Are Miracles & Advanced Tech Indistinguishable?

Welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host Eli Ayala. Welcome to this episode that we're going to be talking about I think a very interesting topic. If you have taken note of the thumbnail you will notice two individuals there.

One who perhaps is recognizable to you if you're familiar with the realm of apologetics and well-known atheists and skeptics and another gentleman probably well known within the realm of skepticism and atheism but maybe not so much amongst Christians.

I'm going to explain who these two individuals are and then we'll dive into some principles that these two individuals have laid out that is often used by skeptics in dialogues with Christians and theists.

Okay so that's what we're gonna be covering today. Now before I get into that I would like to welcome folks if you are here for the first time please do me a solid and subscribe to the channel so that you can get all of the updates and things that are going to be going on as folks who have been listening to my channel thus far.

I've been trying really hard to keep to the two live streams a week so I could have some level of consistency and that means I've been doing some extra planning in terms of topics to cover and so I've got a lot of interesting topics to to cover and I'm super excited about doing them.

Also I am almost on this channel almost up to 10 ,000 subscribers and so that is super exciting. I've been doing this for a few years and you know growth can be rapid sometimes and it can be rather slow at other times but slow and steady wins the race and so I'm super excited that almost at 10 ,000 subscribers thank you so much for everyone who has supported and continues to support by their viewing by their donations and just their prayers all of those things are greatly appreciated.

Now I'm super excited for today because I actually have been able to fix my microphone now if you don't if you don't realize the difference I was hearing kind of volume fluctuation my computer was automatically lowering my mic so it sounded really weird here and if you know anything about me apologetics is just about all that I do.

I'm a teacher of course and I teach logic and Old Testament Bible but when it comes to technology I am completely and utterly useless. Okay my camera might look the camera quality might look okay right but I don't know how to use my camera other than to to do this kind of stuff.

Okay I literally turned my camera on I got the two lights here you know Lord knows if someone who knew what they were doing would come into my office they'd try to fix this and fix that. Hey you can do this a little better.

I have no idea what I'm doing technologically so there you go. I actually got good advice if you look at my old videos I was using a webcam and then Mike Winger who is a well-known Christian youtuber he gave me some advice he says hey listen what you need to do is you need to get a webcam link and get a DSLR camera and use a DSLR camera as your webcam so it would change your quality and once you do that you're gonna look at all your old videos you're gonna be like oh my goodness those were terrible and so I took his advice I got myself a webcam link and used a DSLR camera got a Canon t6i camera here nothing too fancy but it looks much better other than that I have no idea what I'm doing.

So I'm so happy that I actually figured out how to fix my mic situation because it was really really annoying. You guys probably noticed every time I talk my hand is going down here to readjust the volume so super super excited about that all right.

Well anyway let's jump into our topic again. Welcome if you're just joining in my name is Eli Ayala of revealed apologetics. If you're interested in my content that goes beyond the the YouTube channel here you can check out my website.

I have a blog revealed apologetics calm and you can find the videos there and in a nicely organized fashion along with some online courses that I sell that is used to support the channel but I lay out in two courses that I've created an introduction to biblical apologetics which is kind of like a an intermediate level.

It's not completely an introduction but it is introductory enough that if you want to get your feet wet in the topic it will give you a sufficient amount of information throughout the course of five lectures.

And then I created a part two called precept applied where I actually apply presuppositional ism to a wide range of positions like precept applied to atheism precept applied to Roman Catholicism Eastern Orthodoxy the cults things like that.

And so if you're looking to support revealed apologetics you can do that by purchasing one of those courses that's available on the website under revealed apologetics precept you and or you can donate by going to the donate page.

All of that information is in the description of this video below. And so that's a great way to support what I'm doing helps me do a lot of the back-end stuff in upholding a website and YouTube and things like that.

Now with all that out of the way the two individuals that you see on the thumbnail one gentleman is I think he is he is no longer with us. Okay is a gentleman by the name of Arthur Arthur C Clark and the other individual is Michael Shermer.

Okay most folks who are involved in apologetics or aware of apologetic debates the name Michael Shermer should be familiar to you. Michael Shermer is a well-known skeptic. He's debated a lot of Christian apologists.

He's I think he's debated Frank Turek and others and you can find him online YouTube things like that. Okay so let me walk us through who these individuals are. What are these principles that they've applied that skeptics use these principles in discussions with Christians.

And then we're going to navigate how we can approach it from a presuppositional perspective. Okay now someone's asking how late am I to the show. I literally just started six minutes ago so you're not that late.

Okay so welcome now. That being said if you have any questions throughout the course of what I'm doing here I typically take questions towards the back end. But maybe if I get a little sidetrack and I see some questions you know flowing in I'll take some time to kind of move aside and look at the comments.

Okay just be patient with me. I got a look in different directions so I gotta pay attention to the comment stream and then all the other things that I've got on my screen. So if I catch some questions I will try my best to address them.

The only thing I ask as I always ask is to preface your question with the word question so that I could differentiate it from the other comments in the common thread. All right. So without further ado let's take a look at the two gentlemen that are on my thumbnail.

If you're not familiar the first gentleman is someone by the name of Arthur C Clark. Okay and the other gentleman is I think it the one with the kind of the bluish hue in his face. That's the image I found I thought was kind of cool-looking so I used it on the thumbnail.

That's Michael Shermer and these are two influential figures in science skepticism and they're each known for their respective contributions in different areas. But with respect to this video they are known for a development of certain laws or principles that are often used in conversations between skeptics and and theists.

Okay but a lot of their principles that they've discussed often come up in conversations relating to things like technology science fiction and atheism. And so there's kind of a broad application and then a specific application with respect to how many skeptics will use the principles I'm gonna lay out in their dialogues with Christians and other kinds of theists.

Okay so Arthur Clark I think he passed away in 2008 if I'm not mistaken. Okay he was a British science fiction writer a futurist and inventor and he's best known for and this many people will be familiar with this.

He's known for his his most famous work I think it's his most famous work is the 2001 a space odyssey. Okay so 2001 space odyssey that's associated with Arthur C Clark that should be familiar to some folks.

He's also well known for his speculative ideas about the future of technology and space exploration. A Clark's contributions to science fiction shaped a lot of popular conceptions of advanced technology and space travel and things like that.

And he's widely regarded as a visionary in predicting the rise of technologies that were at the time far beyond human capabilities. Okay so a lot of people kind of appreciate his contributions in those areas.

Okay now one of his famous speculative ideas that that we're going to be discussing here is what is known as Clark's third law. Okay and so I want to kind of slow down to make sure that that you will understand what this third law is and then just by stating it you will you will see why it's often used in discussions between Christians or theists and atheists and things like that.

Okay so Clark's law. A Clark's law states any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Okay and this law was published in Clark's essay collection called the profiles of the future I think was published in 1962.

And Clark's intention with this law was to pretty much the idea that as technology advances to a certain point right it becomes so advanced that those unfamiliar with it right or with lesser technological experience would perceive it as magic.

And so the idea is grounded in Clark's broader fascination with progression of human innovation and the seemingly limitless potential of technological advancement. Of course in an age of science and advancement that obviously makes a lot of sense.

Right the technology is moving so so quickly. So I kind of understand kind of the context or rather the interest in his views with respect to that topic. Okay now Clark's law reflects the perspective that technological developments might eventually achieve such sophistication that people from less advanced societies or even less advanced errors in human history would see them as supernatural or magical.

So for example to a medieval peasant right a smartphone might look like a magical device because they lack the framework to understand it's you know it's technological details and how it works. And so Clark was exploring the human perception of technology not necessarily from a religious or metaphysical standpoint but from a kind of futuristic speculative standpoint although his principle has been applied to discussions on religion and things like that.

Okay and so that's that's Arthur C. Clark. If you're interested in kind of the background of who he is and his various contributions you can look him up and I'm sure there is lots of information that's available online with respect to who he is.

Now our second individual pardon my water our second individual is probably much more well-known in the skeptical in the skeptic community. Okay and that is a gentleman by the name of Michael Schirmer.

Okay Michael Schirmer. Now Michael Schirmer is an American science writer historian of science and he's the founder of the skeptics society. So if you're interested in finding out more about who he is you can check him out.

He's the author and founder the founder of the skeptic society. You can type in his name skeptic society. There's gonna be lots of information you could find on Michael Schirmer. And he's known for his work in promoting skepticism.

Okay promoting science education and of course promoting like atheism and things like that. And he often focuses on debunking religious and paranormal claims and pseudoscientific issues that he thinks are worthy of debunking.

Okay and as a Christian who is concerned with the truth I appreciate that although I disagree with his you know his positions against Christianity. Obviously. Right. So Schirmer again has written quite extensively on why people believe in gods from his perspective.

Right. And you know why people believe in various supernatural phenomena. Okay. And he often attributes these beliefs to kind of a psychological or various social factors rather than they're actually being a god.

And so one of the things that I find interesting about Schirmer is that a lot of his critiques often involve kind of a an attempted psychoanalysis of Christians or religious people which you know from from an apologetic standpoint or from a worldview standpoint.

I don't really think that's at all very convincing because you can kind of reverse that and turn that around. So it's. But again some people use that approach. And of course he's got other material out there that perhaps would be more of a stronger attempt to engage than just psychoanalysis.

Okay. And so Schirmer is also known for what is known as Schirmer's last law which states. And here is Schirmer's law which is slightly different than Clark's law. So you want to pay attention to this.

Okay Schirmer's law states that any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God. Okay. Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God.

Okay. And so now Schirmer's law as opposed to Clark's law builds on the same line of reasoning as Clark's third law as I stated before but shifts the focus from technology to intelligence. And so Schirmer is suggesting that if humans were to encounter an extraterrestrial species far more advanced than than we are especially in terms of like intellect or power we might mistake them for gods.

And so the context here is firmly rooted in Schirmer's skepticism. Okay there is a connection here toward the existence of God positing that belief in deities could be reduced to misunderstandings or misinterpretations of various phenomenon that have you know from his perspective a natural explanation.

Okay. And so Schirmer's law is particularly aimed at religious beliefs specifically implying that what people attribute to divine causes might just be the result of advanced beings or systems that we don't yet comprehend.

Okay so again. So let's summarize this real quick. And then we'll kind of dive into some of the details all. Right. So Arthur Clark's law okay focuses on technological advancement and how it can be perceived as magic by less advanced civilizations.

And Schirmer's law deals with extraterrestrial intelligence and suggests that superintelligent beings could be mistaken for gods. Right. That's reinforcing this kind of naturalistic atheistic view of the world where we're skeptical of things that appear to be of divine origin.

Okay and pretty much both of these principles these laws challenge the idea that what seems supernatural must be divine. Right suggesting instead that it might simply be like you said before advanced technology or intelligence something that's beyond human understanding.

Okay now within the context of apologetics these principles or these laws. Okay they are often used by many skeptics to kind of challenge the attempt of the theist to kind of posit you know evidence for miracles and and things like that.

Okay now how would we approach something like that. And that's what I want to dive into now that we kind of just stated all of this. Okay so if you're just hopping in what are we going to be what are we going to be discussing today.

Clark's law Schirmer's law how skeptics use it and how we could approach it from a presuppositional perspective. Okay because I think that behind these principles are baked into they're baked into assumptions and presuppositions of a particular worldview that as Christians we reject at the outset.

Okay so you're gonna see in reality that these attempted explanations or challenges that they attempt to come from kind of a neutral and objective perspective and such that if we're neutral then we're taking in this information.

Well how would we know. Right. It's coming from a foundation of skepticism which of course the Christian is going to reject a priori just as the skeptic rejects a priori the claims of the Christian faith especially the specific claims with respect to the the innate knowledge of God that the Bible asserts that all men have.

Okay so that's kind of the direction I'm going to go and if I have time actually you know what. Let me take a quick look at the comments I'll see here and maybe we can take a couple of questions and comments from folks and then I'll just jump right into our topic here.

Why don't you guys let me know in the comments. Do you prefer that I go through my content and address the questions at the end. Or do you prefer that I address questions throughout. Okay maybe you guys can give me like a quick like prefer you know in the middle or something like that or prefer at the end I care about that because I want to make sure that I answer your questions as best as I can.

Okay so let me just go through these real quick and then I'll try my best throughout the rest of the stream to catch them while I'm kind of giving my my spiel here. Okay so Jackie Griffith says revealed apologetics as there are many worldviews concerning this area.

Would you consider doing a live on mental health from a Christian presuppositional apologetics point of view. It's an interesting question Jackie. I've never really thought about doing something like that.

Let me look into that and see if there is some application that can be made that warrants a live stream. Thank you for that suggestion. I'll totally look into that. Thanks all. Right. Let's see here. Go.

GA Norberg says no advanced technology operates within natural law. That is correct. While miracles transcend and override them making the two fundamentally distinct they are definitely fundamentally distinct.

So yes I would. I would agree with some small caveats on the side. Okay. GA Norberg also says it would be great if you can do something on physicalism. Maybe even have a guest on. Yeah I could I could do that as a matter of fact I've just recently been studying issues of physicalism and you know different forms of dualism you know property dualism all that kind of jazz.

So yeah I definitely would be interested in doing something like that. So yeah. Thanks for the suggestion. I appreciate it. Let's see here. Mighty's Arlac. When will we see our friend in the chat telling us to donate.

Well you you missed it. I asked for donations at the beginning of the show. So you missed that part. Yeah that's right. Yeah you missed it. Sorry. Mighty's Arlac. All right. Let's see here. Some comments here.

Not so many questions. Which is fine. We just got started all right. Okay so thank you Mighty's Arlac. I appreciate it. He says. Eli I don't want to interrupt your stream and I appreciate that. Thank you.

But sometimes it's easier to address questions during the time you are talking about that topic. Yes. So that's definitely helpful for me to know. Here's the challenge if I answer questions in the middle then I have to answer them quickly because if it takes up the core of the time then it's going to take me longer to get through the content that I'm wanting to get to.

So there's a balance there. But I really do appreciate it. I will try to consider that when a question comes up and I catch it on the questions the comments I will try to address it as best I can. Okay let's see here.

Frank Odom says I've heard the word a priori. What does this mean. A priori refers to something that comes before. So if you believe something a priori you believe it beforehand. Right. It's kind of like a presupposition or an assumption that it comes before other things.

Okay so a priori means something along those lines. Um there's a technical definition of course. But that's my kind of quick thought. Okay. All right. Okay good. So that's I think I got everyone there all right.

So let's take a look we're dealing with Clark's Law and Shermer's Law. Okay now let's kind of rehash here. So Clark's Law says any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. And then again we've got Shermer's Law which goes that one step further any sufficiently technologically advanced beings are indistinguishable from gods.

Now on the surface that kind of sounds like oh that's actually very interesting. How would we how would we deal with that. Okay and I think that's a fair question. It's an interesting kind of approach in terms of explaining you know this issue of what is the difference between the divine and something that's advanced.

Okay and so these principles these laws that as they're called they seem to suggest that there is no difference between what looks like magic or divinity and what might just really be sophisticated technology.

Okay but but here's where we hit the first issue both of these so-called laws. Okay and I'm talking to Christians here. Right. Again I'm not talking to the atheist here. I mean you can you can say what you want.

I know they're gonna be people's like yeah yeah yeah whatever. But you have to understand that these principles these so-called laws they presuppose a particular worldview. Okay and this is why we always harp and harp and harp over the issue of not the fact that there is no neutrality.

Right. When these skeptics you know kind of you know they approach the topic as though they're looking at things objectively they're not. When you dig under the surface of the skeptic there are commitments that at the very beginning a priori are antithetical to your Christian presuppositions.

So you have Christian presuppositions you have non-christian presuppositions. You can't avoid that because everyone is coming from a worldview perspective. Okay and so these so-called laws. Okay Clark's law Shermer's law they presuppose a worldview at the very beginning that is in in that is in direct conflict with the Christian worldview.

And so when you realize that you see really where the issues are going to to come to bear. Okay so here's something important. Okay there's no such thing as neutral ground. You need to get that into your noggin.

That's a basic point of presuppositional apologetics. We point this out because it's true. Okay Clark and Shermer are not just making a technological or scientific statement when they assert their laws.

Okay. Or when someone asserts those principles they're implicitly assuming an epistemology that is a theory which theory of knowledge if you don't know what epistemology is that is completely detached from a biblical view of reality.

It is detached from a biblical metaphysic and it's detached from a biblical epistemology. So when someone makes assertions about what is possible or impossible or what is distinguishable or not distinguishable that presupposes metaphysical and epistemological commitments that the Christian is going to disagree with.

And so this is why we talk about worldview. Right. The atheist and the skeptic complain. Well just give me the evidence. Well dude you don't understand and we keep repeating ourselves the issue is not the evidence.

The issue is the interpretation of the evidence. It is the presuppositions that we bring to the evidence. And so as Van Till has said in his writings he says that I don't mind talking about the evidence.

Right Van Till says. But we can't go on and on about evidence without talking about the philosophy of evidence. Or we can't go on and on about the facts without first addressing the philosophy of fact because it is the very philosophy of fact.

That is the reason why we are disagreeing over how to interpret the facts. Okay. So when people make these pretty assert these principles we need to be self-conscious of our presuppositions. And we need to make the skeptic aware that they have presuppositions as well.

Now some more informed and philosophically sophisticated skeptics will be aware of their presuppositions. But that's not the case with everyone. Okay we want to be as Van Till has said we want to be epistemologically self-conscious.

We want to be aware of our theory of knowledge our theory of reality our ethical theory and how those all fit together. Okay. And we're always in touch with that background music those presuppositions while we are interacting with the skeptic and while we're examining principles such as the ones we laid out.

Okay. For Clark and Schirmer's laws okay are only compelling because they are compelling to many people. Skeptics use it they find it convincing. They think it's a good approach when talking to Christians and theists.

Right. The laws are only compelling if you already assume a worldview where there's no sovereign God no revelation and where human reasoning stands as the ultimate authority. Right. Because they're not relying on God because they're saying well how do you even distinguish if it's a God or a natural cause.

So God is not a necessary foundation in that. In that in that perspective something else is the ultimate foundation and it's going to be the self-sufficiency of human reason which is a form of autonomy.

Okay. In other words these laws these Clark's law. And let me see. I'm trying to read a comment here. Did it did it did it to do. Yes. Thank You mighty czar. Like I agree. I agree with that. Right. That's true.

If you set up your model with a specific metaphysics then your conclusion will be different. Yes. That's right. And your metaphysic will necessarily impact your epistemology and vice versa. When you engage in epistemology a theory of knowledge that assumes reality is a certain way so an epistemology assumes a metaphysic and a metaphysic also assumes an epistemology.

Okay. So thank you for acknowledging that point. I really appreciate that. Okay now so these principles that I've laid out they assume a neutral position. They do not assume God as a necessary starting point for intelligibility and knowledge.

And now apart from the fact as to whether the Christian worldview is true or not that's not what I'm talking about. When you assert those principles it already a priori leaves out the possibility of the truth of the Christian worldview.

Because the truth of the Christian worldview is predicated not on that assumption. Okay. So my Christian perspective our knowledge is rooted in the fear of the Lord Proverbs 1 7 all throughout Proverbs in Scripture.

Our worldview as Christians we argue. And we've argued I'm not gonna argue here is not the topic of this of this video. I've argued elsewhere. Okay. Our worldview as Christians we argue provide the preconditions necessary for knowledge itself necessary for logic morality and science and all these these sorts of things.

And that's why we can distinguish between magic technology and God. But let's walk through this step by step. Okay so let's take a look at Clark's Clark's law real quick. All. Right. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

And so the idea here is that if a technology is advanced enough it's gonna appear as magic to the person who doesn't understand it. And so think about how someone from as I use the example before someone from the Middle Ages might react to seeing a smartphone.

Right. They'd probably think it's sorcery. Right. But here's the problem. Just because something is beyond our current understanding doesn't mean it's indistinguishable from magic. Why. Well because magic and technology operate on entirely different principles.

Right. We have to define our terms. What do we mean by these by these terms too. That's important as well. Magic is often defined as the manipulation of forces that violate natural laws. While technology works within those natural laws it might push the boundaries to be sure.

Right. But it never violates those. Okay from when you're dealing with kind of a something pertaining to science. So from a Christian worldview where we affirm the consistency of natural laws grounded in God's character we can see the difference between what is merely advanced technology and what is a suspension or violation of those laws.

And so Clark's law fails because it blurs categories that are fundamentally distinct. There's a reason we don't confuse a slate of hand or slight of hand. Sorry. With scientific breakthroughs technology is repeatable it's testable it's rational.

While magic if it existed in the way that it's traditionally understood would be none of those things. Okay. But here's the kicker within Clark's law is an underlying skepticism. It assumes that given enough advancement we could never truly know what something is whether it's technology or magic.

And so this leads to an epistemological confusion. As I understand it the Christian worldview doesn't do that as we would argue. Okay because God has made the world intelligible and he's revealed himself through creation and scripture.

And we can trust that what we observe through science is not irrational magic. There is a distinct order a purpose. There's design behind everything. And as Romans one tells us right Romans 120 tells talking about the you know God has revealed himself.

And so forth we don't fall into that same problem of skepticism. By the way this idea not being able to distinguish between magic and the divine already assumes that knowledge of God is mediate. That is to say that knowledge of God is derived from looking and seeing and concluding.

But that is not the Christian worldview. For as I've argued elsewhere knowledge of God is innate. Knowledge of God is something that you have because you are image of God. Whether you verbally affirm God or deny God the knowledge of God is inescapable.

That is what the Christian position is. Whether you believe that to be true is another story. Whether we can demonstrate as Christians that's another issue. I've dealt with that in another video. Okay.

But the point is that given our position the principles that are laid out presuppose the falsity of that position without demonstrating it. Okay. So so that's where we would have a problem with someone who asserts Clark's law.

It just doesn't work because it assumes a neutrality that doesn't exist. And it assumes the falsity of the Christian worldview. At least it might it might apply to other perspectives that believe in a divine and and that the knowledge of that divine is a looking and seeing and concluding.

But that doesn't work against a worldview that is inherently based upon a principle that the knowledge of God is innate. That's a different a different perspective there. Okay all right. Now let's move on to Schermer's law.

Okay. We see if there's any new questions here let's see here. And any new questions do-do-do-do-do. Okay. No nothing new. That's fine. Let me see here. All right. Be nice. Be nice. Yep. Neutrality is a myth.

Yeah. All right. All right. Well let's move on to Schermer's law. Okay now Schermer's law states let's kind of review it real quick. So you're following along. Schermer's law states that any sufficiently technologically advanced beings are indistinguishable from God.

Okay. And so Schermer here takes Clark's idea one step further and applies the same principle to deities. Okay. And so he suggests that beings with sufficiently advanced technology like aliens or something right we use aliens for example could be confused with gods.

But again here's the problem with that. Right. And this is what a lot of people mistake if you're gonna do a critique of the Christian worldview or offer kind of a skeptical argument to show. Well you have no way of distinguishing one.

But what often skeptics do. Okay is they blur. For this is for Christians. Now as you know if you know these categories they blur what we call the creator creature distinction. Okay. From within the Christian worldview God is not just a being with more power or knowledge than we have.

From the Christian perspective God is categorically different. There is a distinction between the creator and the creature. Okay. God is the creator. He is not just bigger or a better version of us. Okay.

He's infinite. He's self-existent. He's omnipotent. He's omniscient. Right. And no amount of technological advancement could ever bridge the gap between a finite creature and the infinite creator. You see Schermer's law relies on a faulty understanding of what God is when applied to the Christian worldview specifically it treats God as though he's simply one of many beings on a scale of power or knowledge rather than recognizing that God is in a class of his own.

From within the Christian worldview. You don't have to believe that. But if you're going to critique the Christian worldview you're gonna have to you know grant what that what we assert the Christian worldview is now there are some Christians who don't share my perspective here with respect to like innate knowledge of God.

But that leaves them open to these sorts of things. I think. Okay but the presuppositional list reformed perspective that holds to this innate knowledge of God which I think is a biblical principle I think is immune to these types of criticisms.

Okay that doesn't mean that Christianity is true because of that I think it's true and I argue for that. That's not what I'm arguing here. I'm just saying that it's not. It's immune to what these principles are often used.

These laws are often used in the context of discussions with Christian theists specifically those of the presuppositional stripe. Okay now think about this though Schermer's law implicitly suggest and I mentioned this before just a moment ago that our knowledge of God is purely empirical or experiential.

But as Christians we understand that we know God. Because why what is what is the Christian worldview based on. It's based upon the idea that God has revealed himself to us the all-powerful God is able to reveal himself such that he can make himself known and distinguishable from technology or aliens.

Right. So we know God. Not because we've encountered some super you know super advanced being. There's no possibility of confusing the true God with some other being. Right. Because God's revelation is clear from within the Christian worldview it's objective.

It's unmistakable. Okay now if you think well what how would you know. Right. That how would you know perspective already presupposes that we don't know God innately and that we have to use our own reason independently from relying on God to reach various conclusions.

But what have we been arguing like for forever on this channel. God is the necessary precondition for knowledge and intelligibility. And so in that case we must start with him to have meaning and meaning and intelligibility for anything else that we might conclude.

And so we start with him. In that sense you're not operating independently of him and then reaching a conclusion. Okay based upon some observation that's not what we're arguing has made himself known.

He made himself. He's made himself evident within us. Okay. And so that knowledge that man has from a biblical perspective is innate. It's not. It's not something that is mediated a looking and seeing and then concluding.

Okay and so again those are some important things to keep in mind. So now both Clark's view Clark's law and Schirmer's law really rest on an assumption that we can't really know anything for sure. Because if if it's true that we can't distinguish between them how can we come to knowledge about anything.

We can just say well this can be a natural cause this can be a divine cause. I guess we can never know. Right. If technology is indistinguishable from magic and sufficiently advanced beings are indistinguishable from God's then we're really left in a in a sea of epistemological skepticism at that point.

But here's the thing skepticism at least of that sort is self-defeating. If you're skeptical about everything then you can't even be sure of your own skepticism. So it really this isn't a great place to start.

It starts a priori contrary to the Christian worldview that it's often used to critique and it engages in a kind of reasoning that is not really giving due credence to an in a proper internal critique of the Christian worldview.

Okay now in the Christian worldview we argue that the Christian worldview provides a firm foundation for knowledge. We don't need to worry that our senses or our reasoning will lead us astray in such a way that we can't know the difference between a machine and a miracle.

Okay between a superpowered alien and the Almighty God. Right. That's because we start from God. We a start that he has spoke with the idea that he has spoken that he's revealed his truth. And it's upon that basis that gives us the proper foundation for making sense out of anything else.