(Debate): Does God Exist?

Debate Format and Opening Statements

Thank you for joining me on this episode of the gospel truth. I'm your host Marlon Wilson. And once again, we have another debate last time. We was on took a break from the base. We had an interview with Mr. Gary.

Mr. Gary DeMar so and we thought about God a government, but this time we're jumping right back Into debates and then we're gonna have like four or five six more debates after this one. So we have a lot going on with the gospel truth.

As you know, the gospel truth is here to engage the cultural Christian truth. And with that we'd like to do debates would like to interview and we'd like to do lessons. So that's how we are engaged in the culture of Christian truth.

But with that said I do want to go over a couple of knots before I introduce those who are the participants of this debate. September 25th, I'll be having Andrew rapping for a person Steve Bono and he calls himself destiny and they'll be debating.

It's secular humanism superior to Christianity that is coming up September 25th. October 1st 2019. I have Ricky Crony all versus Miles Patrick and then there in my package of black Hebrew Israelite. So we're going to be debating is obedience to the law required for salvation.

They got three debate three three subject matters here is obedience to the law required for salvation. Interpretation of Deuteronomy 28 and is Jesus God so that's gonna be a long-winded one. So look out for a good two and a half hour debate there October 5th 2019.

We have scarlet clay versus Gina Belk and if you know Gina Belk. She is from the atheist experience as she co-hosts at times with Matt Dillahunty. So she's decided to come on with scarlet clay and they're gonna have a discussion concerning a person a logical justice.

Justifications for the belief in God so that should be a good discussion. Might also have that scarlet clay and Gina Belk are my first female participants. So that's exciting times. It's always good to be able to get the females involved.

They're able to defend the faith and our Europe points as well. So it's always wonderful to bring them on October 6th. Myles Kettleson and Taylor grade. He calms the snake is right. I believe that's this YouTube channel.

The snake is right and then come on. They've done to be debating can atheism account for objective morality. So that's just the next four shows. I have a whole bunch of shows coming up. I'm all the way booked all the way to mid-december.

So there's gonna be a lot of shows coming up and there should be exciting times over here. With that said I'm gonna go ahead and introduce these guys. I'm gonna let them introduce yourself, but I just want to give you a rundown how I met Eli and met Chris.

I met Chris. I hit him up on YouTube. I believe it was and you know, we Offered him. I wanted him to come on and debate a Christian opponent and he was more than welcome to do. So his conversations cool.

He hit me up on we connected on Facebook and everything and then I was able to connect him and Eli together. And it was able to have a quick conversation to set up the debate. So I appreciate Chris for coming on and then Eli.

Eli's cool cabbie. I he's a he's. I do that. But he lies real cool, man. I see a friendship with me and really growing and I appreciate all he's doing for the body of Christ and his little five-minute videos.

That he puts out, you know. Very very helpful in growth in the bottom and love for Christ and theology as well for learning who God is. So I really appreciate Eli and Chris for coming on but that's enough for me.

I'm rambling a little too much. I'm gonna go ahead and let these guys introduce themselves and what they got going on and Then we'll get to the court. The debate format so first up Eli go ahead and introduce yourself for me.

Well, my name is Elias Ayala. That's my full name. My friends call me Eli. I am a middle school and high school teacher. I teach at a Christian private school and On the side I do apologetics. I have an apologetics ministry called revealed apologetics and Really?

My goal is to just help Christians understand why they believe what they believe and how to defend it. And I try to do that the best I can. I really really enjoy discussions. And this is actually my first kind of formal debate with a with a formal format.

So I'm kind of excited about that and I'm married. I've got three kids and I'm 37 years old if that matters.

All right. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate you. All right, Chris, if you can do a quick introduction yourself.

Sure thing. My name is Chris. Most people probably know me as service the skeptic. I have a YouTube channel about 24 ,000 subscribers over there. That's what I do full-time On there. I do a combination of politics social issues Counter-apologetics sometimes just bringing people on and not engaging in counter-apologetics.

I've hammered out where we come on for more Standard discussion recently if any of you are familiar with James from modern-day debate. He has a particular version of Pascal's wager that he likes to use we had him come on to discuss.

Which was really interesting a lot of people enjoyed that episode. So yeah, pretty much what I'm all for is discussions and helping people figure out why they believe what they believe. I don't have any particular goal as far as like converting or deconverting anybody as long as the reasons that they have for believing what they believe are justified that I'm fine with that as long as they're not causing any harm.

Okay, I appreciate both of you introducing yourselves. So the format for this debate is going to be we're going to go into open the statements. They're going to have about a 60-minute discussion. No, 60-minute discussion is going to be three.

You guys don't get three opportunities each to go ahead ask questions for 10 minutes. I'll be the moderator of that time. So whenever you get when whenever that time is expired I will conclude it wherever you're at in your in your statement.

Then the next person to get that 10 minutes. So with that said I believe Eli you're arguing the affirmative. So what the affirmative has to go first in formal debates, so Eli you are up first with your opening statement.

All right. Well, I'd like to thank Marlon Thank you for having me on your show, and I really enjoy and appreciate what you're doing. I think this is great to have the context for people to discuss competing ideas and things like that within Respectful Context.

I think that's very important and I'd also like to thank Chris for being willing to be here to interact with me a bit. I look forward to an engaging conversation and I have to admit I don't know much about Chris.

So I'm looking forward to listening to what he has to say. And so there we go. So thank you for for being here as well. So with that said let me go right into my opening statement. First I'd like to define the terms of this debate as I see it does God exist and for me as a Christian theist I deny the existence of any other God other than the Christian one.

And so I'm going to be defending specifically Christian theism today. Where I do not believe that any non-christian conception of God is rationally coherent and not without detrimental philosophical problems once the details of these competing deities and or worldviews are fleshed out and I do not find the non-christian worldview systems to Be rationally defensible as I find them unable to provide the necessary preconditions for intelligible experience.

And by way of kind of a quick summation I do not find non-christian worldview systems to be defensible and that they either have internal inconsistency problems or if we grant their Hypothetical truth such systems can be shown to undermine human reason and experience.

Now to the nature of the debate as as I understand it We need to be very careful since when we're engaging in debates over the question of God's existence. There is all too often the naive assumption that we can proceed in a tit-for-tat back-and-forth discussion Over individual pieces of data facts or evidence when in reality this debate is not an issue of facts absent of a worldview context the debate between the Christian and the skeptic or the Christian in Any other form of the non-christian position is really a debate over worldview systems.

And so if my opponent desires to discuss any particular point I will politely remind him that any particular point of contention will only and can only have meaning and coherency Within a broader worldview context I do not believe that we can discuss any particular fact in some sort of Neutral worldview independent fashion and since my worldview foundation is in diametric opposition to any non-christian foundation I'm gonna take issue with the interpretation of any particular point of contention Taken on its own for since we both will be operating from different worldview perspectives different paradigms if you will it becomes foundational to this debate as to which position has A worldview context out of which the intelligibility and coherency of any fact is possible.

So in quick summary, this debate is not over evidence per se. Although I believe that my position has both evidence and a worldview context in which something like evidence even makes sense. But rather our debate is one over competing worldviews.

We're debating competing systems of thought and I having a Christian worldview and Chris having a non-christian worldview. Now there may be a temptation from the skeptical perspective to suggest that since they're taking the negative position That there is therefore no requirement to put forth a defense.

But rather the task is merely to evaluate the validity of the Christians position. I'd like to point out that while I am happy to Admit that I am taking the the positive position. I'm making the positive assertion that the Christian God exists.

I would also point out that every non-christian perspective has Explicit or implicit positive assertions of the falsehood of the Christian worldview. For instance if the skeptics position is to suggest that they do not know if the Christian God exists This itself is implying the Christian worldview is false.

Since an important assertion of the Christian worldview is that in a very profound sense all men know that God exists. Now the skeptic is free to reject this idea of all men knowing God in some sense.

Which I would imagine Chris would want to reject. I don't think he believes that but by rejecting this Christian proposition He is saying in essence that the Christian worldview is false and if this is his position then we will need to engage in some intellectual sparring over worldviews.

Or again if the skeptic wants to Take the tact of discussing particular facts that are neutral or he wants to take the tact that it is even possible or even Appropriate to come to these issues in a neutral fashion.

He again would be implying the falsehood of the Christian worldview which teaches that there is in fact No neutrality or on the Christian worldview every fact has its meaning in the ultimate definer of fact, which is God himself.

So every fact is what it is because God has created these facts to be what they are. And hence if someone defines a fact that is contrary to how God has sovereignly defined that fact Then I would argue that the person Redefining that fact contrary to God's definition is wrong and does not understand that fact truly.

So in essence my point here is that no fact is neutral the nature of this debate is not over piecemeal issues. But rather over worldview systems which themselves give particular facts their meaning. But the question then becomes whose worldview can provide the necessary preconditions for intelligible experience.

For this I now turn to the nature of my particular argumentation. So as I have elucidated thus far the nature of this debate is that of worldview against worldview principle against principle System against system having competing systems or worldview perspectives.

Are we relegated to a standstill unable to push the debate any further since whatever fact the skeptic brings I'm gonna interpret in light of my worldview and every fact that I bring he's gonna interpret in light of his.

Well I don't think that this is the situation that we're just at an immovable standstill. I think we can break this apparent standstill by demonstrating the truth of one's perspective. Transcendentally, so the nature of my argument for God's existence is transcendental in nature for those who may be listening.

What do I mean when I speak of transcendental arguments? When we speak of transcendental arguments, we are in essence asking what are the pre conditions that is to say What must be the case in order for something else to be the case an easier way to understand?

This would be something to the effect like I'm standing on the floor in my house. You know, I'm standing in my living room. For instance, what are the preconditions for my being able to stand up in my living room?

Well among other things the beams upon which my house is built Need to be under the floor holding everything up. If the beams aren't there then I wouldn't be standing. But here I am standing up. So what the beams need to be there?

So that's just a simple example to kind of get the idea. Transcendental argumentation asks what must be the case in order for something else to be the case. If we use the examples of the laws of Logic you need to understand that transcendentals are proven by the impossibility of the contrary.

So suppose someone rejected the laws of logic the transcendental necessity of the laws of logic are clearly seen and that even in denying them One needs to presuppose them in order to deny them. In other words the transcendental necessity of the laws of logic are Demonstrated by the impossibility of the contrary deny them and you demonstrate their existence in your very denial since your denial necessarily presupposes them in like fashion.

My argument is this but the proof of the existence of the God of Christianity is that if he didn't exist one could not prove Anything at all. If one denies the Christian theistic worldview I would argue that such a denial would reduce the non-christians perspective to absurdity.

Now again The temptation will be to suggest that my argument is merely an assertion. But to think such fails to recognize the nature of my argument and the nature of transcendental arguments in general.

Remember the Transcendental argument for God's existence is an argument and it is my job in this debate to make good on my argument and I'm gonna try My best to do so. So what is required of my opponent today if my argument is That the proof for the truth of the Christian worldview is that if it were not true one could not prove anything at all.

What my opponent must do is to lay out his own worldview and demonstrate that given the truth of his own worldview outlook He can save knowledge science logic meaningful history Rationality induction and in essence intelligibility.

Hence given the very nature of my argumentation Chris is not relegated to merely stating his lack of belief. If that's his position again I will let him speak for himself and only responding to why he thinks my view is insufficient.

The very nature of my argument requires the responder to show his hand and lay out his own perspective his worldview and engage system versus System in essence. What ground is Chris standing on what is his worldview foundation?

And is that foundation coherent and consistent and does it provide the necessary preconditions for intelligible experience? What is his worldview? What does he believe about the nature of reality? What does he believe about how knowledge is gained?

What does he believe about how we should live our lives and is what he believes about these things consistent with each other? What becomes especially interesting is what is his epistemology? How will he address these issues?

He could go the rationalist route everything that's true must be coherent. But how does he avoid the traditional problems with rationalism? He can go the empirical route. Through scent knowledge comes through sense perception and experience.

But how does he answer the issues that are inherent within empiricism or he can combine the two and go the way of Kant? But then that perspective I would argue has its own problems again. I don't want to speak for Chris.

So we're gonna wait and see what he has to say and from there engage in Worldview interaction, but for now, I think this is sufficient to lay out the issues at hand. And so for now I concede my time.

All right. Thank you Eli for opening statement. I appreciate you for that Chris. It is now your turn for a turn it open. Sure thing.

So my positions I'm gonna go ahead and lay them out now because they're gonna come up in conversation later. Anyway, my personal epistemology is that of pragmatism? Which in a in a very brief sense argues that what is useful is ultimately what we end up working with.

As a result if we're looking at science pragmatism would argue that for the purposes of science. We would use instrumentalism, which is the view that concepts and theories are. Useful instruments and progress of science cannot be couched in terms of concepts and theories somehow mirroring reality.

They have to work on an instrumental basis and are used for the purposes for the amount of time that they are required there. When it comes to things like metaphysics Some pragmatists like John like John Dewey were empirical thinkers.

So it really depends on what you get there on where pragmatism has issues. Is that it is sometimes What's the best word for it? Sometimes it works against itself. But also pragmatism was literally built on three people not agreeing with each other about what pragmatism is.

So I would argue that sometimes those inconsistencies are inherent to the inner bakings of pragmatism. And I don't see a problem with that as long as it gets the job done and it's useful. That's what it's there for that said moving on to My position on God, so if we're talking philosophical Philosophically speaking then I have to label myself like an agnostic.

I don't have a choice if we're talking colloquially. Then I'm perfectly fine labeling myself an atheist under say the lack of belief position anything like that. But again, it depends on which side of the coin we are arguing for hard philosophical definitions.

Or if we are arguing for more colloquial or as I would say useful definitions. Whichever one you want to use perfectly fine with me. I go in an atheist. I'm accepting the laws of logic. Because it is through laws like that like the law of non-contradiction That I start to have issue with the way God is presented at least in the standard Christian worldview in so far as the term Standard Christian worldview even has a coherent meaning just as there is no atheist worldview.

There is no agnostic worldview. I would argue that there are at least 40 ,000 Christian worldviews and probably more depending on how many individuals there are with worldviews based on Christianity. If there were one coherent Christian worldview then we wouldn't have a series of no true Scotsman fallacies battling each other over the last 2 ,000 years as far as God The God of the Bible is denoted as a God of love before we can get into this conversation About what a God of love means we have to figure out what type of love we're talking about because the biblical version of God Is going to argue that his version of love would be what we would call agape love which would be unconditional love.

For anybody who's an unfamiliar with the term agape. I would say that that is the type of love that is most coherent and most often given to God. My problems with that though are that unconditional love would denote certain things.

For one it would denote that people that he loves he may not commit genocide against. I know that it's the common Played out trope to go to the flood, but unfortunately it is in the Bible. So I'm gonna have to go to it.

It's hard for me to square the circle of a all-loving being that would actually commit genocide against all of his creatures. Especially if this being is all-knowing and all-powerful, which means that they not only Had other options available to them being all-powerful.

They also knew what these options were because they are all-knowing and because they are omnibenevolent. They would be behoven to act on these other less cruel notions and yet they didn't so obviously one of these traits isn't there either they are not all-powerful and they had to choose one of the more violent routes or they are not all-knowing and could not conceive of one of these less violent routes or they Are not all-loving in which case the violent route may have even seemed to be a beneficial one at that case denoting some type of catharsis.

Alternatively, there is also the problem of hell. However, my particular issues of hell will always be Contingent on the type of hell that the Christian is asserting as I do not know What Eli's version of hell is.

I do not know if this is an annihilation concept or if this is more of a hey You're gonna be burning forever like the standard Baptist teaching. I know that he's a Calvinist. But I do not know I have not heard yet his particular variant of hell.

So I cannot bring the hell argument in unless I know what his version of hell is. So I will go ahead and have to skip over that for the time being. Back to the type of love God has. God's love is best described as unconditional love or agape.

He is the embodiment of love and somehow created things like the global flood and hell. But again, I'm not going to bring up hell in detail because I do not want to speak for Eli's View on hell without knowing what it is.

However, this does lead us to some problems at least as far as I'm concerned if God created everything. Which if we're to accept the Christian worldview and work within it, we would have to accept that he did create everything.

There is no start without him being a first cause. We have to accept that. He also created evil. This is supported by the book of Isaiah. But if God is all-knowing he would know that the result of any of his actions Would lead to evil either its creation or lead to him having to enact to some type of evil.

If he knew ahead of time that any of his actions would lead to evil. Which if we grant that he's omniscient we have to. Then any action that he takes that would lead to evil can be considered evil. I don't think consequentialism works as a moral framework.

For most people because most people do not know what the end result of any of their actions will be. This is one of the reasons why in a court of law for instance intent is only one part of an equation.

That's how we determine motive sometimes. But a lot of times we will argue things based on what the consequences of actions were as well as with the intent. With God the intent is not part of the equation only the consequences and the reason for that is because God Regardless of intent knows what the consequences are.

He is in a privileged position to know the consequences of any and all actions moral other moral or otherwise. So while most actions any action from a human can be considered moral immoral or amoral depending on your particular ethical framework Yahweh's actions necessarily create evil because consequentialism is the only way that we could really judge him because he knows the Consequences of his actions again a privileged position unlike anyone else.

For God to create anything That thing must be within his nature. Well, we know that God can create evil. He's created things that necessarily led to evil and he knew that and he had the power and I would assume with omniscience the creativity to do otherwise and actively chose not to.

This means that creating evil is within God's nature. If creating evil is within God's nature. It must also then follow that evil is within God's nature. If evil is within God's nature the idea that he's omni benevolent must necessarily be discarded this is a particular omni trait that can no longer hold.

The only way that I could find to escape this is to somehow judge God by a standard of morality that one does not know either by arguing out of the youth of row dilemma that all goodness stems from him.

In which case. How can we even consider God good even even something like divine command theory considers itself ethical subjectivism or we can argue that God is separate from good and that he adheres to good in which case he's bound by it now I recognize this is probably not Eli's position.

Eli's position is more than likely going to be that that good necessarily stems from God. Necessitating that God would be above any of these laws I would argue then that if this means that we can never judge the moral character of this being whatsoever.

Then how can we in how can we call him good? We can't call him evil. So we must necessarily not be able to call him good as these two are polar opposites and our ability to judge one Will be contingent on our ability to judge the other.

So if we are going to argue that God is above all moral. What's the word for it if we're going to argue that God is above all Moral judgment and say that good necessarily stems from him and therefore he's above these judgments.

Then again, I will point out that this means that we cannot call him good. The omnibenevolent trait still has to be dropped off. Because there is no way for us to judge that particular trait. It's impossible at that point.

Finally if we imagine the life of a single person as an inch on a ruler. Think of how many inches you have everybody's lifespan is an inch. Well, you have not an infinite but a perceivably infinite amount of lifetimes there in which a series of evil actions can take place.

However, God is eternal and We would also think even Regardless of what the particulars on a version of hell are we would at least think that God knows that any punishment that he gives should it be eternal.

Compared to this inch if you if you extend that life force of a person from the inch to say the square footage of your house. That's still nothing in comparison to eternity. Change the square footage of the house to this to the circumference of the earth.

This person is now living for thousands and thousands of years Relative to the inch that we gave originally. This is still not eternity though any punishment that God decides to enact on These people and it would be him deciding to enact again.

He's bound by consequentialism at this point Would be considered evil. One of these traits has to go. One of the omni traits has to leave if the God is going to be described as a tri omni God. Then one of these traits is going to have to be yeeted out the window.

I'm perfectly fine with taking the Omnipotent out. I'm perfectly fine taking the omnibenevolent out. That's just me. If God is going to be described as a perfect tri omni God There's the incoherence for me and that's my time.

All right. Thank you Chris. Thank you Eli for those opening statements. All right now we're transitioning to The core of the debate the crossfire the most exciting part of a debate. So once again, the affirmer goes first, so we're going to allow Eli to question Chris for his first two minute cross-examination.

All right. You said a lot of good things and I what I first want to get out of the way is I appreciate it because most Atheists or skeptics or whatever don't usually come out and share their views as clearly as you did.

So I appreciate that. So you said that God creates evil. What is your. What is your view? What do you think Christians believe about the ontological nature of evil?

The ontological nature of evil that which would be the opposite of good.

Okay, does do you think on the Christian view evil has an ontological essence in?

The Christian worldview I'd say that good and evil both have ontological essence. My personal thought though. This is just me speaking from my world view. Obviously, we're going to have to be doing a lot of that.

My personal thought is that good and evil are labels that we assign on to actions. And. What we assign on to those actions a lot of times can be a matter of perspective. So if I see for instance. If I see something like say a family member of mine is killed. I see that as evil.

However from somebody else's perspective that might not be seen as evil. But that's never going to change the fact that to me. This is going to be considered an evil action.

Right, and so. Well, I'm I'm trying to I'm trying to ask these questions because I want to I'm trying to understand how you perceive What Christians believe about the ontological essence of evil in other words.

To say that God creates evil. We do not believe that he actually creates this thing called evil and evil is a privation and so. There's not something that God creates and it's called evil. Evil is something that is not in conformity with his nature.

So and violates his law or whatever. So it's it's more of action that is in disconformity to to the standard which is God. So it's not something that he actually creates out of his nature. So I would say that that your statement in regards to God creates anything that's consistent with his nature.

God creates evil therefore God is evil or something to that effect. I would say that doesn't follow since the Christian position We do not hold that there's this positive ontological essence of evil that God creates.

That's what that's what I'm that's that's why I was asking the question. So you gave me a view of what you think evil is. But that's not what the Christian position Holds to. So do you want to clarify a little bit of what you think the Christian position is.

And maybe perhaps Retract that as an argument or you can clarify and rephrase the argument.

Sure. Um, so if I could I know this is your time to question me. But there is one of these one of these things that I would have to say necessarily leads into it. Do you believe that God creates color?

I'm sorry. Do you believe that God creates color?

Well again, I don't want to overstep the bounds. You could ask me when it's your turn so I don't want to because once we let the question go back and forth then we'll kind of Intermix and will defeat the whole purpose of cross-examination.

So you could ask me that and I'll try my best to answer that.

All right, so I will then I will have to say that I'll have to side At that point. I'd have to actually sidestep your question because my answer will necessitate Your answer on that. So we'd have to move on to another question at that point.

Okay. All right. So in regards to Epistemology you said you are a pragmatist, right? Yes. Do you believe in objective truth? I.

Believe that the concept of objective truth can be useful.

Do you believe there is something. Do you believe that there is objective truth?

I have a definition of truth that that will work for you.

Do you understand what I mean when I say objective truth? Perhaps you could clarify. Okay, I think objective truth deals with something that is true independent of our personal opinions. But something is true independent of what we think about and there's something out there.

That's objectively truth. Do you believe that there is objective truth? And do you believe that it's possible for someone to know that objective truth?

So for somebody to know an objective truth that actually would fit into my personal definition of truth my definition of truth in general is If Something. Well, I hold on best say my definition truth is that which comports to reality?

My definition of knowledge is a belief that comports with reality if you believe. So if we have a Venn diagram Truth is on one side belief is on another where truth and belief Collide is where knowledge is.

At least in my personal worldview if you believe something and it happens to be true Then you have knowledge.

Is there any way that someone could have access to what is actually the case so that they believe things that are true and that They can know them to be objectively true within your world.

Within my worldview perspective. Strangely enough. So within pragmatism something being Objectively true as in something something having ontological value, correct?

Is that how you would define this? I would say that something to be objectively true. We are believing something. We have again. I would I would define truth as a justified or knowledge as a justified true belief.

Can we have beliefs that are true and we have justification for believing they're true and those reflect the objective reality.

So Justified true belief from what I understand and correct me if I'm wrong. But justified true belief basically takes the Venn diagram that I have. Where you believe things and true things are on one side knowledge is in the middle and it adds a third piece to the Venn Diagram where there is a justified side.

So anything that is justified and Believed and true becomes knowledge.

So can we have access to objective reality such that we know it. On your perspective of pragmatism an epistemological? View of pragmatism, I.

Would agree that we don't actually have access to Objective reality everything that we see everything that we perceive is filtered.

Okay, so if that's the case then would you say that your worldview system? Lacks the preconditions for intelligibility since every worldview would have to have some forms of truth or something to undergird a foundation for knowledge.

So intelligibility Just has to do with whether or not it is intelligible. I know that's a that's a bit of a tautology. Basically, if something can be it's basically if something can be understood or is accessible or digestible under pragmatism.

Yes, because literally if something is unintelligible or undigestible then it's going to be discarded. That's what happens in pragmatism. If something cannot be understood In its form then it must be set up in a way and so that it can be understood while also still Being true.

So for instance if I were explaining a mathematical concept to somebody and my method was unintelligible Then my method would need to be discarded and I would need to find a new method in order to teach the person.

Okay, but when I say intelligibility what what is the preconditions for intelligibility. Well logic has to be binding. We need to have correct reasoning processes within a Epistemological perspective that is pragmatic and that you don't as you've admitted have not you don't have access to objective truth.

How can those consistently within your worldview that we need logic these unchanging? Universal standards unless you want to define how you understand logic. How do you have those things which we must know?