Exposing Worldview Foundations

Welcome back to another episode of revealed apologetics. I'm your host Eli Ayala and I Want to apologize.

I am out of breath. I Was running up the stairs. I was gonna go live at 9 again, this is another

Unplanned live stream. I was gonna go live at 9 and then I Had you know creating the video and all that kind of stuff.

I was running at a time So I pushed it to 9 10. I ran grabbed myself a cup of water and You know running all the way up the stairs.

I don't know my volume here running up all the way up the stairs I am out of breath So but here

I am. I am super happy. It is Friday As you guys know,

I am a teacher During the week. Let me see here. I'm a teacher during the week and And I have a packed pretty packed schedule

And so I really enjoy Fridays and so I was like, you know what? I didn't have time to formally plan something.

But why don't I just do something tonight? I had the time and so and so here I am. Okay Having some microphone issues here though but I am a

Turn my volume up It like by itself turns down. Hopefully I won't touch anything

Yeah, so if you watched my last video I responded to an argument that an atheist put out against my

My assertion and my and my argument offered an argument that unbelievers Know God they have a knowledge of God yet.

They suppress the truth and unrighteousness I gave You know, I made the argument that Unbelievers are self -deceived and I talked about the nature of self deception

Deception and the difference between first -order beliefs and second -order beliefs and so on and so forth I'm not going to revisit that here, but went over that and Responded to an argument along the following lines

The atheist kind of put it in a deductive form He said something along the lines that if if God exists

I know he exists because that's my claim right the Christian God Asserts in Revelation that all men have a knowledge of God.

He says if God exists, I know that he exists I don't know that he exists. Therefore. He doesn't exist.

And so I interacted with that and showed Why that argument doesn't work you guys can check out that video, but I think

I unlocked a special code Okay, a special code that When it is unlocked the internet atheists, you know storm the comments

I think that's probably out of all my videos. It's got the most Comments from atheists and skeptics and things like that.

Let's just say All of the comments, well, I can't say all that's not that's not fair most of the comments

Events a complete ignorance presuppositionalism transcendental argumentation burden of proof and Worldviews and so they were so bad.

Now, obviously I can't interact with every comment, of course, but they were so bad I've collected a bunch of them and I'll have a friend on with me.

We'll have some fun and we'll interact with them But they're really bad and you know, unfortunately

People can't think clearly In the questions that people ask they ask me questions that I directly address

Specifically and on purpose went slow to go through and then people bring up points as though You know, they're nifty and bringing those points up as though I did not address the specific thing

In the video. So apparently when I say here's what I'm saying. Here's not what

I'm not saying this thing and then in the comments, so you're saying and then They'll say this is what you know.

I just told you that's not what I'm saying so when you tell people that's not what I'm saying, they still think that's what you're saying and So again, so I can't

I can't do anything about that, right? So I'm going to speak to the folks who are interested in thinking and following and by the way

This is the case. Even if you disagree with me if you disagree with me You still have the capacity to at least understand what

I'm saying But of course that's not true of everyone else, unfortunately, so nevertheless, so no

Alyssa Scott It's not Matt slick. I have a friend that I guess you'll have to wait and see

He'll come on with me and we'll have a fun time interacting with the comments and the questions and things like that It'll provide me an opportunity to expand on some things and hopefully inform people who actually care about listening

So again, so there you go. I hope that is useful for folks when we do that now I am very excited about this specific

Episode because we are going to be talking about something that I think is really important My microphone is really spazzing out here

We're gonna be talking about something really really important that is going to be useful in helping the apologist expose the foundations of a worldview and The implications of that specific foundation.

Okay, I'm gonna tell you what I mean Okay, what I'm going to be talking about today. Okay. Well, give me one second.

I'm getting like a weird Situation here. Let me see if I turn this up it like Let's see here

All right, if I turn it up it like turns my volume down interesting Okay. Anyway, what we're gonna be talking about today is something called open and closed systems within worldviews, okay now

I'm going to Explain what this means But Cornelius Vantill in his works

He discussed this is this issue of open and closed worldview systems And when you understand what an open and closed system is with respect to worldviews, it's actually very helpful in understanding where someone else is coming from and some of the implications of a worldview that is either open or closed and we'll

Talk about what that means. Okay. Now, let's kind of start with this idea Okay, and give me a thumbs up if you're watching and you hear me, okay,

I'm coming in Okay, the sound quality is good because really my headphones or my microphones really spazzing out today

There we go. Okay. So, um, so let me unpack this idea of open and closed systems, okay

Vantill Again emphasized open and closed systems in his writings and for a very very important a very very important reason

Okay, and understanding this distinction I think is going to really help us see how different worldviews either provide what we call a stable foundation for truth and knowledge or Whether they undermine those things all together.

Okay. Now folks are saying it sounds good. Okay Well, what might be distracting is maybe my headphones.

I'm gonna I don't want to unplug anything So yeah, I'm just gonna assume you guys hear me.

Okay, okay Okay, so then after I go over kind of the basics of open and closed systems Then we're gonna explore the practical implications of recognizing whether a worldview operates on an open or closed system

Okay and being aware of Whether a worldview is operating on an open or closed system is going to be useful when engaging with other worldviews

Especially when you're talking with with atheists. Okay, and so I think this is gonna be very very helpful

All right Jeremiah Nortier, sorry, I will text you back my good friend so we can do something together

That's my bad. Things have been busy. It's our first full week of school back from the summer summer break So things have been a little hectic and even this live stream here is kind of the last second

So I haven't forgot you brah. All right, we will make it happen But anyway, let me define let me jump in by defining my terms.

Okay open and closed systems I promise you if you like Apologetics and you're interested in like how do

I get to the foundation of a worldview and pull out some of the implications of Of a worldview.

This is gonna be very helpful. Okay, so let's begin with a closed system Okay, I'm gonna go slowly so that folks can follow.

Okay, so a closed system Okay refers to a worldview that has definitive boundaries and is governed by a

Consistent set of principles and so in this context something like the Christian worldview would be considered a closed system

Okay, specifically because it is grounded in the revelation of God Who's clearly defined the nature of reality truth morality and so forth and within this framework of the

Christian worldview? This is this is key. Not everything is possible Okay within the

Christian worldview there are limits and order because everything is subject to God's sovereign design

Okay, so not everything is is possible there are certain things that God governs the world in a certain way

God is not arbitrary. He doesn't do contradictions. There are limits. Okay within a closed system

Specifically the Christian worldview closed system. The ultimate foundation of reality is rational and there are boundaries

Okay, and God sets those boundaries as it reflects his nature and so forth now when you think of turn in terms of what we call an open system an

Open system with respect to a worldviews characterized by a lack of ultimate boundaries or fixed principles okay, for example aid an open worldview would be one whose ultimate foundation is rooted in contingency and Chance, okay and randomness.

Okay, there is there is no ultimate Rationality to the world because it's it's just is everything that in the world is birthed from a foundation of Random chance.

Okay, that is an open system as a matter of fact within science You often work within an open system because that assumes categories of neutrality, right?

You can't assume beforehand with respect to how many people do science especially understanding

For example the scientific method as it has been understood classically from the Enlightenment period

Anything is possible. Okay, and you you know, you do your experiments things like this and then you

Identify regularities and then you establish those regularities as laws and so forth but an open system

Okay at its foundation is characterized by a lack of ultimate boundaries or fixed principles

Okay, many atheistic worldviews fall into this category of open system of open systems

Okay, because without belief in a sovereign God there is no overarching design or purpose governing the universe.

And so in an open system Everything hypothetically speaking is theoretically possible because nothing is ultimately determined or fixed

Okay at that fundamental worldview level now There are some atheists who might posit a closed system as opposed to an open system.

We'll talk about that Okay, and so this lack of definitive boundaries really leads to a chaotic understanding of reality where truth logic

Morality are not grounded in any ultimate source. Okay, and as a result knowledge becomes uncertain

Rational discourse can break down very quickly as you know In an atheistic worldview where everything is sound and fury signifying nothing, right, you know, you don't have ultimate stability

That's why atheists and they might not like this But I'm just gonna say it anyway because I'm quite confident based on my interactions and my reading and study

Atheists cannot account for Absolute the universal absolute laws of logic atheists cannot account for objective unchanging principles of morality atheists cannot account for the uniformity of nature the very things that are assumed when science is

Is being used and when people are using the methods of science why they can't account for it because their worldview

Doesn't have a foundation that is fixed. Okay, it is an open system now

If you hold to a closed system, we'll address that but so so that's the difference between an open system and a closed system

Christian something like Christianity or some other Theistic perspectives like Islam or something along those lines will have what we call a closed system

Okay, so you have at least within the worldview some foundation where there are standards

There are limits in some way shape or form but in a worldview in which all reality

Is birthed from the womb of ultimate randomness and chance Theoretically within that perspective anything really is possible.

Okay, so nevertheless Now when engaging in apologetics with atheists specifically,

I think understanding this This distinction I think is is critical. Okay, the

Christian can point out that the closed system of the Christian worldview Okay provides the preconditions for rational thought moral absolutes a true knowledge of reality because of revelation and so forth

But in the open system of atheism or at least some flavors of atheism, okay that system but by denying

Fixed, you know Ultimate absolute standard denying a sovereign sort of source of truth like something in Christianity It's ultimately going to undermine its own claims to knowledge and rationality

Okay by highlighting the instability and inconsistency within an open system the apologist can demonstrate that only a closed system like the

Christian worldview can adequately account for the realities of human experience and The coherency of truth and so this approach not only defends the truth of Christianity but it also exposes the weakness of any system that is predicated upon a foundation of Ultimate Randomness, okay when you're thinking in terms of the ultimate foundation of a worldview

Do it does everything burr is everything birthed from a from a foundation of chance?

Or is there a closed system in terms of which there are boundaries? Okay now

If someone says well, you know, I'm an atheist and I hold to a worldview that not everything is open

Okay, you have different people right people have different perspectives. Okay That there are they might hold to the idea that there are certain boundaries with an understanding of reality and so forth and that limit

That limits what's possible, right? They're making here an important claim when someone makes that assertion So if someone's an atheist is a

I don't hold to an open system. I hold to a closed system, right? This is gonna raise some questions though. Okay in a worldview where there is no

God to reveal the true nature of reality Here's the question. How can the atheist be in a position to know whether the perspective they are asserting is actually

Example of a closed system or an open system, right? Without God is the ultimate source of truth and revelation

Finite beings are left without any sure way to determine whether their understanding of reality is grounded in an open or closed system

Okay, they're in an epistemological problem. Okay, so if you have a closed system

That is theistically grounded Okay We have a God who reveals the nature of reality and we could know that the system in which we're operating in is a closed

System, okay. Now if you are in an open system, okay, you don't have those foundations

Anything is hypothetically possible if you don't believe in a sovereign God who reveals but you assert a closed system

From a finite perspective. There's no way for you to know whether the system in which you're operating is open or closed

Okay, and so that has Epistemological issues that are going to be connected.

Okay. All right now The Faithiest atheists.

Okay. Thank you so much for your comments. I appreciate it He says some things we know because they work now an appeal to pragmatism is not going to help

They're repeatable and transferable. Okay now the repeatability of something and The projection into the future of what the future most likely will be

You run into the problem that David Hume pointed out, which is the problem of the uniform of induction.

Okay, why? Or rather, how can you know that the future will be like the past once you appeal to the repeatable?

examples of the past You're not answering the question of how you know, that will be the case in the future.

Okay, this is classic David Hume What you need to connect past regularities to future prediction of regularity is

Something that itself is not empirically observed. So if you hold to it, it's not an empirical object.

You don't know it on empirical grounds You are assuming a principle of uniformity

But if God does not exist all is sound and fury signifying nothing What justifies that assumption the justification?

Cannot be the past successes of the repeatability For that is simply to beg the question

Okay again, this is classic David Hume this isn't presuppositional Eli saying this

I Don't think and I'm sure there are atheists out there You know somewhat sophisticated and I was familiar with the literature that might put forth an answer

But me personally right now as I stand and from where I'm speaking from I do not think an atheistic

Philosophical perspective has an answer to Hume And if the answer is well things have always worked that way in the past and we have a pragmatic

We we approach it from a pragmatic aspect. Maybe I'll do a video where I critique pragmatism

That might be a good a good topic there. But but thank you faithiest a faithiest atheist.

I appreciate your comments there I don't want to get too much into this because I've actually covered this in more depth in another another video

But I appreciate that. Okay now So what I was saying before is without the certainty provided by divine revelation

I'm gonna argue that an atheist is left to speculate on the nature of reality based on limited human knowledge

Right, which can never fully grasp the ultimate nature of existence from within an atheist perspective atheistic perspective

Okay and so this uncertainty I would argue undermines any claim to a truly closed system as It's gonna rely on assumptions that can't be verified without an infinite source of knowledge

You see so if the atheist asserts, well, I don't have the problem of an open system because I assert a closed system okay, well to assert a closed system and It is to give a metaphor is to make a metaphysical assertion that on atheistic grounds

Cannot be known epistemologically because there's no way for the atheist without revelation to know the fundamental

Foundational nature of reality and know that it's in fact a closed system Okay now

If the atheist denies a closed system altogether and instead affirms an open system, right? They're gonna be left with a framework that undermines rationality itself in an open system

Where everything is contingent and nothing is ultimately fixed the very foundations of logic morality knowledge become unstable

And so there are no Absolutes on that perspective and therefore no consistent basis for reasoning or understanding the world

Okay, so in essence, okay by rejecting a closed system grounded in divine revelation

I would argue that the atheist is left with a worldview that can't reliably account for the certainty and coherency provided Or required rather for rational thought and so this exposes

I think a fundamental weakness in the atheistic perspective or any perspective that's rooted in an open an open system

And I think highlights the necessity of a closed system and I would argue I'm not gonna argue it here, but I would

I would I would argue that it's a Christian closed system It doesn't work in other closed systems like, you know,

Islam or anything along those lines Okay. Now when an atheist operating from within an open system argues with us, for example, this this is key

I hope you guys pay attention to this. This is I think this is this is helpful. Okay when an atheist Operating from within an open system as I've defined it here argues with us about the truth of our perspective

Okay It's crucial to recognize the inherent problem in that approach.

Okay, they're arguing from a position where their own worldview lacks a solid foundation for the very points they're trying to make an open system by its nature

Does not provide the necessary grounding for certainty Rationality or absolute truth?

Okay now what now watch this when an atheist asks questions like how do you know this mr

Christian or how do you know God exists all while assuming the framework of an open system?

There is an intrinsic limitation in their ability to accept any answer

I'm gonna say that again. Okay, when the atheist asks the question, how do you know God exists or how do you know this?

How do you know that while assuming a framework of an open system? There is an intrinsic

Limitation in their ability to accept any answer think about that in an open system

Everything is uncertain Everything is fluid. It's without fixed reference points. And this means that no matter how this this is so key

This means that no matter how strong or logical the evidence or argument presented

The atheist can always fall back on an inherent uncertainty of their worldview

They might respond by saying well, we can't be sure about that or there might be some other explanation, right?

And this continual skepticism isn't always a rhetorical tactic. Sometimes it is right and Christians do that, too

It's not always a rhetorical tactic It's a necessity within an open system that inherently lacks

Definitive foundations they're compelled to remain uncertain Because their worldview doesn't allow for the kind of certainty and absolute truth that a closed system like the

Christian worldview provides I'm gonna say that again Okay they are compelled to remain uncertain because their worldview doesn't allow for the kind of certainty and Absolute truth that a closed system like the

Christian worldview provides Okay This is why when engaging in apologetics with someone who kind of holds to an open system whether they know they hold they hold to An open system or not.

Okay, it can feel kind of like an endless loop, right? No matter how strong your argument or how clear the evidence, right?

The open system always provides an escape hatch because it inherently denies the possibility of final authoritative answers on any of these fundamental issues

The very nature of an open system is to keep everything in flux preventing any claim from being ultimately settled

Okay Now I think that is a key point. Okay, so The key point here is that the atheist skepticism?

Isn't necessarily about specific answers we give necessarily

But it's about the fundamental nature of their worldview being an open system, which precludes the acceptance of any absolute

Answers pardon or truth with respect to the ultimate issues of God's existence knowledge truth and so forth

And so they're operating from a position that Cannot allow for the certainty that the Christian worldview offers and this is why their challenges often miss the mark, right?

They're they're questioning the truth from a perspective Okay, but they question the truth of our perspective, right?

They are questioning the truth from a perspective that by definition Denies the possibility of attaining it.

I'm gonna say that again They are questioning the truth from a perspective by definition

Denies the possibility of attaining it their own worldview does not allow for truth yet They will say how do you know your position is true and anything you give them?

It's not gonna work because in an open system, they're always going to have uncertainty Okay Now understanding this dynamic

I think is critical in apologetics It reveals that the real issue isn't just about the individual arguments or evidence and so forth, right?

but it's about the underlying worldview assumptions those foundations that either allow for or deny the

Possibility of certainty and truth and so without acknowledging this the atheist critique

Their critiques really lack the very foundation necessary to make any meaningful claim against the

Christian worldview at all Okay, so here I am holding to a worldview that's an open system anything is possible, right?

So everything at the end if everything's possible, right? Your answer is never going to be definitive because there's always a possible other answer.

Okay, because the system is open Yet they will they will ask you for you know

Evidence and absolute proof for your position and so forth and and all these sorts of things But when you give anything they can't interpret it as such because they have an open system

They always are in constant flux no foundation whatsoever now you might say well if that's true

Then how can an atheist ever be saved or anyone who holds to an open system whether it's an atheist or whoever?

Okay, how can someone ever be saved and that where that's where our theology comes in, right? They won't be saved unless the

Spirit of God changes their heart Okay, and of course, you know when the

Spirit of God works on someone's heart, of course, you know We are new we are a new creation in Christ Jesus, right our worldview changes our heart changes

We begin to see things as as as God reveals it. Okay Let's see here.

Let me see who's got here the faith is the faithiest atheist compelled to remain uncertain might be a good title if That would be a good title that doesn't like a good title

Let's see here. Did it to do? Kyoto says do you think the Trinity is revealed in natural revelation or special revelation?

Yeah, I think the idea of unity and plurality and that God is the grounding of unity and plurality is is

Found in natural revelation and is more specified and given more content in special revelation

Okay. So for example, I think you could you could You know you you can find

Unity and plurality in nature and even the the pre Socratic philosophers dealt with this a lot

You know, what is the fundamental nature of reality? Is it an ultimate one? Is it an ultimate many? We see all of these different things, but we also need these unifying abstract principles to make sense out of it all

And so I do think that the world reflects the triune maker.

And so in that sense, yeah There are elements of it in natural revelation, but of course with special revelation and scripture and so forth

There's more detail that's provided. Okay. Hope that answers your question. Good question. Yeah All right.

So let me give us some examples here. Okay, open closed system and and all these things Okay, get some practical examples and give me a thumbs up if you're following along like hey, this is somewhat helpful man

Thanks a lot or man. I have no idea what you're talking about Again, I just decided to come on today.

So I'm just blabbing but I hope it's it's useful Okay, so let's let's talk for example about the nature of morality

Okay, so, you know an atheist might argue You know, how can you say that God is the source of morality, right?

Morality is just a social construct that evolves over time. This was actually one of the comments in my video They were like, of course morality is subjective because many people have different more moral views

Okay The fact that people have different moral views doesn't logically follow that therefore morality is subjective

You know, they could be suppressing the truth and unrighteousness, right? That's possible too, right? But but nevertheless, okay, they say how can you say that God is the source of morality right morality is just a social construct

It's evolved over time. We hear stuff like this all the time. Now. I want you to think about this though Okay in an open system

As I've explained it here where there is no ultimate source of morality like God in an open system, right?

You don't have God and in such an open system, right the concept of right and wrong becomes subjective and fluid, right?

The subjectivity of it all is rooted in the fact that at the worldview foundation, it's an open system

Okay, and so if morality is just a social construct and it changes with the whims of society

Okay, what's considered moral today could be deemed immoral tomorrow And so the atheist operating from an open system has no fixed foundation for asserting any absolute moral truths and so when they argue against the

Christian morality and they do so from a position that cannot provide a Consistent or objective basis for morality itself.

Okay, any moral critique they offer is Undermined by their own worldview which denies the possibility of fixed moral truths, okay?

So you see how the open system the open system. Sorry if my volume sounds this is really bothering me

So sorry guys, let me check my sound stuff next time before I go live You guys are saying you hear it.

Okay, but it's kind of sounds weird in my in my headset here, but nevertheless So that's an example when you have an open system in a world view that impacts your

Your view of morality. Okay, and sometimes if someone is holding to an open system

But they're affirming objective things and absolute truth and universal applicable applicability applicable applicability of logic and so forth you can show that tension there's a tension between the open nature of their system and the fixed

Certainties that they want to assert on the one hand that is what we call a philosophical tension within someone's world

He was looking at a comment here Thanks for answering would love to ask more questions about that in the future perhaps in the future

You can do a stream on the Trinity from natural revelation one in the many Well Kyoto, I have many videos already on this channel relating to the one in the many and they're long like gone into detail

So maybe type in one in the many revealed apologetics. You'll find a bunch of videos on this channel

So hopefully that will be helpful to you. Okay. Thank you for that and feel free I mean, this is kind of I'm just chilling right now

So if you have a question, I'll try my best to answer so you can just put them in the chat Just make sure you preface your question with questions so that I can distinguish it from the other comments and stuff.

So alright, let's Let's continue on here. So we talked about morality.

So let's think in terms of the reliability of science okay, an atheist might say okay an atheist who has an

Open system. Okay again, there may be atheists who say nope. I have a completely closed system, bro, you know

We had we've addressed that already. Okay now an atheist might say That science is the only reliable way to know truth.

I'm being I'm being very general here Not all atheists say that although you do have people who? Even though they say that's not what they're saying

They talk they short talk like that, right? Where's the empirical evidence for your God right assuming that only empirical evidence or scientific evidence is the only kind of evidence that's acceptable

Okay, some people are not aware of their own epistemology. Okay, so I've been till talked about the importance of being epistemologically

Self -conscious. Okay. We need to be aware of our own epistemological theory of knowledge

And we want to make the unbeliever aware of their own many people are not aware of their own Epistemology, right?

They just have kind of this maybe maybe you're talking to someone with holding to like a naive empiricism, right? You know, it's like well if I don't see it, you know, that's it right knowledge

It comes all through the senses right? They might not say that but they sure argue that way Okay now so if an atheist were to say just hypothetically to do this as kind of a quick example, right?

So science is the only reliable way to know truth and it doesn't need God, right? You know think about that Okay science

Within the Christian world these understood as a reliable method because it's based on what it's based on the assumption that the universe is orderly

It's consistent. It's governed by the laws established by a rational creator Right, and it's that's a closed system

There's the boundaries. Okay, not everything is possible on that view Okay, there are limitations because there are standards and those standards issue from God's consistent nature

Okay now in an open system There's no guarantee that the laws of nature will remain consistent or that the universe operates according to any fixed order

Okay, if everything is a product of random chance as many atheists perspectives suggest

There's no reason to trust that the scientific method is going to yield consistent Reliable results.

Okay, the very foundation of science the assumption of order and consistency is something that an open system cannot account for And so when the atheist argues for the reliability of science from within an open system

They are ironically relying on assumptions that their worldview cannot justify because open systems do not justify these fixed

Standards, okay They have at their base an open system, but they argue and ask for justifications and make arguments

That are using things that only make sense within a closed system So they have an open system but they argue and talk like they're coming from a closed system and if they argue and talk as Though they're coming from a closed system and that's their position is that I do

I do hold to a closed position They you know there I come from a closed perspective. There are limits to what react what can happen or it from an atheist perspective

Without revelation, they're not in a position to know that that's the case because there's no revelation What what could you know from an atheistic perspective?

Okay about the ultimate nature of reality Now you might doubt that the Christian is right on his perspective

But at least within the Christian worldview it makes sense to say that we could be in a position to know

Certain aspects of reality because within our worldview God's revealed it Okay, so we can we are consistent when we say things

True about the nature of reality and existence because within our worldview there's revelation and that's wrapped up in our worldview our epistemology

We believe that knowledge comes through Revelation everything is revelatory. Okay from within our within our worldview

Okay. Now when you're taking a look at something like logic, you know, someone might argue Well logic doesn't depend on God is just a human construct.

We've developed over time I've heard this read in some of the comments. Is that everyone's view of logic? No, that's not everyone's view of logic, but this is a view that is popular.

Okay. All right logic doesn't depend on God It's just a human construct right or it's a language we develop to talk about reality, right these sorts of things

But again logic is based on fixed immaterial laws that are universally applicable

Okay, such as the law of non -contradiction and by the way people in an open system

We often will reject the universal application of the law of non -contradiction Right, even the law of identity

Okay. Now I'm gonna stop here because the faithiest atheist brought a really great point.

Okay And thank you again faith you say I appreciate it you say this kind of approach kind of sets you up to never have a

Conversation with atheists if you say whatever we say falls apart before we say it and some atheists might think there's no point in having the conversation now

It's all about how we communicate right? I think think you and I faithiest atheist can have a really good conversation

Because we come to the conversation in goodwill. I Argue from my perspective.

I'm a Christian I believe that the Christian worldview does in fact provide the only basis for things that I've been talking about But I understand you mr.

Faith. The faithiest atheist might disagree with that. Let's talk about it Okay, I could be a jerk about it and that closes off communication or we can be respectful like you are

And have a cup of coffee or something like that and let's explore Explore these things, okay

If you think that the Christian argument from my perspective a presuppositional argument is fallacious fallacious in some way

Then I want to treat you as a Christian. I want to treat you as an image bearer of God. That's worth

Respecting and listening to okay, and then of course, you know, hopefully you see me as someone that's like, okay

Well, he has this really strong position that he really holds to but he can be reasoned with I can be reasoned with Hopefully you think

I could be reasoned with and we might we might explore Whether my argument holds water or not, and that's where we have meaningful discussion.

So so faithiest atheist I really think it's An issue of how we communicate.

Okay, I've had conversation. It's very different The internet world is different than personal interaction

I've had great conversations with atheists and unbelievers about these things and I will say with respect

Respectfully from the Christian worldview I don't think that you can answer these really these really important worldview questions and someone's oh,

I know I think I can answer Well, well, let's explore that together. Let's talk about it. You know, I've even said now, of course,

I'm a Christian, right? I believe my position is true, but there are some points that atheists abroad. I'm like, that's a great point

No, I I'm pretty sure there's an answer to that. I don't know how to answer that right now Maybe you give me a little time and I can think about it.

Maybe we can continue this conversation So so yeah, when I when you say this kind of approach sets you up to never have conversations

That's not my experience it really for me in my experience. It's how you interact with people. Okay.

Now, it's very interesting As you would imagine looking at me on YouTube people have different perceptions, right?

I've been called the nicest Presuppositional list out there online and in the same thread someone will say

I'm the most arrogant person they've ever seen So I can't control the I try my best to be respectful

I'm giving arguments and I'm critiquing not so much people but like their worldview

But again, you can be interpreted in various ways and I can't control that right, you know there are people who hate my guts and I haven't done anything to them except express my position and tried my best to give reasons for you know

Give reasons for why I hold the positions that I hold I want to put this up here faithiest atheist because I appreciate that he says

I agree with that How you think of and treat others makes a huge difference. That's right If I so let's get your other comment here.

You said This kind of approach kind of sets you up to never have a conversation with atheists

If you say whatever we say fail falls apart before we say it then some atheists might think there's no point in having conversation

Well, think about it from my perspective faithiest atheist. I think the Bible teaches

That what you're going to say as an atheist falls apart, so it's not me saying it

It's my position from a biblical perspective now that might close off conversation

Definitely depending on how I present it But I'm still going to present it as my position and but I want to do it respectfully right knowing that That the that my words are not the only thing that goes forth from my mouth

Faithiest atheist I believe that when I share the gospel and I defend the faith It is also the

Spirit of God that goes with me and it is the Spirit of God that works on the person's heart

Right. So even though someone will say well if you said that to me, I could never I could never have a conversation with someone

Like that. Well, I've had people who said that in one breath and Able and in the next breath, they're like well, you know what?

Yeah, that's something I can think about and I've had some great conversations with people because I know that You might not hold to this but I know that the

Spirit of God works on people's hearts and God is very good at softening hearts So so there you go.

So yes, I agree with you it is Very important about how we treat others as well.

Now, I know Presuppositionalist online are Guilty often guilty not everyone obviously, but are often guilty of being very arrogant

Not in the argumentation because the argument is just the argument. We're trying to make an argument We think it's correct so on and so forth, but the way we carry ourselves

Right presuppositionalist often get a bad reputation for coming across a certain way and I and I could own up to that right now

I've tried my best not to do those things. Maybe I failed but I suppose you know,

I do get Positive feedback from genuine people like hey, I really disagree with you man, but yeah, thank you for you know, trying to be nice I try, you know, maybe

I fail miserably but you know There are no matter no matter how nice you try to be. There's always gonna be someone is like you're jerk, man

So, you know, especially online that's just how it works But faithiest faithiest atheist I appreciate every time you make a comment, you know

If you live near me, I would love to have a you know, I would love to have a cup of coffee with you

So, all right, let me see here Let's see

Let's see grant says are there any necessary truths on the view that logic is a social construct derived from empirical experience

Used to make inductive statements. This seems to be an only popular be Only a popular view.

So are there any necessary truths on the view that logic is a social construct? Derived from empirical experience.

Well, I think right there. There's a problem you do not derive Logical principles

Empirically because logic is abstract. Now, you don't go out and observe the law of non -contradiction, right?

There there are abstractions. Okay, we impose logical principles upon what we see and we you know, we draw conclusions so forth

But that's not you don't derive logical truths Empirically, okay

So I would have a problem with that. Okay Yeah, you don't derive logic from empirical experience matter of fact

You are you must think in logical categories to even make sense of your empirical experience

Right. So so yeah, okay. Let's see here James pre -suppers are generally associated with with the likes of darth talkins.

Yeah. Well, I mean, you know People argue online. It's gonna go crazy over Arguments and there you know people could be mean to it, but that's a decision, right?

I mean people people need to make the decision to say hey I strongly disagree with this person, but I'm going to treat this person respectfully and again, that's gonna be and it has been misinterpreted right if I say

You know, the atheist can't make sense out of intelligible experience and people take that as an insult

Well, you know, I'm not attacking the person. I'm attacking the atheistic perspective

And I know atheism is not a worldview whatever view you want to call it That has as part of it a denial of God I would

I would argue can't make sense out of intelligible experience Maybe I'm right. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's not an insult to a person.

It's really the perspective I'm talking about But again, they're gonna be some people who are gonna take that personally and I can't control that right?

I mean I can say I don't mean it for you to take it personally But then even saying that there are people say dude, you're so condescending.

No, I'm not trying to insult you Oh now you're tone -policing. It's like well, I Can't I can't

I can't do anything about that, right? So if I say here, this is not what

I'm doing and then the person is convinced that that's what I'm doing. I Can't do anything about that right might have no choice

But just especially since I'm not we're not face to face, right? The only thing I could do is is is just move on so so yeah

All right. Yeah, you live near you live in Phoenix. Oh, yeah. Okay. Yeah, I I was in Phoenix not that long ago

Oh, man, well next time I'm in Phoenix if I do something with apologia, I will Try to reach out to you in some way and maybe we can grab a cup of coffee or something

Yeah, I was hanging out with I think it was vocab Malone. I think we were in Phoenix. Where are we in Phoenix?

I think we were in Phoenix Maybe not. I don't know the areas around there but I was hanging out with with vocab and If I ever get myself over there, then we should totally connect.

Yeah, absolutely Let's see here How does the incomprehensibility of God relate to presuppositional ism

Well, the incomprehensibility of God is a theological position based upon the fact that God Cannot be fully comprehended in his entirety

Right, so we cannot know God in a comprehensive sense But in the limited sense that we can know him we can truly know him

I'll say that again. We cannot fully comprehend every aspect of God But the aspects that he reveals we can know those aspects truly as he reveals him himself

Okay, so the incomprehensibility of God is basically the idea that he cannot be fully fully comprehended

Okay, but that doesn't mean he can't be comprehended at all I don't think that God is so totally other that there's no way for us to know anything about God matter of fact

They've had people say this before that if God exists, we couldn't know anything about him He's so transcendent.

The problem with that is that it's self -refuting for if we can't know anything about God How do you know that about God namely that if God exists?

He's the kind of God that can't be known That's to tell me something about God. So I don't think God is completely

Incomprehensible, but the doctrine of incomprehensibility is simply the idea that we can't fully Understand him in his in his entirety in his essence.

Okay, good question Let's see here. All right.

So let's talk again about this open and closed system We spoke about the did I mention logic? Yeah, I mentioned logic, you know, you get the idea.

Okay In an open system you don't have certainty So if you're in an open if you're coming from an open system perspective and you're arguing as though you are looking for certainty

That's an inconsistency. So if you are arguing from an open system in which chance and Randomness is

Fundamental. Okay, yet you turn around and demand Objective evidence and proof that's an inconsistency

Because your open system won't allow you to accept anything as being fully conclusive, especially with respect to ultimate questions

Someone says well, nobody can know ultimate issues Well, even that statement itself is a reflection of an assumption of an open system, which is a

Christian I'm gonna reject I reject that assertion, right? I reject that it's impossible for people to know ultimate things because from within my worldview

There's a God who can reveal ultimate things, right? You don't you don't might not believe that you might not hold to that You might not think

I'm correct when I say that but it makes sense for me to say that within a closed system Okay, and it makes sense for you to say

I can't know ultimate things from an open system. That is consistent, right? So that's all I'm saying.

So there there there's often an inconsistency Inconsistency there. Okay, and it applies a whole bunch of areas.

So if you have an open system, I mean take a look at you know The idea of human dignity, right if someone says well, we don't need

God to believe that humans have dignity and worth, right? I think human beings are worth, you know, they're they're

You know, they're what's the word they have value and so forth Right in a Christian closed system human dignity is grounded in the belief that humans are creating the image of God Right, right giving every person inherent value and worth from within the

Christian perspective but in an open system where humans are simply the product of random evolutionary processes if evolution is your

Explanation and so forth and everything issues from the womb of chance and so forth Then there's no objective basis for asserting that humans have any more intrinsic worth than any other life -form

Right if dignity is not grounded in something beyond the human then it's merely a social construct

Okay subject to change or even even dismissal, okay the atheist or the skeptic might argue for human dignity

But their worldview which denies a transcendent source of value can't consistently uphold the idea that all humans inherently possess worth

Right and this inconsistency. I think weakens their arguments and highlights the need for a closed system like Christianity to provide a coherent foundation for the belief in human dignity.

Okay, you might disagree That's fine But from within a Christian perspective human dignity makes perfect sense and none of this business of well

Because there is no afterlife We need to care and value life now

And so you talk as though there's value in the fact that you are finite But ultimately that's not any that's not value in some objective sense, right?

That is a subjective opinion as to the valve That's not you know When you say I live for my family and my friends and so forth we can say that and it is in fact

Valuable by the way, okay But if there is no purpose, there's no rhyme or reason to life.

It's not it's not Purposeful in an ultimate sense, right? We've created that for ourselves in a subjective sense.

Okay now again, I'm not saying it's right I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm saying in an open system You're gonna have difficulty affirming objective value and human dignity

You might hold to human dignity and value But you need to square that with an open system if that's the kind of system that you have.

Okay All right okay, so while going through some of these

I Think I think it's useful to see the implications of you know, this open and closed, you know understanding of reality, okay now when we engage with other worldviews that also describe themselves as Closed systems right where not everything is possible because they claim to have you know

Similar reasons and structures as the Christian worldview. For instance, this might be the case with certain theistic worldviews like, you know

Christianity They assert the existence of a god and they claim to have a coherent bounded system of beliefs and truths

When we encounter these competing Theistic worldviews of closed systems if you have that flavor of closed systems

We need to engage them from an apologetic standpoint In a manner similar to how we would engage with the atheistic worldview or any worldview that posits an open system.

And so the key Pardon the key is to apply what's known as the internal critique, right?

This is how we would engage other closed systems that posits some form of deity Okay, and so this involves analyzing worldviews based on their own claim their own principles and internal Consistency.

Okay, and I think that that's an important important point. Hello dedicated ghost archive. I love that name dedicated ghost archive

Hey Eli, this is my first stream. I'm tuning it tuning in live. Thank you so much for tuning in I really appreciate it.

Thank you so much. Awesome. Let me get a quick water break. Oh boy.

I almost chugged. I was Chug chug chug. I was so thirsty there. Whoo. All right, so let me continue here.

So if a worldview Claims to be a closed system

Okay, as opposed to the open system, which we we can criticize the open systems in the way that we've expressed before Our task from an apologetic perspective is going to be to examine that perspective in light of that claim

And so we scrutinize whether it truly functions as a coherent closed system Or if it fails to uphold the very principles that it asserts

Okay. So for example, we would look at whether the world you can consistently account for the nature of truth things like morality knowledge

Within its own framework. That's the internal critique Does it provide a sufficient basis for rationality intelligibility or does it contain internal contradictions and inconsistencies?

This is where the internal critique is going to is going to be made Now I hear this a thousand times and I'm not saying this and even though I say this someone's gonna say yeah

That's what you're saying, right? I'm not saying that simply showing an inconsistency in a competing worldview

Demonstrates that my worldview is correct. That is not the presuppositional argument.

Okay people make yes This is live agent plays The plays agent place.

This is live. Yes, sir, or ma 'am. I don't know. Sorry. Okay, but people make this this this critique

I did a critique of Hugh Ross. Dr. Hugh Ross Where he says that presuppositional apologetics is great as a negative approach

It shows how another worldview fails, but if you're gonna prove the Christian world, you can't use presuppositional apologetics

You need to appeal to something evidential and that's just false. Okay We don't believe that when we appeal to evidences

For example as presupposition list that we're no longer doing presuppositional apologetics, you know One of the comments in that my previous video someone fallaciously said if you're using evidence

Then you're no longer a presupposition list, don't you even know what a presupposition is yada yada yada and right of course this person probably that was the only video they watched and you know, they in their

False wittiness thought that like oh, wow. I never thought about that before Okay, so it doesn't them.

Yes, that's that's right. So Faithiest atheists so you're saying that pointing out an inconsistency automatically demonstrates that your worldviews see

I know you're kidding and you're laughing but that's literally the comments

I get and I and I'm a teacher So my my account my YouTube account is connected to my watch

So every time I get a comment, I get a little buzz on my watch and so I'll look down and I'm just like, oh

My goodness, I'll be teaching a class and then I'll see a very cringe Comment on a video and it disrupts my day.

I'm like, oh, how can I just said that's not what I was saying So this is this these are the sorts of things that I deal with.

Okay, but yes, that is hilarious Oh boy. All right. So the process of an internal critique involves testing a worldview by its own standards, okay, so if if a

Theistic worldview claims to have a God who provides the foundation for all truth and morality, right? We would explore whether this

God in question right as described truly fulfills that role Does this God's nature and revelation genuinely account for the necessary preconditions for Logic morality human experience all these sorts of things or do we find that the worldview ultimately collapses under its own weight?

Because it can't sustain the claims that it makes. Okay, that's that's the the world That's the critique right when someone someone says well

Well, wait a minute you think that you your worldview provides the necessary preconditions for intelligibility

But what if someone says what if someone says? You know my worldview provides it see so anyone could make the claim as though all we're saying is yeah

We're just making the claim. Well, anyone can can a Muslim use a transcendental argument? Okay, right before someone in the comment says well, what if someone uses this argument?

Yes a Muslim can use a transcendental argument a

Buddhist can use a transcendental argument an Atheist can use a transcendental argument they can transcendental arguments are a thing

Okay, the question is Can they actually make good on the transcendental claim that they're making?

Okay, someone could say if knowledge is possible atheism is true

Or if knowledge is possible Islam is true knowledge is possible. Therefore Islam is true or you can do that Can you actually pay the bills on that claim that's the that's the difference

Okay, so it's not a critique on the precept view by simply saying someone else can use the argument, right?

It's not a critique of a view claiming that someone can make a similar argument.

Anyone can make arguments The question is can they be justified? Okay. I mean I argue that the

Christian world you can okay. That's right. Mr atheists atheists out there

Defend your premise as I've gone through this a bajillion times and again disagreeing with my defense of Premise one of the argument if knowledge is possible the

Christian worldview is true You're disagreeing with the premise is not the same as refuting my my defense of the premise.

Okay, anyway Thank you. Thank you. Love you from my open system. Thank you very much

I love you from my closed system as well because I have an objective standard of love by which to measure

And so on and so forth so so there you go Alyssa Scott says appeal to something evidential and on the other hand, they can't have certainty.

That's right. Yes And that and this is why Christian open systems are problematic on the one hand a

Christian will affirm a Closed system where they're at church okay, and then when they argue with unbelievers they argue as though they're arguing from a

An open system and so the Christian will argue high probability most likely

Reasonable ultimately, we can't know but you know and that that kind of apologetic flows

From an open system, even though they might be thinking that they're operating on a closed system. There's the inconsistency there.

Okay All right So we've covered how to perform, you know internal critiques and things like that on this channel we talk

I'm not gonna you know go over that again But anyway, the Christian worldview not only claims to be a closed system

But also that I think demonstrates through careful analysis that it indeed provides those necessary preconditions for understanding reality truth morality and so forth and this is why

When faced with other worldviews whether they claim to be a closed system or an open system

We apply this rigorous method of critique to expose their worldviews weaknesses, right and highlight the unique coherence of the

Christian perspective okay, and so within the Christian worldview we We can account for truth.

If someone says we can't account for truth. Okay Let's explore that. Okay, if the Christian worldview is true and there's a

God who created everything and defined everything within the Christian worldview Yes We can account for things that are true because we're in a position to know

Certain truth not all truth certain truths because God revealed it you might not agree with that But from within the system truth is accounted for.

Okay Knowledge is accounted for within the Christian worldview intelligible experience as all facts have their meaning and coherence within the mind of God and he reveals his mind to his creatures who are

Made in his image who are able to apprehend those truths. Okay, this is because the Christian worldview is founded on the existence of an omniscient

Omnipotent God who knows all things and so God in his infinite wisdom has created human beings in his image

Endowing us with the capacity to know and understand aspects of reality because he reveals it to them

There's a great simplicity to that as well. Okay as the as the famous song goes

Jesus loves me this I know because the Bible Tells me so there's a very profound truth there that knowledge comes from revelation

Right. God has revealed things in the Bible, of course and through natural revelation

We make that distinction in Christian theology between natural and special revelation Okay, because we are made in the image of God from within a

Christian worldview we possess Purpose and intentionality right qualities that are rooted in the very nature of our maker

And so our ability to comprehend the world around us is not a random accident, right? But it's a reflection of God's purposeful design

Okay in the Christian worldview Every fact every element of reality has meaning and context within the mind of God and these facts are not arbitrary from this perspective

They're defined by God according to his will He reveals them to us through both general and special revelation, right the natural world the heaven declares the glory of God special revelation

We have scripture right that dual revelation both external and innate. Okay, considering that we're made in the image of God Grounds our ability to understand and make sense of the world

Well, you can say that mr. Christian that doesn't mean it's true. You know, well, how do you demonstrate that? It's true

Well, we demonstrate that it's true twofold. Number one. We know it's true because God's revealed it

How do we demonstrate that God has revealed it by the impossibility of the contrary? Reject it and the position cannot account for the preconditions of intelligibility cannot account for these other things as well.

And so We offer from the Christian worldview how we can account for those things.

Okay Now, let's see here FYI Eli if you're interested we could have that conversation about pride and other secular ideas on stream

I'm a newish Christian and I think it could help others. Yeah. Well, we will we can see well Maybe we can exchange through email and talk a little bit about that.

Okay. All right. All right. Thank you for that Let's see here to do. I don't know what this means.

You're asserting that there is some knowing that Christians that Non -christians cannot what

I don't know. Why is that not a Gnostic claim? No, okay, so I don't know exactly what you're saying.

So I do apologize Because you are asserting that there is some knowing that Christians that non -christians cannot

I'm not sure what you mean. Okay, I'm saying from within a Christian world you I can ground knowledge

From a non -christian world that you can't ground knowledge. But what I'm not saying is that non -christians don't know anything

I believe non -christians have knowledge But that's not because the non -christian worldview accounts for knowledge

It's because the non -christian in the innately borrows from the Christian worldview because he has a knowledge of God Now I'm not going to demonstrate that here because that was the topic of a whole nother video

But if that's what you're saying, yeah, I'm not simply saying that I know something that you don't.

Yeah. I hope that's not I Hope that's not what you think I'm saying Okay, I'm sorry if I don't understand that Let me see here so J box says

Those who take issue with pre sub do so because it forces them to have to give an account for the many things they take for That's right.

They take for granted that don't comport with their worldview. That's right. Yes people think like Oh priest up Oh, they're they're gonna try to question

We know whether there's an external reality and they try to make sense, you know They're gonna try to ask all these weird questions about you know, how do you know?

You're not a brain in a bit. Those aren't just like tricks. Okay because we're dealing with a difference of worldviews and you you know, the unbeliever disagrees with the

Christian assertion that The Christian worldview provides the only foundation for knowledge and intelligibility, right?

if you disagree with that then you Implicitly are saying that the non crit that the the

Christian worldview is not the only foundation for those things So you must think there's some other foundation. Okay, okay

That's the disagreement, right? So the Christian gives their reason why they think the Christian worldview is the only worldview that can provide those things the non -christian disagrees

And so what that what what happens from the disagreement you disagree with the Christian account So now how do you how do you disagree with the

Christian account within the context of an argument you give a counter account? And that's where many non -believers not all of them, but many they won't give a they won't give their non -christian account

Why because they fallaciously think that the nature of our argument is burden shifting No It's not when the

Christian says the Christian worldview provides the only foundations for intelligible experience We welcome that burden and we try to explain how the

Christian worldview does in fact do that we've done we tried to do that Okay, right. We've offered our burden. Maybe it's a maybe we've we've we made good on it.

Maybe we didn't okay But you don't challenge that assertion from the Christian perspective Simply by disagreeing with it the nature of the

Christian claim The Christian worldview is the only worldview that provides the necessary foundation for intelligibility. Okay, the nature of that claim requires if you're going to fight against it requires

Offering a counter claim that provides those preconditions. That's not a burden shift that's the way you interact with the argument because of the nature of the claim that we're talking about if I say this is the

Only foundation that we have and here's why and you say nah, I disagree with your why and your justification

Then you don't just get to disagree with it You have to disagree with it and show that your disagreement is warranted by providing another account and we often don't get that account

Because either they'll think fallaciously that that's burden shifting on our part It's not or many unbelievers

Not all have a problem actually providing the foundations of their worldview because their worldview

If you're an atheist really doesn't account for those foundational things and that's not just a Christian claim and many non -believers say yeah an

Atheistic perspective does have problems with logical absolutes the problem of induction

Uniform, this is not just like presuppositional stuff Okay So just to clarify that okay now all right, so Huh?

That's a lot a lot going on here. Okay now How does the

Christian? Offer a solid foundation for intelligibility and meaningful interpretation of all things, right?

Okay, it does so the Christian worldview does so by grounding all facts in the mind of God Okay, and the

Christian metaphysical framework, right every fact every element of reality finds its meaning its context and coherence

In God's eternal knowledge. Okay, because God is omniscient and omnipotent Everything that exists is comprehended and defined within his mind ensuring that reality is both intelligible and orderly and so we as human beings made in his image are able to meaningfully interpret the world around us precisely because We are created in his image endowed with the capacity to understand and engage with the world in a way that reflects his rational nature

That's the Christian account. Okay, that's the Christian Justification from within our worldview.

Okay. Now someone asked me. Well, can you justify that in reality? Not just in your worldview? Okay, think about this.

Someone asked me. Can I justify my Christian claims in reality and not just in my worldview?

What's the what's the problem with that question? It begs the question that the Christian worldview is not reality

Okay, this is a bad you could prove that in your Christian worldview, but can you prove it in reality? Well that assumes that reality is not the way the

Christian worldview Asserts that it is. All right, and so that question begs the question and this is the kinds of questions

I've received in the comments. This is bad bad form Now, of course someone might reject what

I just said and say well that doesn't mean it's true, right? If you say well God is the necessary preconditionable law. That doesn't mean it's true

Okay, the truth of the Christian worldview I argue is demonstrated by the impossibility of the contrary.

That's the transcendental argument I I go into more details I don't just simply assert impossibility contrary people who've seen my stuff, you know

I go more than that Even if you disagree with whether I'm successful, you know, I don't I'm not simply saying by the impossibility contrary and that's it

Okay So in other words, I would argue that if you reject the Christian framework, right? You're left with a worldview that can't account for the very things that it assumes things like logic morality intelligibility

I get it there are atheists who say I could account for those things and You know, I would hear you out if we were in you know at a you know

Coffee place together and talking to hear you out. Okay. Now I know the options that many atheists have and the options

I don't think do it. But hey, let's have the conversation, right? Okay now If you reject the

Christian worldview I would say that the worldview that is the non -christian worldview cannot account for those things And so by rejecting the

Christian worldview, I would argue. Okay the position the counter position can be reduced to absurdity

We can perform in a reductio Okay Which I've tried to do in other videos and when you try to make any intelligible and meaningful statements about facts or reality, right?

You will find that your world you can't consistently support those claims I know you disagree with that, but that's the nature of the argument.

Okay, how does that demonstrate it by internal worldview critique? Okay now when someone counters what

I said, well, I don't need to borrow from the Christian worldview, right? I can make sense of it. I can make sense of all these things within my own worldview

All right. This is obviously a common claim. No one's gonna be like, oh, yeah Well, I guess the Christian worldview is the only world that's

I understand that right? Okay And I've explained how the Christian worldview provides the necessary precondition for intelligibility from our perspective if you disagree

The question then becomes okay. So then what is the counter? What is the counter claim? Okay, and we often hear very various responses to this to this challenge, right one might say well

I don't have any, you know, someone says I don't I don't have any presupposition So I say, you know, do the presuppositions of your world do you provide the net?

I don't have presupposition presupposition, right? I just go on what's obvious, you know, some people appeal to common sense they start from there

Okay, that's some people say those things. Okay. So now think about that. Well that can that seems reasonable, right?

I don't need these presuppositions and these weird philosophical stuff It's I just use common sense again that that doesn't answer the question at all either because what's considered common sense is

Highly dependent on your worldview and people don't always agree on what constitutes as common sense, right? You might think the things that I say is not common sense

And I don't when you think well, this is common So I don't think it's common sense what's common sense is dependent upon your metaphysical epistemological and ethical assumptions.

Okay What you consider common sense Isn't necessarily true by the impossibility of the contrary necessarily to have to argue that and it doesn't provide the same

Foundational stability as the Christian worldview I would argue. Okay now Another common approach that I often hear in the comments and the interwebs

Okay, and by the way, these aren't things that I hear from sophisticated Christians These are the things that I hear and like I read in various comments and things like that not in this video

I'm not saying that about anyone here. Okay but Someone might say well,

I just start with what I can see so they place a great emphasis on the empirical, right? Okay, this this people come can come across with like a naive empiricist perspective, right?

The idea that you know, our senses alone provide a reliable foundation for knowledge Okay, but even that approach

I think is has problems, right? It has it's been heavily criticized not just by Christians But by non by people who don't hold to a naive empiricist position, right?

Okay You know think about it, you know if all knowledge comes through senses Okay, this has been refuted by by many people not just Christians right if all knowledge comes through senses

How did you come to know that you didn't come to know that through your senses, right? So again that that's a self refuting position.

Okay, so no matter which alternative you pursue now, there are many more alternatives I'm just giving these very easy examples just because these are the sorts of things that I've read in some of the comments, right?

There are different, you know alternatives, but your ultimate you're ultimately I would argue you're gonna run into some problems

Okay, the atheist or non -christian worldview I think can't escape the need to borrow from the

Christian framework to make sense of reality And I don't think that that's a bare authority claim and I've explained in other videos why that's the case

I didn't I'm not just making that assertion. Okay? Okay, and when examined carefully the

Christian worldview I argue stands as the only consistent and coherent system that provides those preconditions for truth

You know intelligible experience and in these sorts of things now someone might might push back Okay, you know then

I say come on man. I just I just start with reality right reality is reality. We've heard that we've heard that in various contexts, you know when

I in my Conversation slash debate with Tom jump some years back. This is the position that he held to him by the way.

I really enjoyed my my conversation with Tom jump It's very interesting though reading the comments

I don't normally read comments when I go on APS channels, but one comment said hey this guy

Eli's the nicest presupposition list I've ever seen and then the next comment says this guy's the most arrogant, you know

Blickety -blick, right? I've ever seen very interesting to observe. I thought the conversation was nice and respectful the whole time.

I that was a very odd situation there, but You know Tom Argues like this, right?

He says reality is reality it exists and it doesn't contradict itself. So I've got the logic on my side there right, you know

Existence exists and existence is not preventing me from not existing at the same time you get all these kinds of things

Okay, I don't think that works I think you know this idea that reality is reality is just a it's a tautology and it's it's it's ambiguous, right?

It's a statement that repeats itself without providing any real explanatory content, right? It's ambiguous

What do we mean by reality? What is the nature of reality right as soon as you start defining what you think reality is?

Okay, when you say reality is reality and I ask well, what do you mean by that? Well, it's just it's existence Well, what what exists?

Okay, what is it the very moment you answer that question? You're diving headfirst into metaphysics that branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of existence, right?

And when you begin to assert your view of reality the next question then becomes, you know How do you know and this question forces you into epistemology where you now need to explain how you acquired knowledge about reality?

and if you're not coming from a perspective that has revelation then you are stuck in what many have acknowledged as the egocentric predicament

Right, you don't you lack an objective? Picture of the nature of the world and so everything you say is speculative at that point

Especially if the undergirding foundation of your worldview is an open system Okay, but here's the catch if you deny the existence of God you lack a foundation for knowing metaphysically

What's truth about reality right without God you're thrown back into that open system Right a worldview that lacks the necessary structure to provide a coherent explanation of existence

So that open system can easily be reduced to absurdity because it cannot consistently account for truth logic

Knowledge and so forth. Okay, and so it's not as simple as just starting with an ambiguous notion like quote -unquote

Reality, right? What does that even mean? right once you begin to explain what reality is you're forced to make metaphysical commitments claims about the nature of existence and Here's the problem, right?

If you try to develop an epistemology a theory of knowledge, right after making metaphysical assumptions or if you assert metaphysical truths without any epistemological grounding your entire system of thought is going to be disjointed and there's problems within the

The worldview perspective. Okay. All right Let's see here. Did it did it to do let's see some questions here

Okay, let me see where I left off Yeah, so agent plays says where do atheists get their moral standards if there is no

God to define what's right Yep, that that's a good point. And this is a bad response Do you think we can't know murder is wrong unless we have a

Bible. That's not what we're talking about either, right? Okay, now agent agent plays you wanna be careful atheists have all sorts of beliefs

So you might they might hold to any number of ethical theories but an ethical theory in an open system is going to be problematic and subjective right and a

Ethical theory in a closed system that is not grounded in Revelation Then you have the epistemological problem of not being able to know whether the world view that you're holding to is in fact an open

Or a closed system. You couldn't know that if you say it's a closed system Well, you don't know that because from a finite perspective perspective that lacks revelation

You're not in a position to know the nature of Reality, maybe reality is on that perspective pure chance and contingency and randomness and in that case if it's an open system

You lack those necessary foundations to have Objective moral standards or objective, you know at logical absolute and so forth.

Okay to do Let me see here literally every popular atheist channel answers that question, but those answers don't fit into the chat

I'm not sure that means Okay Okay, so manager, let me take a cup of water actually

Okay, assume all worldviews do indeed fall into Sorry in assume all worldviews do indeed fail to account for intelligibility

Why does that necessitate the Christian world you can why not conclude the Christian worldview also fails?

Okay, let's answer that backwards and I've addressed this entire videos so you can check that out If you look at my channel,

I've addressed this in detail Why not conclude the Christian worldview also fails? Well, I can't conclude the

Christian worldview fails because it doesn't I mean what is intelligibility? What is truth?

What are facts? Given the Christian metaphysic epistemology ethic it accounts for it.

Okay, if someone doesn't think it account it accounts for it like, okay Explain to me Please help me out if an all -knowing omnipotent

God Who created man in his image right he created these if that God exists How is it still the case that we can't make sense out of knowledge?

I mean this God in the Christian worldview. There's God who reveals himself. He reveals the nature of the world He's created so on and so forth

Okay I'd have to see how the Christian worldview does in fact fail because when I take the presuppositions of the

Christian worldview and the details Of its teaching it does account for those things, right? It it accounts for unity and diversity.

It accounts for truth It accounts for objective moral values and duties that accounts for those things and provides a justification for them

Okay so I wouldn't conclude the Christian worldview fails because I know the Christian worldview and I know the necessary preconditions for Intelligibility and the

Christian worldview does in fact meet those those conditions Okay now if it meets those conditions and the

Christian worldview is in fact the provides the necessary preconditions for intelligibility if it in fact

Provides the necessary transcendental categories, then it logically follows that it is the only worldview that does so that is what it means to be

Necessary so you cannot affirm that a worldview provides necessary conditions

But also affirm the possibility of another worldview also providing those conditions then it wouldn't be necessary Okay, so the

Christian worldview does provide those foundations it's Provides the necessary preconditions which makes it follow that it's the only position that can so I'm not going to throw out the

Christian world Because it actually does provide those conditions. I'd have to be shown that it doesn't okay by the counter claim

Okay, there you go. All right now assume all worldviews do fail to account for intelligibility Well, if all worldviews fail to account for intelligibility

Then that means the worldview you currently hold to manager fails And so you cannot account for the very intelligibility of the coherence of the sentence you just typed and that I'm sharing on the screen for the fact that you wrote this sentence presupposes

Intelligibility and so if all worldviews fail, then you undercut the intelligibility of your question

Right now, I believe you believe in intelligibility But I would argue your worldview can't account for it

Whatever your worldview is if it's not a non if it's a non Christian worldview I would argue it can't account for it yet here you are making intelligible

Statements and the Christian world you can't account for it and because it's necessary It must be the only one you see so so to answer your question

I would not can why not conclude the Christian world you fails because it doesn't fail Okay, if you think it does fail to account for those things,

I'd have to I mean I'd have to hear the the argument Okay. All right. Thank you for that manager. I appreciate it

Let's see here Too far gone. You have to provide a correct internal critique as to why the

Christian world you can't justify it. That's right That's right. This is this is a hundred percent, correct? You'd have to provide a correct internal critique right as to why the

Christian world you can't justify its presuppositions So the Christian worldview asserts presuppositions that it claims provide the necessary precondition for intelligible experience

How do we know it provides those those preconditions? Well, we know what the Christian worldview is We know what the necessary preconditions are the

Christian worldview given its metaphysical epistemological and ethical picture Answers those questions if someone disagrees with that then you have to internally critique it

You can't critique it externally because we're operating from different worldview presuppositions an external critique when you throw an external critique

I'm gonna reject the presuppositions that undergird your external critique, right? So you're gonna have to internal critique hypothetically grant the truth of Christianity and show on its own terms.

It falls apart So you need to actually engage in an accurate internal critique and it is the job of the

Christian to survive The internal critique by answering the questions and the apparent tensions in the

Christian worldview Here's how we answer that from the Christian worldview. Okay. So yes, that's you're a hundred percent correct too far gone

You're not that far gone. You're right on track. That's a good point. Yeah, very good Yep now this might sound kind of a pietistic, you know

Statement here, but I agree. I agree with this the Christian worldview is founded on the rock. That's right All other worldviews are founded on sand.

I don't say that arrogantly That's actually an indirect quote that you can make an implication from the words of Jesus, right?

Okay, we build our house on the Sun on the rock. The rock is the firm foundation of God's Word I mean that sounds religious and you know, you know pietistic but you know, it's a very in a very profound sense

It's very true. The Christian philosophy of life is a rock it provides foundations

Open systems don't provide foundations by definition and that's why when they argue from an open system

They're arguing and asserting facts and intelligible experience on a foundation that is open in terms of which everything is possible

Everything is chance. Everything is flux. Okay, and that is a weak foundation. It's a foundation of sand

Okay Doom okay dedicated ghost archive says how do you feel about Christians questioning the validity of the passage where the

Pharisees bring the adulterous woman? Ah the pericope adultery. Yes, that is a common textual variant.

It is not found in many of the early manuscripts I'm not a hundred percent familiar with the argumentation, but it is my understanding that most scholars don't see that as original to John Because of textual critical issues.

I don't have a problem with that. I mean I affirm the reality of textual variants I also affirm the usefulness of textual variants in affirming the reliability of the biblical text

So I don't have a problem I don't think textual Variance is a problem at all. It actually contributes to the strength of demonstrating the reliability of the biblical text

So I don't have a problem with that textual variant. That's a large textual variant we find in the Gospel of John You also have another textual variant in the

Gospel of Mark a lot the longer ending There and I think there's one in first John or something, but yeah,

I don't have a problem with that at all and when Christians question the validity of it, I think that's perfectly fine because the

The development of the scriptures and how we find it today It has a history and we could examine that history and we could we could draw various conclusions, right?

We do so carefully, but I think there is good reason from a textual critical perspective to question the

The fact as to whether the pericope adultery does in fact belong in the New Testament There are people who argue differently and again textual critical issues are not my expertise

But I think those are valid arguments to be had Internally from within a Christian perspective people trying to examine the text and so forth.

So yeah All right. Let's see here Let's see

Dedicated ghost archive says I find it troubling that so many believers are so quick to delete a whole passage of the Bible simply because There were some copying inconsistencies

I'm not sure if it I mean if you're talking about the adultery the pericope adultery I don't think it's simply a copying inconsistency.

I just I think some people find the fact that it's interesting that The pericope adultery is not found in earlier manuscripts.

It's interesting I think it's interesting and it kind of seems to float around in the textual tradition. So it's an interesting question

I think textual criticism is terribly interesting when you kind of explore the history of the text

But I would I would say kind of to highlight what you're saying here dedicated ghost I find it troubling that so many people are quick to delete all passages well to say delete the passage already assumes that it belongs in the text and I think that's something that needs to be argued for and is argued for and so you have kind of internal discussions on on that Particular text.

Okay. So but yeah, if someone's so quick to dismiss something without actually studying the details of it

I think that would be a problem. Definitely. Yeah, let's see here

Right. So so Gabriel, is it Teo? Says the the pre sub

Christian problem is revelation. There is no justification for revelation who says

I Mean, that's an right. That's an assertion right Gabriel. You made an assertion If there's no justification for revelation by definition

Then what you're just saying is there's no way to prove revelation from God and that that's the whole debate, isn't it?

Right, I would my argument is that if you reject revelation, you can't prove anything. That's the argument, right?

So yeah, that's that's not the problem of pre sub It's the strength of precept that we stand on revelation as the necessary providing the necessary preconditions for knowledge truth intelligible experience and so forth

So if someone says there's no justification for revelation I mean you could say that but I mean that doesn't saying so doesn't make it so right

Okay, and likewise when the Christian says and I have to say this because I know someone will say something one second for the

Christian Saying so doesn't make it so either when we say that the Christian worldview is true by the impossibility of the contrary

I think the onus is on us to actually explain why that's the case and then of course the debate and discussion ensues, right?

All right, so a manager says all knowing including our knowledge of God begins with sense perceptions false

I disagree with that but does not end their logic and math or extracted models from existence or reality not rules imposed upon existence

All knowing including our knowledge begins with sense perception. I disagree with that Who says are you saying that we begin as a blank slate?

Are you holding to like a Lockean empiricism in terms of which we are blank slates if you're truly blank slate

You have no internal innate rational categories to impose an order your sensory experience

I mean, this is a classical classical critique of empiricism here Okay doesn't begin with with perception and that begs the question because I would say that revelation is innate There's an aspect of revelation that is not empirical and there are aspects of revelation that are so to say that is just to simply

Disagree with the revelational epistemology from the outset. Okay logic and math are extracted models from the existence or reality

What is existence and what is reality? What is the nature of existence? What is the nature of reality such that you are in the position to know that logic and math are extracted models, right?

No rules imposed upon exist. I mean you can say that right? That's that's your that's your story quote -unquote your story

How do you know that? How do you know that? And again, that's not like a weird precept thing. Like if you make a metaphysical claim

Then that's going to be followed up with an epistemological question, right? If I say God exists That's a metaphysical claim and along comes the atheism says well, how do you know that that's a fair epistemological claim?

Okay, but it works both ways. You make a metaphysical claim and an epistemological claim. I'm going to ask you epistemological questions, right?

All right Yes, how do you know revelation is true? I know revelation is true because a

God has in fact revealed himself and B if you reject the revelation of God Your position is reduced to absurdity.

You can't have a foundation for knowledge logic intelligible experience Well, how do you know Christianity provides those things?

Well, we went over this a bajillion times right in other videos as well as a little bit in this video The Christian worldview does in fact provide the necessary preconditions for knowledge intelligible experience and so on and so forth

Okay, so how do I know revelation is true? How do I justify revelation the transcendental argument? Okay, and the transcendental argument.

Sorry atheist. The transcendental argument is not the Bible's true because the Bible is true That's not my argument.

That never has been my argument nor has it ever been any presuppositional transcendental argument Of anybody who knows anything about the apologetic methodology and the form of argumentation, okay

So, how do I know the revelation is true by the transcendental argument? Okay. How do I know it's true internally?

Well, God has revealed it. I believe the worldview is actually true. God has revealed it to me and We can argue for it transcendentally.

Okay That's it Gabriel says is there a transcendental argument for revelation?

Yes the transcendental argument When we so when we say the the transcendental argument for the truth of the

Christian worldview that that argument itself Includes revelation because in the past I've said in my video multiple times

That the fundamental foundation for the Christian is God and his revelation, right without revelation

We lose the epistemological link to know anything about the nature the metaphysical nature of reality, right?

The reason why the Christian claims to know Reality in some way in some objective sense is because God has revealed it.

So his revelation is a necessary part of that Okay, how do I know that God exists and his revel the fact that God exists is itself revelation

So when I assert the existence of God, I assert that because it's been revealed. How was it revealed in general and special revelation?

How do we justify that the transcendental argument Christianity the metaphysical picture the epistemological picture provides the necessary preconditions for?

intelligibility and when you reject that you lose the foundation for Intelligible experience knowledge and logic especially if the the denial

Position of the Christian worldview is coming from what we've explained in the beginning of this video is coming from an open system

In terms of which its foundation is contingency chance randomness and so forth.

Okay. Thank you for that for that question Gabriel. Appreciate it I Don't know

I don't know how to answer this one if you could live trillion lives Would you be able to tell which one you had the best experience in?

Wouldn't that confirm that objectively the best possible subjective life exists Well that assumes

I don't understand the question exactly you'd have to have a standard by which to measure What is the best experience so you need an objective standard?

Okay, that's one Number two, I don't think you can live trillions of lies if you mean by the trillions like some sense of like reincarnation

I'm I don't believe in reincarnation. So I don't think that that's a possibility. I don't think that's an accurate description metaphysically of what happens to human beings

So not sure what you're asking, but I disagree with the presupposition of the question.

Okay, so sorry about that It's a difficult question because I don't really understand what you're asking, but I tried

I tried Okay, okay We answered that already, okay

That did it to do. Okay, so Sveti and I can't pronounce the last name. I do apologize.

Why does God allow needless suffering of animals? There is okay when you talk about needless, how do you know suffering is needless?

Okay from within the Christian world view everything happens for a specific reason whether I know the reason or not So from within a

Christian world you nothing happens needlessly Everything has its purpose regardless if I know what those purposes are, so I don't believe in needless suffering

Although I don't claim to know why Animals suffer in the way that they do there's an element of that we can know due to sin

We live in a cursed world and so forth but from a Christian worldview in terms of which a God is sovereign and does everything right all things work out for the

After the counsel of his will okay I don't believe in needless suffering needless suffering is not a feature of the

Christian worldview Okay How do you distinguish revelation from just your brain having false?

Experience. Well, you can't know a brain is having a false experience unless you have an ultimate standard of truth

So you cannot identify falsehood without a standard of truth. That's number one We distinguish revelation from just your brain in a number of ways if I can just speak very generically

I just talked about this with my students For example, someone says how do you distinguish the voice of God and your own voice in your head?

Well, first of all, I don't I don't sound like God right? God doesn't sound like me Okay, if I say something to myself and I could say hey, that's something

I would say to myself It's probably not God anything that I get internally in my mind if it's going to be from God It needs to be consistent with his word.

Now. How do I ultimately distinguish? Well, it's the transcendental argument Okay, my argument is not the transcendental argument is not subject to this kind of like well

It could just be a brain experience. It's an argument. It's a rational argument Okay, the revelation of God is true by the impossibility of the contrary

We have the objective revelation of God both in general and special revelation And it provides the necessary preconditions for intelligible experience and when it's denied the opposite worldview is reduced to absurdity

Okay. Now if you are argue, well all of that's just in your brain Then you're holding to a perspective

In terms of which it's impossible to know anything objectively true because you could always posit it posit that it's something of the brain

That worldview undercuts knowledge of anything which would undercut the very object the very question itself

Okay, so I don't I think there is a distinction because the argument provides the justification

It's not simply just a subjective, you know thing in the brain. Okay, and I don't think

Revelation experience of revelation occurs in the brain. Okay, that's not my worldview my worldview

I believe that man has an immaterial aspect to him Thinking on my perspective does not occur in the brain it occurs in the mind the immaterial mind now the mind and the brain are

Interconnected in very mysterious ways. I don't know exactly how to explain that some people might be more Equipped to engage that question.

I do think that when thinking occurs in the immaterial mind There is corresponding activity in the brain

So I don't equate the two but I do think that they are closely related and that they are Separated at death and that is what death is from the

Christian worldview death is not a ceasing to exist rather It is a separation of the soul and the body I get it by a truck

Everyone goes to my funeral my body is in the ground and I go to be with the Lord From that's kind of my metaphysical picture.

So I would have issue with that the way the questions worded there But those are my thoughts there Gabriel is gonna say isn't personal revelation founded on sand personal revelation.

What do you mean personal revelation? You mean something that someone just claims I have a revelation, right?

That's not the nature of the Christian revelation the Christian nature of Christian revelation is that it is public right personal revelation is not something that is characteristic of the biblical perspective

For on the biblical picture God has revealed himself to everyone the heavens declares the glory of God Okay, the revelation that God has provided can be examined

Objectively it is not something that just happens in my brain That's why the Bible often appeals not just to the inner portions of man as we think about God's revelation

But it also appears to the objective Objective reality that we could examine that we can look at the heavens declare his glory.

It's not simply something that is You know personal and not Examinable by others, okay

The mighty czar Alex says I think it's a foundation of intellectual honesty not asserting something

That is unfalsified. Why can't I understand that sentence? Let me read that again. I think it's a foundation of intellectual honesty not asserting something

That is unfalsified. Okay, you could have worded that differently. I'm I'm gonna skip that one because I don't know how to answer it because of the way it's worded.

Maybe it's me. I apologize Sorry about that mighties are like love the name by the way big Star Wars fan Let's see here

Right, so Gabriel goes on to say isn't personal revelation founded on sand as people can be wrong about their experiences and how they interpret

Them. Yeah, if you're saying a personal revelation like no one else has this revelation

Yeah, the person there's no way for me to know if you're having that revelation because it's personal subjective to you but that's not the nature of Christian revelation

Christian revelation is public and Examinable so to speak.

Okay, so the no Christian standing on a biblical base is gonna say I have this personal revelation that no one else has access to Someone claims that there are problems with that biblically and yes people can be wrong about their experiences but to be wrong about your experiences presupposes a standard of rightness and that you could know the difference between right experience and wrong experiences to Judge those experiences

Okay, and the possibility of people misinterpreting their experience does not logically entail that no one can properly interpret their experiences for the interpretation of experience

Okay can be done when someone is operating upon a correct worldview that provides a context to interpret

Your personal experiences and the standards of whether those experiences are true or false and so forth.

Okay Mm -hmm

Right. So mighties are like says you're fallible mind and asserting it comes from God You're fallible mind, right?

So fallibility is known because there are standards of infallibility

Right, and so we have objective standards to measure fallibility. Okay, I Grant that I am fallible because I know that God is infallible and I know that I can't reach his standards, right?

But he is a standard by which I can make Assertions that are infallibly true because the infallible one reveals it

Okay, that's it if the infallible God exists and he infallibly reveals certain truths not everything

There are things that I could be wrong about right but there are things that I would argue I can't be wrong about and those things I can't be wrong about I can't be wrong about them because the one who can't be

Wrong reveals it. Okay from within the Christian worldview. That's possible. That's what I'm saying from my perspective

Let's see here And Let's see here my desire that continues do you think the impossibility of the contrary is reasserting the claim

God is the necessary precondition for transcendentals saying it's necessary already implies. The contrary is impossible

So do you think the impossibility contrary is reasserting the claim that God is necessary was not the impossibility of the contrary is

Just the outflow of a transcendental argument. It tries to show What a transcendental arguments trying to prove so if I were to take them the the

Logical structure of a transcendental argument X is the necessary condition for why why therefore

X? That's all we're saying X is the necessary condition for why X the Christian worldview is the necessary precondition for some fact why?

Okay, maybe why is something we all agree on maybe why is The general reliability of our senses.

Why is the uniformity of nature? Why is you know any fact that we could agree upon X is the necessary condition for that fact?

That's always that's all we're saying. We're not just reasserting. God's necessary. We're saying God is necessary How do we know he's necessary by the impossibility of the contrary if you deny the

God then you lose the preconditions You see so I don't think it's as simple as as you laid it out there, but thank you mighties are like Oh, come on Come on Are you trolling me mighties are like maybe you weren't here from the beginning, but so no you're saying

God is true because you presuppose. God is true. No. No, I'm not saying

God is true simply because I presuppose God I'm saying that I can justify the presupposition now.

I know people say you can't justify a presupposition by definition That's a common misconception one second.

That's a common misconception You can justify presuppositions via transcendental arguments.

Okay Transcendental argument can in principle justify a presupposition. Okay, if it's a if it's a successful transcendental argument

So so no, I'm not simply saying I presuppose God I presuppose God that's true But then I justify that presupposition via transcendental argumentation.

Okay? Okay. All right.

Dedicated ghost archive says if God upholds his creation. Does that mean he upholds the suffering as well? I'm a new

Christian. As I said, I just want answers to these hard questions. Yeah, that's a great question Yeah, so if God upholds his creation, does that mean he upholds suffering as well?

Yes, it absolutely does now when you say upholds it really depends what you mean But yes, there is no such thing as suffering within the

Christian worldview. That is purposeless Okay, God permits suffering because he has sovereign purposes in permitting them.

Okay in whatever instance of suffering and of course Jesus Christ Jesus Christ himself suffered and God the

Father and the triune God were was sovereign over that process as well, right because God accomplishes things through suffering

Okay amongst them. There are many reasons for suffering but amongst them is the sanctification of the believer

We become more Christlike as we work through suffering and difficult times trusting in God in the process.

Okay That's one of the many reasons there are other reasons as well. Some of the reasons we don't know So biblically

I can tell you why God permits suffering and then there are other aspects of suffering that I'm not sure Why God permits this specific instance of suffering but because the

Bible teaches that God is sovereign He is good and he has purposes. We know that God has sufficiently good reasons for the suffering that he does in fact permit and as Children of God we trust him in the midst of suffering and of course

God suffers alongside us in the sense that he sends Christ Christ suffers and goes through a horrible death and You know the

God -man Jesus Christ sympathizes with us Mere mortals as we go through this life suffering as well.

And so so yeah I would say that God upholds suffering as well. And that is why suffering is never purposeless and as a new

Christian It is a very encouraging thing to know that when you are suffering God has good reasons for permitting suffering in our life and he permits suffering for our good

Whether you can see that good or not We trust that God does in fact have those goods and we trust in his plans and his purposes through difficult situations

Okay, great question. Excellent All right.

Okay, so I've heard justice already, but I will do it again So so due to the impossibility of the contrary is a very large claim.

I Mean, it's a transcendental argument. I mean transcendental arguments are kinds of arguments. So I mean,

I guess it's a large claim, but okay All right, that's that's not a that's not a point against it, right

But he says due to the impossibility of the contrary is a large claim How but how can my worldview or other worldviews being incoherent lend any extra?

Probability towards your worldview being true. Well, first of all a successful Transcendental argument eliminates the probability of my worldview being true for if a worldview is true by the impossibility of the contrary

It must be true. It's not probably true The transcendental argument is not a probability argument as a matter of fact throughout the history of philosophical argumentation

Transcendental arguments are primarily Anti -skeptical arguments they are meant to provide such a certainty that the skeptic cannot deny it

Okay, at least that's the that's the attempt of it, right? So the nature of a transcendental argument is not a probabilistic argument now when you say due to the impossibility of the contrary is a

Large claim, but how can my worldview or other worldviews being incoherent lend any credible probability?

Well the the the It what lends to my worldview being true is not merely the insufficiency of your worldview

That's simply an illustration of the fact that when we show that the Christian worldview does in fact provide the necessary Preconditions for intelligibility it provides those necessary conditions.

That's what lends to the truth The person says but what about this other worldview over here and to illustrate the truth of the

Christian worldview and the insufficiency of another worldview we can take those other world views and show see it doesn't work as an

Illustration of the main point that we proved over here when we showed that the Christian worldview does in fact provide those necessary Preconditions, so I'm not saying that the transcendental argument is credible because other worldviews fail

That's part of it But I'm saying that the Christian worldview is demonstrated as true because it does in fact provide those necessary preconditions and if it provides those necessary preconditions the very definition of Necessary is that it has to be the only one since you can't have two necessaries if that makes sense.

Okay, great question Thank you. Mighty czar like Okay Mighty czar

Alex. Sorry. I was responding to something. Okay, that that's okay. Yeah, my bad. It's hard I'm just reading through the text. That's no problem.

All right, let's see here All right pinned comment says it's just seems to me you're conflating logical and ontological priority

With actually proving that said logical priority is the case. I don't understand what you're saying.

I don't see how I'm conflating anything I'm saying God is ontologically prior to logic

Because logic is a reflection of his thinking logic is grounded in that which is metaphysically ultimate from within the

Christian worldview What is metaphysically ultimate is the ontological triune God? There's nothing more fundamental than he so I'm not conflating it

I have a metaphysical position the ultimate foundation of reality is the ontological triune

God Logic is a reflection of his thinking we're creating his image and therefore we can think logically

Okay without actually proving. Okay. I'm saying that unless that's part of the argument, right?

So if you do not presuppose the ontological triune God who provides the metaphysical preconditions for intelligible experience

And you reject his revelation such that we can then have access to that metaphysical reality Then it undercuts any intelligibility logic knowledge and all those other things that I've been talking about ad nauseum

Okay, so now there's no conflation of logical priority God is ontologically prior the laws of logic are grounded in the ontological prior triune

God And that is proven by how the transcendental argument, okay, which I've went over before but thank you for that pinned comment

I like that name pinned comment. That's such an interesting Pin comment.

So what's your transcendental argument? Yeah, so we've laid this out a bajillion times in the channel If this is your first time that's totally fine.

I like to simplify it So if knowledge is possible the Christian worldviews true knowledge is possible. Therefore the

Christian worldviews true. No, it's not fallaciously circular If someone's thinking that I'm not asserting the

Christian worldviews true because the Christian worldviews true The argument is if knowledge is possible. The Christian worldview is true knowledge is possible.

Therefore the Christian worldviews true It's not logically sir. It's not fallaciously circular because the conclusion is not baked into one of the premises.

Okay? That's just I mean, that's a logically valid argument. Even if you disagree with whether it's sound as to its form.

It's perfectly valid Okay. Now the first premise of the argument if knowledge is possible the

Christian worldviews true I would probably depending on who I'm talking to if someone's more nuanced I would actually hash out what

I mean by the Christian worldview I would say more specifically the Christian worldview as understood within the reformed perspective

There are certain theological and metaphysical aspects of God understood of God within the reformed tradition

Which is the tradition I hold to and so when I say the Christian worldview, I mean within that context I think that's the best

Flavor of Christianity that can be defended by this argument But nevertheless if knowledge is possible the

Christian worldviews true is simply to assert that the Christian worldviews the necessary precondition for knowledge

Okay How do you know this? How is the first premise defended? It's defended via a transcendental argument

X is the necessary precondition for Y Y therefore X So the Christian worldview is the necessary precondition for knowledge.

We have knowledge Therefore the Christian worldview is true because the Christian worldview is the necessary precondition for knowledge

What must be true in order for there to be knowledge? Well, there has to be truth the truth has to be accessible right and truth with respect to ultimate reality

Cannot be known independent of a foundation of knowledge for us It is the triune God who reveals so God who creates all things defines all things, right?

Reveals to finite creatures the nature of the world that he created such that we could know it So from within the

Christian worldview, I could have knowledge given Christian presuppositions Okay, even more details we could hash out but the

Christian worldview given its metaphysical and epistemological picture Provides that which is necessary to have knowledge if it provides those necessary preconditions

It follows it's the only worldview that's true because if it's necessary, it must be the only one you can't have two necessaries now

If someone disagrees with my argument there they can say well Wait a minute that they if knowledge is possible

The Christian worldview is true is not true because I have this counterclaim over here from this worldview I can perfectly account for knowledge the precondition so on and so forth and of course then the discussion would ensue from there

Okay, that's in a thumbnail. I've gone over this a bajillion times, but that's okay maybe it's your first time here and that's totally fine, but that's kind of the the

The project I would engage in. Okay to try and demonstrate the point, okay

All right Okay, so all right, so this is old hat here

So Gabriel says you cannot use an argument to support foundational revelation both personal and public any arguments for both personal and public would be

Circular maybe a good place to start is what is I don't know what he wrote. What is revelation?

It seems to be feeling a realization something is true Okay, so a bunch of things wrong with it. So you cannot use an argument to support foundational revelation because it would be

Circular I gave my transcendental argument to argue for revelation Can you prove that it's circular if knowledge is possible?

The Christian worldview is true knowledge is possible Therefore the Christian worldview is true. What is inherent within the Christian worldview?

Yes revelation So that is a transcendental argument for revelation implicitly So I gave an argument there the conclusion is not fallaciously stated in one of the premises here

You need to make the important distinction Gabriel between the premise of an argument and the presupposition of the argument

I presuppose the truth of my position, but that presupposition is not fallaciously stated in one of the premises

Okay, and I'm willing to defend the first premise which is the transcendental premise via the transcendental argument in the way that I've laid out

Before so I just simply disagree when you say I can't argue for these things because it would be circular

It's not fallaciously circular as the structure of my arguments shown But in a sense we always

Presuppose our found ultimate foundations because you cannot justify an ultimate foundation by appealing to something more ultimate than that foundation

But some might argue but if you can't justify an ultimate foundation by appealing to something more fundamental Then you can't prove your foundation.

Yes, you can How do you prove a foundation without appealing to something more fundamental a transcendental argument?

You show that that foundation is true by the impossibility of the contrary that if you do not presuppose that you lose the foundation

For proving anything at all. Okay, so that's along the lines of how

I would I would argue All right Frank Odom says will you please explain what transcendental is?

I listen to stuff like this probably 10 hours a day and just need to go a tennis breaker clarity before agreement

Alright, thank you for that Frank. Let me just grab one a cup of water here. Oh, man.

I'm running out. This is not good Okay. Okay. So Transcendentals when we're arguing when we're talking about transcendentals, we're talking about what is known as the preconditions for intelligibility okay, what does that mean a precondition of intelligibility or transcendental categories would be that which must be true pre

Condition what must be the case in order for something else to make sense? so if I were to Use an example if I were on the second floor of a building

What must be true in order for me to be on the second floor of a building? What are the necessary preconditions for me being on the second floor?

Well, there must be a first floor, right? Otherwise, if there's not a first floor, then I'm not on the second floor, right?

It's kind of just a loose example, right? So transcendentals deal with what must be true in order for something else to be true.

Okay transcendental categories can include Let's say the laws of logic okay, the laws of logic are a necessary precondition for intelligibility and knowledge if Logic is not a thing then you cannot make meaningful

Propositions like I love coffee or I will go to the beach since language and its intelligibility

Presupposed categories of logical principles like the law of identity and so forth Okay, so transcendentals deal with the necessary preconditions of intelligibility time and space

Okay, personal identity through time. That's a necessary precondition If I am

NOT the same person I was before then I'm gonna have problems when I do and say things, right? So identity is a presupposition a transcendental category

Okay, so you have logic personal identity through time time and space a whole bunch of different transcendental categories

But then we ask the question What worldview can account for those transcendental categories and bring them together in a meaningful way?

So as to have this thing we call intelligible experience or knowledge Okay, what worldview unifies them?

I'll tell you one thing a worldview that doesn't unify them is a worldview that is grounded in an open system of pure Chance and randomness

Okay, because chance and randomness you have just a bunch of disjointed beads

You need a string to bring the beads together and unify those transcendental categories the

Christian worldview argues that those Disjointed beads those transcendental categories are unified within the very mind of God That's why those transcendental categories are necessary They relate to each other and they provide a coherent

Foundation for us finite individuals made in the image of God to make sense out of everything else Okay and so those are the preconditions for intelligible experience and the preconditions for those

Transcendentals are the alt is the ultimate transcendental the very mind of the triune God himself. How do we know this?

He's revealed himself. How do we prove revelation through their justification is the transcendental argument?

Okay. I hope that makes sense Hope that makes sense. Sorry if I'm going through it fast I mean these questions are I've heard them before which is perfectly fine.

But I mean, I love talking about this stuff. So Gabriel says what is revelation?

It seems to be a feeling of realizations. Something is true a Feeling of real is no revelation is not simply a feeling now.

I would argue that revelation is an innate knowledge Okay, knowledge is not necessarily a feeling.

Okay revelation is a knowledge God reveals something to us He reveals it externally we look and see and he reveals and I think that the very fact that we can think is itself a

Revelation. So I think revelation of God is innate as well. It is not a feeling of Anything, although it might be connected to a realization of certain things

But I wouldn't define it in that way the way that you've described it there Right, so mighty's are like says can

I just say reality is the necessary preconditions for transcendental we have transcendental therefore reality and I'm justified No, you can't just say that because what is reality

Reality is reality, right is reality an ultimate one because if it is that's gonna impact whether you can make sensitive transcendence

Is reality an ultimate many loose and disjointed with no transcendent unifiers?

That's going to impact whether you can provide the necessary preconditions for those transcendentals You see when you say reality is reality.

You are starting with what is called an abstract Universal you are Asserting a universal category that is abstract and ambiguous

There's no content to the statement reality is reality because we you're not filling in what reality is

You're just asserting this abstract principle you call reality now a lot of people don't like to fill in the categories of what reality is because of that gets you into metaphysics and if you make metaphysical statements about the nature of reality

Then you run roughshod into the epistemological problem of how do you know? The nature of reality is what you assert, right?

And if you don't have a God within your worldview who reveals and you're starting from a worldview where there is no God There is no revelation.

How can you know as a finite being the true nature of reality? If you don't know the true nature of reality, then you cannot assert whether it provides the necessary preconditions

Maybe we live in an open system in which chance randomness is The case and anything is possible

Everything is birthed out of the womb of chance and randomness on that view. Anything would be possible. We live in an irrational

Irrational reality, whatever reality is right? And so that's why the Christian does not start with a an abstract universal

We start with a concrete Universal there is content to our metaphysic. We don't just say reality is reality is reality

We actually Assert what the nature of reality is at the fundamental level and the fundamental foundation of reality is the triune

God Who creates all things gives meaning to all things provides a basis be a revelation for our epistemology such that we could explain?

How we know what we know with respect to the things that God has revealed and how we ought to live our lives Which by the way are the three foundations of every worldview metaphysics epistemology and ethics.

Okay, so so yeah That's why you can't simply say Reality it provides the necessary preconditions because that's that's undefined.

What does that even mean? What is reality? Well reality is what's real? Okay, what's real? What's the nature of what is real?

Okay realities reality is a tautology You're not giving us any information that we can actually deal with right?

So you're starting with an abstract universal I would argue starting with a concrete universal would be better Would be would be better in terms of providing a foundation for those transcendentals and that's why for example

Islam Would be in a better position to engage what I'm saying because they have a closed system

Not not everything issues from a foundation of chance and therefore not everything is quote -unquote

Hypothetically possible on that view and so they can add content to their metaphysic

Okay The Muslim can add content to their metaphysic and then we could actually deal with Well do these provide the preconditions for the trip for these transcendental categories?

Okay, and I would argue as a Christian they don't so just because you start just because you add content to that metaphysic doesn't mean

It's a true metaphysic. Then we have to now engage in the content with the critique, right? You need to assert your worldview.

We give us the details We could talk about whether those worldview conditions actually meet the conditions necessary for intelligible experience and so forth.

Okay All right. Good question. Good question Let's see here

All right, so I have a video on my channel where I try to talk about Plato and why

Platonism doesn't work Okay, so a pin comment says, okay, so you mentioned the impossibility of the contrary How is say a type of Platonism which posits that preconditions for intelligibility or eternal properties abstract objects?

Yeah, so the problem with Plato is because he lacks revelation. There's no way to connect the ideals to the particulars

I mean he asserted that there were ideals, but there is no way to bring them together He doesn't provide a foundation for even moral aughts for example

So in the Platonic realm if you have issues like justice and issues of morality There is no being that imposes the aughtness with respect to how we act upon those

So there is a disconnect between Plato's ideals and his particulars. He affirms them, but how are they in touch with one another?

He couldn't answer that question. I'm not gonna go through that now. There's a whole video just look up revealed apologetics Platonism or something like that and I go into the details of that But the problem for Plato is that he asserts these universal categories

He asserts the particulars, but he has no way metaphysically speaking and epistemologically to link them together

How does the immaterial realm of ideas? How is it in touch with the realm of particularity?

Okay, so you can look that up on the video, but thank you so much. All right, let's see here

Pin comment a while back You responded to a comment saying that you were trying to get William Lane Craig verse being young Guillaume been young a friend of mine.

He is a philosopher analytic philosopher and an expert in the area of Theistic determinism and Calvinism and stuff like that.

It's a debate compatibilism versus it's actually Molin ism. Not Moanin ism I'm sure that is a spelling error.

That's an accident. Yeah any update on that? Yeah, um, I think that Guillaume had reached out to William Lane Craig and William Lane Craig respectfully declined an interaction with being being young So unfortunately that that's not gonna happen.

Although that would have been a good one. That would have been a good one If you're really interested in being young and his his interaction

Molin ism. Look on the gospel truth That's Marlon Wilson's channel where he hosts debates there and there's a debate between Guillaume being young Calvinist and oh

Man, what's his name? Oh My goodness. He's we had him on my show, too.

Oh my goodness. What's his name is the mole in this guy? Holy cow. Oh I'm good.

This is really this is really bad. Oh now I have to go. Okay, you're gonna wait up I have to look his up his name. I'm gonna

Forget that name I Hope he never watches this because that's embarrassing as I've had him on the show before So look up Guillaume been young.

Okay versus Kirk McGregor Kirk McGregor is a well -noted Molinist brilliant guy.

They had a great interaction there. I think Guillaume did an excellent job in that debate Kirk McGregor I don't think did as well, but he is a brilliant man a gentleman and a scholar

It's a really good discussion, but a little bit technical But if you're interested in that whole like compatibilism and Molinism stuff

Highly recommend you check out that video on Marlon Wilson's channel the gospel truth type in Guillaume GU I L L a u m e being young be

I G n o n and Kirk McGregor and you'll find it there. Okay, and Guillaume has been on my channel as well

Interacting with people like Tim Stratton Braxton Hunter and Layton flowers Okay, and we have two videos two hours a piece we go in -depth

On responding to a lot of the claims from folks who hold to like a libertarian free will perspective and that's on my channel highly recommend

Those videos. All right Right.

Okay. So Gabriel says in your syllogism for the transcendental argument Why is there no mention of revelation both personal and in and personal and public, right?

So let's go over the the syllogism again So in the syllogism if knowledge is possible, the Christian worldview is true knowledge is possible.

Therefore the Christian worldview is true the the mention of revelation both personal and public

Is implicit in the first premise so if knowledge is possible the Christian worldview is true

What is entailed by the Christian worldview when you look in the Christian worldview? What do we have? Well, we have revelation that is both general and God reveals things to individuals as well, right?

So it's implicit in the first premise by definition of the Christian worldview. You don't have to explicitly state it

It's entailed by the Christian worldview Okay So it'd be included and that's actually a Gabriel the specific reason why

I made the premise the way that it is notice I'd not saying if knowledge is possible God exists

I couch God within a particular context because I'm arguing for a worldview not just some isolated fact like God or Some aspect of Christianity I'm saying if knowledge is possible

Then the whole Christian system is true since the Christian system is a necessary precondition for knowledge. So it'd be entailed in the first premise

Okay, let's see here Pinned comment says not my first time here, but first time interacting or seeing you speak on tag

I usually watch your videos with Guillaume freewill, but thanks for answering. Oh, no problem. Yeah. Okay. I'm sorry I didn't recognize that.

Well now that I think about it, I think I do recognize you but yeah when Guillaume is on It's a lot of fun. He's a really sharp guy

Definitely above my pay grade. I've learned a lot from him. But yeah, I Love Guillaume.

It's been a while though since I've spoken with him Mighty's are like said, okay.

Let me know what you think I'll try my best because sometimes I have to like stop and think about let me see So let me know what you think premise one the

Christian God with its omni properties. Well first We do not refer to God in the impersonal

God is a personal being so we do not refer to the Christian God as an it That would be impersonal.

So I would probably probably want to firm that part up So the if premise one the

Christian God leads to a contradiction Okay Contradictions can exist therefore the

Christian God can't exist. Okay. I mean, let me think about that one. Okay, so the

Christian God Leads to a Contradiction. Oh, yeah, so good.

So I think I mean, I'm not I'm not like the Graham Pumbaa of syllogisms But as I'm looking it looks as to its structure valid and someone could try to say hey the

Christian God is contradictory because you know in my debate with Eric Murphy as an atheist

I Don't remember hit the show yet, but I was on a show there. You can look about my channel

It's called a friendly dialogue with an atheist friendly debate or something like that Just type in Eli Allah Eric Murphy and he tried to do this by showing that the

Trinity was incoherent And of course, I responded to him Answering that it's not right so you could try to show an internal inconsistency.

So if you say the if the Christian God Don't sorry, you don't have it conditional. You say the Christian God leads to a contradiction

Okay, so if that's your assertion then in order to demonstrate that you need to do the internal critique

So you have to hypothetically grant the truth of Christian worldview and show that on its own ground There's some kind of inconsistency within the attributes of God.

You might argue, you know, if God is all -powerful and all -good You know, he has the power to remove evil if he's good

He has the desire to remove evil evil exists Therefore God is not all -powerful or he's not all good or whatever.

You can try to use one of those arguments And of course the Christians gonna have their responses

So, yeah that's exact and this is not something that like I would run away from like I keep telling people this like If you want to critique the

Christian worldview like do the internal critique The problem is a lot of the attempts of the internal critique demonstrate and I'm not saying this to about you my desire like there

I just in general what I find is that when people try to engage in the internal critique They don't actually understand the

Christian worldview enough to accurately represent the Christian worldview So oftentimes they will try the internal critique and on accident misrepresent the

Christian world in the Christians gonna be like well That's not my position. And so the critique doesn't fall So so yeah, so that that would be the project you would try to do

But then you can push back if you're coming from an atheistic perspective, you know, you have to survive the internal critique as well so if you cannot provide the necessary preconditions for logic and you hold to an open system in terms of which

Anything is possible Then how can you? Justify the laws of logic in that worldview the very laws of logic that you use to engage in the internal critique

So there are a lot of things that are coming into play here. That's why we're talking about whole paradigms whole paradigms

Okay. Now if you were to say the Christian God leads to a contradiction, I'm going to disagree with that premise, right?

I think that that premise is is false I don't even think so when you're thinking in terms of logic

I think logic which is needed to identify a contradiction Doesn't make sense apart from the

Christian God whose attribute sets provide the foundation for the very laws of logic you're using to try to try to Invalidate his coherence so to speak.

So I would say that the premise one is false And my good friend there Matt yester says premise one is false.

Yes, I would agree premise one is false. Okay All right, my knees are a lack there by the way

Thank you for your answers and being civil answering we may disagree, but I like your style of engagement being open Thank you so much. I really do appreciate that Mighty's are like and I appreciate your questions to keeping me on my toes as I'm trying to answer off the cuff

So I appreciate appreciate your comments. Appreciate your question Let me see here also you must exist is that a precondition of you being on the third floor of the second floor?

Yes, that's true a necessary precondition for me being on the second floor. I said the second floor I suppose you can do the third floor as well

The necessary precondition of being on the second floor is that a that a first floor exists and another necessary Precondition is that I exist to be on the second floor.

So that's true. There are multiple Necessary preconditions. Okay. So yes, very good

Okay, my knees are like says Matt, oh so that's Matt tonight yes, he's a sure it's on me to show the contradiction They thank you.

Mighty's are lack. I Appreciate this. Okay, you have no idea how much

I appreciate this Okay, because you get it mighty czar lack and I'm not being sarcastic at all

He says sure it's on me to show the contradiction mighty czar lack now shows that he understands

That when we make the transcendental argument we offer our explanation you might disagree, but we offer the argument and so now when someone says but ah,

I Think there's a contradiction in your your your understanding of God. It's on me to then now provide that contradiction

So it's not an issue of simply disagreeing with the perspective. You actually have to argue for it So I appreciate that mighty czar like he says he uses the epicurean

Paradox to support premise one. Okay. So again, we would obviously disagree there

But that would be one of the ways you would try to engage and so I do appreciate that one. Okay, let's see here

So Jay says how do you respond to someone who questions the biblical authors experiences in other words How can we differentiate truth and falsity?

How do we know God truly spoke is experience reliable? Yeah, so all of these are going to provide all of these are going to require necessary preconditions, right?

So you say how do you respond to someone's questions about biblical authors experiences? In other words, how can we differentiate truth from falsity?

Yeah, that's a great question. If you if someone is raising this objection From the foundation of a worldview that cannot itself differentiate from truth and falsity

Then the very objection doesn't make sense You see the fact that someone says well, how do you know their experiences were true that question presupposes a way to distinguish?

What's true and false and if that worldview is from an open system as we discussed where technically everything's possible

Then you don't have a foundation if you have a closed system and it's not the Christian system We're gonna offer a way of critique as well.

We're gonna challenge We're gonna challenge your epistemology and so forth Okay, and this is why we argue from worldview and not just individual isolated points

I'm so how do you know so -and -so had this experience and he could well I'm not gonna just address your question directly because it really is a presuppositional issue

Right, if you say how do I know something's true or false that presupposes a theory of true and false, right?

And so I want you to justify that Because I don't agree with your ability to then ask this question from a foundation that's intelligible, right?

So I would I would attack the foundations of the question not simply address it directly

Because in addressing it directly we will on we would the person would unfortunately allow certain presuppositions to stand when those are the very things

That we need to be challenging Okay Let's see your mat. Yes. You're hey, Matt. How's it going? He says every inference and act of predication presupposes the existence and absolute personal harmony of unity and diversity

Within the triune God. Yes So this deals with unity and diversity, which is another necessary precondition for intelligibility and knowledge

So if you want to have intelligible experience, you need to have some way of accounting for how unity and diversity are brought together

Okay, this was the problem in pre Socratic philosophy and all throughout the history of philosophy. How do we unify?

The particulars of human experience, right? You have this issue of Universals in particulars, right?

There are people who are nominalists who reject universal categories and that undercuts the preconditions of intelligibility

I would argue And so you need universal categories. How do you bring unity and diversity together from the

Christian worldview? You might not agree with the Christian world. You might say the Christian world is false. But guess what the

Christian worldview? Interestingly enough not trying to answer this philosophical question. We posit a

God who is triune There is one God who exists as three persons within the very nature of God You have unity in his essence and plurality in his persons being equally ultimate

God as the ontological foundation Who is in his nature both one and many?

Provides the context and meaningfulness of the one and many that we experience in our human experience of particulars and universal categories

Right Matt yester goes on to say that the denials denials that the

Trinity exists are acts of predication conclusion Conclusion the triune

God exists. So let's let's get this up here so premise one every inference an act of predication presupposes the existence an absolute personal harmony of unity and diversity within the triune

God to Denials that the Trinity exists are acts of predication. That's true You need to predicate in order to deny it and then the conclusion therefore the triune

God exists. Okay premise one Every instance an act of predication presuppose the existence of absolute personal harmony of unity and diversity.

How do you demonstrate this? Well, you can point out unity and diversity and show how they they are required to be made sense of in order to have

Meaningful predication and so forth that can be done quite easily You deny the

Trinity you have to predicate and So the conclusion the triune God exists unless you have another way to account for unity and diversity

Which is the foundation of predication? You're gonna have to give your counter worldview claim and then it's gonna be your fundamental foundation versus the

Trinity which is the Christian Foundation and of course the Christian welcomes that since they believe the

Christian worldview the triune God answers these Fundamental questions in the way other worldviews do not.

Okay. Thank you for that Matt. I love that good stuff Frank Odom says well,

I haven't heard this since like the 90s boom shaka Lanka. Okay, I get it. Thank you

Eli I've recently picked up always ready by Bonson. Awesome. Excellent. That's a great starter

I always tell people if you're gonna read Bonson, that's the first one to go to that is an excellent excellent book All right

Let's see here What original thought do you bring to the subject

I say that nicely and unloaded Well, I don't claim to be an

Original an original right? I'm not I'm not making this up I I stand on people who have gone before and fleshed out these ideas.

I suppose my unique Contribution as I understand it.

All right, and I'm not saying I'm anyone of importance is That I have seen years ago and even today that those who hold presuppositional perspective

Tend to get a bad rap because of how they engage and so one of the things that I've tried to do is to Engage with presuppositions talk about those foundations, but do it in a way

That is different than the negative picture that is often that is often seen out there that coupled with my attempt whether I succeed or not is to bridge the gap between The scholars who talk too high that we can't really understand and the average person

I try to find a middle I'm not going super simplistic where you know, I simply say by what standard right?

But I'm not talking so highfalutin that you know, I'm up here with peer -reviewed paper. Like I'm not a scholar, right?

I'm not a scholar. I'm a regular dude. I got my theology background. I have a master of arts and theological studies

I have a master divinity with a theological focus I took one semester of apologetics in my entire time in seminary

Most of my apologetics is you know, I'm I'm learned. I'm an on auto.

What do you say that an auto? Didactic, I don't know if that's the right word. I learned because I've listened

I've talked these sorts of things so I'm not a scholar so I try my contribution really has tried to be the bridge between the

Sophisticated people up here the average person that's somewhere in the middle where it goes beyond simplistic

But not so far where it's you know Academic and impossible to understand have I succeeded in that?

I don't know. I mean, I'm trying right? Hopefully when people hear me even when they disagree they say well at least he's not making these like simplistic claims that we often hear

I disagree with them. But yeah, I can kind of see where he's coming from. And you know, he's kind of giving some more

Putting more flesh on some of the claims that presuppositions make if I've accomplished that then

I'm I'm I'm happy with that With with respect to originality like no, I didn't invent the transcendental argument

You know, I didn't invent, you know presuppositional ism or anything like that so I don't claim to be original now someone

Identifies something that I've said that is original then cool I haven't done this with the intention of trying to be original

But I suppose maybe I've had an original thought somewhere. So Okay, that's a fun question

Okay, let's see here Eli I like you, but I don't understand revelation is a knowing

I don't know what that means. I like you But thank you for liking me. Thank you appreciating

Thank you, but I don't understand revelation is a knowing

Yes, so, okay. I don't understand. I don't think I don't I'm not sure what you're saying But when you know something

Okay, but we put it this way if the Christian worldviews true. God created all things and the things that he creates is revelatory of him as the creator and God created you he created your mind.

He created your conscious moments when you are conscious of something that itself is a creation of God and hence is revelatory of God and so knowing is

Obviously, it's a process you come to know things But the very process itself because it's created is itself a revelation since everything in creation both external and innate is revelatory of God Okay, does everyone acknowledge that is everyone fully aware of that in the in a fully orb sense not necessarily

We've talked about in previous videos the issue of the role of sin and how we suppress the truth and unrighteousness also people

Are in some instances self -deceived. I Explained in another video that the claim that some people are self -deceived is not a bare assertion we talked about how we can give evidence for the fact that there is some kind of Self -deception with respect to the knowledge of God and we kind of can talk ourselves out of these sorts of things

I went into great detail in a previous video that I'm not gonna revisit here But yeah, so I would say revelation a knowing is revelation in that in the sense that I've described there

So the knowing process your waking moments your conscious moments are created by God because God created your mind created you and in that sense

Everything that is created is revelatory Okay, so sorry if that doesn't answer your question.

I tried but but thanks. I like you too Gabriel appreciate it Let me take another drink of water.

Let me tell you something. I went live thinking I was only gonna go for an hour We're at two hours and 23 minutes and I'm actually doing okay

So we're gonna stay on for a little bit until I completely lose my voice. Holy cow.

All right Okay Right.

So too far gone says how would you respond to those who claim the church the Catholic Orthodox gave us the canon of Scripture.

Yeah, so this is a good question. So you do have not so much Catholics, but like Eastern some Eastern Orthodox folks

We'll try to use Kind of a form of presuppositional ism in their argumentation.

So for from within the reform perspective, I hold to a revelational epistemology And it is grounded in God's revelation both general and special specifically.

We place a great emphasis on God's revelation in his Word Eastern Orthodox Presuppositionalists tend to use what is known in some circles as an ecclesiastical

Ecclesiastical pronounce that correctly epistemology that knowledge is grounded in the church and the church provides the foundations necessary for the

Preconditions because the church that gives us the Bible which puts forth the worldview that provides all those preconditions

Okay, and I would I would argue by challenging the authority of the church

And how do you do that? You can do it in two ways as I understand it challenging the church authority You can engage an internal critique of the particular system

Eastern Orthodox Roman Catholicism and you could offer a counterpoint against The ecclesiastical authority and its epistemological status that it holds within those perspectives.

How do you do that? Well, one of the ways you can positively do that Is defend the principle of sola scriptura if you defend the principle of sola scriptura that actually undermines the validity if you do it successfully

It undermines the validity of the ecclesiastical authority perspective from the other side

So you could defend sola scriptura in a positive sense and you could internally critique the other worldview in kind of the negative sense

Internal critique so that's how I would that's how I would go about it Okay Now obviously that's a big question, you know You'd have to be able to defend sola scriptura and all that kind of stuff

And yes, if you don't hold to sola scriptura, I already know the things you're gonna say Well, where in the bible does it say that we have responses to that?

And I think and you might disagree. I think that they that there are powerful defenses of sola scriptura Um, and I think there are good internal critiques of roman catholicism and so forth

But that's not the the nature of this specific stream. But there you go. Those are my thoughts. Uh there okay

Uh, I don't know if there's an answer to someone else tim stratton. Yeah, tim stratton is a friend of mine Uh, he's been on the show before actually, um a while back.

Okay a few times I think um But uh, yeah, I like tim stratton cool guy Let's see here

Okay, so pin comment says, ah kirk mcgregor i'm sure binyong demolished kirk I think binyong did a fantastic job

Uh, and kirk is a super nice guy. Yes. He is. He is a super nice guy. I love kirk mcgregor

Um, and no offense to him, but he is no philosopher more so a historian Well, I mean he does have a knowledge of of history of church history and things like that history of theology and things like that But I wouldn't

I wouldn't I wouldn't be so quick to say that with respect to um, the philosophy of molinism I think he is an outstanding proponent of molinism when

I was a molinist I was um, I was deeply impacted by kirk mcgregor and we had some personal correspondence where he helped me understand

A lot of my questions that I had concerning molinism now Ultimately, I came to reject molinism if you guys know anything about me i'm i'm a calvinist a five -point calvinist

Um, but I used to be a molinist and kirk mcgregor was someone that I learned a lot from Um, but uh, but yeah, he's a historian as well and he's also got a book on theology one second

Here we go. This is a book by kirk mcgregor called contemporary theology. So yeah, he's a historian

He's also a theologian and in terms of at least philosophy. I mean, I mean what I know about him

I only know him through the molinism stuff, but he has a pretty solid grasp on the ins and outs of molinism as well

Okay, but in my opinion, I think kirk Um guillaume did a fantastic job, uh in his debate with him very respectful very high

You know quality philosophical discourse. I thought it was excellent highly recommend folks. Check that out All right, let's see here.

Oh my goodness. I came here on accident and there's so many questions. I'm so happy I'm, so good people are listening in and I I enjoy this kind of stuff.

So Thank you for listening in really appreciate it Uh, let's see here

Jay says what is the best way to find fellow believers to discuss and learn from? It's not always easy to find people in the church who like to engage in more technical discussions

Testing testing. All right. Good. Uh, yeah, that is a challenge. Um, that's a challenge that I face um

The church that I go to there are not many people that like to talk about the stuff that i'm talking. There's some Um, so that's that's good.

I go to a fairly large church So I have our we have like a small group and there are some guys there that like to talk about this stuff

So I am blessed in that regard love those guys Um, but yeah, um Talk to people, um in your church, you know, feel it out.

See if people are interested and if they're not Um, perhaps you can teach something

It's like hey, maybe you can do something to encourage people to get interested, right? Say hey, I want to lead a bible study or I want to lead a class on apologetics, you know

Maybe you can kind of get apologetics into your church and maybe the interest will you know, you'll find some interest there

Otherwise if you can't find anyone in your close proximity, I really appreciate the online community, right?

Most of my theology and apologetic and philosophical friends are people that i've had on the show

Or people i've reached out to and talked to personally And I can talk about apologetics with them and theology and we have a really good friendship

I'm friends with people that i've never even met face to face That our interactions have only been over the phone and they

I consider them close friends You know, we talk about stuff all the time Um, i'll give you

It's some of my personal friends and i've met I happen to meet in person But not a lot i've only met a few times because of traveling and stuff.

So braxton hunter of trinity radio Not a calvinist. He's a mulanist, right? Not a presuppositionalist.

He's a classicalist yet. I consider him a very good friend of mine. We've had countless conversations Um, and he is just such a good friend eric hernandez

If you guys know who eric hernandez is he often debates the topic of the soul I haven't talked to eric in a while But when we talk,

I mean we've spoken over the years for quite a bit and we've even shared the platform when we um

Spoke at an event at texas a &m, uh international university Where we for the first time met in person we stayed up all night talking about Presuppositionalism and you know

Uh a whole bunch of other topics. It was awesome, but we've maintained relationship over the phone So the online community has been really well, uh was really has been really good

Um, and so there are different ways that you can do that fine get on a good Facebook page where you can reach out to people and learn

Things like this and you can like private message people and maybe have a video chat like hey, man I don't know other people who like this stuff

Would you mind kind of talking with me a little bit and you you know You can make friends that way and have good community that way.

So that's what's been helpful to me Okay, I hope that I hope that's helpful to you Uh A friend is trying to use traditional apologetics to his wife.

I'm helping him to switch to Well, here's the thing apologetics doesn't work with your wife

When you point out a fallacy It doesn't work You know, you don't want to go that route.

I'm just kidding. Uh, well cool man. Yeah, there you go I think not only do I think the presuppositional approach is the best approach.

I think it is a very uh, It's not only is it a biblical approach. I think it is the most effective approach

Um, yeah, granted you're gonna have people who are not going to listen that that happens with everything with anything, right? But I think uh, the presuppositional approach is the way to go.

So yeah right on man Uh, let's see here

Okay, so a friend okay So two -minute theology says what question should he ask a friend is trying to use traditional apologetics to his wife

I am helping him switch to presuppositional and then you say

Uh, what question should she should he ask to uncover? her worldview

Yeah, that's that's a good question So remember think in terms of so what I think in terms of worldview a two -minute theology that this is helpful because we can kind of get um

Confused with thinking about a lot of different things. I look for three things Okay, so every worldview is made up of metaphysics

Everyone has a theory of knowledge Epistemology everyone has a um, i'm sorry. I got that mixed up Everyone has a metaphysic a theory of reality.

Everyone has an epistemology a theory of knowledge and everyone has an ethic A theory of how we ought to live our lives.

So the questions you want to ask will be questions that will expose Your wife's theory of what is real?

Okay a good way to show an internal tension Is to ask questions that expose the theory of reality

And then ask questions to expose the theory of ethics and show attention

So for example, if a person's metaphysic is I don't believe that god exists

Then that's going to affect the ethic So when someone the wife says, hey, honey, you did this to me and I think that was wrong

You see there's the ethical principle, but notice that is in conflict with the metaphysical perspective that god does not exist

Right now. I don't expect for you to do that in your relationship, but in conversation, you know, bring that out

Hey, well if you don't believe in god, right think about this Do you live consistently with that when you say i've done something wrong?

Have I done something wrong by what standard have I done something wrong show the tension right so ask questions to expose now

Again, sometimes you don't even have to ask questions to expose the worldview All you need to do is simply listen to what the person is saying

Well, I don't think god exists. That's a metaphysical claim Well, i'm not sure god exists. That's an epistemological claim that has metaphysical presuppositions to it, right?

um, or You know, maybe you're you're discussing some like moral issues, right?

They're going to have it's going to have an uh an ethical theory and um embedded in that Okay, so you don't always have to ask questions.

Sometimes just hearing the person out they will give you Enough information to work with in terms of then asking questions about those worldview foundations.

Okay. Hope that makes sense Uh, let's see here Yeah, so matt yester,

I think he's interacting with someone else but he says epicurean paradox equals problem of evil argument Which has been demonstrated fallacious.

Yep a problem of evil argument comes in different flavors as i'm sure matt knows and uh,

But you have the probabilistic problems of evil which I think have easy answers to them Um, at least from a logical perspective emotionally,

I think it can be difficult responding to some problem of evil arguments Um logical problems of evil

I think are kind of old hat and not a lot of people are putting forth logical problems, I think I think um, and this doesn't make it true, but I think on this the philosophical scene logical problem logical problems of evil are a dying breed of Problem of evil arguments.

Okay. Now if someone still thinks that a logical problem of evil argument holds I mean they can hold to it and they can argue it but I I don't think that uh, those arguments are are uh do

Well, okay. I think there are responses to them Um, okay. Let's see here Yeah, so mighties are like says matt yester not really the epicurean paradox shows how the trilemma of the three omni properties together can exist

I'd like to see maybe mighties are like you could just in like thumbnail sketch Um, why don't you type that out?

Right? What are the three omni properties and how do you think they can exist together? Maybe you can like jot them down real quick and i'll try my best to kind of uh

Share my thoughts. Okay, if I see it here Uh, let's see here Wesley dickens says what's a book on apologetics you thought at the time you read it was great but now you would tell others to To not waste their time

Hmm now that's a really hard question because I have read Apologetic books from like the classical and evidential perspective and that while I didn't

Well, I don't agree with them now. They still have value. I think there's still good things to learn from Classicalists and evidentialists and stuff like that, but a waste of time

Hmm, i'm not sure off the top of my head. I'd have to think about that. Wesley Yeah, that's a good question if I think about it before the stream is over i'll point it out and say okay

Okay here but that's hard You know, i've thought very hard about the books that i've purchased in the past I haven't read all of these in its entirety, but I like them even the ones that I that I don't fully agree with I think they all have some good nuggets

So I think they're not a waste of time Anyway, let's see here.

Hmm. Let's see. Okay. I responded to that one

Let's see here Sorry if I skip anything i'm not meaning to there's

I have to plow through a lot of the comments here Uh, let me see

Oh, wow, well, thank you for that Humbled clay says eli. Hope you take this in the manner It's meant you're the closest thing we have to a modern day.

Greg bonson. Well, i'm not sure that's true, but I I very much approve that that is a very flattering comment.

So thank you very much humbled clay. I am humbled I'm humbled by your by your comment there.

Thank you so much Yeah, I really i'm i've learned the most from greg bonson

So a lot of people think like, you know, I have the books right? You mean i've read i've read the books. I have bonson's books, but most of what i've learned

Has been primarily through his lectures and so, um, I am greatly indebted to the teaching of greg bonson, um,

And that's a great a great compliment. I I don't think knowing myself and then knowing greg bonson. I don't think that that's

That's as true as as as it sounds but I do appreciate that and I greatly, uh, thank you.

Thank you very much All right. Let's see here. Okay just going through here

We're a bunch of dorks geeking out on a friday night on a theological facebook Why why not?

This is cool. It's fun Okay, truth defenders shalom back to you

Okay So gabriel says if you accept self -deception is real doesn't that undercut revelation the knowing uh, no, no, it doesn't undercut

Self -deception is real but self -deception only makes sense within the backdrop of truth

And so I have a worldview in which there is a standard of truth self -deception Um can be a judgment of god

But that is not the normative way that god functions right god is a truth truthful god

He can give someone over so that they fall into self -deception as a judgment But god is not arbitrary in which you know

He's always deceiving and we can't know the difference But god is the foundation for truth and he creates the standard by which we could identify and make sense out of the very concept of self -deception revelation from god is

True by the impossibility of the contrary if it's true by the impossibility of the contrary

Then we can't be wrong about it. If we can't be wrong about it, then that's one thing that we can't be deceived about Okay, um, so I don't think that would work, uh either but thank you.

Thank you. I do appreciate that Sorry for my quick response there uh We're keeping poor eli up past his bed

How old do you think i'm not an old man for crying out loud listen mighty tarlac He was an old man and needs to get some rest.

It's a friday night. What the heck? Okay Jeez, louise. Okay. I I don't have a curfew.

All right, imagine I get a phone call from my wife You're up late and you're making noise and my daughter's room is on the other side

So if I talk really loud, you know, maybe maybe i'll be told to To go back to go to bed or something

Uh, let's see here Oh, oh there he is there he is

I was waiting where have you been nick jones? Thank you So ah the pitiful charlatan is back on to exploit the simple -minded christians for money

Okay, get those super chat donations Sell those courses you're charlatan.

Well, thank you. I will try to sell my courses and I always appreciate a super chat So thank you nick jones for the free advertisement

All right Let's see here I think nick is a bot.

I mean, he just does the same things all the time He might be he might just be a bot. Let me see here

Let's see Oh, come on, nick

Little eli who only tries to justify his god. That's not how you spell god nick.

It's g -o -d not g -a -w -d Okay in his own fantasy view of the world because he knows he can't justify it in reality

Okay, there you go you should check the spelling there. All right, let's see here

Yeah, it would be better if you give an argument, yep, uh, let's see here Yeah, that's nice drama, yeah

Give me that money people because you know, that's what i'm here for i'm here to make that money

Make that money money All right, okay. Well, that's it i'm all the way at the bottom

Okay, and I don't see any more any more questions. Okay. So, okay, so we're at two hours and 42 minutes

Okay, I think this is a good time to by the way Uh, thank you.

Mighty zarlac and everyone else for your questions. I do appreciate it um and um i'm going to Close out here since it's been a pretty long time almost on three hours.

It's the longest i've done in a while um, but thank you nick jones for reminding me if you like the channel and you like the comment, please give this video a like And subscribe if you haven't subscribed and if you're interested in supporting revealed apologetics accept super chats

And I also sell apologetics courses on revealed apologetics. Thank you nick for reminding me of that I almost forgot forgot because we got to make that money.

We got to make that bling bling So that I could ride in my lamborghini to work as I teach middle school students at a christian private school

Okay All right, i'm being a little being a little saucy. But anyway, thank you so much guys for listening in.

I really appreciate it Until next time guys take care and oh, look at that.

Oh They i'm Listen I could think I think it's al coon.

I think it's the al coon project or al coon project I could thank al coon project for this ten dollar super chat

But really I should thank nick jones Because it was nick jones Who reminded me that i'm in this for the super chats?

That's right My whole life is geared towards making that dough. So Thank you nick and then thank you al coon project for your ten dollars

Ten dollars, what do you think the worldview of gen z christians will be in the next few years if they keep focusing on higher?

level theology Instead of scripture, it's just a trend i'm starting to notice Okay, so before we close out i'll try to answer this question as best

I can Um when you say they keep focusing on higher level theology instead of scripture

So i'm i'm seeing a a false you know an

Dichotomy here, right? So Higher level theology could still be grounded in scripture.

So i'm not sure specifically um, you know if um if high level theology

It's not necessarily are you talking about more like philosophical stuff I do think that there's there's a threat of focusing too much on speculative philosophy

Over against the teaching of scripture if that's what you mean And if that's the case, I think that that's that can be problematic.

I think when people rely too much on philosophy Um, they don't take seriously enough the scriptures

I remember from my perspective, I think that your high level theology must flow from the bible

Okay, and the bible in its explicit assertions and implicit teaching

Set the guidelines for what we are allowed to speculate on with respect to our speculative higher level theology and philosophy

But I don't think higher level theology is necessarily in conflict with the scripture. It just depends on specifically um, you know specifically

What you're talking about? Okay. So anyway Um, I think that is it

Um to be fair, it's two hours and 45 minutes. I think it's a good time to stop alcohol project

Thank you so much for your super chat. I do appreciate it. And thank you so much guys for listening in I appreciate you all and yes, even nick jones nick jones.

I don't hate you. I'm not angry at you I understand that you don't hold to my beliefs and you don't accept my answers and that's that's okay with me

I'm gonna hear i'm gonna be here. I'm gonna speak the truth I believe the christian worldview is true and i'm doing this because I want to serve my lord

Um, so don't hate you. You are free. This is a free country. You can type away and disagree As much as you want that's all right with me.

So, thank you. Nick jones. Thank you everyone else until next time Take care. God bless. Bye.