Is this TRUE?

Welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host Eli Ayala. Thank you so much for joining me today for this or tonight for this live stream.

And I'm excited. I think we're going to be covering an interesting topic, a common thing that we often hear that's put forth by many atheists.

And so hopefully I can shed some insight into how we might interact with this common phrase as you guys have recognized is simply looking at the thumbnail.

Okay. And again, I don't claim to be adding something particularly new to how to respond to popular atheist quips.

However, it doesn't mean that I can't have something helpful to say. You know, you could say something and you say it in such a way that, hey, it resonates with someone better than say how maybe someone else might have said it.

And so hopefully the content of this video will be useful for folks. Now again, we are live here, so I'm going to wait a few moments for people to kind of trickle in.

And just to let folks know, I am going to try to do live streams

Tuesdays and Thursdays. I'm going to try to be consistent. I do have to make room for things in terms of family and other things that might come up.

But the goal is to do a live stream twice a week. I'm going to try to do that.

Or if I'm invited on to another show, that'll count and won't be included in the two live streams a week thing.

So if someone invites me on their channel, like I was just recently on Joel Sedeckes's channel on the Think Institute, we talked about debate strategies, how to debate atheists.

Highly recommend you check that live stream out. I thought that went really well and we covered some great ground there.

But yeah, that's going to be the goal for me in terms of going forward and being more consistent.

I'm really excited. Actually, we are, no we, it's just me,

I don't know why I speak in the plural here, Revealed Apologetics is currently at 9 ,840 something, it doesn't show the whole number of subscribers.

So that's super cool. When I first got started, I had no idea that I would have any followers or subscribers.

So it's super cool to be doing this for a few years and the channel's growing and so forth, and so I really appreciate that.

And that's thanks to not only Christians who are interested in apologetics, but also non -Christians.

Non -Christians who support the channel by subscribing and they say, hey, I don't agree with you, but I'm here,

I'm listening, and they often interact in the comments and things like that. And so I really appreciate that as well.

So there you go. Well, once again, before we kind of jump in, still waiting for some folks to trickle in, if you are interested,

I do have a website where I have some blogs there, some blog articles that folks might find interesting. You can find that at revealedapologetics .com.

If you want me to cover a topic, a specific topic or address a specific issue or question, you can reach out to me at revealedapologetics at gmail .com.

Yes, I check my email and I read emails that are sent to me. If you would like me to come to your church and speak at your event or something along those lines, that's totally a thing as well when

I'm not teaching or, let's see here. Someone is saying, it seems that on Facebook, the audio is not in sync with your video.

There's a delay. It looks like an old martial arts movie. Well, I'm on YouTube right now.

I don't know what it looks like on Facebook, so I do apologize. But anyway, thank you for letting me know that.

But if folks want to have me out at their event, that's totally a thing. If you go to revealedapologetics .com, right there on the homepage, there is a thing that you can fill out and that can totally happen.

If you're looking to support Revealed Apologetics, there are a number of ways you can do it. You can subscribe if you haven't subscribed.

You can share the videos if you think other people will find it interesting. You can write a good review on iTunes.

That's super helpful. So far, we've got a perfect five -star score on iTunes. That's super cool. I still have to update the podcast because it takes me a little time to transfer all that stuff over.

But write a good review. That's super helpful. If you're looking to financially support Revealed Apologetics, you can donate on the donate page on my website or order a course.

I teach courses on apologetics and we go into more detail. There's more structure. You get the slides, the notes, the outlines, all that kind of stuff.

That's a way to support Revealed Apologetics as well. If your thing is just to simply listen in, that's okay too.

So happy that you're here. As I'm going to engage in the specific topic for today's video, feel free, if you have any questions, objections, things that you think

I have not covered or have not covered sufficiently, and I will try my best to engage with the comments.

Here's what I ask for people in the comments, please, please, please, because I'm multitasking here.

You guys just see me looking at the camera. I've got things up here and I'm trying to look at the comments and there's the camera here and the image here.

It's very complicated. If you have a question, please preface your question with question.

Don't type super fast. Type slowly and make sure that you are spelling things correctly because sometimes when some folks send in their question,

I'm not really sure what they're asking, but I will try my best. As long as my voice allows me to,

I will try my best to answer questions if you have them. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence or extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

I've heard it in different forms. This is a famous phrase that has been taken from,

I don't know if Carl Sagan, the astronomer, the late astronomer, he originated it,

I'm not sure, but it's typically associated with his book, The Demon Haunted World, Science as a

Candle in the Dark. I think it was published in 1995, I don't know if that's an original publishing date or another edition or whatever, but nevertheless, this comment often comes up.

Atheists are notorious for always bringing this up, right?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof or extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Now, what inspired me to cover this is I was listening to a debate between Greg Bonson and Edward Tabash, Greg Bonson and Edward Tabash, and I think it's interesting when you look at that debate and you compare it to Dr.

Bonson's debate with Gordon Stein, there's a slight difference. Greg Bonson is using the transcendental argument, but in his

Gordon Stein debate, he's focusing on logic. He says that God is the necessary precondition for logic, and he tries to argue that.

And in his debate with Edward Tabash, he's focusing on the principle of induction, that you cannot justify induction without the

Christian worldview, because you cannot project into the future what will most likely be the case based upon regularities of the past unless you presuppose something that is not itself empirically verified, that there's uniformity.

And of course, he highlights correctly that Bertrand Russell and David Hume, folks like that have pointed this out.

This is not like a weird presuppositional observation, right?

And so that was the difference between those two debates. Now, it's within this context during the

Q &A section of the debate with Dr. Bonson and Edward Tabash that this question came up.

And I want to read for you Dr. Bonson's response. I thought it was great, because I don't think he believes that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof or extraordinary evidence, however you want to say it.

But I think he kind of just grants it and then offers his answer as though it still answers that assertion, even though he probably doesn't believe that that's required.

But let's suppose it's true. He gives an answer to that line of reasoning. And so here's what he says.

So here's a question that's asked. Here's a question. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.

Where is the extraordinary proof of your extraordinary claim for God's existence? And Dr.

Bonson answers in the following. He says, very good. He says, you're right. I don't think he actually believes this, but I think he's saying this to kind of just play into it.

He says, you're right. Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary proof. And here's the extraordinary proof.

When you talk about a claim which, when rejected, undermines the possibility of making intelligible all other claims, that's extraordinary.

He says, you see, if I reject the idea that there are so many pounds of Cocoa Puffs in the world, that claim doesn't really affect a whole bunch of other claims.

It may affect claims about how much money can be made for selling cereal and so forth, but it's rather limited.

However, when you make the extraordinary claim that the philosophical precondition of intelligibility for anything is based upon that worldview, that's a rather significant claim.

And so he goes on to say, and now that hasn't been disproven. He's saying that Mr. Tabash hasn't disproven his point.

He says, in fact, it has been assumed in everything my opponent has had to say, that the universe is uniform, that we can use the inductive principle, that there are moral absolutes, all of which comport with the

Christian worldview. And that's why the extraordinary claims of Christianity or about the existence of God or the supernatural have been met with the extraordinary proof that when you reject it, you undermine all philosophical possibility of making rationality, science, or morality possible.

And then he concludes with this. He says, for you see, in a sense, the supernatural is the presupposition of the intelligibility of the natural.

So when anybody appeals to the natural world and says, this is intelligible, I say, you're already assuming a worldview that you reject.

Now that isn't a thumbnail, his transcendental response. Now, I don't think Dr. Bonson believes that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I think that phrase, it's touted around quite a bit, but I don't think that it is coherent and is a good standard at all in justifying various claims, and I'll explain why in just a bit.

Okay. But I thought that was a fun bit of the debate that's in the, during the Q &A session.

Okay. Now, the phrase extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof or extraordinary evidence or whatever.

As I said, it's often attributed to Carl Sagan. Although the sentiment behind it seems kind of reasonable,

I think the idea that if someone makes a claim that seems far -fetched, this is kind of the heart behind it, right?

Or they make a claim that's unlikely based on our current understanding of the world, the assertion is that they should equally provide compelling evidence to support that claim.

So for example, if someone claims that they've seen a unicorn, right? The burden of proof is much higher than if they were to simply claim that they saw a horse.

Okay. That makes sense, right? So in a general sense, there's kind of an appearance of intuitiveness to that phrase.

And I think that's why a lot of people use it, right? It seems intuitive. But I think there's good reason to not think that this is a good way of requiring someone to demonstrate something.

As a matter of fact, I think there's a number of problems. First, I think it suffers from ambiguity, right?

If we were going to do kind of a linguistic analysis of the phrase and, you know, claims require extraordinary proof or extraordinary evidence,

I think it's important to understand that there's great ambiguity there, okay? The terms extraordinary or proof, okay, can be very highly subjective, right?

They can vary from person to person, right? What one person considers extraordinary, another person might say, well, it's not that extraordinary, right?

Depending on their prior beliefs or their presuppositions, they're going to have different takes on that. So for example, you know, a

Christian might not find the claim of God's existence extraordinary at all because, well, he's a

Christian, right? And of course, the atheist might find the claim that God exists as really extraordinary. So what constitutes something extraordinary?

On a surface level, we can agree what seems extraordinary, but at a foundational level, when you're dealing with someone's ultimate foundations,

I mean, what you rate as possible or impossible is going to be a feature of your worldview, right?

What determines your theory of possibility and impossibility? That's a function of your worldview, okay?

And so when we're dealing with deeper issues, I mean, we're going to have to get down and dirty and kind of deal with, you know, the fundamental framework with which someone is operating in, okay?

So again, when someone says extraordinary proof, I mean, that's just very, you know, what is extraordinary proof, right?

This person, well, this is what extraordinary proof is, but that person would be like, well, no, I actually think this is extraordinary. There's just no objective way to rate that.

And so I think it gives too much wiggle room for a person to subjectively shift back and forth to what they consider extraordinary.

Or, you know, if extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, it's so subjective and ambiguous that no matter how many pieces of evidence or arguments

I give, if you are determined not to believe my position, all you need to do is say, well, it's not extraordinary enough, you see?

So it's very, very subjective and very ambiguous. I don't think it's a good method of justifying certain claims, okay?

I also think there's a certain level of philosophical inconsistency, right? The requirement for extraordinary proof assumes an epistemological framework that can be shared by everyone, right?

Again, that's why I say it's so important to recognize that everyone has worldviews. We assume metaphysical positions, epistemological theories, and so forth.

And so we need to take all those into consideration, right? For example, if someone believes that empirical evidence is the only valid form of proof, then they're going to dismiss other forms of evidence, like logical arguments, which can be considered a form of evidence or testimonial evidence, right?

There are different kinds of evidence, but your worldview is going to narrow down what you will accept.

And so many atheists might say, well, I accept a wide range of evidence. Just give me any evidence.

And then, of course, when you give them evidence, then they say, well, that's not a real demonstration because what they implicitly are thinking is that a demonstration is something along scientific or empirical lines or things that are testable by the empirical sciences and so forth.

And so on the one hand, many atheists will deny that science is the only way to demonstrate something.

But then when you give them some non -sciencey evidence, then that's not good enough because it's not demonstrable in the scientific sense.

And the reason why that happens is because they have a different epistemology, okay?

So there you go, all right? Also, I think the phrase also tends to ignore the context of the claim, right?

For instance, claims about historical evidence or metaphysical truths may not be subject to the same standards of proof as claims about everyday physical events.

So the demand for extraordinary proof might be reasonable and say something like within the scientific context, but it might be unreasonable in a philosophical context or a theological context.

So I think all of these things need to be taken into consideration. All right, so let me divert from my main talking points here and let's see if there is anything in the comments here that we could interact with.

Scott Terry, hello Scott Terry. Let's go. Yeah, thank you. Thank you for the excitement. I appreciate that. Let's see here.

Conservative mirror on the way to the silver play button. I don't even know how many subscribers you need for a silver play button.

I would imagine I'm not even close yet, but maybe someone could look that up.

That'd be pretty cool. Let's see here. Does Eli have a Discord server? No, I do not.

I try to keep my social media things limited. It's just since I do all this by myself, it's hard to keep track of multiple things.

I used to have a TikTok. I had pretty decent following. It's just hard to keep up with YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, and all these other things.

I kind of do this on my own. So there you go. Let's see here. Let's see.

Conservative mirror says most people believe in God. So saying a God exists isn't so extraordinary,

I would say. Yeah, and conservative mirror, if you're an atheist, that's interesting because as an atheist, if that's what you are,

I don't know what you are, but as an atheist, you're admitting, yeah, it's not that extraordinary. You might just have some reasons why you don't believe it.

Yeah. Well, other people might say God exists. That's such an extraordinary claim. So again, that just lends to the whole subjective nature about it, right?

What one person considers extraordinary, another person obviously is not going to consider extraordinary.

So it's not really a good method for determining what's true.

Chip Seal says the last line of our national anthem is a question. Today, in my estimation, the answer to that question is no.

Okay. All right. Reno Slim says if your God actually existed in reality, apologetics would be completely unnecessary.

No, not even close. Even though that sounds profound, that literally makes no sense and is not a good comment.

It doesn't follow at all. If God actually existed in reality, apologetics would be completely unnecessary.

So that means if things are true, then we never have to defend what's true.

Think about that. If something is true, then we wouldn't have to defend what's true.

So if it's true that God exists, we would never have to defend his existence. No. Within the Christian worldview, there is something called sin.

There is this idea that people don't like God, right? And so they will, what the

Bible says they'll do, they will suppress the truth and unrighteousness. You don't have to believe that.

But within the Christian worldview, that is precisely what people do. Okay. To think that something is so evident to someone that, oh, it's so evident,

I'll just affirm it. No. People have reasons why they want to deny what is true. So just because God exists, that doesn't mean apologetics would be completely unnecessary.

It is because of the reality of sin, right? That's what makes apologetics necessary.

Okay. So this doesn't follow at all. Okay. That does not even close.

Yeah. But thank you for sharing your comments. I do appreciate it. Reno Slim. Okay. I really want to respond to that Reno, but I'm trying to listen to the live stream.

Yeah. Okay. There you go. All right. So extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary proof.

Where is the extraordinary proof of your extraordinary claim for God's existence? Let's hypothetically grant that that is a good, a good line of questions.

I have another question here. Sorry. Apologetics asks a question.

How would you describe the innate knowledge of God that all men have from a revelation?

What's the content of this innate knowledge? Yeah. Well, the content is described in Romans one, right?

They have a knowledge of God, his eternal power and so forth. Everything that's laid out in Romans.

Well, actually, let's read it. Let's, let's, let's interact with that. Let me get my Bible here on my Bible app.

I'll be reading from the ESV. Sorry. If there are folks who don't like the ESV, let me see here, give a thumbs up if you're down with the

ESV. I like the ESV. Come on, man. Let me see here. So Romans chapter one, we'll start in verse 18 for the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

Okay. Now this is interesting because you cannot suppress the truth if you do not have the truth. Okay. Keep that in mind.

I think that's, that's helpful for what can be known about God is plain to them. Okay. So the content of the knowledge is something okay.

That is plain. All right. Uh, plain to them for his invisible attributes.

Okay. Namely, okay. These are the, these are the content of this innate knowledge is eternal power is divine nature have been clearly perceived ever since the creation of the world in the things that have been made.

So they are unapologetic to us without an apologetic or without excuse for although they knew

God. And this is an interesting, uh, were a phrase there, although they knew God, the Greek there is non -test on day on.

And it literally means knowing the God they're knowing the God. Okay. So it's a very specific

God that they know yet suppress. They did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their foolish hearts were darkened.

So the nature of the innate knowledge is the type of knowledge that makes men culpable before God for suppressing.

Okay. Um, and so that's what would we, I mean, you can, you can, uh, you can hash that out in more detail, but just generally just to answer the question, the scriptures do speak of the nature of that innate knowledge.

Okay. All right. Um, let's see here. Did it to do, let's see here.

Christine says, you seem to be conflating, not liking someone with not believing someone exists.

Non -atheists have never once disliked God. They don't believe he exists. Oh, is that the atheist position,

Christine? The atheist position is that they don't believe that God exists. I thought,

I thought atheism was a lack of belief. Isn't that what we hear all the time? I'm not saying he doesn't exist.

I'm saying I lack belief in God. Right? So again, if you don't believe he exists, then that's, it's, but that is the traditional, that is the traditional definition of atheism.

I think that's a good definition, but I hear different definitions. Um, so I'd be curious to hear what you think atheism actually is.

Um, nevertheless, um, my claim is that you do have a knowledge of God and that you're suppressing that knowledge and unrighteousness.

Again, you're going to say that's ridiculous. I don't believe in God. And then I've addressed that in other videos.

I'm not going to rehash that here. If you're interested, um, you can look at my other videos where I explain how the fact that you know,

God can actually be demonstrated. Okay. Um, so again, I won't go through that now.

I apologize, Christine, if you've never watched my other videos, but I have covered that at great length, so I won't cover it here, but thank you for your comment.

Okay. Uh, let's see here. Scott Terry says, didn't you debate Pine Creek? Uh, yes, we had a debate slash discussion years ago.

I think I remember him demanding extraordinary evidence. Yes, he did. And he was talking about the purple dragon. We'll talk about the purple dragon today.

Um, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll get to that. Okay. Uh, let's see here. Did it, did it, did it to do, did it to do.

So Paul's right. Humans have an innate belief in God. It's just a mistaken belief. Yeah. Well, if it's a mistaken belief, that means you have a standard of determining truth and that you could determine truth from error.

Um, so what is that standard of truth? If you're an atheist, how do you get truth in an atheistic worldview?

Uh, when you study the history of philosophy, I mean, we get a long history of skepticism and an inability to justify, uh, truths such that we could know them for certain.

You have the problem of hard solipsism, all these sorts of things that people don't like to talk about. Okay. How do you answer those key questions that are pertinent to epistemology and the issue of truth and the ability of a person to distinguish between truth and error?

Okay. Um, are you certain that we are mistaken about the innate knowledge that people believe that Christians believe we have?

Is it mistaken? Okay. How do you demonstrate that? How do you demonstrate anything? How do you justify the preconditions for demonstration?

I mean, these are the type of questions I've been asking years, um, and waiting for someone to respond.

Okay. And here's what doesn't work. When I say all men know that God exists and they say,

I could just prove that right now. See, I'm an atheist and I don't know God exists. I'm arguing that you are suppressing the truth and you are self deceived.

Yeah. Now you might say I'm self deceived. Uh, but if you watch a previous video,

I focus on explaining how we can demonstrate that the self deception is in the one direction and not the other.

Okay. Again, that's a big topic. Okay. Not the topic of today's live stream, but I've discussed that at length.

You can check that out and I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts maybe in another live stream. You say, Hey, I watched this video and here's my response and I'll try my best to interact with it.

Okay. All right. Uh, let's see here. Uh, just watched it and good.

I like that. That's a dragons and unicorns. Yes. Self deception. Fascinating topic. Yes. I have a whole video on self deception.

Um, and, and it's more, um, here's what I warn people when I claim that someone is self deceived,

I'm not merely saying you're self deceived and that's it. I do try to explain how that can actually be evidenced, um, and how it is, it, it can't be turned around on what

I'm saying. Now you might think it can, and I'd be welcome to interact with that. Um, but I'm not simply saying you're self deceiving.

That's it. There are ways to demonstrate that a self deception is actually occurring. Check out my other video on self deception.

I think you'd find it interesting. Okay. All right. I sent it down a rabbit hole. Sorry.

All right. Okay. So as a matter of fact, that was the video that I said, when

I say the unbeliever is self deceived and is suppressing the truth, I'm not saying that you're simply self deceived and that's it.

So that the, the response that you give is nah, well you're self deceived. I'm not saying something as simplistic as that.

So you know, give me, you know, give me a solid and just look into what I'm saying and really think, think about what

I'm saying. I'm not simply saying you're self deceived and leaving it at that because then that would be superficial. So please, you know,

I might not be the smartest person in the world, but at least grant me that, that the, the respect that I'm not saying something as simplistic as that.

There's more to what I'm saying on that topic. Okay. All right. Let's see here.

Did it to do. I'm getting sidetracked with such good questions because I've got questions. Let's see here.

Yeah. So apologetics isn't okay. I'm never going to get to the dragon analogy if I keep taking these questions, but these are going to be, keep asking them.

You know what? I'm going to, I'm going to apologetics. I'm going to save that question. I promise. I'll get to it later. Otherwise I'll never get through my main stuff.

People are going to click on the video and they can be like, man, why did you talk about the main thing that you were, uh, you were talking about?

So keep those questions coming. I will try my best to get to all of them. I promise. Okay. Actually, no,

I don't promise my yes BS, my no, we know I will. I will try my best. Okay. All right.

Let me take a quick sip of water. All right.

So extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Where is the extraordinary proof of your extraordinary claim for God's existence?

Okay. Now I, again, I don't think that's a good method for demonstrating a claim.

Okay. For reasons that I've expressed. Okay. But what happens if we hypothetically grant that, right?

We could say in principle, Hey man, you've raised a great point. I agree that extraordinary claims should be supported by extraordinary evidence, whatever that means.

Okay. Um, but again, I would point out that the nature of the claim itself is often determined by the kind of evidence that is appropriate.

So let's consider an analogy. Suppose someone claims, now I'm going to be talking outside my area of expertise.

Uh, so if anyone knows the facts regarding what I'm going to say, I'm just going to use an example. Okay. So suppose someone claims, um,

I don't know that the earth has a molten core. Okay. Okay.

So someone, someone claims that the earth has a molten core. Now at first glance, this might seem like an extraordinary claim because especially if you consider that no one has actually ever drilled all the way to the center of the earth.

Now, um, I don't know if that's true. I'm pretty sure it's, it's true. No one has drilled to the center of the earth, right?

But geologists accept that claim based on various types of evidence, right? Things like seismic readings, uh, the behavior of earth's magnetic field, indirect observation of volcanic activity and things like that.

So in other words, the claim is supported by evidence that while not direct is nonetheless compelling within that framework of geology.

Okay. Now let's turn the claim to God's existence, right? I would argue that the claim is extraordinary, not because it's unlikely, but the assertion of God's existence is foundational.

Okay. The claim is that God exists as the necessary precondition for everything else, for logic, for morality, science, human experience itself.

And this isn't just any claim, it's a claim that underpins the very possibility of making any other claim.

And so the proof then from my perspective is also extraordinary because it's transcendental.

If you reject the existence of God, you're left with a worldview that can't account for the very tools you're using to question his existence.

That's the claim. Someone's going to disagree. I can account for the tools. Great. Let's hear it. How do you account for the laws of logic?

Well, the laws of logic is a function of the brain. That doesn't work. Laws of logic is simply a language we made up to explain reality.

That doesn't work. Reality is reality. The Tom Jump stuff, that doesn't work either. And talking really fast and using really big words doesn't make it work.

It's not a good epistemology. You're going to have to make sense out of universal abstract principles in an atheistic worldview.

You have to make that fit within your worldview unless you don't think logic is universal and abstract and unchanging.

There are people who reject that. There are people who reject that the laws of logic are universal.

When you undercut the universality of the laws of logic, that doesn't work. You can refute yourself.

You've destroyed one of the preconditions of intelligibility. So again, our argument is that the

Christian world, you can account for these and provide a justification for them, and the non -Christian world, you can't.

And when they try, they either cannot account for the laws of logic or in trying to account for the laws of logic, they violate their own principles.

So the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, moral absolutes, all these things that we rely on every day,

I would argue, and I have argued, cannot be coherently explained or justified without the existence of God.

And so the extraordinary proof, from my perspective, the extraordinary proof that you seek, Mr. Atheist, is found in the very impossibility of the contrary.

Without God, it couldn't make sense out of anything at all. You start saying silly things like, reality's reality.

Language is not universal. Language is just a process of our brains. And then you run into all types of philosophical problems, okay?

Now let's give another analogy for this, okay? So if I were to claim that language is necessary for communication, right, that might seem extraordinary to someone who believes that, you know, something like gestures or pictures could suffice, right?

But when we dive deeper, we find that even gestures or pictures rely on what? They rely on a shared understanding of symbols, a kind of language, if you will, right?

And so the extraordinary claim that language is necessary is supported by the fact that all other forms of communication presuppose what?

They presuppose some kind of linguistic structure. And so likewise, the claim that God is necessary for the intelligibility of the world is supported by the fact that every argument, every piece of evidence, every claim that we make relies on the order, logic, moral structure that God provides.

And so when you argue against God's existence, you're in effect borrowing from the Christian worldview to do so. Now again, what's the atheist going to say and what do the atheists say when

I say you're borrowing from the Christian worldview, okay? Because many people lack the capacity to think deeply and respect what the other person is saying.

They will misinterpret what we're saying, the nature of our claim, and pretend we're making something superficial, okay?

When I say that you are borrowing from the Christian worldview, a bad response to that, a response that evinces a complete and utter misunderstanding and ignorance of what we're saying is to turn around and say, okay, ready?

Well, you're borrowing from the atheist worldview, okay? Or how do we know you're not really borrowing from the

Muslim worldview? For you see, when we say as Christians and as presuppositionalists that you're borrowing from the

Christian worldview, that is not a mere authority claim. I'm not simply saying you are borrowing from my worldview, nana nana poo poo, that's it.

No, we seek to demonstrate that you are borrowing from the

Christian worldview for the very things that you need to even engage an argument,

A, makes sense and is accounted for within our worldview and is not made sense of and accounted for in yours or the other hypotheticals that you appeal to.

And so every time you appeal to these things, we're going to point you back, well, those make perfect sense within our worldview.

You can't make sense out of it in your worldview. So why are you borrowing from our worldview? Right. Then you get this thing.

Well, what if there's a hypothetical worldview out there that accounts for all these things?

Cool, Mr. Atheist, do you hold to that hypothetical worldview? If you're saying that perhaps there's a hypothetical worldview that provides these necessary preconditions and you don't hold to that hypothetical worldview, then you're implicitly admitting that you're standing on some other worldview.

That's not this hypothetical one that provides those preconditions. And so you're implicitly admitting that the worldview that you are currently standing on in order to make your argument is insufficient to provide the preconditions for the argument that you're making.

And so it's self vitiating, it's self refuting. OK, so again, you don't have to agree with it, but at least understand we're not making simplistic claims.

You know that God exists and then someone says, well, you're just borrowing from another worldview.

Or, you know, when I say the unbeliever is self deceived, well, no, well, you're self deceived.

You know, that's such a we can turn it around. No, I want you to try to turn around, show the Christian worldview is self deceived and is actually borrowing from another worldview.

I'd like to see it. OK, and that's that's when someone tries to do that, that's not a bad thing. That's what you're supposed to be doing, because in responding to my claim, you are offering counterexamples showing that the

Christian worldview is either borrowing from the atheistic worldview or borrowing from a Muslim worldview, if that's the line of reasoning someone wants to go down.

OK. All right. All right. So we get things like this here. So Reno says apologetics is basically the idea that they can speak their particular

God into existence. Oh, my goodness. It's like they know that the second they stop talking, their

God will start to come on.

This person can't be real. Reno Slim, are you a real person? Do people really think like this? I mean, this is really bad.

Do you know, Reno Slim, that apologetics simply means to give a defense.

And so anytime you defend a position, you are engaging in apologetics.

OK, so if we were to adopt your line of reasoning, by the way, apologetics is not the purview of Christianity.

There are many apologies that have been written throughout history. Apology means a defense is being made.

OK, so that means if I were to take your view, apologetics is basically the idea that they can speak their particular

God into existence. So anytime someone is defending something they believe to be true, all they're doing is speaking that truth into existence.

OK, you see how silly that is. Right. That's just really bad. It's to it's to be completely ignorant with respect to how the term apologetics has been used throughout history.

It's not uniquely Christian. You have atheist apologetics. That's right. Atheists don't just sit there saying

I lack belief. They actually try to defend their views. I would say more sophisticated atheists actually try to defend their views instead of pretending that they're in this neutral position where all they need to do is, you know, is listen to our claims and reject them.

No, you have a worldview, too. And you have a burden of proof as well as the Christian also has a burden of proof.

And we welcome that burden of proof. So sorry, Reno Slim. This is a really wow.

I mean, geez, Louise, that means we couldn't defend anything because anytime we would defend something, it's equal to just.

Thinking our thing that we want to defend into existence or defining it as true, that's just silly. Yeah, I see what you did,

Reno Slim, you you threw me off. OK, all right.

So let's see here. So a skeptic might say, and I've heard this before, OK? When the

Christian posits God. OK, we are adding something unnecessary to a worldview.

And so they would say that atheism, something like atheism, is much simpler. OK, it's more parsimonious.

It's a more parsimonious perspective. OK, and I could appreciate the desire for simplicity.

I do think that there's value in explanations that provide simplicity. But again, there that's not a foolproof standard as well.

Right. But think about this to say that we're adding

God. OK, I want you to pay attention to this to say that we're adding God already presupposes from the outset.

Without demonstrating. That God is not necessary, thereby rejecting the

Christian worldview from the outset, so to say, well, you're just adding God to your worldview. Well, that presupposes that one can't start with God, that he's the necessary precondition, which is the very point that we're arguing now.

You don't have to believe that that's true, but to assert the opposite position is to show that you are not, in fact, neutral in your position.

You are starting from a place that rejects the Christian worldview from the outset, OK, which is fine, but then you're going to actually have to justify your rejection as I have to justify my belief in the

Christian worldview. You see, so the fact that they're not neutral demonstrates that there is a burden of proof on both sides of the aisle.

OK, and so we could appreciate simplicity. But again, saying that we're adding God presupposes that God is not necessary.

You see, according to the Christian worldview, we don't exist in a neutral state where God is merely an optional add on to explain things.

I know the atheists say, well, you know, many years ago, the ancients had to explain where a lightning came from.

And so when the lightning was there, they thought it was the gods playing bowling, but science is this is very simplistic stuff, right?

OK, that's not OK. You think that that's what we believe, right, that God is just this explanatory peg that we place in the gap of our knowledge.

But the transcendental argument is not a God of the gaps argument. I would even argue many of the classical arguments that I don't typically use.

I don't even think those arguments are God of the gap arguments. I mean, just to call something God of the gaps doesn't mean that it's, in fact,

God of the gaps, OK? But you hear this often, right? From the Christian worldview, the knowledge of God and the knowledge of oneself are actually simultaneous.

God is the necessary precondition for even knowing myself truly. OK. And so God is not something we add to our understanding from within my worldview,

OK, but rather it is, in fact, the ultimate presupposition that makes all human experience intelligible.

All right. And to suggest that God is an unnecessary addition assumes without argument that there is a state in which we first exist without God and then later introduce him into the equation.

OK. And again, this assumption contradicts the biblical revelation of our metaphysical situation from the very beginning.

And so when people argue this way, they're actually presupposing a category of neutrality that Christians fundamentally reject.

And there lies the problem. Now, the Christian says we're not neutral. The unbeliever says, well, we have to come at this from a neutral perspective, but they're not neutral.

And that's why Greg Bonson gave us a very helpful advice when talking to atheists. Ready? When someone asks you that we need to be neutral, you need to say, well, you need to say,

I can't I'm not going to be neutral, right? I'm not neutral. And the unbeliever isn't neutral either.

There's no neutrality. OK, so. I think when atheists speak of God as an ad hoc add on or as an attempt to posit a deity simply to explain reality better, they fundamentally misunderstand the nature of when they're talking to presuppositionalists, the nature of the presuppositional claim.

So when we assert that God is transcendentally necessary, we're not suggesting that he's merely another fact within the universe to be considered alongside other regular facts.

Rather, God, we're arguing, is the very precondition by which everything within the universe and human experience becomes intelligible in the first place.

OK, and this is why to bring in the analogy of the dragon. OK, if you're familiar with Carl Sagan, he also brings his invisible dragon analogy.

OK, this is why when common analogies like Carl Sagan's invisible dragon and Doug from Pine Creek asked me this all those years ago.

OK, when Carl Sagan's invisible dragon, that analogy falls short when applied to God.

OK, so in Sagan's example and Carl Sagan's example, he says someone claims to own a pet dragon. OK, but when asked for evidence, the person responds that the dragon is invisible, right?

He's invisible. The dragon leaves no footprints and the dragon cannot be detected by by any means possible.

Right. So we just posit this invisible dragon. There's no way to justify it. Every time you ask me to justify it, you know,

I kind of say, well, I have to qualify. He can't be he can't be, you know, detected.

OK, now, of course, this is an analogous. This is not analogous to our claim that God exists. OK, atheists here often draw the parallel between the analogy, this analogy of this invisible dragon and the belief in God.

Right. You believe in God, but can I see him? No. Does he leave any evidence?

No. The atheist is going to say. Right. And they argue that belief in God is as irrational as believing in an undetectable dragon or believing in God is like believing in Santa Claus, you know, all these kind of superficial, you know, responses here.

Right. But I think this analogy completely misses the mark because it fails to grasp the presuppositional nature of the

Christian claim. Right. When we assert God's existence, we're not placing him alongside other entities within the universe as if he were just another fact to be proven or disproven.

You see, God is not a mere entity within the cosmos. Like a dragon would be. OK, he is the necessary foundation that gives meaning to all facts and reality.

OK, and so to treat God as simply another fact within the universe is to fundamentally misunderstand our argument.

OK, and this error also, I think for Christians who are listening, this blurs the line of the creator creature distinction, which is central to Christian theology.

We're not merely arguing that God exists as just any other fact in the universe. Rather, we're asserting that God, by virtue of who he is, his nature, his attributes, his ontological status, he is the precondition for the meaningfulness of anything else.

And I think this distinction is is crucial. OK, without acknowledging God as the foundational precondition for all knowledge, logic, morality and so forth.

Right. Any discussion of about facts within the universe lose their coherence.

And this is why the presuppositional claim is not just one argument among many. It's the very basis for making sense of any argument at all.

OK, now someone says, well, you posit your invisible God. And so I posit my invisible dragon.

And so I'm going to say that my invisible dragon is the necessary precondition for intelligibility. Right. Thinking that this is some amazing insight.

Right. OK, look, oh, I've got them now. OK, no, you haven't got us now.

This is precisely what we want you to do. OK, not in a trap kind of way.

I want you to think you have a foundation for these things and actually put forth that foundation.

You see how that works so that we could actually examine this. Now, it's interesting. The invisible dragon is a necessary precondition of intelligibility.

OK, and interestingly enough, when you go through the attributes of the dragon, right, the dragon, the material.

Yes. Is dragon universal? Yes. Is the dragon the precondition for intelligible experience? Yes. OK, what you'll find is the characteristics of the dragon will just have the characteristics of the

Christian God. Now, who's being ad hoc at that point? Because like, well, wait a minute, an invisible dragon is not sufficient because an invisible dragon is not omnipresent.

It's not an absolute mind. Oh, no, this this invisible dragon is. Oh, so it's a universal mind that is a dragon.

OK, now we have the violation of the law of identity. Right. What is a dragon? A dragon, by definition, has certain characteristics that is limited.

OK, but if your invisible dragon is this universal conceptual mind that grounds universal conceptual principles, then are we talking about a dragon at this point?

Does this dragon provide the necessary preconditions for intelligibility and provide unity and diversity?

Oh, so this dragon now is both one and many in an equally ultimate way, kind of like the

Trinity. Right. So all of the characteristics that you have to ad hocly add to the dragon will suspiciously look exactly like the

God that I'm describing. And so a rose by any other any other name would smell just as sweet.

OK, that goes to show the ad hoc nature of that kind of response when someone tries to posit an invisible unicorn or invisible dragon as a competitor to the

God of the Bible who has a certain attribute set that does, in fact, provide the preconditions for intelligibility.

OK, so again, you know, this is a problem when people think that the argument is so superficial that you can easily respond to it by simply positing, you know, a dragon or anything along those lines.

OK. All right. So I hope that makes sense. All right. Let me kind of go through some of these questions now.

So we're almost at the top of the hour. Hope folks are enjoying this. If you like it, do me a solid and click that like button as all the cool kids on YouTube say.

OK, let's see here. I'm going to see how to make sure I don't pass anything.

Let's see. Let me get some water, actually. Let's see here.

I did that one already. I did that one already. OK, dragon, the unicorns.

All right. So Apologetics says, question, how would you reply to someone who says we have to employ our senses and reasoning to understand

God's revelation? And then he goes on to say, and by implication, the preceptor can't escape the reliance on his senses and reasoning, too.

I remember you talking about ultimate versus proximate starting points. Can you expand on that? Yeah. So the question often comes up, what do we begin when the presupposition says

I start with God? You know, the person can come along and say, well, you don't actually start with God, you start with your senses.

Pardon. You start with your reasoning. And what's going on here is that there's actually an equivocation being made with the phrase start with.

OK, when we say that we start with God, that is not that is not referring to a chronological starting.

Obviously, I need my senses to read the Bible. OK, this isn't like, you know, when someone's like, well, you need your senses first.

Like this isn't a surprise. Like, you know, Bonson and Bantill talk about this. This is not like people familiar with the literature and so forth are not surprised by this, obviously.

Right. Greg Bonson would say you need to use your senses chronologically. Right. You know, that comes first, right.

Your reasoning and so forth. And so the idea of starting with God, I would say that we start with God in a logical order, not a chronological order.

OK, when someone says you either start with God or you start with your reasoning or you either start with God or you start with your sensation, that's a false dichotomy because the biblical answer is that we start simultaneously with our reasoning and with God and that in a logical sense,

God is metaphysically prior to our reasoning. In other words, the precondition for the intelligibility of the very process of reasoning we engage in is the existence of God and his revelation.

Those are the preconditions for the meaningfulness of the process of reasoning and the sensations that I use when

I read my Bible. OK, so it's not an issue of chronological priority. It's an issue of logical priority.

And this is, again, not an idiosyncrasy of presuppositionalism. There are many ways that you can speak of order.

You can speak of logical order, chronological order. Right. You can start with in principle versus in practice.

Right. There are different ways that we can speak of priority in the order of things.

OK, so there's no problem there. And of course, within the Christian world, you got created the senses for a specific purpose.

Then they are sufficient mechanisms to learn about the world. And we have the rational capacities given

God's revelation and his ability to reveal himself such that we can know the nature of the world that he's created.

God has created all those things. Those make perfect sense within a Christian worldview. You leave the Christian worldview or you don't logically start with the metaphysical ultimacy of God and his revelation, then, yes, you run into the problem of sensation and solipsism and all those sorts of things.

OK, brain in the VAT scenarios don't touch a presuppositionalist.

OK, how do you know you're a brain in a VAT? Did a video on that, by the way, if you're interested. These all are anticipated.

Right. We've talked about these things that doesn't touch the Christian at all, OK, because I don't start with myself first and then try to work my way up to God.

I start with God as metaphysically prior. I submit to his revelation and his existence.

And in doing so, I am granted a philosophy that can account for knowledge, that can account for truth, that can account for logic, that it could account for morality and so forth.

Right. And that's why the Bible says the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. When we submit to the revelation of God and his existence and so forth, things fall into place and we have the foundation for all those wonderful things that secular philosophy can't give you.

OK, and so I think that's important to keep in mind. Apologetic says you did an exceptional job with Tom Jump.

Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Apparently, atheists think I ran away because people think

I do this full time. I think I spoke with Tom Jump for about an hour or so and I had to leave because I had other responsibilities.

I thought that discussion went really well. Tom was very respectful to me. I think we had a good discussion.

People keep asking me, why don't I debate him again? I would not debate him again, not because I'm afraid of him, not because I don't like him.

While he was respectful to me after following a lot of his debates. And I say this respectfully, as I observe,

I, I, I tend to think that in some situations he can be disingenuous in how he presents his material.

And so I hope I'm wrong on that. But that's the impression I get after watching a lot of his interactions.

And so when I do a debate, I don't do many of them. But if I do do a debate, I am very picky with who

I'm going to. I don't debate simply for the intellectual exercise. So, for example, I don't like when people sandbag or gaslight and people accuse me of gaslighting.

But then don't debate me. Right. If you think I'm, you know, I don't gaslight. I don't sandbag. I believe the things that I'm saying.

I try to admit when someone says something that I don't even when my debate with Tom Jump. I think he brought something up.

I was like, hey, you know, let me think about that one. Right. I don't mind doing that. Right. People, you know, atheists calling me a chicken or hey, at least

I debated the guy. Right. I didn't challenge him. He invited me onto his channel. So I was there.

I, I sat there and we had a great conversation. So, yes, I had very good feedback from that discussion.

There's no need for me to debate him again. I mean, there's no purpose for it. I thought I did a great job.

People said I did a great job. He was respectful. I enjoyed interacting with him. And what's there to do?

I'm going to debate the guy 50 times. I mean, we know that each other's positions and I disagree.

I think I made my points. And there you go. So nevertheless, you're going to have people think the opposite.

And that's completely fine, too. That's how debates work. Right. In that debate, there were two comments that came one after another, because, you know, as you guys know, presupposition, let's get a bad rap on the

Internet. Right. Because presupposition lists, you know, can tend to be rather obnoxious. And I try my best not to be.

I don't know if I always do that. You know, I try. But one comment said, wow, this

Eli guy is the nicest presupposition list I've ever seen. And then the next comment was,

Eli, this guy, this Eli guy is the most obnoxious person. And I'm like, wow, like how can you be looking at the same person and draw completely different conclusions?

Both of them were atheists, I assume. So, again, you're going to have people who think, yeah, you did a great job and man, you were running away.

I mean, I can't control how I'm perceived. So so there you go. But thank you for that apologetics.

I appreciate that. And that was the common sentiment that I've received from a lot of people. So I appreciate it.

All right. Let's see here. Jimmy Winburn says,

I'm an atheist. The extraordinary claims statement is neither true or not true. As a rule, it can't be proved just accepted or not accepted.

Yeah, well, you can't really prove it is that I would agree with you, Jimmy. And it's it's too ambiguous. Again, like I said before, what

I mean, what counts as extraordinary, you get these really kind of like vague standards of evidence.

You get something like a Matt Dillahunty who says, if your God exists, then he would know what would convince me.

So when you ask someone like Matt Dillahunty, what kind of evidence would convince you? It doesn't give you anything. He just gives.

Well, if your God exists, he would know. Oh, OK. Well, the Christian claim is he has provided enough evidence for you.

But in discussion, if you don't even give us a standard, like what can we do with that? That allows you to wiggle any which way you'd like.

And then it makes the Christian have to give you all these, quote unquote, evidence. You could just throw them over your shoulder.

I'm not convinced. I'm not convinced. I'm not convinced. Right. One of my favorite debate responses is the debate that happened years ago between Michael Jones of Inspiring Philosophy and Matt Dillahunty.

And, you know, Michael Jones had this whole presentation arguing for the existence of God.

OK, now, whether whether you think his arguments work or not, whatever. And Matt Dillahunty responds,

I think he just has a pad, you know, he's just responding. He doesn't have like a whole presentation. And then when they're interacting with each other.

Matt Dillahunty says, well, I'm not convinced. And Michael Jones responded, his response was golden.

He goes, I don't care. He says, I don't care if you're not convinced. See, the debate is, does

God exist? The debate is not, is Matt Dillahunty convinced? You see, because I don't know what would convince

Matt Dillahunty. He doesn't know what would convince him. So how how can you say, you know, this isn't good.

Extraordinary claim. All of these things are so ambiguous that it just allows the atheist and the skeptic to kind of wiggle wherever they want.

There's just no way to satisfy. Right. We played the flute. You didn't dance. Right. We sang the dirge.

You didn't mourn. I mean, this is these are the sorts of things that we have to deal with. OK, so, yeah,

I would agree. It's not a great claim. It's you can't prove it. It's subjective. Right. There are all sorts of problems with it.

OK, let's see here. Yeah.

So he says here, Scott Terry says, yeah, as in we accept or reject beliefs based on whatever criteria we feel like on a given day.

Well, that seems to be the case with some people. Yeah, absolutely. I did respond to that one already.

OK, let's see here. Yeah. So Jimmy Winburn says rationality is based on axioms which cannot be proven, just accepted or not accepted.

Well, I'm not a rationalist. I know rationalism starts with axioms. Axioms, by definition, cannot be proven.

That is correct. Well, I don't hold to axioms. I hold to an ultimate presupposition. And I actually think that our presuppositions can be justified.

Well, how can they be justified if they're starting points? We justify them transcendentally. I mean, that's been my whole argument, right, to say that an ultimate foundation cannot be proven is to indirectly say that transcendental arguments are impossible, because that's what transcendental arguments do.

They justify presuppositions by showing that the presupposition is true by the impossibility of the contrary. Now, if someone wants to make the claim that transcendental arguments are impossible, then

I would like to hear the argument for that, because it's actually a quite normal form of argumentation throughout the course of philosophy.

I mean, there is an entry on it in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy. There are actual arguments, right? Some can be successful.

Others have problems. You know, I particularly think the transcendental argument that I use is fine and works, and that's why

I use it. OK, so I don't hold to axioms in this sense. By the way, if you hold to axioms that it can't be proven, then you have to admit that your entire rationality is based on a belief that you've accepted and you have no way of justifying.

And if it's just if it's without justification, then it's arbitrary. So you're admitting that all rationality is.

Arbitrary, you're free to do that. I don't think that's what rationality is based on. I don't think it's based on some axiom that we accept or not accept.

I think our starting point is God and his revelation, and it can be justified by the impossibility of the contrary.

Right. Reject it. Reject the ultimate presupposition of the Christian worldview. And you end up in arbitrariness or you end up not being able to provide the preconditions for the very things you take for granted.

Logic and uniformity and so forth. Things that we've covered ad nauseum on this channel. OK. All right.

Let's see here. Yep, yep, yep, yep.

Scott Terry. Good. Sounds like Wittgensteinian, right? Sounds Wittgensteinian, straight up fideism and rejection of rationale.

Yeah, that's right. That's right. Let's see. Yep, yep, yep. Let's see.

I don't know. Right. So Jimmy says,

I don't I don't know what fideism is. So that's fine. I don't reject rationality.

I accept all the rules. Yes. But you can't justify those rules because all those rules are based on your starting point, which you said you just accept or reject.

You happen to accept a set of axioms. Someone could disagree with your axioms and there's no way to justify one over the other.

So, yes, it is. It's based on irrationality. It's just arbitrary. Yeah. OK, let's see here.

Let's see. I'll do that. Good. Hey, good pointing in the right direction. Very good. Let's see here.

I know this topic is off, but how do you respond to reality as reality? Oh, man.

Reality is reality. How do I respond to that? Did a whole video on that. Let me let me get it.

Let me put that in the comment section for you. One second. All right.

Let's see what we got here. There's a whole video. It's actually entitled. It's actually titled

Reality is Reality. So let me get it for you. I'm going to do that. Give me one second as I hook you up in the comments and you could watch that video.

Let's see here. Thanks for bearing with me, by the way.

I appreciate it. You guys are so good. Reality is reality. Where are you?

And all these reality, why doesn't it just come up in the in the thing?

Let me type it in one second. Let's see here.

Hmm. Where is it? Holy cow. I'm trying to get it for you, man. It's here.

Someone if someone could find the video on my channel, I don't know why it's not popping up.

I did a whole video addressing reality is reality. It's literally called reality is reality.

But for some reason, it's not popping up. No, I don't want to play a video.

OK, if someone could do me a solid and find that video for our good friend here to point them in the right direction, that would be really helpful.

So sorry about that. It's on my channel. OK. And I respond to it. OK. There's a whole video.

That'd be a better response than me just quickly running through it right now. OK, but it's there on my channel.

Someone could do me a solid and find that. That'd be great. Let's see here. Christians questioning popular opinion.

Hey, brother. Hello. How's it going? Now, let's see. Is he saying this doesn't work, that doesn't work?

No, no, no. Without them. Hmm. Alou. I'm sorry if I can't pronounce that.

One second. Let me get I got this way. Alou. Alou bum me. I'm so sorry.

I apologize. I'm so sorry. OK. You seem to just be saying this doesn't work or that doesn't work.

Nana, Nana, Nana. Without demonstrating how they don't work well. Let's use an example.

Now, I don't know your position, so we'll just going to use an example. Let's suppose someone is an atheistic materialist.

Right. All that exists is matter in motion. Right. Yet they believe in logical principles. So here's a question.

How does a worldview that puts forth a metaphysical position that all is matter in motion?

How does such a view make sense out of something like. Immaterial laws of logic, they only have a couple of options, right?

If everything is boiled down to or reduced to kind of a empirical and physical explanation,

OK, you're going to have to reduce logic to materiality. If you do that, then laws of logic lose their universality.

OK, that would be a self refuting position. If you say logic is immaterial and conceptual and abstract and you hold to a view that reality is material, then that refutes the materialist position because you can't be a materialist and affirm the existence of immaterial abstract logical principles.

OK, now, if you're an atheist that affirms, you know, immaterial entities and abstractions and so forth,

OK, you might go a different direction. We only have a couple of options. And so I can't right now at this moment refute all of the other options.

I don't know where you're coming from, but they don't work for reasons like that. They are inconsistent with what the person is affirming with respect to their their worldview, their metaphysical position and epistemology and so forth.

OK, so I'm not just saying they don't work. And I'm not sure if you're a newcomer to this channel. I mean, I've gone

I've hundreds of videos responding to specifically why they don't work and have interacted with a whole bunch of different views.

So but thank you for your your comments there. Let's see.

Let's see. To do to do to do. Let's see here.

Christian questioning popular opinions is in the T -Jump debate. His argument was I can justify existence. Therefore, I have intelligibility.

A lot missing there. That's not what we call Intel. Yeah, that's the it was a very quickly like, oh, you know, reality is reality.

I exist. I'm not not existing. There's a lot of it doesn't work. I hope you find that video as I go into detail. But it's it's it's too quick.

I think he's quickly giving a response and not really thinking about what he's saying. So so here we go.

Let's see here. Yeah.

So Jimmy says there are all sorts of logic based on which of the axioms you accept or don't accept model modal logic, fuzzy logic.

Yeah, absolutely. Try talking about any of those models without assuming the law of identity, the law of excluded middle.

And to be interesting. Right. Can you can you meaningfully explain what those categories of logic are without assuming the three basic principles?

That'd be interesting. OK, that's a fascinating thing, by the way. Thank you for saying this,

Jimmy Winburn, because I've actually meaning meaning to do a whole video on different, different categories of logic.

So thank you for that. You've reminded me. I'm going to try my best to get a video on this where I can cover it in more detail.

OK, there you go. Let's see here. You could end up.

Thoughts on jiu jitsu. Not going to lie.

All right. I didn't anticipate a question like this. OK, here we go.

OK, thank you. Apologetics. I'm going to get back to your jiu jitsu question because it is important. So it's called free separate unit.

Let me see. Hey, there it is.

I found it. OK, there we go. I'm going to do this. I'm going to share that. I'm going to copy that and then

I'm going to put it in the chat. OK, thank you. Paste.

So my response to reality or is it reality? You can take a look at that video. I interact with that.

The video is about a half hour long. It shouldn't be too much listening if you're interested in that.

OK, so now someone asked me a very profound question about what I think about jiu jitsu. So let's see.

So jiu jitsu. Thoughts on jiu jitsu. I don't know what you're just simply asking.

What do I think about jiu jitsu? Are you asking? Do I think it's immoral to engage in martial arts? I don't know exactly what you what you're asking, but I like jiu jitsu.

I think it's a good martial form. However, I am a big fan of Jeet Kune Do.

OK, as founder Bruce Lee, Jeet Kune Do is a martial style.

I mean, we don't want to call it a style because Bruce Lee really was not. He didn't like the language of styles because Bruce Lee believed that to accept the style limits you,

OK, to solidify yourself within a particular style is to no longer be able to, as Bruce Lee said, honestly express yourself.

That's what he would say. Right. So I like the fluidity of Jeet Kune Do. OK, the way of the intercepting fist.

OK, it's fluid in a way that other styles, I don't think, capture that that essence. But jiu jitsu is a very effective style.

People say, what style is the best? I think that's a stupid question. I think there is no best style.

It really depends on how the practitioner uses it and whether he's able to adapt to different contexts and things like that.

And that's why I think it. I don't mean to be silly, but that's why I think Bruce Lee's reference to being like water,

OK, being like water is. Is a very great analogy of this flexibility that we need to have in in combat.

Right. A boxer needs to be flexible and adapt to someone who's a wrestler. Right. And vice versa.

So someone who uses Aikido or Kempo or Taekwondo, these different art styles emphasize certain kinds of movements that, you know, are catered to specific situations.

But when someone uses a style or a way of fighting that's different, how do those styles adjust?

And so I think a style that is able to adjust. That's why mixed martial arts, I think, is so helpful. I think a mixed martial artist will probably do better than someone who holds to some rigid style.

But again, if the person who holds to the rigid style is good at what he does and is able to adapt,

I mean, you see what I'm saying? So so those are my thoughts. I think jujitsu is great, but I like the flexibility that Jeet Kune Do and mixed martial arts affords someone.

So sorry for getting off topic there. Thank you for that random question. I love martial arts. I am black belt in karate movies.

OK, so I I'm black belt in karate movies.

So I don't actually I don't actually do martial arts, but I can I've watched so many movies.

I could actually make it look like I know I know a little bit of martial arts. I know enough to take care of myself. So if someone were to take me,

I know things. But I'm not like a practitioner or anything like that. So all right.

Let's see here. Did it do? OK, did it to do?

Mighty's Alex says Jay Dyer struggled in that debate. Also, he choked out his syllogism after ten minutes and called it a disjunct without the word or that.

I'm not sure the specific argument that Jay used. I think the problem with Jay and Tom.

They fall too easily. In like the arguing, not like the logical,

I like like going back and forth and the insults and stuff. So when they fall to that, it becomes kind of a hot mess and you can't really understand what they're talking about.

And so I think that the debate between Jay Dyer and Tom Jump was really a dumpster fire. There were some points that were made that I'm like,

OK, you know, I see where Tom's coming from. And I understand where Jay's coming from. And there was almost a time where they were

OK. Well, this is going to be interesting. And then, of course, you know, I had the interrupting the thing and then the silliness.

So I don't think that that that helps. Mighty's are like goes on to say, Jay also said he believes in circular arguments after criticizing

T -Jump for a circular argument. I'm not sure. I'm not an expert on Jay Dyer.

I don't know if he would think that circular arguments are good. I think there's an important distinction between circular reasoning and circular argument.

They're not the same thing. So circular reasoning is when you assume the thing in question, which is a fallacy in most cases.

It is not always a fallacy. When you're talking about foundational issues or what you think, what you take to be the necessary preconditions for intelligibility, then you obviously have to assume that's true.

Otherwise, it wouldn't be the necessary precondition. Right. So there is a certain level of circularity at the fundamental level.

But that's not the same as a circular argument. A circular argument is a feature of a direct argument form.

So, for example, if someone posits a deductive argument, a circular argument would be an argument in which the conclusion is also in one of the premises.

OK. So, for example, the argument that I like to put is, you know, if knowledge is possible, the Christian worldview is true.

Knowledge is possible. Therefore, the Christian worldview is true. Now, completely apart from defending that argument and going to the

I've covered this argument in other videos. That argument on its face is not circular. It's not a circular argument.

OK. The conclusion, therefore, the Christian worldview is true, is not also stated in one of the premises.

OK. Now, the circular reasoning that is engaged in the argument I presented is when you're defending the first premise.

If knowledge is possible, the Christian worldview is true. I have to presuppose the truth of the Christian worldview in order to argue that the

Christian worldview is the necessary precondition for knowledge. But we need to make a distinction between the premise of an argument and the presupposition of an argument.

We do not go into an argument presupposing our position is false. We obviously are presupposing the truth of our position.

But that's different than laying out the premises of an argument and then placing the conclusion within the premise.

So I think that's an important distinction to keep in mind. Not sure if Jay would say he believes in circular arguments. If he does, that sounds weird and unlike what he normally says.

But I'd have to see the timestamp in the context of what he's saying. But I mean, I'm not here to defend Jay Dyer.

I mean, he does his debates and he does his thing. And, you know, I don't agree with everything that he says either.

So. All right. Thank you for that, Mighty Zarlak. Let's see here. Yeah, that's true.

Yeah. Turk says circularity at a paradigm level, which all formal systems of logic have. Yeah, that's right.

Yeah. When you get to the foundational level, circularity is unavoidable. But that's different than circular argument. OK, so circularity is a fallacy in many cases, in most cases.

But when you're at the fundamental level, there's that's a different category. Yeah. Let's see here.

OK. I'll loop me like I apologize. You're making simplistic claims.

It doesn't matter how many times you say you're not OK. I mean, OK, that's right.

OK. All right. I can't really can't really help you.

If you think that's what I'm doing, demonstrate that that's what all I'm doing. Otherwise, you're just saying it.

I mean, just asserting your position doesn't make it so right. I mean, I would say this is a simplistic claim because I don't know if you have a

YouTube channel. I have a YouTube channel and on my YouTube channel. I have let me see.

Hold on. Let me see this. Yeah.

So I have on my channel three hundred and thirty videos.

OK, I've taken the time to explain my view. Right. So if you think out of all three hundred and thirty videos,

I'm just making a simplistic claim. I mean, you could say that that doesn't demonstrate. I've done my work in demonstrating that it's not simplistic.

So you don't get to be believed by simply saying I'm making simplistic claims no matter what I say. Yeah, I've spent hours explaining what

I mean. Your inability to understand what I mean, or perhaps you haven't seen what I've said in other contexts. That's not my problem.

That's not a feature of a weakness of my position. That's a feature of of your position. So. So there you go.

Did it through? Yeah, so my knees are like says Turk and T -Jump argument. Reality is reality would also be a paradigm level argument as well.

Yes, that's right. Reality is reality is. Well, it is it is a paradigm thing, but it's also ambiguous.

OK, reality is reality. Doesn't make sense. It is.

What is reality? Reality, reality is a tautology. I don't even know what that means. You have to have some belief with respect to the content of reality.

And of course, a lot of people want to avoid adding content to the reality because that gets them in. Into metaphysical commitments that they don't want to defend.

Reality is reality. I don't even know what that means. I mean, that's just that's what you call an abstract universal.

You're not giving me content. You're just saying words. So, yeah, it's a very it's a very ambiguous claim.

And it's a tautology claim. OK. And there are other problems as well with it that I go on and go through in the video that I that I posted there.

All right. Let's see here. Yep. Terretti Harris is presupposition intellect is presuppositionalism in intellectual jujitsu.

I suppose it could be an argument forum that uses an opponent's position against them.

Yeah, I would say that. And I think that's a perfectly valid way of engaging in debate. Right. Isn't that what we're supposed to do?

Right. If we're trying to show Eli Ayala is

Eli Ayala. There we go. But what does that mean that this is my point, right?

What does Eli Ayala mean? Those are just words on a on a screen unless there's content to that.

Is it does Eli Ayala have the content of me or is

Eli? Is it referring to another Eli? Is Eli a physic that just doesn't give us enough information? So it's just it doesn't really get us anywhere.

Anyway, see, now I went down to that one and then I missed where I was. OK, let's see here.

There we go. So my reality is everything that exists in his worldview. What or what exists?

What is existence in his worldview? What exists? OK, reality.

You know, it's like saying existence is existence. Well, what is the nature of existence? Well, you don't want to say that because then you get now you have to make metaphysical commitments and then you have to defend that.

OK, because what happens? What is the one to punch of worldview defense? Once you make a metaphysical claim, metaphysical claims are followed up by epistemological questions.

Once you add a metaphysical claim content to the claim, not just this bare abstract, ambiguous abstraction.

Once you make the metaphysical claim, then you have to now answer the next question. Well, how do you know that? OK, by the way, the cogito

Descartes cogito, OK? People say, well, you know, I think therefore I you know,

I am Descartes, for example, presupposed he claimed to doubt everything.

And then the thing that survived his doubt was his own existence. But actually, he didn't doubt everything. He snuck in the assumption of the laws of logic.

He snuck in the assumption of the coherence of language because you need to speak to say, I think, therefore, I am. He also snuck in assumptions about the enduring identity through time.

So he is the eye at the beginning of, I think, is the same person at the. Therefore, I think at the end of his argument, there are a whole host of presuppositions and metaphysical baggage that he failed to address.

So when we say, I think, therefore, I am, that ignores. All of the metaphysical baggage that's packed into that, when you say reality is reality, that doesn't give us metaphysical content.

So you're not telling us anything. When you say existence, a reality is all that exists. And you don't tell me the nature of anything that exists.

It's just too abstract. Right. So, again, it's not a good starting point. It needs to be fleshed out more.

But again, many people don't want to flesh things out because they want to keep arms distance from having to actually defend something.

They want to keep that comfortable level where, oh, these are just givens. Right. And I could just assert this over here.

We're going to grant this and then I'm going to build all these other things. But that's a weak foundation. OK. All right.

Let's see here. Did it to do? Yeah, there we go.

OK. So I'll lube bum me. I apologize in the final analysis as an atheist.

I just laugh at the preceptor. They are not taken seriously. And no wonder people like Vantill and Greg Bonson are not taken seriously in philosophy.

Yeah. So so these are I mean, this is a silly claim. Right. It's noticed that this claim is completely irrelevant as to whether what

Vantill or Greg Bonson was arguing for was true. Right. I can say I laugh at atheists and a bunch of Christians don't take atheists seriously.

That doesn't disprove atheism. Right. It's just silly. Stop laughing at the preceptor and actually engage in what we're arguing.

And then maybe preceptors will take the other side a little bit more seriously. Right. When when a transcendental argument for the existence of God is laid out and someone gives a drive by comment, oh, what you're arguing is the

Bible is true because the Bible is true. We're laughing at you. Actually, people should be laughing at people who make those assertions because it's clearly not what a transcendental argument is.

So I'd like to see when someone says transcendental arguments are not taken seriously or the presupposition this is not taken seriously.

I would like to see the teeth to that claim. I would like to actually see someone meaningfully interact with what we're actually saying or even be able to repeat what we're saying in a way that accurately represents what we're saying.

Right. Laughing at a preceptor doesn't help interact with the argument. If presupposition lists are so not taken seriously, then why hasn't there been good responses to presuppositionalism?

It's circular. Well, we've already addressed that. OK, that's this is not something. Oh, my goodness.

It's circular. What are we going to do? This is a silly it's been addressed ad nauseum. It's clearly not circular in the fallacious sense that it's often accused of.

It confuses ontology with epistemic. We've responded to that. This is a ban till and Bonson anticipated those sorts of things.

You know, the Stroudian objection. We responded to the Stroudian objection. OK, point to me to a good objection to what we're arguing that actually accurately represents.

And then we can talk. Right. The thing I laugh at a preceptor, it doesn't tell me anything. I laugh. I don't really laugh at atheists.

I respect people. But if I said I laugh at atheists, I don't take them seriously. Or many Christians. By the way, there are more

Christians than there are atheists. What if we say most Christians laugh at atheists?

That doesn't mean that atheism is wrong. Right. You don't get to prove your point simply because you assert that, you know, presuppositionalists are laughable.

That's just bad logic. OK. All right. Let's see here, Eli. I like that one.

Yeah. See, mighties are like knows Turk asked jump that. That is his argument. I was just summarizing the dumpster fire between Jay and Tom.

Yeah, that's true. Mighties are like even if you're a Tom Jump fan or a

Jay Dyer fan, that debate was just a dumpster fire when you can no longer communicate in a meaningful way that helps the audience understand what you're arguing.

What's the point? Right. I mean, what's the point? Jay Dyer, whether you like him or not, it's a pretty good debater when he's behaving.

Tom Jump, I disagree with him, and I think his epistemology is is way off. I think his theory of morality is is

I could use this language. It's laughable. It's not really good. But in a debate perspective, he's actually a good debater.

They could navigate discussions and press where where, you know, where he finds opening. But even admitting whether you like Jay or like Tom, we could all admit that that debate was a dumpster fire because when you debate people who are watching need to be able to follow your arguments and you can't follow arguments when insults are flying back and forth, you know, between the debaters.

Right. And when they're they're insulting each other and mocking each other, I mean, just destroys the whole purpose of of dialogue and debate.

All right. Let's see here. Another martial arts analogy here. Precept is wrestling against the striker.

Atheist take down, removing the ability to stand. I think it's the complete opposite.

OK. Atheist can't account for logic. Logic is necessary to wrestle the precept.

Right. Account for the immaterial abstract laws of logic within an atheistic perspective. I would like to maybe write a write a brief summary,

Turk. I'd like to hear the summary. Now we can interact with it a little bit. OK, that's a complete opposite.

Actually, precept tries to take the carpet right from out from under the feet of the atheist. OK, so what the atheist needs to tackle the precept, he actually has to borrow from the precept to try to tackle the precept.

That's the that's the irony of it all. All right. Let's see here. Did it do?

Let's see. My dialect says

Turk, what I'm showing Jay was wrong in that debate. Also, I'm not Tom and I don't run his argument.

So, yeah, that's fine. That's fair. Let's see here.

I think it'd be cool to see a conversation between you and Alex Malpass. He's apologetic, says

I think it'd be cool to see a conversation between you and Alex Malpass. I like Alex Malpass. I respect

Alex Malpass to a certain degree. I think he has cordial discussions and so forth.

But as you notice, a lot of the debates that I've done, I've been back in the day. I don't really have time to do the prep necessary for debates.

I don't really do a lot of debates and conversations like that. But maybe in the future, that's something that would be interesting to me.

I think he's a nice enough guy. We could have a meaningful discussion if someone can, if you're familiar with some of his critiques, someone could post a link where I can read up a little bit of where he's coming from.

I'd appreciate that. Yeah. Thank you for that. Hmm. Lily Sage says, what exactly do you think transcendental means?

I don't know if this person's asking me. OK, you seem to be using it to describe anything not made of matter.

Well, transcendental within the context of a transcendental argument, you are trying to ask, what are the necessary preconditions for some fact?

So if we're talking about knowledge, what must be true in order for knowledge to be possible? You're talking about logic. What must be true in order for logic to be possible?

Morality. What must be true in order for morality to be morality, to be possible? And so what are the preconditions?

And I would argue that the necessary preconditions for immaterial abstract laws is not physical. So in that sense,

I'm arguing for an immaterial transcendental that's not made of matter. So depends what context you're using it there.

Mighty Zalak, Eli Epicurean paradox, for example, God knows creating the sun will give us skin cancer.

God being all good equals his created son causing cancer is good. Nope, that doesn't logically follow. So was

God determined to create the sun as a whole host of mess in here? God knowing that the sun will eventually cause cancer doesn't mean that it's good that God created the sun in such a way that it causes cancer that doesn't follow at all.

God created the sun. The sun maintains us and it is a blessing. But because we live in a sinful world, it also has sinful effects.

Just because God created a world in which sin would would exist. That there would be sin. And the effects of sin doesn't mean that God calls sin good.

Right. God created Lucifer. The fact that Lucifer became Satan doesn't mean that it was good that Satan rebelled.

It just means that God had a good purpose for permitting Satan to fall or God had a good purpose for allowing the effects of sin to take the effects that it has.

Doesn't mean that they're actually intrinsically good. There can be evil things that occur, but God have good reasons for permitting the things that lead to those evil things.

So that doesn't logically follow at all. That's a that's a non sequitur. OK, let's see here.

Let me see. I would see here.

Let's see what you know. All right.

That is it. Yeah. So free.

Hey, Tyler, how's it going, man? I hope everything's going well. Been a while. Let's see. Couldn't God have made the world such that sin didn't alter the material world like skin cancer?

Yeah, he could have. That's right. And the fact that he didn't. God must have had really good reasons not to. Whether I know those reasons or not is irrelevant.

If God is God and he's good and has purposes and all that he does. It is logically possible for God to have good reasons for allowing the effects of sin to play out in the way that they the way that they do.

Yeah. Let's see. Let's see here.

Turk Baikal. Yes, Eli, I put atheists next to Stryker. I should have grammared better.

Atheists can't account for logic. They can't wrestle. Preceptors can. They can wrestle.

OK. All right. All right. Well, that's the end of the line. If I skipped anything,

I do apologize. But that is I think I'm going to call it a quits here. I do have to wake up at four thirty in the morning.

It is currently ten thirty two right now on the eastern eastern the east coast.

I'm here in North Carolina. We'll make that a wrap. I hope my answers to your questions. Obviously, I'm not going to satisfy everyone.

I'm not trying. I'm not trying. I try to take comments and address them. I know I'm not going to satisfy everyone. So those are my quick answers.

A lot of the questions that were asked, I've actually have full videos on there. So if you kind of just survey the old stuff, you know, take a look at them.

I don't expect you to agree with everything I'm saying, but I'm my goal is that at least people understand what I'm saying so that, you know, if you're an atheist, you'd be like, man,

I disagree with, you know, A, B and C. At least understand what I'm saying.

And hopefully you understand that the claims that all men have a knowledge of God or the claim that, you know, the unbeliever is self -deceived and claims that I make as a

Christian, OK, they're not merely simplistic assertions.

You think they're wrong. Maybe you think my argument is weak, but at least understand that my point is not simply to make the assertion.

I've at least tried to explain why I think those are true and that we could actually my position that we can demonstrate that those points are, in fact, the case.

OK, and at least understand that and then disagree. And then we have a meaningful interaction. And so hopefully people feel that in the comments,

I do try to address your questions. I'm not running from any of the questions and things like that. Do I know everything?

No, I don't know everything. OK. But I'm trying my best to answer people's questions and objections and things like that.

What I do appreciate. And this is something that has been evident in this live stream.

As I look at the comments, what I do appreciate are questions that are asked in good faith.

So, hey, Eli, you said this thing over here. I don't really think that follows. And here's why. As opposed to questions that are prefaced with Eli, you're so disingenuous, you're only in this for the money.

You see that kind of stuff like and then you have a question like, why am I going to waste my time answering that question? It already looks like you don't care about my answer.

Right. You don't even you think I'm actually, you know, doing this to be rich. Like, how can

I answer a question? Why would I waste my time answering a question from someone who's asking that? Because it takes time to write out a response or to do a video and stuff like that.

So what I appreciate and what's been evident here is that many of the questions here are they seem very genuine.

And I very much appreciate that. And so I hope you can't you can't prevent the crazy wonky comments.

Right. But I hope that on this channel, the comment section is represented by Christian atheists and other people's position that can respectfully disagree and engage in good dialogue and healthy debate.

And I think if both sides care about the truth, that is going to help us, you know, make our points in a meaningful way that, you know, debates where people are yelling at each other and things like that in ways that they don't.

So I appreciate it. Thank you so much, guys. Thank you for your questions. And until next time, take care.