm kind of just like oh man that is really bad and I do apologize