Practical Presup Explained & Employed Pt. 2

Okay, so last week we did Part 1 Practical Presup for Beginners. We're going to continue on, just with a really quick review. Does anybody remember what I used as the illustration for presuppositionalism?

Yes, the jigsaw puzzle, exactly. And what did we call the structure? What would be the technical term for the structure, the framework of the jigsaw puzzle? Metaphysics, right? That provides the context and the framework for our worldview.

And then what is the jigsaw puzzle made of? Little, right? Cardboard. What do you call the little things that you put in there? The pieces, right? And what do the pieces represent in our illustration?

So the pieces are facts, and that's based on our epistemology, how we know what we know. Why is something a fact? A fact is a fact because God defines it as a fact. Like our brother Eli says, God is the father of all facts.

He defines and names everything. And within the framework, everything has to fit together. It needs to be coherent and consistent, which is where our ethics come from. So every worldview needs a metaphysic.

It needs an epistemology, and it needs an ethic behind it. All worldviews have those three things in common. We also want to recognize that there are contradictions and arbitrariness in certain people's worldview.

So this is where we get brute facts and autonomy. What is autonomy again? Self-law or self-rule. In other words, no one rules over me. I rule over myself. I decide what is and what isn't. Then we have the preconditions of intelligibility, the things that must be true in order for anything else to be true.

Preconditions are things, assumptions that we come to the argument with before we even begin to argue. So they're thoughts and ideas that we hold before we even begin to describe our worldview. And finally, what's the last thing, the most important thing about the worldview?

The box top, right? And what was that called? When your puzzle matches the box top, what's that called? Truth. Good job. All right. So remember, this is member. Remember, I'm from New York. Remember, this is the metaphysic, provides the framework for our worldview.

The context is in the facts and the coherence, the consistency. So if I told you, like the illustration I used the other day, the Yankees scored a touchdown last night, and you'd be like, well, Yankees don't play football.

And you'd be right because football is played on a football field. Baseball is played on a baseball field. So your metaphysic would be the field and the facts and the context would be the rules of the game.

So in a football game, a guy can't strike out. Why? Because he's not playing baseball. Different set of rules. So every worldview has its own set of rules. The Christian worldview has a set of rules. The atheistic worldview has a set of rules.

The Islamic worldview has a set of rules. The question is, are those rules consistent in itself or are they arbitrary? Do we have something called like these little black triangles? What would that represent?

Pieces that don't belong. So that would be something called a brute fact. This would be a contradiction. This black triangle doesn't fit in the puzzle. It doesn't belong there. But now the atheists would look and say, well, that's just a brute fact.

It just is with no grounding for it whatsoever. So could you imagine the Christian saying, well, Jesus rose from the dead? It just is. Would they accept that? No, of course, they're not going to accept that.

You got to prove it to me. But yet they'll say things like atheism just is. The quote we used last week was from Bertrand Russell. The universe just is and that's all that there is to it. And they accept that as a brute fact with nothing to substantiate it.

So we have to watch out for things that are contradictions and just arbitrary. Oh, I arbitrarily decided this is a brute fact and it doesn't have any relation to anything else. When the fact of the matter is that brute fact has a lot to do with their worldview.

A lot of things hinge on it. Ultimately, we need the preconditions of intelligibility, the things that must be in place in order for you to have a jigsaw puzzle to begin with and that would be laws of logic, laws of mathematics, ethical laws, moral laws, uniformity of nature.

How do I know this puzzle piece is going to fit in there tomorrow? How do I know the shapes aren't going to change? How do I know the facts aren't going to change? Right? There needs to be a consistency in the worldview and ultimately your worldview has to match the box top.

If your worldview doesn't match the box top, well, then it's not true. Okay, that makes sense. All right. So what I want to do real quick is to go over a presuppositional method in three steps. So I want to teach you what to look for, okay, in three easy steps.

Sounds like what's the guy who sells the stuff on TV? Yeah, Billy Mays Hayes or whatever is near whatever next. I'm going to have to cut this out of the video now. All right. First thing you want to do is identify their claim.

When the atheist says that's not true or it's wrong. It's wrong to own human beings as slaves. You want to identify that and figure out where it fits in the puzzle. When he says it's wrong to identity.

It's wrong to own people as slaves. What kind of claim is that? It's a moral claim. Okay, so now we know he's dealing with dealing with morality. Next we want to push the antithesis push his position to its limit.

In other words, we want to push and see if it's arbitrary inconsistent or if it has the preconditions of intelligibility, right? So the question I would ask him is by what standard is this immoral? Is this objectively immoral or subjectively immoral and we're going to get to that illustration in a second.

Okay, and then what the last step is to offer the solution. We offer the Christian worldview and that solution and show them how it fits consistently within our worldview. How when you look at morality, it makes complete sense from a Christian worldview because human beings are created in the image of God.

You can't own a human being. You can't torture a human being. You can't use them for you know, as lab rats and experiment on them. You can't use human beings like that. Why would you not be able to use a human being like that on atheism?

Where there is no standard of good or evil. There is no ultimate consequence for good or evil. We were talking about it before Jeffrey Dahmer's worldview his evolutionary atheistic worldview led him to do what he did.

He said it Ted Bundy said the same thing. He's a serial killer. There's no ultimate consequence for good or evil. So who cares? It's fine by me as long as I don't get caught. If I get caught well, then it's bad for me.

Maybe it's good for society. But again, who's to say what's good or bad on an atheistic worldview. So for example, let's let's use morality as an example. We are going to identify their claim. It's wrong to torture babies for fun.

It's wrong to own slaves again. Now we know that we're dealing with morality. So we're going to hone in on that. We want to push the antithesis by what standard are you using is morality objective or subjective and who wants to tell me what the difference between objective and subjective is excellent.

Subjective is inside the person. Okay, it depends on the person. It depends on the subject again. I like Rocky Road. You like butter pecan. You like strawberry. It's subjective. It depends on me. But if you had a headache and there were two bottles one has aspirin, the other one has arsenic.

Which do you want to take? Is it subjective at that point? Why like the taste of this one? No, it depends on something outside of you. So morality for it to be objected there must be a standard outside of us by which we measure actions to see if they're moral or immoral.

Otherwise, it just becomes a matter of taste, a matter of preference. Now atheists are going to say well morality evolves. Really? Okay, so it was okay to own slaves back in the 1800s, right? It just went out of style basically.

But then again, it could come back into style and that would be okay, right? Well, no, no. It wouldn't be okay. Well, why not? If it's subjective and it's based upon the whims and the preferences of the subjects, the people, why couldn't it come back into style?

What would be wrong with that? See, if it's objective, then they have a problem because they recognize their own sinfulness before God, right? We recognize our own sinfulness before God because He's given us a standard.

But He's also given us the solution to that because He knows that we're going to fall short. All right? Obviously, we're going to offer the solution. It is objectively wrong to own slaves, kill babies, only in a world with God.

It's not objectively wrong in an atheistic worldview because there's no objective moral standard by which we're measuring this. Make sense? It only is objectively wrong in a world with God because we have an objective standard to point to.

They have to borrow from God to make sense of their view. See, here's part of the problem for the atheist. He's created in God's image. He's in God's metaphysic. He's in God's world and he has God's law written on his heart.

He's stuck in God's world trying to get out. He can't make sense of the world on his view, so he has to borrow morality from God to say something is right or wrong. A consistent atheist can't say that.

And there are some consistent atheists that deny objective morality. Richard Dawkins is one of them. He says, you know, in this world, it's blind random chance. Some are lucky, some aren't. It's just the way it is.

It's blind, pitiless indifference. And he doesn't hold to objective morality. Yet, he'll say that it's wrong for Christians to do this or it's wrong for Christians to say that. How can you say it's wrong if there is no such thing as objective morality?

It might not be what you like, obviously, but that's just your preference. You like butter pecan, right? So I call this the IOU principle. They use immaterial, objective, and universal laws. So with every word out of their mouth, they issue an IOU to God because they're using God's collateral to try to disprove God's worldview.

They have no collateral of their own. Everything they're using, they're borrowing from God to try to disprove God. Like Van Til says, they're basically sitting on God's lap in order to slap him in the face.

You cannot say these things on an atheistic worldview and have them be true. Again, is there truth on an atheistic worldview? All right, so questions to internally critique a worldview. Now, who remembers what internally critique means?

Wonderful, yes. Inconsistent and contradictory, right. All right, so what you're going to do, again, we call this the Hokey Pokey principle, right? You stick your right hand in, you pull your right hand out.

That's what you don't want to do, right? You don't want to stick your hand in, you know, critique their worldview while you're standing in your own. You have to put your whole person, the whole body in or the whole body out.

So to internally critique a worldview, you want to put your complete self in that worldview, adopt all the tenets of that worldview, and see where it goes. See what is logically consistent or inconsistent.

See if it's coherent or not. If you're in an atheistic worldview and you're making objective morality claims, how can you ground that? If the world came from nothing, is going to nothing, and it's just random chance in between, right?

Where do you get objective moral laws without an objective moral law giver? What's the difference between a bug, a bird, a baby, a bonsai, or a boulder? It's just all molecules, right? Why is any one of those things different than the other?

Why is a baby different than a bird on their worldview? Because we said so, right? It's arbitrary. They assign meaning to the baby when they want. If it's in a woman, it's not a baby, it's a clump of cells.

When it's outside the woman, well, then it's a baby. Up to the first month, you know, so that we can kill it, right? And that's not all atheists, by the way. Not all atheists hold to that. Okay, so what I want to do is just give you a list of questions to start thinking about when you're internally critiquing an atheistic worldview.

First, what is truth? That stumps so many people right off the bat. What is truth? What do you think they're going to say? The smart atheist is going to say that which corresponds to reality. And I've told you this before.

Who's reality? Mine, Hitler's, Jeffrey Dahmer's, Mother Teresa's? Who's reality? If it's subjective, reality is how I perceive it. If it's objective, ah, now we have an obligation. So on an atheistic worldview, who am I obligated to?

The universe? All of a sudden, the universe is my boss? I'm not obligated to the universe. You can only be obligated to a person. And morality is something that's within persons, right? You can't be immoral.

Trees aren't immoral to each other, right? Bugs aren't immoral to each other. Somebody kills a bug. Another bug eats another bug. Is that immoral? Some people are like, I hope they eat them all, right?

Whatever. All right, so what is truth? Is there an immaterial realm? Is there something beyond the physical realm that we can identify? I mean, so many atheists say, no, there is no immaterial realm. And I asked an atheist one time, I said, do you believe in an immaterial realm?

He says, no. I said, well, did you think about that before you answered? He said, yes. I said, did you use your mind? He said, yes. I said, so you used your immaterial mind to think immaterial thoughts to conclude that immaterial things don't exist?

He goes, wait, say that again. I went through it with him, and it just caught him off guard. He says, I never thought of it like that. How do you assess truth or falsity on your worldview? What's the standard that you use to see what's true or not true?

Where does that come from? Is the world broken, or is this the way it should be? This is a great moral question. Everybody looks out at the world and says, man, things are bad. The world is broken. How do you know?

Without a box top with missing puzzle pieces or puzzle pieces all mashed together, how do you know that the world is broken? You only know that the world is broken if there's a picture of the way the world should be.

If there's a picture of the way the world should be, and this picture that we're in doesn't line up with it, well, then you know. But that's not subjective. That's objective, because the picture's outside of us.

Does an objective moral standard exist? We've gone through this one. OK. Where did it come from? Where does your objective moral standard come from on an atheistic worldview? Who are you obligated to as an atheist?

Is there an ultimate consequence for breaking the standard, the moral standard? Now, Christopher Hitchens, who we've talked about several times, he would go out in front of Christian audiences all the time and say, what is one thing you can say as a Christian that I can't say as an atheist?

And nobody answered him. And I wish I was in the audience, because I would've been like, there's an ultimate consequence for evil. You can't say that, because there is no consequence, ultimately, for evil.

If you get away with it in this world, there is no next world. You're just six feet on the worm food. But if my worldview is true, you are obligated to the creator of this worldview. You will answer to the creator of this worldview.

And he will issue consequences for you rebelling against him and for you injuring other image bearers of God. That's where our value and worth come from. It's not goo to you via the zoo, right? You're not pond scum that evolved into fish that crawled up on land and somewhere along the lines became a human being.

Is there a right and wrong way to think? What is this pointing to? Laws of logic, right? We have logic laws, right? The law of non-contradiction. How many times have I seen people, atheists, who are trying to be consistent?

They say, well, contradictions are allowed in my worldview. And you simply say, no, they're not. Yes, they are. No, they're not. Yes, they are. No, they're not. Why do you keep saying that? I'm contradicting you, which you said is OK in your worldview.

All of a sudden, it's not OK when you actually contradict them. See, they can't live consistently in the world they're putting forth in their minds. So that's not the way they live. They live inconsistent with logic laws, laws of logic.

OK, so what's the difference between a bug, a bird, a bonsai, a baby, or a boulder? Can the scientific method prove itself? Is the scientific method the only way we can know truth? What do you think? How else can we know truth?

Word of God? Sure. We have historical truth. That's not based on the scientific method. The theory of evolution isn't based on the scientific method. The scientific method is, it has to be observable and repeatable.

Anybody in here a million years old? Two million? Pastor said he feels like it. Nobody's been around for a couple of million years. So macro evolution hasn't been observed. Is it repeatable? Have you done an experiment in a lab that can repeat it?

No. You need a couple of million years. This is why it's called the theory. Even professors over at Stony Brook University, they know it's not a law. It's a theory. And this is why. You want to ask questions of origin, identity, meaning, morality, and destiny.

In other words, origin, where did I come from? Identity, who am I? What is the meaning of life? What am I here for? Morality, is there a right way to live? Is there a wrong way to live? And then destiny, where am I going?

Atheism cannot answer any of these questions consistently in their world view. All right. So now this is what I wanted to get to. This is really important. This is going to be the practical application.

I want to show you a conversation I had with Anthony Esposito on Facebook with an atheist. Now I posted this up. I said, you know, it shows you a bunch of people out for Thanksgiving, a bunch of people out for Black Friday shopping, a bunch of people out at a sports event, and look at church.

Very few people. All right. So my friend, Andrew Herzman, who's an atheist, he loves to reply on everything that I put up. So he says this, isn't Thanksgiving just thanking God for the things you have, sporting events, just praying to God for your team to win at Black Friday, just buying presents for Jesus's birthday?

Looks like church outside of church. Anthony Esposito comments back, man, you're so close to getting it. Now, I was just going to let the conversation go, but Anthony jumped in. So Andrew responds back.

I get it, but I don't buy into it. Anthony says, yet you, like all people, worship something, right? We know that as Christians, in the absence of God, you will find something else to worship. He responds back, nope.

Anthony responds back, yes, you do. It appears to be science, since you appeal to that as your highest level of authority. It's surely odd to worship science, considering it's just a process, but nonetheless, it's clear you worship it.

So what's he doing right there? He's identifying an inconsistency. He's identifying the problem for Andrew Herzman and pointing it out to him. You worship something, and he knows, because throughout everything that I post, he's seen the fact that everything Andrew Herzman does needs to be proved by science.

So he responds back, no, I respect the method. Science is not a god. Apologetic members constantly look at atheists through a distorted lens. Atheism is not a religion. Not believing in God is not a belief.

Respecting the scientific method is not worship. Anthony responds back, you appeal to something as the standard of truth. For you, that's the scientific method. Again, a silly standard, considering it's designed to prove claims wrong.

Science is not about figuring out what's true. It figures out what works and what doesn't work. If you are merely respecting the scientific method and not appealing to it as a standard of truth, then you're just telling me about a standard you happen to prefer, but you can't make any true claims based on that standard.

He's showing him that his choice of the scientific method is arbitrary. Why doesn't he pick a different standard? He's picking the scientific method because he thinks this is the method that's going to give him truth.

Essentially, you're telling everyone about the reality inside your own head, but not a reality that anyone else lives in, unless, of course, you do have some objective standard of truth. See where he's pointing him?

He's trying to take him from his subjective faith in science and show him that it's not objective. You're saying you hold to science. In fact, Anthony's pointing out to him that you worship science. This is your standard, but there are other methods and ways of knowing things.

He actually responds back, wow, you're right. Science doesn't make truth claims. This is going to come back to hurt him. You'll see this in a minute. Science doesn't make truth claims. A scientific method gets you as close to the truth as possible, given the current evidence and tools we have to measure the evidence.

The only way to prove science is wrong is with more science, not an old book. Anybody point out something wrong with that particular comment? Second sentence? Oh, I'm sorry. Fourth sentence. The scientific method gets you as close to the truth as possible.

What's wrong with that? He doesn't believe in truth. How does he know how close it is to him? It's subjective. If there's an objective measure of truth, now we say, yeah, we're getting close, but we're aiming at something.

This is like somebody shooting an arrow into the air and saying, oh, I just missed. Just missed what? You weren't aiming at anything. Andrew, this is Anthony. Serious question here. How do you know anything you believe is correct?

How do you know you are close to the truth at all? If you lived in a different century, you'd believe the Earth was the center of the universe or that leeches cure disease, because that was the position of science at the time.

He's highlighting the fact that science doesn't point you to truth. Science can be wrong. It's entirely plausible that literally everything you believe about reality is complete nonsense that will be laughed at by future generations.

There was a point in time where everybody thought the Earth was flat. Some people still believe the Earth is flat, right? Science showed us the difference. No, it's not. But science is based on other facts.

So if another fact enters the picture that you didn't know about, that can change the complexion of everything, right? For the longest time, scientists believed in a steady state theory. In other words, the universe had no beginning.

It just existed from eternity past on and will go into the future. Now they look at the red shift in light and the heat in the universe, and they say, no, no, it's a big bang. It came to existence at a point in time.

So a couple of extra facts changed their perception. Andrew Herzman replies, we will never get to 100 truth. How do you know that? What is 100 truth? But that's not required standard for reasonable and rational belief.

Oh, so reasonable he is. Demonstrable evidence that can be repeated over and over and verified through peer review, a .k .a. the scientific method, works well enough to double our lifespans, get us to the moon, and make it possible for us to communicate over the internet.

The God belief? Not so much. Isn't it funny? All the early scientists were all believers in God and got us to the moon because they recognized that tomorrow is going to be like today because God upholds the universe by the power's hand.

He keeps everything constant. How in a random chance universe do you know that tomorrow is going to be like today? How do you know the strength of gravity isn't going to change? How do you know the speed of light isn't going to change?

How do you know that atomic mass isn't going to change? You don't. You have faith that it is. We have faith, but it's based on what the word of God says. So Anthony D 'Esposito responds back very well.

He says, so you concede that it's entirely possible everything you believe is totally incorrect. I like that. So how do you know you're close to the truth at all? You don't. We will never get to 100 truth.

These are statements he's making that he can't back up because he doesn't have a standard for truth. If truth is subjective, how can you get close to it? That was a good point. So Herzman responds, possible, but highly unlikely considering not only the evidence, but the results and byproducts of measuring the evidence, even if science was 100 wrong, no way to figure that out, that still wouldn't get you any closer to meeting your burden of proof for your God claim.

Anthony, there's no basis for your claim since you appeal to a standard of truth that you yourself concede may be completely false. He just admitted that science doesn't make truth claims. It can only so now he's saying it wouldn't get you any closer to meeting the burden proof.

I just and I responded he meaning Andrew just gave up knowledge. You can have no certainty outside of the Christian worldview. Anthony's point was that big. That was incredibly good right for him to come back with that reasoning.

So Andrew responds back. There are thousands of more times better evidence for science than there is for God. Faith is the least reliable way to certainty. Now, he still hasn't given us evidence that science is the only way that you can know things science can't prove that what the Nazis did in Germany was wrong.

Science can't prove that there are other minds in this room besides my own science can't prove that everybody in this room wasn't created two weeks ago with the appearance of memory. Science can't prove a lot of things.

Science can't prove that the scientific method is the only way of garnering knowledge. So I respond back evidence, which is what you keep asking for presupposes truth, which your worldview cannot give you with certainty.

Okay, you have faith in science, but a random chance universe that cannot ground the uniformity of nature and physical constants render science impossible. I got to give myself credit for that one. All right, so.

His worldview cannot give you certainty. He keeps talking about 99, but we're 99 .999 close to the truth with no standard that he's able to show us, right? So he's shooting arrows in the dark, not knowing if he's hitting the target or not yet.

He's confident about this. The bottom line is he has faith in science. So Andrew Herzman responds, complete nonsense. You act like 99 .9999 certainty isn't enough to be rationally sure. He can't give us that.

Where is he getting those numbers? If something is zero, whatever percent uncertain, you can't just assume it's false. Rational assumptions are not faith-based. Science is not only possible, but the very fact that everything invented from rockets to vaccines to electronics proves science is overwhelmingly probable.

So Anthony responds back. Where are you getting these odds from? Can you scientific, can you prove scientifically that everything you believe is 99 .9999 accurate? Right? Do you see what he's doing?

He's pushing the antithesis. He's pushing him to prove the claims that he's making. We're we're able to you act like 99 .9 certainty is not enough to be sure. Okay, you made the claim 99%. How do you know it's 99 positive or sure you don't and all we do is point it out now.

I'm frustrated at this point. So I just put he always does this like I want to back out of this conversation, but I keep getting pulled back in because Anthony's doing a great job. Anthony Esposito that is okay.

So herzman responds back for example evolution. We have overwhelming evidence for evolution from the fossil record to genealogy to DNA. Now as an evidentialist, I would point him to the fact that Stephen Jay Gould, who's the Harvard paleo the world-renowned Harvard paleontologist who's dead right now who now passed away.

He said that the fossil record is the trade the bankruptcy of the fossil record is the trade secret of paleontologists the bankruptcy of the fossil record. The fossil record will not get you to evolution.

In fact, he proposed something called punctuated equilibrium that there was a super fast movement of evolution and that's how everything evolves so fast. It's called punctuated equilibrium and science scientists look at this and say wow, that's brilliant.

Right? So the fossil record does not support what he just said. Genealogy to DNA. If he knew anything about DNA DNA is information, right? So I would ask him say listen if I hold up a an empty book like a notebook will the laws of ink and paper, you know, just start writing words on the book that I would be able to understand the laws of ink and paper.

No, wouldn't that wouldn't that work? Well, no one why why wouldn't that work? Well, because an info information needs an informer. You need someone behind the information that's communicating to you again.

That's from an evidentialist point of view, but I would still use that in this in this situation. So all of it points to evolution change over time is true. It's possible that one day we might find a piece of evidence that contradicts evolution.

Is it sure possible? But that's where I get the 99 from same with gravity and all of the scientific theories. How did he get 99 out of just making that statement? What mathematical formula did he do that that he calculated the 99 .99 so he's answering me.

Yes. I always prove what I believe with demonstrable evidence tried sometimes with your God belief. Anthony responds back. You just made a truth claim after telling me explicitly that science doesn't make truth claims.

Oh, no thing. Excellent. Excellent question, right? This is pushing his position where he said it could it could substantiate his claim. It can't. So Anthony's highlighting the fact that you just said science doesn't make truth claims.

Now you're making a truth claim with science. This is inconsistency and unethical. How do you so Anthony changes the subject? Do you believe in morality? What about equality? If so, how do you prove those things?

I put your worldview cannot ground truth. Therefore, you have no access to truth or falsity or evidence. Now Andrew's getting upset again with my worldview. You have the burden of proof to prove your God.

My worldview has nothing to do with it. Your worldview has nothing to do with it because your worldview doesn't exist. All right, so he responds back. How do you prove God your worldview? This is Anthony responding back to Andrew.

Your worldview isn't objective. It's entirely based on your faith in science, which you admit can be and has been completely wrong at times. He responds back that doesn't prove there's a God he's eagerly trying to get off of giving evidence for his worldview because he knows he can't he wants to shift the burden of proof to the Christian which we've told him over and over and over again in order to have objective morality in order to have uniformity of nature in order to have laws of logic which are laws of thought right a good question to ask an atheist is when did reasoning start in the world and how would you know?

If reasoning is just a function of the molecules and the synapses in your brain firing. How do you know reasoning is going on? It's just like dominoes falling. Right? So at one point in time in the evolution of the universe did people start to reason?

And how would you know? What's the standard? So Anthony goes back to Andrew. I'm only pointing out the absurdity of your worldview. By the way, I'll take your lack of an answer on morality and equality question to mean you don't believe in those either since you can't prove them scientifically.

And your response back my worldview my morality or anything else about me doesn't prove there's a God you guys are so fixated on me. But if I didn't exist you would still have no evidence that would prove there was a God and he's responding back to Anthony proving me wrong doesn't prove you right and that's true.

So I respond back but Andrew you haven't and can't prove your worldview you keep asking for evidence and my question is how does your worldview substantiate evidence? Why is evidence required from my worldview but not yours?

Okay, I said my argument is transcendental. It's like saying that truth doesn't exist. That's a truth statement. And therefore it refutes itself like we've gone over this before when someone says there's no such thing as truth.

The first thing out of your mouth should be is that true because if that's true there is such a thing as truth and you just contradicted yourself without God you can have no true knowledge. Remember the butter knife example, right?

I can use the butter knife as a screwdriver a pry bar a weapon a toy all different kinds of things, right? Does that mean I know what the butter knife is? No, but I have scientific and empirical evidence that it can be used as a pry bar and all those other things.

The only way I can know for sure what that butter knife is is if I'm introduced to the inventor. When I'm introduced to the inventor who says I created the butter knife to spread butter. Now I can have certainty.

We have an omniscient God who reveals information to us and when an omniscient God who has a hundred percent knowledge reveals something to you. Can you be certain of it? Absolutely. Can you be certain of it?

If you who have less than one scintilla of a percent of all the knowledge there is in the universe. Could you be wrong about everything, you know? Yes. Yes, but they're making truth claims. Right as if this is 100 verifiable.

Okay, but I was a good point. I mean, I guess all right. We do not argue to argue evidence to prove the existence of God. We argue from the existence of God to prove evidence and truth. That's backwards.

You can do that with anything you can make up. Anthony responds back. Nothing at all can be proved in your worldview. You simply have faith that what you've been told is correct wrong. I have demonstrable evidence for what I believe.

Demonstrate God. He keeps trying to push it back to our side. Anthony responds back. You have demonstrable evidence for morality and equality. That's a good one. What's that have to do with proving your God stop trying to shift the burden of proof.

He knows he knows that he can't respond on his worldview for objective morality because he has no basis for objective morality. So he tries to mock me. I do not argue evidence to prove the existence of leprechauns.

I argue from the existence of leprechauns to prove evidence and truth. See how ridiculous this is and I would say if you actually held to that then you must believe in God. I argue from nothing as an atheist to prove evidence.

How does that work? Andrew hurt. I respond back to him demonstrate evolution again without a personal powerful moral logical being you cannot have knowledge period. Anthony now chimes in actually the burden of proof is on you.