Traditional Arguments Presupped

All right. Hello everyone. My name is Eli Ayala. Welcome back to my channel where we're gonna be digging into some issues relating to apologetic methodology. Super excited about this specific topic the topic that I'll be covering in this video is really a topic that Interested me when I first got into apologetics and became aware of the different issues in Apologetic methodology.

I remember there was a time where I was very much heavily influenced by the work of classical apologists. Like dr. William Lane Craig and others where I remember studying The cosmological argument the teleological argument the moral argument all the the basic traditional arguments for God's existence.

I remember I was a substitute teacher at a public school and No, I wasn't a sub was it? I was a permanent sub which means that you know If you know anything about education and you kind of worked in a school as a substitute teacher.

You had to wake up early In hopes that you would get a phone call. That someone would say hey, we need you to sub for such-and-such teacher. That's kind of the the lower level grunt Substitute teacher work.

I was a permanent sub which meant I got to go in every day. So even if there wasn't a teacher that was absent, they would have me come in and I would Either sub for a class or they put me outside the bathroom.

Checking for hall passes. Okay. Now I did that for a really long time and that was during the period where I was plowing Through dr. William Lane Craig's reasonable faith, and I had the I Had the workbook that came with the book you could order you could order the reasonable faith.

And there was a workbook where you followed along in the chapters, and I was plowing through reasonable faith and working my way through the workbook and I was obsessed. So there was a time where I was very heavily into kind of classical apologetics.

Now when I got introduced to presuppositional apologetics and that kind of kind of swayed me. I kind of was swayed into it the different apologetic methodology there I would I would kind of like flip back and forth because I saw the practical use of a lot of the traditional arguments.

Especially with the conversations that I was having. I remember I remember writing the kalam Cosmological argument for God's existence out on a napkin at a party where I was we it was me and this other dude.

We had to watch the kids in the living room and we got into a conversation. And so I remember writing the the the argument out on a napkin explaining it to someone So there was some practical uses for the traditional arguments then I've used them in various contexts, okay.

But.

You know as I was flipping back and forth between the classical approach and the precept approach I was really torn because the more I became familiar with the presuppositional approach the more I became convicted that it is that it.

Is the biblical approach? I know that sounds kind of you know, highfalutin and lofty. But I do believe that not only does the Bible command us to do apologetics I do believe it actually outlines for us the principles of the sort of apologetic that we should be doing and so.

But but I always was kind of sensitive to the usefulness the pragmatic usefulness of some of the other arguments and you know. The way I was having certain conversations with people. Certain issues would come up.

And so I grappled with this issue. How do we how do we find a balanced approach? To a presuppositional method that takes into consideration the insights of a lot of the other traditional arguments and this is really important because within the presuppositional Tradition the the kind of along Cornelius Mantel and Greg Bonson.

It's a common misconception that that for example Cornelius Mantel rejected the traditional proofs for God's existence and so oftentimes we would be presented with what seems to be kind of a dichotomy.

You either are a presuppositionalist and reject traditional arguments or you know. You accept the traditional arguments and you're within the kind of the classical framework and that's not quite right.

I don't remember the specific quote, but please trust me. He did say this. You know Cornelius Mantel said that he did not reject the traditional proof for God's existence. He only wished that they would be reformulated in ways that were consistent with our Christian commitments our Christian presuppositions.

You know the teaching of Scripture and so he believed that the way in which the traditional arguments have been presented Apologists have allowed categories of neutrality and autonomy to sneak in in the way that the arguments have been traditionally presented especially within the reform tradition.

Which in historically has used classical arguments. And so Mantel pointed out that the reformed use of classical arguments and the way in which they've been traditionally formulated Has allowed categories that are inconsistent with our reforms and biblical convictions.

Namely the issue of autonomy and neutrality in the way that we confront the natural man within the apologetic context. Okay, and so he didn't reject the traditional proofs. But he wanted to reformulate them in such a way that was consistent with our biblical presuppositions.

Okay, now be that as it may if you know anything about the work of dr. Greg Bonson. Dr. Greg Bonson was very critical of Many of the classical arguments, but I think it's important to recognize that for example, dr. Bonson's rejection of Say certain formulations of the cosmological argument was not an essential feature of presuppositional ism.

But they were rather criticisms that he had of the arguments as he understood them. In other words, he did not think the various forms of the cosmological argument were were good arguments. He thought that good philosophers can find gaps in them and respond to them sufficiently.

That's different than saying that the arguments are inconsistent with a presuppositional framework. Okay? Well, they're not okay. And so basically in this video, I want to tackle, you know This kind of misunderstanding and kind of address this question of how to use the traditional arguments for God's existence.

You know arguments like the cosmological argument the teleological argument the moral argument from within a presuppositional framework. We'll talk a little bit about what this might look like when talking about the historical evidence for the resurrection.

Okay. And so you might be wondering like how do we how do these classical arguments these traditional proofs fit within a method? That pretty much begins with the presupposition that that God exists and that his revelation is the foundation of all truth.

Okay, I want you to stick with me. I'm gonna find out just how we can do this and I think we can do this in a way that we can take the value of some of these arguments and Make them better in terms of firming them up within a consistent Christian worldview Context.

Okay. So so basically We're going to explore how the presuppositional approach doesn't throw away the traditional arguments, but rather Reframes them right basically demonstrating their their true strength and necessity from within a Christian framework.

Okay, and so we're gonna see how they can be used not as as Neutral starting points, but but basically as tools that reveal the unbelievers Suppressed knowledge of God. Okay, if we can put it that way.

All right.

And that's basically what arguments and evidence are gonna do from a presuppositional framework because. What are we doing when we're talking to the unbeliever? We're not talking to someone who does not know does not have a knowledge of God.

All right.

We believe the Bible teaches that all men have a knowledge of God such that he is on Apologetus right without an apologetic without an excuse. Okay, and so when we use something like a cosmological argument with a presuppositional Kind of thrust or context we're doing that not to add information to an otherwise ignorant person.

But to expose the knowledge of God that the individual has. Okay. And this is what scripture. What I would assert that scripture teaches. All right, so I hope that makes sense. And by way of introduction.

And and and after that we'll kind of cover some summary questions. And I'll share my thoughts on these questions. Summarizing kind of the basic things that I'll be working through in this video, and I hope this is helpful.

Both whether you're a believer or an unbeliever. You're just learning about presuppositional apologetics and kind of what. What are my thoughts on the relationship between the presuppositional Method and the traditional arguments for God's existence.

Hopefully this will be useful to you. Okay, so if this is your first time listening in be sure to subscribe to reveals apologetics. You can check out I have a blog as well. I'm gonna be adding a lot more to the blog my I'm a teacher.

So my summer vacation is coming up. And so I'll have a lot more time to add more articles and content and things like that and I'm looking forward to a very.

Fruitful.

Content filled summer schedule. Because I'll have the time to do more videos more frequently but I want to I want to produce content that is useful for folks and allowed this channel to be a resource for people who Really want to get into Presuppositional apologetics and things like that.

So also real quick before I jump in I mentioned this in a previous video that I that I did that I completed recording my new course. Okay, basically there are five five lectures along with the full PowerPoint presentations on Presuppositional apologetics applied and basically I talk about presup.

Well first I have a lecture on how to navigate apologetic conversations. How to apply presuppositional apologetics to atheism Roman Catholicism how to apply presupp to presuppositional Eastern Orthodoxy and how to apply Presuppositional apologetics to the cults.

Okay. I recorded a shorter version of that course for apologia but I've actually Recorded a longer versions with visuals and everything else for folks to if they want to dive deeper into that that will be available soon.

Those who are on my emailing list I will get that information out as soon as possible and folks can sign up for that great way to support reveals apologetics and to kind of dive into Kind of a deeply into the practical application of presuppositional apologetics.

I even kind of created these Not debate but kind of conversation dialogues where you can kind of see how the application looks like in conversation. So, you know when you order the courses all that will go to you and hopefully it will be useful For all of your educational purposes.

Okay. All right. Just just a heads up if if I sound weird, okay a few days ago. I got teeth pulled out. Okay, and so I'm on painkillers. So if it wears off you might you might hear the difference in my voice and you know.

My face might be like, oh, you know, so all right. So there you go K s stingray. If you email me at reveals apologetics at gmail .com I will try to get you on the email list and when all that information goes out, I will send that out to you.

Okay. So, there you go. All right. Let's see here. Okay, so Let's jump right in so we're gonna begin with the cosmological argument.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument and Cosmological Arguments in General

Okay.

Now first a little bit about the cosmological argument sometimes we tend to think of the cosmological argument as like a specific argument like Whatever begins to exist as a cause the universe began to exist.

Therefore the universe has a cause. Okay, that's the famous the popular Kalam cosmological argument that is defended by Many apologists but more first and foremost by William Lane Craig that has been kind of his main argument that he has worked a lot on and we want to make a distinction between say the Kalam cosmological argument, which is a specific kind of cosmological argument and cosmological arguments in general so Cosmological arguments there are a family of arguments of which you have different versions of the cosmological argument this is important to know because when someone criticizes a Particular variety or a particular kind of cosmological argument that does not mean that you have adequately criticized all Versions of cosmological arguments.

All right, so so just want to keep that in mind. So we're just going to be using specific examples. But you want to understand that some of these arguments that I'm going to be going to cosmological to let you illogical and all that Kind of stuff.

These are broad categories. Okay. All right. So let's let's walk through this. So as a presupposition list, okay taking a look at the cosmological argument. Okay, the Kalam or whatever, okay. We're gonna want to approach if you want to look in terms of how do we see this within a presuppositional context?

We're gonna want to approach the cosmological argument in a manner that is rooted in a pre Suppositional framework. Okay, basically emphasizing the necessity of Starting with the Christian worldview. Okay, this is super super important.

All right, because everything that we do everything that we argue. Okay, when we argue transcendentally for example We're arguing that it is only within the Christian worldview context that those things make sense.

And so we cannot we cannot offer any other sub argument like cosmological teleological or moral Independent of the only framework that can make sense out of any argument whatsoever. Okay, so we're gonna want to talk about the cosmological argument from within a consistent Presuppositional framework emphasizing the necessity of starting with the Christian worldview context.

Okay, unlike the classical formulation of the cosmological argument, which? Pretty much begins with observations of the universe to infer the existence of God as the first cause. I'm gonna argue that such a method when we do that when we when we start with Observation and make inferences to reach a conclusion what we're doing when we present the argument that way is that we are allowing categories of autonomy with respect to human reason and Observation to sneak into our methodology and that's going to be inconsistent with our biblical commitments.

Okay, I do not want to present the issues of causation and these sorts of things cause and effect. I mean using cosmological argument from first cause all these sorts of things. I don't want to speak of causation as though.

They're neutral categories, okay, so that that's good. That's super important to keep in mind. Okay, so we're gonna want to reformulate the cosmological argument by first asserting the truth of the Christian worldview as the necessary foundation for all reasoning.

Including this is key. Including the reasoning about causes and effects themselves. Okay, so the Christian worldview provides the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of cause and effect itself.

Okay, and so we're gonna want to argue that without the presupposition of the God of Scripture any discussion about causality is Ultimately meaningless because the unbelieving worldview cannot account for things like the uniformity of nature and the laws of logic that are pretty much Required to make sense out of causality itself.

Okay. This is super important now. I could say these things. Okay, I'm gonna say these things. Okay, and I'm going to clarify this. Saying this for example when I say that unbelieving worldviews cannot account for the uniformity of nature.

Unbelieving worldviews cannot account for the laws of logic and causality. Saying that does not prove it. Okay. I this is I'm helping people who are using the presuppositional approach. We have to be very careful that when we say the unbelieving world you cannot account for these things.

Saying that they cannot account for it is not the same as proving that they cannot account for it and so while I'm kind of going through this just to show you what it looks like how we kind of frame these things within a presuppositional Framework, you need to also be ready to defend those assertions.

Okay.

So if I say that the unbeliever cannot account for logic and then they say hold up before you get into the rest of your Argument I can account for logic. Okay, then you're gonna have to interact with that and you're gonna have to pay the bills on that claim.

Okay.

Want to be very careful because presuppositionalists are often accused of simply making bare authority claims and that's not what we're doing. Although some presuppositional apologists do that. Okay. So we don't want to.

We don't want to do that. Okay. So basically this approach is not trying to prove God's existence. Okay, merely as the first cause in a long chain of events. But basically as the necessary precondition for the intelligibility of any event or cause whatsoever.

And so when we when we reframe things in this way, right? The emphasis is not on proving God through a series of kind of logical steps that Could be debated or refuted on the basis of some empirical or philosophical grounds.

Rather words. We're asserting the cosmological argument within the context that the cause is cause and effect and causation all these sorts of things. They require the Christian God and the Christian worldview for their coherence and intelligibility.

Okay, and so the idea that without God we can't make sense of the very causal relationships we observe is basically to take the cosmological argument and.

A.

Transcendental thrust to it. So we're not moving from observation and then inferring a conclusion. We're saying what are the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of cause and effect or Causation or these sorts of things.

That's basically what we are trying to do here and so that's what it looks like to kind of set a cosmological sort of argument within a Within a presuppositional framework. Okay, I want to unpack this a little bit more because when we talk about Causation and these sorts of things it kind of relates to other issues like issues like the uniformity of nature.

Okay, which is a very important aspect of this discussion as well. Okay.

All right. I.

Have some comments here. Let's see here on the side. Frank says seriously, why has no one done this before. Bonson himself once gave examples of what it would look like. Yeah, this is why I'm doing it man.

I wish I wish this was done. Basically when I do content on my channel, I Try to do content that I'm like, hey when I first got started not not that I'm you know, the grand poomba of presuppositionalism.

But when I first got started these were the questions I had so I try to address topics that I know I struggled with Making it interesting for me to talk about and hopefully it's useful for people. So yeah, hope it's hope it's helpful.

Okay. Let's see here. Let's see if changing finite beings exist.

It follows an unchanging infinite being also exists. So so so so basically what we're saying is that the whole issue of causation Requires pre it has preconditions and that precondition is going to be the Christian God.

That's basically what we're trying to argue for. Okay. All right. Let's see here. Did it to do? Okay. I thought those were questions their comments. That is perfectly fine. Okay, so. So keeping that in mind so we we move from we talked about the cosmological argument.

Within a presuppositional framework basically is going to argue that the Christian God God of Christianity the Christian worldview is the necessary precondition for the very concept of causation itself.

Okay, and we're gonna assert I'm not gonna argue here. But we would make the argument that non Christian worldviews cannot account for causation cause and effect causal relationships these sorts of things.

The uniformity of nature all of these things are connected. Okay, and the uniformity of nature is kind of a big deal as well. This is this was this was brought out in. Dr. Bonson's debate with Edward Tabash.

So if I take a moment real quick to Make a distinction between Greg Bonson's debate with Gordon Stein and his debate with Edward Tabash. He uses a transcendental kind of argument in both debates. But with a different emphasis which kind of is related to what I'm trying to do here in the debate with Gordon Stein he tried to show dr. Bonson tried to show that the Christian God is the necessary precondition for logic.

Okay, so logic was kind of a big point of discussion in that debate with with Stein but in his debate with Edward Tabash the focus was Induction right the uniformity of nature these sorts of things the basis for for science.

Okay, and so this is very much when we're taking a look at things like the causality and the expectation of the future being Like the past these sorts of things all comes into play in these sorts of discussions.

Dr. Bonson often used, you know. Kind of ordinary examples. To kind of make this point, right? So he had what he called the toothpaste proof for God's existence. And then that's not a formal argument, right?

You're not gonna see it in like a philosophy textbook, but he often Used ordinary examples like the act of brushing one's teeth to demonstrate the necessity of presupposing a sovereign Providential God for the reliability of induction.

So the argument that kind of basically goes like this but in terms of induction, so induction is Is a reasoning process used to make generalizations right based on specific observations. So for example, every time you squeeze a tube of toothpaste toothpaste comes out.

Okay, and so from this you could infer that whenever you squeeze a tube of toothpaste in the future. The toothpaste is gonna come out again. Okay now Enter philosophical skepticism, right? You know enter David Hume, right?

This is this is the point of David Hume made not specifically to toothpaste. But basically he questions why we should expect the future to resemble the past.

Okay.

Just because toothpaste has always come out of the tube in the past when we squeeze it does not in itself Guarantee that it's gonna happen again tomorrow. Okay, and so basically this position Hume would challenge the basis of all inductive Reasoning now Bonson and his toothpaste proof here.

He argues that inductive reasoning Requires a foundation. Remember everything comes back to the context, right? It requires a foundation that could only be provided by the Christian God. This is what what Bonson argued and so he basically posited that the uniformity of nature which Underpins our expectations that the future is going to resemble the past, you know.

Toothpaste will come out of the tube when we squeeze it cannot be consistently explained by atheistic or naturalistic worldviews. Okay, so on atheism in a world Sound and fury signifying nothing now There is no reason to expect order to expect the future to be like the past and that is kind of an undergirding principle Of all of science.

Okay, so within the Christian worldview, we have a sovereign and providential God. Okay, Bonson would argue that it's God's sovereign control and providential ordering of the universe that guarantees the uniformity of nature.

And because God is consistent. He's unchanging. He governs all things the behavior of various Phenomena and experience that we have including the simple act of toothpaste being dispensed from a tube is also going to be consistent.

Okay, so from within a Christian worldview that makes sense. So from within a Christian context, it makes sense to expect that the future will be like the past. Why on a non-christian conception of reality?

Should we expect the future to be like the past? That's the question if you can't account for the uniformity of nature that undercuts even your concepts of causality. Right, isn't that right? Okay, so within a Christian metaphysical framework God's promises and then and and his very nature Basically ensures that the physical world operates in a regular orderly fashion.

Okay, and in a way that is knowable and is predictable. So this worldview within the Christian worldview it provides the necessary preconditions for intelligible experience scientific Investigation which basically pretty much relies on inductive reasoning, right?

So so Bonson uses in this example toothpaste in the context of induction to illustrate even how Mundane and normal everyday actions rest on underlying philosophical assumptions about how the world works.

Okay, and so basically he argues that only the Christian worldview with its assertion of a Sovereign God a providential God can adequately justify those basic assumptions that we take for granted. Okay, so all of this is kind of related in terms of causation and all these other things because when we understand cause and effect that what is related to that are issues of induction and uniformity and all these sorts of things and with the Transcendental context we're asking that fundamental question.

What world do you make sense out of these things we take for granted what world do you make sense out of Cause and effect and uniformity and logic all the things that are required Pardon for intelligible experience.

And of course, we're gonna argue. It's a Christian worldview. Okay. All right, so All right. So let's move on to the the teleological argument. Okay is the argument from design again? So the teleological argument is gonna be kind of a family of arguments.

The Argument from Design and the Teleological Argument

Okay, so when we take the teleological argument from within a presuppositional framework, okay. And we understood what we understand the teleological argument commonly understood as the argument from design.

When we put it within a presuppositional framework things take on a more transcendental thrust. Okay, so traditionally this argument specific argument observes Observes that there is apparent design. Okay and purpose in the universe.

And so from that we infer a Designer, okay. And so this is again, this is interesting when we talk about it infers a designer even the first argument. We talked about the cosmological argument when we say, you know cause and effect.

You know, whatever begins to exist as a cause universe has a cause therefore the you know, I'm sorry whatever begins to exist as a cause the universe began to exist there for the universe as a cause and then from that conclusion you Philosophically reflect on what it means to be the cause of the universe and then we get the characteristics of God to be very careful.

The word God is not defined. It's defined in a very weak sense in that it is a cause of the universe. There's no other content added to that. There's another thing is that when we put these arguments within a presuppositional framework.

It highlights the importance of the fact that we're arguing specifically for a God that has content. Okay, same thing here with the proof with the Teleological argument we're not talking about a designer.

We're talking about the designer the designer the only designer that exists the designer of the Bible. Okay, so within a presuppositional framework.

Okay.

This argument the teleological argument starts fundamentally with the acknowledgement of the Christian God as the necessary precondition for intelligibility Including the very concepts of design and purpose themselves.

Okay, so we're saying that he is the precondition. Now in reworking the teleological argument a Presuppositional apologist is going to want to assert that the very ability to recognize and discuss design presupposes a universe governed by a coherent Purposeful order which itself can only be accounted for it within a Christian worldview.

And so the argument would emphasize that non Christian worldviews fail to provide a basis again. It comes again for the uniformity of nature and the laws of logic that are necessary To even recognize patterns and designs in the first place.

And so this is not merely about Observing complexity or design in nature, but about how such observations are even possible and Meaningful. Okay, so I hope you see the undergirding thrust of this. We're moving beyond simple observation and asking what must be true in order for all those other things to make sense.

Okay.

And so the presuppositional teleological argument would proceed by challenging the unbeliever to account for the regularity and orderliness of the universe without reference to the God of Scripture. And so it posits that without the Christian God concepts like order design purpose they become inexplicable and arbitrary.

And so the existence of a designed and purposeful universe is not merely evidence suggesting a designer but rather a Demonstration of the truth of the Christian worldview. Which alone makes sense of these these things that we're talking about here.

Okay, and so basically this approach does not when we take the teleological argument from within a Presuppositional framework this approach doesn't attempt to move from a neutral observation. This is important.

We do not attempt to move from a neutral observation of nature to a conclusion about God's existence or a God's existence instead. It begins by affirming the truth of the Christian worldview and demonstrate that any attempt to argue or reason about design Inherently presupposes this truth.

Okay, and so hopefully you get the transcendental flavor To all of these arguments. So you want to presuppositional eyes the traditional arguments. You add a Transcendental thrust to them and I think that would that's very helpful to that end.

All right.

Let's continue on here. So the moral argument.

The Moral Argument and Objective Morality

Okay.

So within a presuppositional framework the moral argument for God's existence is not merely an inference from moral facts to the necessity of a Moral lawgiver, right but rather it is a demonstration of the impossibility of morality without the presupposition of the Christian God.

And so traditionally the moral argument posits that if objective moral values and duties exist, then God must exist as their foundation. However within a presuppositional context this argument is basically transformed to assert the very concept of morality.

Presupposes the truth of the Christian worldview. Okay. So firstly the presuppositional approach to the moral argument begins by affirming that all attempts to discuss morality are grounded in a worldview That must account for the universality and objectivity of moral norms, okay.

And so non-christian worldviews we would argue fail to provide a basis for why anything particularly moral laws should be obligatory or universally binding. Okay, I know people disagree with that, but that's what we would be arguing and then we'd have to be willing to back that up.

I know there are other theories out there of ethics and people think they can ground things. I understand that we're gonna have to interact with those but I'm just as a basic outline. Okay, I do believe that they struggle to you know Atheistic perspective and things like they struggle to avoid reducing morality to social conventions or personal preferences.

Which are you know, basically boiling down to subjectivity. Okay, so. So there you go.

Okay.

Now that's firstly now secondly. The presuppositional moral argument would place a great emphasis on the fact that the Christian worldview uniquely provides the preconditions Necessary for objective morality.

Okay, and so these preconditions include the character of God is the ultimate standard of goodness Okay His creation of human beings and his image with intrinsic value and moral responsibility and his revelation of moral laws of scripture.

Now without these Any discussion of morality becomes incoherent and inconsistent. That's that's what I'd be arguing. Okay, so the existence of a coherent binding moral framework is not just evidence suggesting a divine lawgiver But rather a demonstration of the truth of the Christian worldview.

Okay, it asserts that apart from the presupposition of the Christian God one can't coherently affirm the existence of objective Moral values and duties and so this basically of shifts the focus from proving God's existence as a conclusion derived from moral facts To asserting the impossibility of the contrary without the Christian God the very discussion of morality loses its meaning and coherence.

Okay, I hope that makes sense. Let me see here. Give me a second. I will get to some of the questions on the chat there. I see some good questions here. I Think I accidentally unplugged Myself. Okay. All right.

So, let's see here. Did it to do? So we have a question from Belushi.

Prove prep prevalent.

Eli, could you explain the difference between the virtuous circle and vicious circle again in light of the cosmological argument? Okay, all right, so Vicious circularity is also known as begging the question or the petitio principi and this occurs when an arguments conclusion is assumed Within its premises, okay leading to a form of reasoning that basically fails to provide any external support for the conclusion.

Okay, so an example of Vicious circularity would be something like the Bible is the Word of God because it says so in the Bible, right? And that's not what we are arguing here. That's not the nature of the presuppositional Argument.

That's not the nature of presuppositional circularity.

Okay.

Now virtuous circularity on the other hand is a term used within this context to describe a form of reasoning where one's Foundational beliefs or presuppositions are used to justify themselves in a coherent and consistent way.

And so within a presuppositional framework We acknowledge that we all have kind of fundamental starting points and The starting point that the Christian worldview is beginning with we presuppose it. Not in a fallacious circular way, but arguing that without the specific presupposition that we're asserting All intelligibility is lost.

So the nature of our starting point is that if it is denied it undercuts the intelligibility of anything whatsoever and so on the one hand one is engaging in vicious circularity in which the conclusion is in one of the premises and in virtuous circularity.

We make a distinction between the presupposition of our argument the truth of the Christian worldview as the necessary preconditions for intelligibility and the premise of an Argument namely a step in a deductive argument.

So why is why is it the case that the presupposition list is not engaging in vicious circularity? The answer to that is in just my mic here is that there is no presuppositional argument that has premise premise Conclusion and the conclusion is stated in the premise.

There's just did you never you're not gonna find it. That's not what we're arguing and that's why I make the distinction between the presupposition of an argument and the premise of an argument. Okay, so virtuous circularity.

We're dealing with the preconditions of intelligibility. If you deny the presupposition of the Christian worldview logic knowledge intelligible experience is undermined. That's not the same as saying that I'm starting with God exists in my argument and then a premise and then conclusion God exists.

That's not what we're doing. Okay, so that would be that would be the difference there. I hope that hope that makes sense. Okay, and and this isn't. This isn't some weird idiosyncratic like presuppositional thing.