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 that 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. 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.

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 levels 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 presep applied where I actually apply presuppositional ism to a wide range of positions like presep applied to atheism presep 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 presep 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 to 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 alright 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

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

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 highlight 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 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 grab my water here 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 a 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 phenomenon 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 theism 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 super intelligent beings could be mistaken for gods right that's reinforcing this kind of naturalistic atheistic view of the world where we're 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 reveals 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 orgs has no advanced technology operates with the 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 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 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 gonna 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 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 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 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 Til has said in his writings he says that I don't mind talking about the evidence right

Van Til 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 Til 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've 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 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 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 1 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 of 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 it's a different a different perspective there okay all right now let's move on to Schirmer's law okay let me see if there's any new questions here let's see here and any new questions did it to do okay no nothing new that's fine let me see here all right be nice be nice yep neutrality is a myth all right all right well let's move on to Schirmer's law okay now

Schirmer's law states let's kind of review it real quick so you're following along Schirmer's law states that any sufficiently technologically advanced beings are indistinguishable from gods okay and so Schirmer 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

Schirmer'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 Shermer's law implicitly suggests 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 Shermer's law really rests on an assumption that we can't really know anything for sure because if if it's true that we can't distinguish between then 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 worldly 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 and hence the transcendental thrust to the way we at least presuppositionalists tend to argue okay

God is not a conclusion that we reason to we reason from God because if we don't reason from God we would not be able to reach any conclusions at all because conclusions cannot be reached via an autonomous and neutral process okay how do we know this we could argue it not the topic of this video here but you can argue that the history of philosophy shows that when you reject divine revelation there are issues that arise metaphysically and epistemologically that you need to answer now if you're a skeptic watching this you might think that you have answers to those and that's great but if those are gonna have to be hashed out in actual discussion and debate and dialogue okay all right so when someone brings up Clark's law or Shermer's law okay you don't need to get all bent out of shape if you're a

Christian it's like well what am I gonna do you need to know your worldview you need to know what the Bible teaches you need to know what the

Bible teaches with respect to the knowledge of God you need to recognize that there is no neutrality okay these basic principles that are grounded in scriptural teaching

I think are sufficient for the Christian to be able to engage in responding to comments that involve these kinds of principles that many skeptics tend to use again not all skeptics use them

I think many skeptics I think philosophically informed skeptics would recognize that these principles aren't really the best place to start and I would and I very much appreciate that okay there are better ways for example if I were to give advice to the skeptics who want to engage

Christians okay and engage in the Christian worldview there are better places to start that I think would be more fruitful this again

I think is just based on faulty assumptions okay so what you want to do when you hear people use these principles or making you want to be able to peel the layers what is the person assuming when they state this principle and when you peel back the layer okay from the atheist or the agnostic or the skeptic or whoever you will find lurking under the layer metaphysical and epistemological commitments that have not been justified yet and then you're gonna have to wait a minute you want to challenge those foundations and again

Christians can be guilty of this as well okay Christians can when you peel back the layers of a

Christian assertion there's going to be a metaphysical epistemology under that and of course that's why I encourage the Christian that you need to be aware of those foundations and be able to address them when they come up in discussion all right all right so when someone brings up Clark's law or Schumer's law don't get all bent out of shape these aren't scientific discoveries they're not like the law of gravity or something like that they're philosophical statements based on a secular worldview that assumes human reason is the final authority as Christians we reject that a priori just as those principles themselves reject a priori that everything relies on a foundation of God okay and so within the biblical worldview we know the difference between magic and technology between creatures and the

Creator because God has made his truth known if God is all -powerful he is able to make his truth known such that it is distinguishable from the things apparently that this the skeptics are saying are not that we can't distinguish between okay and so ultimately these laws really aren't laws they fall apart when you look at the presuppositions behind them right they're based on a worldview that leads to skepticism with the

Christian worldview we argue provide clarity and it allows us it gives us the sufficient mechanisms to ascertain truth and intelligibility and knowledge okay and so that's how we could equip ourselves to respond when skeptics use these okay don't let these kind of philosophical sound bites throw you off when we evaluate them through the lens of biblical revelation

I think we can survive the critique and offer I think a critique by way of exposing that those principles are not based off objective principles and things like that but they're actually based upon assumptions that are not neutral and I would even argue if you dig deep enough their self -refuting all right so I'm going to see the chat here see if there are some questions that I could address okay

I apologize here I don't want to rehash something that I'm gonna go I'm gonna get to a real question so if there's any insults or you know people trying to get diggings

I'm just not gonna address them because quite frankly I've had a long day so I don't really sometimes I'll I'll take something and you know mess around with a comment and entertain it for a while but I just want to get to some genuine questions as I see them here all right let's see here give me a quick moment so that I can find it yeah so my desire lack not a question but he says

I guess we would have to define miracle like winning the lottery or something that never happens yeah so I think it's important that we define miracle

I don't I don't take a miracle to be a violation of laws as though God created laws and stands back and lets things run on its own and then he's kind of just tinkering

I don't think that that's a biblical conception of a miracle I think that God is completely sovereign and he's governing the world in regular patterns right he has a normal way he governs the world and I think a miracle is just a less normal way of God's governance okay and in that sense whether it's just Providence and regularity

God is just as much in control of that as he is with when he performs a miracle and shows us a less normal and regular way that he governs you know governs the world

I don't think that he creates these laws lets them run and every now and then he kind of just tinkers with them I think that's more in line of more of a deistic conception of God so I wouldn't hold to that so that's how

I would define a miracle and that definition is not at all weird or you know abnormal you can find that definition in a basic you know

Christian systematic theology and take a look at something like a Wayne Grudem systematic theology there's a whole chapter on miracles in which he defines it

I'm in a very similar way that I've just expressed here so so there you go let's see here again just looking for anything that is prefaced with question okay what does that mean that'll twerk or is that'll work

I mean hopefully that was a mistake I'm not twerking on this show here thank you for the clarification definition of a prior you're welcome okay so Jonathan Myron asks when does debating become personal is there a line where debating starts attacking the person instead of their beliefs yeah so this happens often right

I mean this is again I teach logic we go through this quite frequently that's just an ad hominem so an ad hominem is a fallacy in which you attack a person rather than attacking their argument right there is there is a sense in which debates get personal

I don't think they always are intentionally you know attacking the person I think some people are not aware of the fallacies that they're engaging and because of the importance of the topic people can be very passionate and so you'll get a shift sometimes between defending a view or attacking a view and then attacking a person and that's really just an issue of just having your emotions under control right as Christians and I think as individuals non -christians would most likely they should agree with this

I hope right when you're debating a topic okay we're not hating on the person at least we shouldn't okay we should address their actual arguments and their positions and when we do that there's no need to connect the person with what they're saying okay as a

Christian we're to show love and respect to those that we're talking with even though we are attempting to refute what they're saying you know for example you know our good friend

Nick Jones who is I think he's an atheist he comments a lot on my channel he often accuses me of being disingenuous

I get accused of oh you know I'm just in this for the money because I'm so rich you know people can say that I don't hate those people when people say those things

I don't hate them I disagree with them and I take an opportunity to respond when I can or when it's appropriate I don't hate them my job is to either ignore comments or questions or you know debates that I don't think will be fruitful so for example there are some people who ask a question or make a comment in such a way that I get the impression that even if I were to give the energy and responding it's really it's probably gonna fall on deaf ears because you can kind of get a feel for that based upon the nature of how someone is arguing or how they're writing out a comment or whatever so you have to pick and choose but yeah things can get personal you know and we all can fall victim to this

I think our job is to be clear clear -minded think rationally biblically and when we're debating just deal with the arguments and when a person is attacking you you have a choice you can say hey

I think this is getting a little out of hand I think we're done here and there's nothing wrong with that there's no rule that says you have to continue debating someone who is attacking your person right there's no obligation for doing that okay however you could also say you know what

I'm gonna still attack the arguments I'll let the opponent attack me and we'll let the audience decide who's actually addressing the issue and then of course you can trust the fact that you know

God will bless your words God will bless your arguments and and God will use what you say to reach those that it needs to reach you're always gonna have someone who is not going to appreciate what you're gonna say but that's just the way that you know that's just the way the cookie crumbles you know you can't let that hold you back so so yeah it can get personal but you want to know when it does that that is a fallacy when it's used in an argument okay so there you go let's see here mighty czar lack says with the omni properties do you think

God can do what is logically possible or know what is logically knowable don't have to be an exhaustive answer because I don't want to derail thank you for your question so with omni properties like omnipotence omniscience you know omnipresence do you think

God can do what is logically possible yes yes so I think that God can do anything that is logically possible and is consistent with his nature okay so for example lying

God cannot lie because lying is inconsistent with his nature so God is always going to do things that are consistent with his nature and anything he can do that's logically possible he can do but not but something that is against his nature is not logically possible because it's contradictory to who he is it's like saying can

God not be God the answer is no yeah so hope that that answers your question that's my quick way you say don't be exhausted that's my my quick way you said or know what is logically knowable yes

God can know anything that is logically knowable anything that is knowledge or something that can be known

God knows it God fully knows himself and he fully knows to his creation okay all right thank you for that question here did

I not did I not say do to do to do okay there we go I did it so Chris Lasala says do you guys believe in healing and casting out demons occurring in our modern times well

Chris we want to make a distinction between the idea that God can answer prayer and to heal someone as opposed to kind of the gift of healing when we're talking about like the spiritual gifts and that's a big topic that warrants an entire live stream in and of itself and that's the issue of cessation ism versus continuation ism do these spiritual gifts of which include the sign gifts and includes healing and stuff like that is that something that is for the church today or is that or was that something that was only for you know the early church period okay now

I'm not gonna get into that discussion but I do believe that God can heal in response to a prayer if it is his will to do so okay

I don't hold to the view that it is always God's will to heal okay I think that there are some times that God wills that he withhold healing for whatever purpose that he may may have for doing so okay and casting out demons yes

I do believe in demonic realities this is part of the Christian worldview right I'm not ashamed to say that at all now that doesn't mean

I'm able to distinguish whether you know someone is having a mental issue or whether they're genuinely possessed that's going to be something that is based upon the

Spirit of God you know speaking to us in the sense that is allowing us to recognize when something is demonic or and so forth so there are supernatural means that God could equip his people to discern what those are but I do believe that those are possible

I do think that demon demonic possession is an actual thing and is still prevalent today but art but are the spiritual gifts and the sign gifts still for the church today that's a different question well thank you apologetics apologetic says

I accuse Eli of being very genuine yeah I appreciate that why do

I have to be disingenuous what I always tell people that's like when someone's like you're so disingenuous is it possible that I just actually believe the things that I'm saying right just because you don't believe them and you can't see how

I can believe them doesn't mean I'm not being genuine when I make an assertion or I try to make an argument or make a comment or whatever

I mean you just assume wow that's so silly that he can't possibly be genuine he must be disingenuous yeah so so there you go that's why people say you're just so disingenuous

I just ignore it it's like if I say no I'm not disingenuous person's not gonna change their mind so what's the point right

I'll just talk to the people who think I'm being genuine and hopefully we can you know have a fruitful discussion or dialogue or whatever so let's see here let's see here still looking sorry if I skipped anything

I don't mean to skip okay Chris LaSalle says are you guys reformed yes so I am reformed and by that I do mean that I am a five -point

Calvinist there's a lot of live streams and episodes that I've done on this show that cover topics relating to free will and those sorts of things

I actually speaking of Calvinism and all that kind of stuff I actually was planning we'll see if I if I can get if I can get done kind of doing some prep but I think

I'm going to do a live stream on the topic of Molin ism and libertarian free will and those sorts of things so I will try to put out some comments

I know folks do find those discussions and things like that very interesting so so yeah so I'll try to to do topics relating to that okay all right let's see here

Aseric Aseric I love that image there Skeletor man I used to watch He -Man like a boss when

I was a kid I used to have the plastic sword and you press the button and you have the voice I have the power

I used to love the old He -Man however it has not aged well okay I was bored one time and I went on YouTube and I tried to watch kind of the rerun of the old shows and it was not as good as I remembered it although I was a big fan of the movie in the 80s still it's really bad but it's one of those movies that's fun to watch the one with Delph Lundgren the

Masters of the Universe I really enjoyed I enjoyed that one so Aseric I'm sorry

I got it got sidetracked there because the image made me think of it Aseric says pardon let me take a drink of water real quick Aseric asks what are the standards that justify a belief well it's very important that we define our terms and again it depends what you mean by justification if we mean that justification is providing kind of a sufficient reason or evidence for a belief well the standards of evidence will include a number of things one of which in you need a worldview that provides the intelligibility of the very concept of evidence so at the very base when you are justifying a belief you need to justify it within the context of a worldview that can make sense out of justification itself and so I would argue that a necessary presupposition and standard is that the context in which a justification is offered it is done within a context of a coherent worldview so I would say that there needs to be truth there needs to be logic and there needs to be a worldview that can make sense out of those very standards that we use to make justificatory statements as we're trying to defend arguments and things like that now if you're not dealing with a worldview issue and you're kind of just making an argument yeah in a general level you can list certain standards like logic intelligibility without having to provide the worldview details for that but when we're dealing with say like Christianity versus atheism or Christianity and some other worldview then the discussion is going to be broader and we're going to be asking those foundational questions what are the necessary preconditions for justification itself and that I would get into the standards would be having a coherent worldview that can provide a foundation for knowledge truth logic intelligible experience things like that okay thank you for your question there as a wreck as a wreck or as a wreck

I apologize if I mispronounced it Chris LaSalle says

Molina was a joke I I wouldn't be down on Molina I'd obviously I'm not a Molinas and I disagree with well

Roman Catholicism Molina was a Jesuit but he was no schlup I he was a actually a very brilliant mind

I actually read an excellent book let me see if I can find it here real quick give me one second there we go

I'm gonna give some love to my I agree with the philosopher Guillaume Bignon who's also a friend of mine he's been on the show a couple of times he says that Molinism is his favorite of the false views okay so out of all the options that you have like Arminianism Calvinism Molinism Guillaume said that Molinism was his favorite of the false views

I don't think that he was a schlup I don't think he was a joke I do think that he did present things that really needed to be responded to I mean

I think there are ways to respond to it but here's a great book if folks are interested in Louis de Molina this book Louis de

Molina was written by Kirk McGregor who is a fine scholar and theologian

I think he is at Macpherson College and he wrote this book it's a biography of Molina but also goes into the details of Molina's views on various things and let me see here let me see if I could find it there is a chapter specifically

I mean I when I when I was studying Molinism I was marking I don't know if you could see

I was marking this book up like nobody's business I think that he was brilliant in one sense but ultimately obviously

I don't agree with the philosophy that undergirded a lot of what he said and I don't under I don't agree with the motivation behind why he developed his theory of middle knowledge and so forth and so folks can check that out on my channel

I've offered my criticisms of Molinism in various places in various contexts

I think one way that I think is useful to address Molinism a lot of people tend to focus on what's called the grounding objection but I actually think that what is a more fruitful way of critiquing

Molinism and showing that there's problems is actually critiquing the very concept of libertarian freedom and so there are ways to go about that that I'm not going to get into here but I'm thinking of doing a live stream on that very specific topic so I don't think he was a joke

I don't know what you mean by that I mean I think he was a very brilliant guy but you know you could be brilliant and wrong so there you go those are my thoughts there did

I have Skeletor's castle I had castle greyskull I had castle greyskull someone had donated it from my church and I had a how the whole set with all the figures it was awesome they just don't make toys like that anymore golly all right let's see here

Frank says I suppose the folks saying you're being disingenuous are assuming the Christian worldview by assuming thou shall not lie well

I guess yeah but if I'm being disingenuous by what standard should we care or think I'm wrong by being disingenuous all right that's a good question yeah let's see here okay

Chris LaSalle says was his talking about Louis de Molina was his motivation not to make God like man rather than just believe the plain text well

I'd be very careful when you say believe the plain text okay no one simply believes the plain text

I mean texts have to be interpreted okay now I do believe that there are texts that are quote -unquote straightforward but everything is going to be determined by the context and of course

I don't agree with Molina's take on how he interpreted various scriptures that he thought supported his position but I don't think his motivation was that I think he genuinely wanted to try and reconcile a very tough philosophical question and he also wanted to respond to the

Reformers okay because he's a Jesuit Jesuits were anti anti -reformers they were contrary to the there was a counter -reformation that was spearheaded by the

Jesuits so I think his motivation is more in line of that is he wasn't trying to what does it say he says was his motivation not to make

God like man rather than just believe I'm not sure what you're saying I hope

I answered that somewhat sorry if I didn't make sense let's see here

Jonathan Myron says is it okay for Christians to join the military I've been thinking about enlisting oh oh boy well

I well I don't take my word I mean I don't think there's anything sinful about joining the military

I mean David was a military man right but does that mean you should join the military like well

I can't speak to that I don't I don't want to give you you know advice that that will lead you to make such an important decision well all

I can say is there's nothing intrinsically sinful about joining the military there might be other factors that you need to weigh and consider that's a very big deal to make that decision so that's all

I can say about that all right I found I sound like Forrest Gump that's all

I've got to say about that apologetic says isn't William Lane Craig I'm on a nominal list how would people with that stance make sense of the laws of logic that's a great question

I think nominalism nominalism by the way is a position that rejects universals okay and that all that exists are particulars and things that we call universals are just they're just names we give them names they're not actually existent things so yeah

I would have problem with that I think there are universals and I I wouldn't know how they would make sense out of the laws of logic in a meaningful way so I think that would be a criticism on my part with respect to someone who rejects the concept of universals okay all right all right well

I think I got everybody I apologize if I missed anyone all right we're on the top of the hour and that's all

I've got here I appreciate you guys taking the time and listening to what I have to say if you like the the content please subscribe if you haven't share the content if you think someone else would find it useful and I'm going to be live next what's today's

Thursday next Tuesday with a response to Jacob Brunton okay

Jacob Brunton is a gentleman who is not a big fan of presuppositional ism and he made that tweet saying that a presuppositional presuppositional ism was immoral and so I provided a response to each of his points and then on Twitter he provided a brief response to me and I'm gonna offer a response back now

I'm gonna end it there I don't intend to kind of just go back and forth forever but he was nice and respectful in terms of what he offered by way of response and so I'm just going to offer my rebuttal of his point and then we'll leave things as it stands as I don't want to get into any unnecessary prolonged interaction that's the worst right he's like look

I respond you respond it goes back and go on forever so I will do it in as much as it's useful for people who are wondering about how one might respond to some of the points he brings up and so I will play a brief video of him providing a response to what

I did and then I'll interact with it a little bit and that's the plan for for Tuesday all right well that's it for this live stream guys thank you so much for listening in whether you're a

Christian or non -christian I appreciate you being respectful in the comments and I just appreciate your questions thank you so much until next time take care