Presuppositional apologetics is a philosophical approach that argues certain preconditions for intelligibility (such as laws of logic, morality, and uniformity of nature) presuppose the existence of God, and that Christianity provides the necessary foundation for these preconditions to exist. The methodology involves two key approaches: bottom-up reasoning (examining what must be true about reality for certain phenomena to obtain) and top-down reasoning (demonstrating what follows from a given worldview). A common misconception is that presuppositionalists simply assume Christianity is true without argument, but in reality, they argue that other worldviews cannot account for the preconditions of intelligibility. The burden of proof in presuppositionalism is high, as it requires demonstrating that no alternative worldview can explain the existence of logic, morality, and knowledge.
Discussing Presuppositional Apologetics with @SkepticalAgnostic and @DarwintoJesus本站添加:
All right, we are here. Hello everyone.
Uh, well, we're streaming to two different platforms right now. So, uh, Stephen, do you want to say hey to your audience real quick?
What's going on? Skeptical agnostic here. Uh, Stephen, thanks. Uh, for those of you that are tuning in, um, by the way, just if you're not, so if you don't know who Nathan is, me and Nathan are good friends. Subscribe to his channel.
His channel is the epitome. Um, Daniel, you you have a YouTube channel. I don't know how often you you post. I know it's probably been a while, but uh Daniel here, Darin to Jesus, also has a YouTube channel and and me and Daniel have known each other for a while. We don't always agree, but that's all right. Um and so make sure you subscribe to his channel, too.
>> Awesome. Yes. Uh my name is Nathan, and then this is Daniel Darwin to Jesus. Uh Daniel, you want to say hi to everybody before we get started?
>> Yeah. How's it going everybody? I'm really excited to be having this conversation. I appreciate Stephen for joining me and Nathan for hosting this.
Nathan and I are also good friends. So, uh Stephen and I, we don't always see the eye eye to eye like I said, but uh I still think that this is going to be a good conversation. So, I'm looking forward to it.
>> Yeah, it's going to be great. So, we're going to be discussing presuppositional apologetics today and just talking through the methodology of presuppositional apologetics. Um maybe uh there was a video that Stephen did with Dr. Alex Malpass um and that Daniel saw and he kind of felt like at some points presuppositional apologetics was being misrepresented. And so Daniel, if you want to maybe explain that so that people can get context for this conversation, I'd appreciate that as well.
>> Yeah, thanks a lot. I really uh do want to go over that so everybody understands where I'm coming from with all this. So, I listened to the video with uh Stephen and Alex Malpass, and I was actually excited to listen to it, believe it or not, because I think that Stephen's a really smart guy, and I also think that Alex Malpass is a really smart guy. And I think that they're both pretty thorough most of the time when I see them rebutt arguments and things like that. So, and I also know that Alex deals with presuppositionalism quite a bit. So, I was excited to listen to them actually represent the argument fairly and and uh and represent the best side of the argument. And unfortunately, I just didn't think that that was what was happening. If I had been there live, I would have been stopping them quite a bit and clarifying things and saying, "Wait, um you know that actually what the preppers would say is they would say this, they wouldn't say that, and that sort of thing." So, I talked to Stephen about it and he and I didn't really agree, but we we decided to have this conversation live where we go through some of the things that I disagreed with and uh and hopefully I can provide some clarification because and and I said this to Stephen. I think that there's a lot of misunderstanding about presuppositionalism.
And this isn't like my go-to argument, but I do like it. I do understand at least some of the basic things. And I think that when atheists don't understand the argument or they don't represent the argument fairly, they do themselves a disfavor.
Um, and and that if you really want to refute an argument, the best way to refute it is to truly and thoroughly understand it. And very very very few atheists that I've ever seen have seemed to actually understand presuppositionalism from where I'm standing. And so hopefully uh Stephen, he's he's uh broadcasting this to his audience. So I'm hoping that atheists will see this and they will have a better understanding of presuppositionalism at the very least.
Um and and I think that that will be helpful because frankly speaking, atheists get just destroyed by presuppers all the time. Like it it it's a thing. All right? And if you want to have a chance of seriously rebutting the argument, you've got to understand it.
Uh, so I I I want to bring clarity to that. And then after we go through a lot of these clips, it's going to be like eight clips and we talk about it a little bit. Then um there's some other things that came up in the video that I thought were really interesting that I want to discuss with Stephen. So we're we're looking to hopefully have this done in about two and a half hours.
>> Awesome. And Stephen, do you have any comments you want to make about uh the video itself? maybe where um or or if I don't know if you want to wait till we get into the clips or whatever, but do you have any comments about the video itself and where you're coming from with this conversation?
>> Um I'm just a few comments. I mean, I think I think it's it's a little bit more difficult to erect a claim of, you know, that Alex and I were straw manning or not representing precepts fairly when we were actually, you know, looking at clips and hearing what they actually have to say. and and you know I uh Daniel and I we've already had preliminary discussions where we kind of disagreed. Um so you know we'll get into that as we go on but I do think for the most part you know we were showing clips of precepts. So it's not like we were just saying presupps claim this or precepts claim this. Um you know we were looking at the actual clips. But uh yeah, I mean there are some cases where I think we'll see maybe um you know maybe I could have been a little bit more uh clarifying with my words or or um less porative maybe. Um you have to remember that and I've mentioned this before my uh my father-in-law. So I I became um familiar with presuppositionalism over oh man almost 15 years ago because when I was still a Christian, my father-in-law became a presupp. And so he, you know, I I became kind of like a test dummy for pre-up apologetics while I was still a Christian. And I even then I thought it was um I just didn't think it worked. So uh I mean I do think that I'm well verssed in it. I think Alex is well versed in it. He's had plenty of discussions with uh with precepts, but nevertheless, I mean, we'll we'll look at what what Daniel has to say and uh and see, you know, the the issues that he had with what Alex and I said, but uh that's all that's all I need to say.
>> Awesome. And uh for myself, this is a pretty interesting discussion because I'm a Christian, so obviously in that regard, I agree with Daniel and disagree with Stephen, but then at the same time, I'm not a presuppositional apologist.
And uh I don't know if Daniel would classify himself as one either, but I think he's just willing to defend it if it's being straw man. I think that's his position in this conversation, but >> it kind of puts me in an interest.
>> Yeah, sure. What would you consider yourself?
>> Well, I definitely do adhere to some of the things that presuppers say. I just don't know that I would put it as strongly as they do. I think that it's very difficult to go all the way to Christianity. I understand the way that some of them try and we're going to get into that a little bit. But it is it is difficult I think to draw a line all the way to Christianity. I think it's much easier to draw a line just to God. And a lot of uh people that a lot of Christians that argue presuppositionally will not like that I'm saying that. But that's just my honest take. And honestly uh Steve and I are going to have some overlap here. There are some things that he and I are going to agree on. I'm going to be honest about that, too. Um, but when I think of priest, what's that?
>> I don't believe it. I'm just kidding.
>> No, we will. We will. Um, and I'm I'm gonna point it out when it happens. So, uh, but but the the idea of presuppositionalism, I think one thing I want to address really quickly, uh, out the gate is a lot of atheists have this idea that Christians are just saying, "Okay, I'm going to just pretend like Christianity is true, like presuppose it, assume that it's true, and then uh, and then go from there without doing any any actual like work. we're just like starting from uh this this place kind of like arbitrarily and then we're claiming to have um all the preconditions of intelligibility or whatever and and that sort of thing. And that's not really what presuppositionalism is about. It kind of works both ways. So the first way it works is when you observe something in the world like laws of logic or morality or intelligibility uh these sort of things or uniformity of nature. Okay, you you observe these sort of things and you say what do these sort of things presuppose like what must be true about the world in order for these things to obtain. Okay, so here's these things and what must the world be like for these things to actually exist, right? Um, so so that's kind of like a bottom to top approach and and that's what we mean by presuppose. Okay. Um, and then >> so sorry to cut you off. I just want to maybe give an analogy like if you were outside and you saw some smoke coming up out of the trees, you wouldn't think to yourself um, there's a lake over there.
Uh, like you wouldn't immediately assume water. you would assume there's some sort of fire or something like that going on because you might ask yourself, well, what does smoke presuppose? Like there's probably something that brings about smoke over there. Um, which is usually fire.
>> Yeah, exactly. I mean, it it's going to tie into things like the principle of sufficient reason, you know, like there needs to be a sufficient reason to explain the thing that needs explaining.
You know, we're going to be talking about or thinking about things like grounding, um, that sort of thing. So, so that's the bottom up side of presuppositionalism. It's not just assuming that you're you're correct or that your worldview is true. And the other side is the top down presuppositionalism.
Um, which is where you presuppose a worldview is true and then you ask the question, well, what falls out of that worldview? Okay. So, if we presuppose, for example, the evil god hypothesis.
So, the the world is uh created by an evil god who wants nothing more than to just uh deceive us and cause us to suffer. Well, if we presuppose that that sort of worldview is true just as uh you know a thought experiment, we wouldn't get things like knowledge like you couldn't know anything in that kind of worldview because uh God would be trying to deceive you all the time. You know that sort of thing. So we would say knowledge would be impossible out of that worldview that knowledge would never fall out of that worldview. So in other words, if you can do that, then you could say, well, we do have knowledge in this world. So if that's true and we can easily understand that if an evil god hypothesis is true then knowledge would be impossible then the knowledge would prove that we don't live in an evil god uh world that sort of thing and and then conversely you can presuppose Christianity is true and then say okay what kind of things fall out of that worldview you know would you get knowledge would you get morality would you get all these things that we find in our world and the the presuppositionist is going to argue yes and and they're going to make a case for that. So, um I I just kind of wanted to lay a little bit of groundwork here up front about uh some misconceptions that I see when it comes to presuppositionalism and the way that atheists think uh we're arguing and and what is kind of really happening here.
>> Yeah. So, I guess two comments uh right off the top there. Um I would say I just want to make sure I'm being clear with what you just said. You're saying that pre-up logic, like transcendental logic, is probably easier to argue for God, like just theism, bare theism, rather than going all the way to Christianity.
You would maybe say like uh you should probably just use transcendental logic for God's existence and not going all the way to Christianity. Is that am I mean right?
>> It's always going to be easier the less specific you get. I mean, obviously, I think that that's a given. I mean, think about all the differences that Christians have. So if you're going to try and say that your Christian worldview is correct, you know, your Protestant Christian worldview is correct, that's going to be much more difficult uh to make a case for than just like Christianity, okay? Because it's way more specific. So the more specific you get um the more uh the more you drill down, the more difficult it is going to be to make the argument all the way down to that core. So, I think that it's easier just I mean I know that it's easier to just make the case uh for God versus not God rather than go all the way to Christianity. But a lot of Christians uh that argue presuppositionally, they they go all all the way to Christianity and and Stephen knows that and I know that. So, um you know, I do want to be honest about that. That's that's true.
>> Sure. Um so, I guess I was just trying to get where your stance is. So would you say that you would use transcendental logic just to get to God and not to Christianity or do you think it can be made all the way to Christianity? Like do you think those are successful cases or what would your opinion be on that?
>> I think it's possible. I'm not sure that it's ironclad. It's really really difficult. I I think that you can do it.
I I genuinely do think you can do it, but it's not super clear and there's going to be a lot of very very contentious premises that people are going to fight tooth and nail over. Um these are not going to be just like givens at all. So it's a very very difficult argument to make anywhere you square as far as I'm concerned. So I I do think you can make it and I think you can make it successfully. I don't think I can make it successfully right now. I don't understand it that well, but my intuition uh based on what I've seen so far is is that yeah, it does go all the way to to Christianity. Um, and I don't say that about most arguments. You know, Nathan, you're familiar with my stuff.
Stephen, you are too. Most of my arguments are general theism, and I don't argue that they go all the way to Christianity. I I argue for general theism because I'm talking to atheists, and I'm trying to show that atheism is not true, that uh that theism is true.
And then um and then I think that once you show that theism is true, you can use other arguments to argue for the resurrection and why Christianity is more likely than other religions and that sort of thing. But um but no, I do think that I think that you can argue all the way to Christianity with uh with the presuppation.
>> Cool. Uh yeah, I just wanted to get a lay of our our positions here.
Obviously, Stephen is an agnostic. He rejects presupp. I'm a Christian. I don't use pre this presupp you think it can be done but you're not maybe necessarily in that camp and you and that's not the purpose of today's stream. The purpose of and I want to make that clear for the audience. The purpose of today's stream is not for Daniel to like prove tag is logically valid. What all we're going to do is we're going to go through a video that uh Stephen did with Dr. Alex Malpass and we're going to go through some clips where Daniel thought uh tag was being maybe misrepresented or precept was being misrepresented and we can clarify just so as Daniel said earlier um if there's any atheists out there that don't want to get you know slapped around in a debate against a priest it would be helpful and then uh maybe Stephen might disagree and it'll be fun.
And then for the audience as well um if you want to ask questions we will be taking those a little bit later. So, if you have a question for me, Stephen or Daniel, uh, just put like in your comment like question and then like ask your question and I can like throw it on screen. Like I saw somebody said, "Hey, Stephen." earlier. I'll just throw this up. I can I can do this right here. It says, "Hey, Stephen." And we can throw your question up and we can engage it on the stream. So, um, you guys do that in the comments. Um, and unless we have any more comments, I'd like to get into our first clip if that's all right with you guys.
>> Sounds good.
>> Yeah, let's do it.
>> All right. Here's clip number one.
>> Bring them back to God. But a lot of them, no, it's just a it's just they just want to win debates. It's a sport for them. This is why like I have I still even on the last live stream I did about Jay Dyer, I I I tried to articulate quite clearly that I absolutely would debate Jay Dyer because everybody asks me because of the videos I've made, will you debate Jay? And I'm like, yes, I will. Um, but for me, that that should have nothing to do with the arguments that I'm promulgating. Like a lot of them don't want to consider my arguments apparently unless I'm willing to sit down and do a debate with Jay because they just want to see Jay creamy. And hey, he might because Jay's really good at debates and Jay's really good at kind of bullying his his way when he's in he's in a debate. So I very well he very well could could do the same to me. Um but what matters is the arguments, but they don't care about >> All right. So that's our first clip there. Um, so, uh, I guess Daniel, do you want to leave your comment real quick and we'll have Stephen respond?
>> Yeah, absolutely. So, this is a little bit out of order as far as the whole video goes, but I think that this sets a good uh, um, area of agreement between Stephen and I, and I think it's going to be really relevant throughout a lot of uh, the rest of what we cover. And the reason for that is because Stephen is I I think and and Stephen please correct me if uh you disagree but Stephen is saying Jay Dyer is a great debater and even though Jay Dyer could beat me in a debate potentially because he's so good at debate that doesn't mean that my argument against presuppositionalism or against tag is invalid. Right? So you can have a correct argument against tag that really does work. Steven could make a total uh knockdown uh reputation of Jay's entire argument, but then when Steven goes into the actual debate arena, he gets uh you know, he gets slapped around by Jay just rhetorically and everybody thinks, "Oh, Stephen completely lost." And so I think that that's what Stephen is getting at. Um Stephen, would you agree? Am I accurately understanding what you're saying there?
>> Yeah, I was just saying, well, I I use Jay as an example. um you know as an example of somebody who thinks like that debate is more of a sport than more than as opposed to like a Socratic method type of thing. I think Jay people like Jay and Jim Bob and to some extent Siten Bug and Kate that for them it's a sport. They just want to make the other person look dumb. Um I I I'm I'm very much uh of the belief that they're not trying to you know they're not trying to win over the other person.
They're not trying to give uh you know give a reason for the hope that is within them. They just want to win debates. And that that is not true of all precepts. Um you know there are precepts that I like like Eli Ayala or Jason Lyle. Um I I don't feel like they're like that. But I think that in the presupp like a debate me bro type mentality. And again it's just like a sport for them.
And that was my point. And and if if I painted a picture in the video like this is all precepts and that's that's all they care about, then yeah, then that's not what I uh what I meant. But there is a significant community within the precept community, especially in the Ortho Bros and whatnot that uh that that that's all they want to do in my opinion.
>> Yeah. And I think that that's fair.
There is certainly a significant number of um guys that argue presupp that are super aggressive. Um I don't think that um it would be valid to even content, you know, to to disagree with that. So, I agree with you there. But what I really want to point out here is that um just because somebody can be uh debating in one mode and, you know, potentially winning even if uh what they're saying in the debate is not technically correct or whatever um or technically valid or technically sound, but they can appear to be winning that debate, that doesn't necessarily mean that they're accurately representing the actual argument. you know like >> so so the actual argument could be over here you know like maybe written down by Van Hill or written by them in their books but then when they're debating >> uh it might be you know the tactics that they use or that they employ uh might be very different than what they actually have written down in the argument um like the the the valid you know syllogism if such a thing exists with all the justifications and that sort of thing. So, so the point here is that you acknowledge like, hey, I could potentially I think I can refute tag, but that doesn't mean I could beat Jane in a debate because a debate is kind of a different thing. And what I'm what I want to draw out here is that a lot of these clips are not really like taken from um articles or from books. These are typically these are taken from uh guys either that are like in a debate or kind of explaining what they would do uh if if they were in a debate and that sort of thing. And I I just think that that's a little bit different, you know, and that if you really want to deal with the strongest version of the argument, you would go to like the books, you would go to uh the articles and these sort of things. I think what what do you think, Stephen?
>> I think yes and no. I I think it just depends. Uh like, you know, one of the first clips we surveyed was of Bonsson giving a lecture to other Christians.
So, I I don't think I think that that would be a prime example of of being able to survey what Bonson says and determine whether or not he's giving good arguments. You know, in the Bonson clip, he's not debating anyone. In the Durban clip, he's not debating anyone.
In the Siten Bugan Kate clip, he's not debating anyone. Um, they're just putting forward their position. But I do agree with you that literature is the way to go. Um, and that specific video was just not geared towards putting up the literature of the likes of Bonsson and Vanill. And I've read Van Till, I've read Bonsson's books, um I've read Jason Lyles, so I agree with you. I mean, they're a little more systematic in their books. Um but I do think that like when Greg Bonson is giving, you know, a lecture on how to defend tag, I think that that should be a prime place to be able to find good argumentation. Um, whereas, you know, the clip with like Andrew Wilson where he's debating some some uh lady on whatever. I agree that that's probably not he's probably not going to give the best formulation of tag that can be given, but nevertheless, he's giving a formulation that he thinks can prove God, right? And he is putting forward what he thinks is his best foot.
Um, but yeah, point taken. and and um you know in the future I do plan on releasing more videos on presupp and and maybe in those videos instead of looking at clips we can dive into the literature but um but yeah >> I was going to say real quick uh I just thought it was so funny how you can say debating someone on whatever and it's an accurate description of actually >> whatever. Well, I also want to point out one other thing re really quickly, which is just that um I do appreciate that you used clips and you let them speak for a little bit, but you can also be a bit selective about what clip that you grab and and you know, these are like five minute clips. So, you know, I mean, somebody could like take this conversation that we're having and pull out five minutes and and you know, it's going to be kind of dubious whether or not they accurately represent my full range of views. I mean, Bonson, if you go to his lecture series, it's not five minutes of lectures. It's uh about I don't know 100 hours, I think. You know, it's a lot, isn't it?
>> Yeah, I'm sure it's a lot.
>> Yeah. So, so I don't think that uh a fiveminute clip is necessarily going to be very thorough in really getting to the core of his argument, you know. Um, so that this is going to be like really surface level stuff rather than I mean unless you think that that's like all there is to it. But I think you and I both know that there's there's more to his argument than like the this five minute clip. Like quite a bit more. I mean would you agree with that? Is that fair?
>> I'd say that there's more, but I I don't know that I would agree that there's quite a bit more. Again, I have read his books and and while you know, while he has many more pages in his books than a five minute clip, I mean uh I think his the clip is accurate to how he usually promulgates the arguments in his books.
But I mean that you know that's something that that maybe as we move through these clips we can talk about.
>> Um next one.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Yeah. That that actually is the next clip. I I was going to ask though. I see that the clip is about four minutes long. Are we going to want to pause in the middle of the clip or are we just going to want to play it all the way through? Um, I think there's a a number of places where we're going to want to pause. So, >> yeah, Daniel marked it on the document, Nathan, to pause at like this point and pause at this point. I believe he wanted to pause at a at like >> Yeah, I can tell you I can tell you when I want you to pause. I'll just listen for it and I'll tell you.
>> Okay, perfect. Yeah. Yeah. I'll uh I'll pull it full screen here and we'll go into the next one. I'll also just say before we get into this next one, Stephen, I would love to see you debate Jay Dar. I think that'd be hilarious.
Um, I don't think I would advise it yet, Stephen. If I were giving you good advice, um, I don't think that that would be I think you're too nice, honestly, for Jay Dyer.
>> Oh, I can I can turn it on. If it was a if it was a formal debate, I I wouldn't I wouldn't come on with a smile on my face necessarily, but >> I don't I don't think you could turn it on that much. And if you did turn it on to that degree, I think you would look bad.
>> Oh, okay. Seriously, I wouldn't advise it. You know, >> you know what, though? I mean, to to Jay's credit, he's more of a of an he's more aggressive when he's doing like a live stream. When he's doing a formal debate, he's not as bad unless his interlocutor is just being a straightup so he can behave himself sometimes, you know. But >> I thought he was really good when he was talking to um Matt Dell Hunty. I thought that was a really good conversation. And also, I thought he was really uh well behaved when he was talking to >> um uh Alex Malpass.
>> Yeah, he was. He was. Yeah.
>> Yeah. I really like >> If you guys could have that kind of conversation, I think it'd be good. I just >> I had to say that because the clip started out by saying, "I would I would debate Jay Dyer." I was like, "Yeah, get him."
>> I mean, I definitely watch it.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. He's I don't know. He's blocked me on Twitter for I don't know why. I I literally just posted like whenever I posted a video on him, I've tagged him, but I've never interacted with him really on Twitter.
So, I don't know why he blocked me. But anyways, on onto the clip.
>> I am surprised he hasn't blocked me. I retweet his stuff all the time with like quotes like disagreeing with him and he still hasn't blocked me. So, I don't know why. But anyways, let's uh let's get into this clip and you just tell me when to stop. Uh Daniel.
>> All right.
>> And I'm going to argue now for the impossibility of the contrary. That is within my worldview. I can explain to you why there is logic.
In my worldview, I can explain to you why there is causality.
In my worldview, I can explain to you why there are moral absolutes. Why I believe that human beings are free and have dignity.
But in your world view, >> so so already like this is this is this is one of the big things I see precepts do a lot, which is they'll say something like we're going to demonstrate the impossibility, the contrary, which to me means we're going to demonstrate that the Christian worldview is necessary for X, whatever they want to say the transcendentals or the preconditions are. But then all they do is list how their worldview is supposedly sufficient, right? Like all he did was say, "Okay, I'm going to demonstrate the impossibility to the contrary." And then he starts rattling off how the Christian worldview is or how God is supposedly sufficient for having knowledge or ethics and so on and so forth.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. So, I'm curious. Uh, I'm curious, Stephen, when you listen to that, are you saying that you have no idea how Christians have ever argued? Like, because what you're saying, it could mean two different things, right? Either you could be saying that Christians have never sufficiently demonstrated like to your to to uh to to your lights or whatever, right? that Christians have never sufficiently demonstrated uh that these presuppositions point to Christianity. That that's one way of interpreting this. Or the other is to say that you've never even seen them try. Are you saying that you've never seen them try?
>> Oh, no. Of course, I wouldn't say I've never seen them try. Absolutely not. No, they definitely do. I think I think my point there was that um demonstrating that X is sufficient for Y even that even granting that someone has demonstrated that X is sufficient for Y um that won't get you to the impossibility of the contrary. U I think I think that was my point. Um but no no I mean they've definitely tried and again again Bonson wrote like a 700page book trying to demonstrate why. Um yeah I definitely wouldn't say that they don't they don't try. Um, but in in cases like this and and and this might be a case, Daniel, where your your point that you made like five minutes ago is is wellreceived, which is Bonson's trying to make a quick case for the impossibility of the contrary. So, he's rattling off how Christianity or what what Christianity is supposedly sufficient for without giving the argumentation in that case. whereas in his books he would say, "Well, but this is how God grounds logic or this is how God grounds knowledge and this is how God grounds morality." So on and so forth. Um I think my point was just that all he's demonstrating there and granted he's doing he's doing like a two-pronged argument. He's trying to demonstrate one that Christianity is sufficient and then two that no other worldview is sufficient, you know, based on the impossibility of the contrary. Um yeah.
And so yeah, my my whole point is just that sufficiency doesn't do anything on its own. Um so yeah.
>> Yeah. Well, just to be clear, are you saying I I think we both definitely agree that Christians uh especially presuppers make the case um at least attempt to make the case that Christianity is sufficient. But what I'm I want to be very specific here. Do you think that Christians Have you seen Christians try to make the case that Christianity is necessary to get these preconditions? Have you ever seen that?
>> Oh, yeah. Yeah. I just that's where I think they fail. But yes, absolutely.
>> Can you tell me how they do that?
>> Yeah. So, the way they do that, as I said, it's a two-pronged like a two-pronged argument, right? They first try to demonstrate that Christianity is sufficient for for those preconditions, and then they try to demonstrate that no other worldview can possibly be sufficient for those things.
>> Okay. Uh because what you said here made it sound like you don't think that they ever try to make that case. And I would point I would point to two ways that they try to make that case and and I think that there's at least two. Um the first way is that um they distinguish Christianity from every other worldview uh especially by appealing to the triune God, right? Because God is three and one. And so because there's this problem in philosophy of the one and the many, and I know you don't agree with this, Stephen, but it's not really I don't think it's relevant to what I'm about to say.
>> No. Yeah, you're fine. You're fine.
>> Yeah. Um so what they do is they appeal to the trinity um the triune God of scripture and they say, "Okay, this this triune God because reality is fundamentally one and many. It's one and three. then it makes sense that our reality that we live in uh can be one and three or sorry one and many um you got like the whole and the plurality um so the diversity and these things are not it's not that one is subservient to the other they're mutual they're mutually true you know like I am both things I'm many cells and many atoms but I'm also one like I have one body I'm one person >> right >> and so um and what they say is if you if you let one of these things supersede the other. Uh if you if you say everything is really just many and one is an illusion, then you pay huge uh philosophical costs uh that lead you to absurdism and and you lose intelligibility. And if you go the other route and say everything is one uh rather than many, then the same thing happens. You you pay a huge cost. So we have to what they're going to argue is that you have to >> put everything it's got to be equal somehow. it both have to be equally true >> and the only way that you can make sense of that is if you ground it in something that is both one and many which would be the triune God. So um I I think that that's another way that they try to argue for Christianity being being the necessary precondition for intelligibility. What What do you think, Stephen?
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And I've and I've heard that before. Yeah. I mean I agree.
So they'll they'll take a uh um Yeah. something like you said that the problem of the one and the many or the uniformity of nature or the laws of logic and claim that only the Christian worldview can make light of this that you know a secular account has trouble or or there's no other account right that can account for that but yet on the Christian worldview that provides the um the the ultimate solution to those types of philosophical issues. So yeah I I would agree with that.
>> Okay. Yeah. And I just wanted to get the chance to say like they are they are trying to make this case. And the other way that I see them do it and and you kind of alluded to it, but I just want to be a little bit more specific >> is um I I think Stephen you would you would agree that if you have an a syllogism like um either a or or let's say either P or not P uh not not P therefore P that P would necessarily follow. Did I say that too fast? Do do you understand what I'm getting at?
>> Yeah. The I don't want to nitpick too much. That would actually be a circular argument. But yes, I say what you're saying like like I understand what you're saying. Yes. Yeah. So my understanding especially like Jay Dyer, but a lot of these a lot of presuppers, they would say that there are only really a few like a handful of worldviews because there's only a few starting places. You know, for for example, um there's like a strict dichotomy between either reality is intentional or nonintentional. meaning like um our world everything that is causal is caused by something with intentionality or not with intentionality you know so that's like a dichotomy right there it's one or the other it has to be um >> can you can you do I don't mean to cut you off Daniel can you do me a quick favor and provide for me your definition of worldview because I do think that that's going to be as we move through these clips that's going to be a point of contention because there's different definitions of worldview and just so I understand how you're using worldview how how would you define Yeah. So, I was actually going to get to that in the next clip, but we can talk about it now. So, >> I mean, you can just give me the definition and then or or you can wait till the next clip. I have I have no issue. It's just because you started talking about how Jay talks about worldviews and I wanted to see if you how you how you define a worldview.
>> Yeah. Well, I was just saying that, you know, whether it's worldview or or whatever. I mean, a worldview is supposed to accurately reflect reality.
So, I mean, you could think of it as like possible worlds. Obviously, we live in a world. So there's like a true possible world and then all the other possible worlds are not obtaining, right? Um do do you see what I'm saying? I mean, >> so are you saying a worldview is a belief about a possible world or that it's an actual possible world? Because that would be that would be a really strange definition.
>> No, that's not what I'm saying. I wasn't saying what a worldview is. Um what I was saying, >> okay, sorry. is what I was saying is that the place that you start like the place that the world starts from you know if you think about possible worlds you can start you could start a possible world with uh without intentionality or with intentionality >> right right >> there's only there's only a few places that that you can start ultimately and then it's going to kind of like branch out from there but everything is ultimately going to reduce down to just a handful of starting positions and so if you've got let's say five starting positions and one of them is Christianity let's say and then and then there's four others and you can eliminate the other four and you can show that this is there are only five possible if you can show that logically that there are only five well then Christianity uh becomes the necess like necessarily true and it becomes a necessary uh precondition for the possibility of intelligibility because we have intelligibility in the world so so what I'm saying is that would be another way that you could make the case and Jay Dyer talks about that quite a bit um Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That that would be one way. I think that that's wrought with issues, but that I I I understand what you're saying. So, yeah.
>> I mean, I am making sense though, right?
>> Yes. Yeah, you are.
>> All right. I was also going to say as well when you were talking about the one in the many problem. I found that interesting because in like trinitarian debates um there's like one group of people that are like monarchial trinitarians where they um kind of emphasize the oneness of God and then they kind of ask the question like how is God three and then there's the social trinitarians where they start with the threeness of God and say how is God one and so I found that to be kind of interesting where uh it fits in there.
Um, but do we want to continue this clip from uh Bonson here?
>> Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead and continue it.
>> All right.
Also, I'll just say it again for the audience. Don't forget if you want to ask a question, uh, leave a comment with Q or question at the beginning and uh, we can put it on the stream and interact with it if you guys want to interact with us. All right, let's go. story that he can tell where on his on his world view I mean I really find it's quite annoying to have to go along with it >> world worldview. Yeah.
>> Yeah. I mean I mean the whole world view >> so before we get into the whole worldview thing he said that there's a story that we can tell about how these things come to be. Um, and if he didn't say it right there, I maybe I should have let him go a little bit longer, but uh, he's not he >> Yeah. So this idea of presuppositionalism being uh something like a story I think is really a flippant way of looking at precept because obviously if these things do obtain right like if there is morality or there is rationality or there is uniformity of nature then unless we're just going to get rid of the principle of sufficient reason and say um these are just like brutees and we don't have to ground them in anything and and they just obtain in all possible worlds or whatever something like that then uh and that's going to lead to a whole bunch of problems. Um so I don't think we want to do that. Then we're we're trying to figure out which worldview best explains this. And I know I I'm using that word again, Stephen. I haven't defined it yet. We are just about to get into that uh in the very next clip. Um, but I think that using the word story, it it's not like this is just story time, you know, like, hey, um, you know, how did h like when when when I go into the backyard with my kids and there's a grasshopper and and my my kids say, hey, how d how did the grasshopper get here?
And I make some, you know, ridiculous thing up. That's not what priest is is doing, right? It's not a story. It's arguing transcendentally. So when Emanuel Kant said that there are like these preconditions for uh rationality there there or or there are these certain things that just have to be true in order for us to have structured thinking. He wasn't telling a story. He was saying like this thing here has to be the case for this thing that we're experiencing. Like if this thing isn't true then we couldn't have this thing right here. That's not that's not a story, you know? That's that's uh that's an argument, right? Um, and I I don't even think that anybody really disagrees with Kant when he does that. They might disagree with him about how he thinks that we can't have access to the external world and all that kind of thing. But when he reasons transcendentally, I I don't think anybody would call that just a story.
And and that's what Priest is trying to do. It's not it's not a story that we're telling, you know. So, I don't know, Stephen. I know we disagreed earlier. Do you still disagree with me?
So I guess it's going to depend on what you're what you're kind of describing is the entire presuppog which is part of demonstrating the impossibility of the contrary. I don't think that that part is a story. What I what what me and Alex were labeling a story was just the sufficient condition part. So if you think of of the statement if P then Q, that's actually in logic called a hypothetical conditional. Hypothetical because it's saying if P then Q. And so the reason I think that me and Alex were calling it a story, we were just calling this the when the presuppositionalist is claiming that Christianity is sufficient for the preconditions of intelligibility. That's the part we were calling a story because it it it does boil down to a hypothetical conditional.
if P then Q meaning if Christianity then um then the preconditions of intelligibility meaning yeah you're tell you're saying if it's the case that Christianity is true then it can account for X Y and Z um and yeah I mean maybe using the pjorative word story wasn't wasn't the best but but that's kind of what we were getting to now when the precept actually flips to the second part of their argument and tries to demonstrate the impossibility of the contrary then I wouldn't call what they're doing a story at all because then they're actually trying to perform an internal critique of of their interlocutor's position or of the non-believing position. Um it was just the first part that we were labeling a story because again it is a hypothetical like under this worldview you have um you can account for these certain things but that doesn't prove that the worldview is true. That's the point.
It's it's a story and again I I'll try to back off from the word story but that's what we meant, right? It's a hypothetical of how a certain worldview accounts for other things.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Um I I would just say and I think we're agreed here. I would just say that if I were to say like if a if there's an evil god, you know, like if there's an evil god, there's a hypothetical, right? If there's an evil god, then we couldn't have knowledge. I wouldn't call that I wouldn't call that story. And you said you're gonna back off that word and everything. So So great. you know, um I'm just I just want to, you know, nail this down. Like to me, that's not a story. That's an argument. You know, you're saying like these things would follow if God was evil. We couldn't know anything. We couldn't trust anything. Um and so knowledge wouldn't obtain. And and I think you could uh flesh that out as just a full-blown argument. And that's kind of the way that the priest is is talking about Christianity.
>> But we can go to the next one if you're all right with that, Stephen.
>> Sure. Sure. I was going to say as well, I think using the word story in in that colloquial sense is fine as long as it's understood that it's not like what you were talking about with like the cricket in the yard or whatever it was like >> not understood in that way. I think it's a fine word to use because >> in reality I think humans are story creatures like we we tell stories and that's how we understand things is through narrative. And so, um, I think it's fine to use that word as long as it's >> I think I think the issue was Alex said like it's just a story. I really think it's the word just that's like it's just a story and and and maybe that's where, you know, our our words could have been uh picked a little better. Uh, yeah, I don't think the word story is is nonapplicable, but yeah, maybe it wasn't the best, but yeah.
>> Sure. Yeah, that's one of those off-the cuff comments in a live stream where it's like, oh, I could have said that better. Um, >> yeah, and there's gonna there's gonna be some of that, you know, but um yeah, like I said, I just want to have the chance to clarify some of this stuff that that's probably the smallest point that I'll make.
>> Sure. All right, let's continue in this clip and just let me know when to pause again.
>> All right. You think like everybody's got a world view and you know, you're supposed to have this rewind a couple seconds. I already find it's quite annoying to have to go along with it.
>> World world view. Yeah.
>> Yeah. I mean on his worldview. I mean the whole worldview thing like everybody's got a world view and you know you're supposed to have this like what what does it mean to have a world view right? Does it mean you've got a fully worked out systematic philosophy an an account of ethics and account of metaphysics? You know as if like um your worldview is supposed to have some answer to like the n metaphysical nature of what logic is. It's the most obscure question you can possibly imagine, right? Like almost nobody has a wellw worked out view on what that is. I know I know a philosopher friend of mine, his PhD was on the metaphysics of logic and like yeah, sure he's got a he's got a view, right? But here's this is what happens when you do a PhD. You find that >> um you just start like sort of realizing how uncertain everything really is. you just plum the depths of the question until you get to the point where you're like, "Oh, yeah, actually no one really knows anything about this, right?" Um, but you know, but some like random douchebag um internet atheist guy in Discord will get ambushed by someone running this sort of line and he's expected to, you know, trot out a a completely coherent account of what the metaphysics of logic is. Otherwise, you know, his worldview is supposedly deficient in some way. Um, but really all all Bansson's doing is saying something like he's got a story he can tell about logic. Um, but you know what we'll find probably with all of these guys is they'll tell you kind of a story about it, but really what they want to do, >> they don't really want to tell you about Christianity.
>> Okay. So, so now we're going to talk about worldview. And this is the first time that I was kind of shocked because I mean Alex is he he debates people that talk about this all the time and he doesn't know what we mean by worldview and what he thinks we mean uh is is crazy to me. Um, so what I would say a worldview is and and I ran this past a couple of uh presub friends of mine just to make sure, but it's a network or or a set of presupposition presuppositions that we come into or or we view the world with. So it's basically how we make sense of the world. You can think of it like uh like a operating system.
Okay, it it's kind of like in the background and if you remove a computer's operating system, then it can't really do anything. It can't really function. So, your worldview is basically your your uh f foundational or fundamental set of beliefs that um you interpret everything else into and you kind of make sense of it. You know, that's why if you're talking to a naturalist and you you say, "Oh, there was this miracle." they're going to immediately be super skeptical of that because on their worldview, miracles don't happen. But if you tell somebody like a Christian that a miracle happened, they're going to be a lot more um you know, easy to convince because on their worldview, miracles do happen.
Now, that doesn't mean that we believe that everybody every time somebody says that a miracle happens, it it happens.
People can lie still, but it's not like an impossibility because we do believe in a God that intervenes in these sort of things. So, so yeah, a worldview is just uh it's just your philosophical lens that you have that you view reality with and it has to do with your starting positions. You know, we go back to like is reality intentional or non-intentional, you know, and from that things are going to fall out of that uh that sort of question like do we have free will? Do we have morality? And and these sort of things. Um, and um, everybody can have, you know, somewhat of a different worldview if you get down to like the nitty-gritty. I mean, maybe you could even say nobody, no two people have the same worldview if you get down to all the specifics. But if you're talking about the umbrella um you know the top part of the world view um the the foundation there's only a few like you know so all all the little stuff all the little beliefs are ultimately going to be uh distilled down into just a few different uh worldviews and and lenses and um yeah I don't know I want to give Stephen a chance to respond to that real quick if he has any >> I just well I had a I had a clarifying question. How how would you also define presupposition?
>> So um a presupposition is when um one thing presupposes another. Okay. So um so when you talk about like presuppositional apologetics, you're saying that um here's here's this thing um like if if we if we talk about laws of logic, we can look at it or think about it and say what does this presuppose? You know, like for example, imagine if somebody said, "Okay, I believe that the laws of logic are real and they're real because of the rock in my backyard." Okay. Um I think we would all be like, "No, that's ridiculous.
That makes no sense. So, so if if you were to try to argue that laws of logic presuppose the rock in your backyard, like if there's no rock in your backyard, then there's no laws of logic.
Um, everybody would totally reject that because that's ridiculous. So, we need to try to find something that does sufficiently explain uh the nature of laws of logic and these sort of things.
Uh, does that answer your question?
>> Uh, not exactly. Like so I like I understand what you're saying like you're there like let's say you have a proposition just like you said that might presuppose another proposition but it seems to me like basically you can formulate any argument and you can say the conclusion presupposes the premises which would be true but I think when precepts use the word presupposition they usually they mean like foundational beliefs of epistemology like foundational propositions. Is that how you're using it? because the the way you used it made it seem like we can have almost an infinite amount of presuppositions because anytime I make an inference that presupposes X Y and Z whereas you defined you you defined a worldview as a network or set of presuppositions. So if you define presupposition sorry I'll let you go ahead go ahead.
>> No no I I got you now I understand. So I think um for for what you're talking about right now in reference to what I was talking about the word would be axiom. I'm sure you know what an axiom is.
>> Yeah. So, so when I talk about um like these these starting places, um the reason why I would call those uh presuppositions is because they're um right here it says it's an implicit assumption or background belief taken for granted before a statement can be considered true or make sense in a conversation. So >> yeah. Um so for example if you didn't have laws of logic running in your background in your operating system um it would be very difficult to make sense of things right like if you didn't believe in the law of identity or the law of non-contradiction you really couldn't make sense of anything but you can't really prove that the laws of logic are true without appealing to them. So it's not really something that you can you know go outside of in order to prove it's just kind of circular. So that's why we call it like a presupposition in that way because you just have to presuppose that they're true and you might not even think about them. You know, that's one thing I wanted to mention. And maybe I'm I'm going off on a tangent here, but I'll do it quickly. But um a lot of people don't even know what their presuppositions is. Like if you ask most people on on the street, they don't know what their worldview is. You say, "What's your worldview?" And they probably couldn't tell you, right? But they do have a worldview. they are interpreting things through a certain philosophical lens even if they're not aware of it. You know, a computer isn't aware of its operating system, but it does have one and is using it every time it, you know, interprets data and does this or that with information. So, uh, does that answer your question?
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think as soon as you said axioms, I was like, okay, I got you. Yeah. No, you're good, though.
So, so yeah, just to go back to that video though, um I was I was a bit shocked that Alex Malpass said that he has no idea or or kind of insinuated that he doesn't know what we mean by worldview and that this is a really cloudy uh idea because I've every time I hear presuppers talk about worldview, it's it's basically what I just said.
It's it's a philosophical lens based on presuppositions or aka axioms um operating system that we use to interpret data. Um and and I I feel like that's really straightforward, you know.
So I mean Stephen, are you shocked to hear me say that?
to hear you give your definition or >> I mean do you think that this isn't like if I went to 10 mainline presuppositionalists right now and gave that definition do you think that a lot of them would like completely disagree with that?
So I actually came prepared with different quotes of of precepts based on what how they define worldview and some of them are different. Now some of them are in line with what you said. So I'll give you that. Like Greg Bonson >> Yeah.
>> uh defines it as a worldview. A worldview is a network of related presuppositions in terms of which every aspect of man's knowledge and awareness is interpreted. That's pretty much spot on with what you said. But someone like Eli Ayala defined worldview as just a system of beliefs. And in that case that includes not just presuppositions and axioms but it includes all of your beliefs. And that I think that's kind of how uh Alex was defining it. And then John frame um John frame defined worldview as a general mental picture of how the world fits together which which again would include axioms and presuppositions but it doesn't necessarily need to. So there are different um definitions that are promulgated. I do think yours is more in line with Bonsson's and I do think that yours is what I typically think of when I think of the world uh the word worldview, but I know that Alex and I've I've heard him have different discussions with different precepts um that give that give different definitions. So, so just to give Alex a little a little more benefit of the doubt, it could be that he's heard different definitions from other people.
Um but I do when I think of worldview, I do typically think of kind of what what you've articulated.
Yeah. So just to be clear um when we talk about uh a worldview I I I understand what Eli Ayola is saying.
He's saying it's a system of beliefs. I would agree with that. You know I think there's like the foundational worldview which is the the presuppositions and the axioms. But from those axioms are going to come other beliefs naturally. That's kind of the point of the foundational beliefs is to uh lead to other beliefs you know and help you to interpret uh the way that the world works. So it's going to lead to other beliefs uh all the way to the granular level, right?
You go from the foundation to the granular. So um I don't think Eli Ayola is wrong. He's just kind of saying it in a slightly different way uh than somebody like myself or Greg Bonson, but I wouldn't even necessarily disagree with Eli Ayola. I think that we're all kind of saying basically the same thing, but we're not saying what Alex said.
Well, I maybe we might need to replay the clip because from what Alex said, it does seem to me more in line with what Eli said. Um because based on your definition, yours would be subsumed within Elias, right? If Elia again is just if Eli is defining worldview as a system of beliefs, he's he's equiv he's uh equivocating someone's epistemology with worldview because one's epistemology is a system of their beliefs, right? Um, so and I think what and and so like here's what Alex was saying. If a worldview is just everything that somebody believes, all the propositions that somebody affirms or ascends to, everybody has inconsistent beliefs, even Christians, and I'm not saying with regards to the Christian religion, but not everybody's worldview or not everyone's system of beliefs is 100% consistent. And so Alex's point was if you're going to define worldview as just a the system of beliefs that a person has then everyone's worldview is going to be at some point inconsistent. Now that's why if you want to define worldview kind of how you defined it as more the uh the network of presuppositions. Now I agree that presuppositions lead to the larger network of beliefs. But if you're going to define worldview as the network of of uh presuppositions, then an inconsistency there is way more detrimental than just an inconsistency in someone's overall system of beliefs.
Um, and I think that that was part of Alex's point and it does hinge on kind of how we how we define worldview. So I do think that his point um and later on in the video he formulates what he calls the the worldview dilemma. We don't need to get into it, but it was predicated on this kind of definition of of Eli Ayalis, which is more um which is more broad.
>> Yeah. And and I wanted to address that second part once I established what a worldview is. I want to address that second thing that Alex talked about because I I do think that there's a problem there. Um because we're not saying like I I know how it looks, especially to atheists and everything.
And this is something I meant to say in the introduction too, which is that I was an atheist until I was 28 years old.
And I hated presupp I absolutely hated it. Uh I thought it was a total BS argument. Okay. Um so I know what atheists see when they look at presuppositionalism.
Um, but this idea that you just have to have a a totally coherent worldview and everything like has to make sense within your own mind. And if it doesn't, then your worldview is false and we're we're going to say um, oh, this two these two things don't quite make sense. So, your worldview is false and therefore Christianity. That's not that's not actually the argument. Okay? because um you'd have to argue with somebody that is really really intelligent for them to even try to have a totally coherent worldview. I don't think my worldview is totally coherent. I'm sure if you probed me for long enough, you would find some inconsistencies. So, Alex is right about that, but that's not the heart of presuppositionalism. Now, maybe in practice when we're doing debates and things like that, that's what you see and so that's how it appears. But that's kind of why we went to that first clip first, which is to say um just because this is what you see in the debate doesn't mean that this is the actual argument, you know. So when a somebody is arguing tag or priest and they're destroying that person's worldview, quote unquote, you know, or showing inconsistencies, that doesn't mean that the argument is unless you have a totally coherent worldview, Christianity is true or something like that. So, so I I think that I understand how you guys see precept happening on the live debate stage. I get that, but that's not really the argument. You see what I'm saying?
Um, yeah. I mean, I do. I do. At the same time, like, you know, the the video of Greg Bonson we're watching is he's he's talking to other Christians trying to demonstrate, you know, trying to demonstrate tag and the precept worldview. But I I get what you're saying. I guess the well and I I'm I'm debating with myself whether or not I want to go one line or the other, but I I think I think maybe we should push forward with with the clip because I think we're going to get more into the worldview thing in just a little bit. So, I don't want to push too much now.
>> Yeah, sure. We can we can >> Yeah, >> keep it going.
>> So, uh a couple comments I need to make real quick. Uh someone DM'd me on X and said that my chat on my YouTube channel wasn't working, my live chat. I got that fixed, so it should be up now. So, if you guys are watching on my stream, uh you should be able to leave comments and everything. And don't forget, just for anybody that just tuning in, if you have a question for anybody here in the stream and you want to ask a question, type in Q or question at the beginning of your comments and we can show it on the screen like this. I'm just picking a random one and uh we can interact with it here. And then secondly, um one comment you just made, Daniel, that was very interesting to me. It kind of shows how um how fun this panel is, I guess you could say. So we have someone who used to be a Christian and disagree with presuppositionalism while he was a Christian and now as an agnostic he still disagrees with it. And then we have someone who used to be an atheist who hated presuppositionalism and thought it was like BS. And now you know as a Christian you you're more amendable to it. And then you've got me who like I am just a a Christian guy who I I've never really used presub. So it's kind of an interesting >> Didn't you used to be Muslim Nathan?
>> There we go. Right. I used to be a uh >> Yeah.
>> You used to be a Muslim presuppositionalist, didn't you, Nick?
>> Yeah, I think so.
>> So, so this is actually how I know Eric Hovind and and I know a lot of people uh when they hear that name, they want throw up in their mouths. And I was the same way when I was when I was a Christian, too. Sorry, when I was an atheist, that's how I was. Um but I talked to Eric Hoben as an atheist many years ago and we argued about Yeah. We argued about presuppositionalism. uh because I was so upset by what he was doing to atheists and I thought it was totally duplicitous and and he was you know um you know he was basically saying like I have knowledge but you don't and and putting the atheists on the back foot and all that. So I I absolutely hated uh priest and and Eric knows that because he knows me from when I was an atheist. I called him. He set up time and we had two long conversations independently of each other about priest. So, so he would vouch for that.
Eric Hovind would vouch for that and and I called him when I got saved and everything and um and I said, "Hey, I'm not an atheist anymore. We had this conversation. He remembered it, you know, so he and I are actually good friends now." But >> yeah, >> you just you just wanted to name drop.
Okay. I'm just kidding.
>> I guess so. Yeah.
>> No, no, that's crazy, man. That's cool that you know him personally.
>> Yeah.
>> Also, Daniel, I just have to say as well, I hope you're wearing a backwards hat, too, because I >> I was gonna say we're both We both got the car heart shirt and the backwards hat. Daniel, come on, man.
>> You know, um my my son likes to do that.
I never do that. Okay. I I I am totally against that, but he he just does it naturally and he didn't get it from me.
So, maybe he should conversation.
>> Me our wardrobes ahead of time. I had to match I had to match Stephen's vibe. I'm like, "This guy always has the backwards hat on. I'm rocking mine because I wear backwards hat a lot at the gym." Uh, and so I was like, I'm just gonna throw it on for Stephen. Uh, and we'll we'll have a good time. Uh, >> you guys too cool.
>> There we go.
>> Your buddy Your buddy Adam's in the chat.
>> Curious question.
>> Oh, yeah. He says, "I'm not a fan of precept still." Okay, that's fun. We We got So, that's the fun that's the interesting thing about this, right? is that um you know we have Christians who are for it, Christians who are against it. We have atheists who might think it's a little more valid than the other approaches and then we probably have atheists that hate it like Daniel did, you know. So >> yeah. Well well let me say one other thing about it real quick. So everybody is a fan of precept in one respect or another and and even atheists make presuppositionalist arguments. And I was talking to Nathan about this or sorry talking to Stephen about this a while back and what I was saying is um you know take the argument that atheists use against free will and Stephen said he doesn't subscribe to this argument but it is a very common argument that atheists make and they say if God is omnisient then you can't have free will because God knows everything that you're going to do. That's a presuppositionalist argument right there. Right? You're saying we presuppose God is all knowing. And if you presuppose an all- knowing God, well, then you're not going to get free will to fall out of that, you know, because of the nature of what it would mean if if there's an all- knowing being. Now, I think that there are problems with that, but that's a presuppositionalist type of argument right there, you know. Um, another argument is uh the argument from evil, right? If you presuppose an allloving, all good God, well, then there can't be all this evil and suffering in the world, right? Um, that's also a presuppositionalist argument at heart, you know. So, >> yeah. Well, yeah. Yeah. And you're right. And it's because a presuppositionalist argument, the attempt is an internal critique. It's like a reductio. It's saying, "I'm going to take your worldview and then take it to its logical conclusions and show that it leads to a contradiction, right?" And that's just a reductio. But yeah, you're absolutely correct.
>> Yeah. I mean, those they're not typically thought of as being presuppositionalists, but they are. I mean, we're we're doing the same thing.
are saying if naturalism is true then you're not going to get this you're not going to that get that. Atheism is saying if God was all loving you then there wouldn't be all this evil there wouldn't be this there wouldn't be free you know if if God was omnisient there wouldn't be free will so we're all doing this you know um it's just a matter of if you think the argument succeeds or not that's the only question but it's a totally >> free will if you're an open theist >> don't get on open theism >> omnition doesn't mean that all >> let's go to the next clip sorry >> right they hardly ever talk about um maybe they do when they're preaching or something but presuppositional methodology is an attack. It's just to attack the other guy's view and in very care like cursory kind of like oh and on on our view God says logic is real or something and that's like it you basically don't get a chance to interrogate it. There's never any kind of acknowledgement that their view might have questions or whatever. It's Yeah.
So he's just going to tell a story very briefly about what what his uh worldview says. And and often um they have this kind of laundry list of things, you know, that come out of seemingly nowhere of just like you've got to say something about morality, induction, like um you know, laws of logic, whatever. And um it's this it's like where did that come from? you know, have does philosophy just start with a sort of laundry list that just pops out of the ether and you just have to go through them one by one.
>> Okay. So, a few things on my end uh from that. So, I understand what Alex is saying that um this appears to be an attack and it is typically used very offensively. Um so, I won't deny that that's the case. Obviously there are nicer guys like Stephen mentioned like Eli Illa um but that's not technically speaking um the actual argument you know that's more uh tech because precept can be used very offensively um when you're debating against somebody that doesn't mean that the argument itself if you actually go and read it is an attack you know so I I just once again and that's why I played that clip first because I want separate the way that the argument takes place when it's being had with an interlocutor versus what the actual argument is.
And >> you want to chime in there, Stephen?
>> I have no issue with that. I mean, I and I I think what Alex was gearing towards more was the actual like per when the presuppositionalist actually tries to do an internal critique. I mean, that's what they're doing. They're attacking their interlocutor's worldview. think that's kind of what he meant. But I but your your point is wellreceived and again this is why I think you're pushing more towards like you know you should also read the literature of precepts because it's not all about what's happening on the debate stage which I totally I agree with that. So I don't think you'll find too much push back from me there.
>> Yeah. Okay. And and the other thing that really surprised me there from Alex was he said there's a laundry list of things. There's things like induction and morality and he says where does that come from? And that's very strange to me because I think there's a lot of time taken if you read the literature and and if you're familiar with this style of argumentation, there's a lot of um background as to why we go to these things because we think that these things are necessary preconditions.
Maybe not morality, but uh the other things, you know, uniformity of nature, laws of logic, these things are necessary preconditions to have intelligibility. Meaning if these things aren't there, if they don't obtain, then we would lose intelligibility. uh meaning that the world would no longer make sense. So if you could press a button and force somebody to stop believing in laws of logic or to stop believing in uniformity of nature and they really genuinely stopped believing in that sort of thing then their world would kind of become absurd is what we're we're saying. So you need to believe in these things in order to have intelligibility and these things also must obtain for there to be intelligibility. And that's what it's not just like a random uh you know set of things that we're just like pulling out of of nowhere and it's totally arbitrary. It has to do with intelligibility.
So I was very surprised to hear Alex say that. I mean do you think I'm missing something?
>> I actually think I would agree with you on that. So I think >> I think you are correct on that.
>> Okay. All right. So >> interesting. I saw someone comment earlier. I was wondering if we could get a quick comment on this. Um he was saying that basically like uh one thing he would say as opposed to like priest was like uh phenomenal conservatism uh from humor and u because I I wanted to highlight that comment too but go ahead.
>> Yeah. So uh I'm going to try to find it because you know I'm an internalist foundationalist in my epistemology and that is a form of internalist foundationalism and so um that is actually one of the main reasons I don't and here it is. I think I found it. Uh, here it is. Yeah, there we go. I had to scroll up quite a bit, but I found it.
Um, but yeah, like this this kind of epistemology is um, and I will say, Daniel, I think that your the way that you use the word presuppose is different than I've heard from other precepts.
Like a lot of precepts I hear, they say like we need to presuppose the Christian God to know things. And so like for me that's why I view this epistemological answer as a valid one because it's like if something like phenomenal conservatism is true or like internalist foundationalism is true then that kind of epistemological leap is unjustified and it would seem that that kind of precept is begging the question against foundationalism. But the way that you're using it, I think is more defensible where it's like if we have this thing in reality, it presupposes something prior.
I think that that's much more defensible and this epistemological response wouldn't necessarily be attacking your way of defending it. But um I do think this is an interesting comment for those precepts that take the jump that like we actually have to presuppose the Christian God in our in our minds to actually know anything. Otherwise, our world view is ridiculous. If if someone takes that route, I actually think that they need to first take the step to refute foundationalism, refute conservatism, refute nominalism. Like they have a lot of worldviews they need to deal with before they can do that.
Um, and I think Stephen would probably agree with that, right?
>> Yeah. It's funny because what you just said is how I used to attack presuppositionalism when I was a Christian. And also if based on what you just said, if the precept line is you have to presuppose the existence of God or or the existence of the Christian God in order to get XYZ in your epistemic in your epistemic web of beliefs. That actually doesn't prove that God exists. That just demonstrates that you have to believe it. So that wouldn't even tell you necessarily that it's ontologically true. It might be an epistemic fiction that you just need to believe in order for your worldview to be consistent. Um, so that and and we don't need to go down that line of reasoning, but it is something that I thought of when you said that, Nathan, but yeah, what you're saying is is some of the things I would articulate almost 15 years ago when I would have these discussions with my uh with my father-in-law.
>> Yeah. The um before you respond, Daniel, because I know you're going to want to respond to that, I'll just say that I I totally agree with you that the idea that you must presuppose it doesn't mean that it's true. But also too, my issue with it is I just think the ontology to epistemology jump is unjustified because I think as a Christian I would agree with Daniel that like God is the onlogical basis for all that exists.
Like without God there would be no human beings, there would be no universe, there would be no knowledge like those things. But that doesn't justify me saying okay now I have to presuppose him epistemically speaking to know that to know anything. Right? So I think to me that jump from the ontological to the epistemological that to me is where the precepts uh that I've come into contact with like I I don't think they justify that leap. And so um but I know as I said Daniel you're taking a slightly different approach than that. So if you want to comment on everything we just said.
>> Well the main thing I want to say is that I I don't think that you have to presuppose Christianity in order to know things. uh in the same way that I don't think you have to be a Christian in order to do good things. Okay. So, so a lot of atheists they think that when you make the moral argument that you're claiming that if you're not a Christian or if you don't believe in God that you can't be a good person. And obviously as a Christian I don't think any of us are like you know totally good. But people can do good things even if they don't believe in God. And people who believe in God can still do tons and tons of bad things right. So, so just as it I think it's the case that you don't have to be a Christian in order to do good things.
Like if you see somebody begging on the street, you can help them out. Or maybe your family member needs something and you can help them out. Or you you see uh you know somebody uh next door, their house is on fire, you run inside.
Obviously, you can like get the people out of the house and do something heroic even if you're not a Christian, right?
You can do the right thing. Um, so we're not saying that you have to be good or sorry, you have to be a Christian or believe in Christian precepts in order to be a good person. We're saying that if Christianity isn't true or at least if God isn't uh doesn't exist, then there would be no goodness in the first place and these acts wouldn't be good.
Um, and and I know Stephen is going to disagree with me on on that point, but that's what we're saying. Um, and in the same way, I don't think that atheists know nothing until they start believing in God. I think we all have knowledge.
All of us. Uh whether you're a Christian or not, it doesn't matter what beliefs you start with, we all have knowledge.
Um the point is that when you uh if you start evaluating these beliefs and you get to the bottom of them, uh what the priest uh should be saying is that at the end of the line, knowledge would be impossible. If your beliefs did obtain, right? So if your beliefs were true, then your knowledge would be impossible.
you know, uh, in the same way I would argue with the atheist, if there was no God, there would be no actual obligations, like moral obligations. So, I'm saying if atheism obtains, there would be no right and wrong, good or bad. Now, Stephen's a moral realist. I get that. I understand. Um, but I'm just saying I think that these arguments are are kind of similar. And I think that all three of us are actually going to agree right now when I say I don't think you have to believe in Christianity to know things. So if if people are making that argument, I don't think that that makes sense. And and um I think that God has has given all of us moral knowledge at the very least. You know, that's why God would hold people responsible for their actions even if they're not Christian, you know. So I think if you want to take this line that if you're not a Christian, you can't know anything. Well, then how is God supposed to hold you responsible for the bad things that you do in your life if you have no moral knowledge? I mean, just right there, you you you need to know things. um whether you're a Christian or not. So >> yeah, and I I would say that their view isn't that you must presuppose it to know things. Maybe I I misqued it there.
They're they're basically saying in order to um have justified beliefs, you need to presuppose it. And that's kind of how I've heard presupp. Have you heard it that way as well, Stephen? Am I crazy for hearing it that way or >> And that's Yeah, I've heard it that way, too. I even so I even had had a quote from Bonsson where he says it is the actual existence of the God of Christian theism and the infallible authority of the scripture which speaks to sinners of this God that must be taken as the presupposition of the intelligibility of any fact in the world. So it's I I kind of go back and forth, right? I can see what what Daniel's saying. Um, and and maybe Bonsson doesn't mean maybe Bonsson means it the exact way that Daniel's saying. Not that you actually have to have it as your presupposition, but that when we trace it back, that's where it ultimately will trace back to, but not that you actually have to take God and place it as the presupposition as as the foundation of your epistemic framework. Um, >> yeah.
>> But >> yeah, >> I think I think if that's the way it goes, I just feel like presuppositionalism is a bad name for it then because when I hear presuppose, I immediately think my epistemology needs to presuppose this fact. Like assume it's truth. I like >> it almost seems like there needs to be a different name for it if we're if it doesn't mean that, right? I >> I am curious, Stephen, you've listened to a lot of Greg Bonson. You've read his books. Do you think if he were alive and he were here right now? And I said, "Uh, Dr. Bonson, do you think that someone who doesn't believe in God knows things?
Do you think that that they do in fact have knowledge? Like any knowledge whatsoever?" Do you think he would say no?
>> Oh, no. He for sure would not say that they don't have knowledge. He would just say that they can't account that they on their on their worldview, you can't account for it.
>> Yeah. Well, and and that then that would mean that uh you know he he's not arguing that you have to be a Christian or believe in Christianity in order to have knowledge. He's saying Christianity has to obtain for you to have knowledge, >> which is two different things.
>> Right. Right. Right. Right.
>> I I hope I'm making that distinction clear.
>> You are. Yeah. I think >> it's I think it's helpful for me, too, because I'm I've always like that word presuppose, I think, gets a lot of people. It's It's gotten me in the past, too. Like, why do I need to presuppose this? I can just argue for it. and uh you know go the evidentialist route, you know. Um >> so yeah. Um anyways, let's go to the next clip. I think I have the next one pulled up. Uh it's 40 seconds I believe.
>> Um Greg Bansson was has a PhD in philosophy and he's uh debating people who don't right they typically know the famous one is this debate against um this guy Stein.
>> Yeah, Gordon Stein.
>> Gordon Stein, right? He's a biologist.
And so it's like your typical >> sort of Richard Dawkins or whatever kind of science bro whatever >> and um he he just doesn't know anything about philosophy. So Bansson is just using philosophical questions as a way of disarming him and attacking him. And that's the whole precept like all of the guys we're going to listen to are just like um cosplaying Bansson versus Stein.
>> Yeah. So, this is more of of just what I was getting at from from the beginning, which is I don't and Stephen has already agreed uh I think with this, which is that I don't want to conflate the tactics of these debaters when they're um having their debates with a person trying to beat them in front of an audience with the actual argument, you know, and I think that that that is what happened here. So, unless Stephen wants to uh push back on that, I think he pretty much agreed. So, we can move.
>> Yeah, I think we're good. I think we can move on to >> All right.
>> More substantive stuff.
>> All right, next clip here. This one's two minutes. Let me know if I need to pause in the middle of it. I >> think what they do, as we're going to see over and over through these videos, is is just like you said, they they tend to be debating like Dawkins types and so they always tend to attribute or they always conflate, you know, they'll say something like the atheist worldview as if there's only one. But um and that's again assuming that worldview is a coherent concept that we can I mean maybe it's coherent but I I hear different definitions of worldview all the time.
>> They'll say like the atheist world.
>> Yeah.
>> So I want to talk about that the atheist worldview um as if there's only one. So there's a few things I want to say um with regard to this. The first thing is that there's only one set of true beliefs. Okay. So, let's just say that atheism is true for a second here. Um, and and I posted about this earlier today. Maybe you saw that, Stephen. But what I said is if atheism is true, it um I understand that there are a lot of atheists that go both ways as far as moral realism or moral anti-realism, determinism or libertarian free will, you know, etc., etc., materialism or idealism. Um, but there's only going to be one set of all these questions that are actually going to obtain if atheism obtains, right? So, if atheism is true, it's not like the atheist that is the moral anti-realist is just as right as the atheist that's the moral realist.
Okay? Um, there's only going to be one set of for all these questions that atheists disagree on, there's only going to be one right answer for all of them, right? Because that's how truth is. It's exclusive. So when we talk about the atheist worldview, uh, in one respect, we're talking about the set of beliefs that would actually obtain. We're not saying that all atheists agree with each other. We're saying that there's there's like if there is no God, this is what would fall out of it. So let's say if no god, you could show that determinism would be true. It doesn't matter that some atheists are like, they're holding up their hand. is saying I'm not a determinist you know like that would be irrelevant if no god equals determinism right so that's one way that we mean the atheist worldview and then the other is once again uh going back to foundational beliefs um when we say the atheist worldview we're saying a worldview that starts without god so it's like unintentional and and so we we think that if you start without god it's just going to lead to a a cascade of entailments that are necessary Um so um and and and you know atheists will like you know they have a lot of different beliefs like some atheists are plaintists some atheists um um are idealists some are materialists but ultimately it it's all going to reduce down into one answer for each of these questions. So that's that's kind of what we're getting at when we say the atheist worldview.
It's crazy to me that um Alex is acting, you know, or that this question is even raised, you know, like like imagine thinking that I'm a Christian and I don't know that atheists have disagreements with each other. I mean, I talk to atheists all day and so do other Christian presuppositionalists, right?
Talk to atheists all day. Of course, we know that Christians don't all agree with each other, you know? I mean, that's crazy. Like, we know we know that. And we know that atheists would say that they have different worldviews.
So obviously like you'd have you'd have to have your head in the sand to not understand that. We all get that. We all hear it all the time. Um we're just talking about like what atheism actually entails when we say the atheist worldview.
>> Okay. Yeah. So this is where I'm going to push back probably a significant amount. So okay, >> first off, it seems like you're conflating ontology with epistemology here. So I agree that let's say God doesn't exist. Now first off I I don't necessarily agree that if God doesn't exist then there is only one set of propositions that would accurately describe the world. There might be multiple possible worlds where God doesn't exist just like there might be multiple possible worlds where God does exist. So I don't agree that even given God or not given God you're going to have a set amount of entailed ontological propositions based on that.
But even then, even if I agreed that would deal with ontology, that wouldn't deal with worldviews. Remember that worldviews deals with epistemology. And and this is why I really wanted to make sure that you define worldview for me because you define worldview as a network or set of presuppositions that we view the world with. So that that again is related to epistemology. So based on that definition, atheists do have different worldviews. There's not one single atheist or non-believing worldview. Again, even if you think that if God doesn't exist, there's only one possible world that would obtain with a set with a set number of propositions.
And so, and then you said, um, but we can also >> Yeah, go ahead.
>> Just very quickly, I I agree that atheists do appear to have different worldviews. That's not that's not what I'm I'm not saying that atheists all have the same worldview. And no presuppositionalist would say all atheists have the same worldview, >> right? I I understand that.
>> Yeah. Well, I'm just telling you what we mean when we say the atheist worldview.
I'm I'm talking about what we mean by that expression.
>> No, I I get that. I'm But I'm saying that what when you say what we mean by the atheist worldview, it you're conflating ontology with epistemology.
Again, even based on your definition of worldview. So what you described was an ontological state of affairs when you say the atheist worldview uh excuse me the atheist worldview but then your definition of worldview is epistemic epistemological so that's where I'm saying the inconsistency is um >> yeah it's a conflation right so if we define world >> sorry go ahead >> well I'm not sure I agree with that I'm not sure that a belief has to do with epistemology um especially when you're talking about foundational beliefs and these sort of things I think belief >> sorry I want to clarify did you say you don't believe belief has to do with epistemology >> well of course when you talk about epistemology belief is going to be uh a factor right because uh when you say that you know something you're saying it's a justified true belief right so there's that word belief >> but also when you say that you believe something you're saying that you believe that it's true that it obtains and that's what I'm getting at when I talk about belief which is an opto ontology so something obtains if something is true then that's ontological that's not epistemological. Right.
>> Right. Right. But that that's the point.
So if I let's say I believe the cat is on the mat, the belief is the epistemology, the part of epistemology.
The actual cat being on the mat is the ontology. But the >> the my worldview pertains to my belief.
My worldview does not pertain to the the actual ontological state of affairs.
Right? So just to give you an example, let's say all the humans vanished off the face of the earth. there would no longer be any world views because there would nobody and this is assuming God doesn't exist but if all the humans in the earth on the earth would have vanished right you would no longer have any worldviews you would just have the actual states of affairs that obtain the ontology and so um yeah so this is like again it's a conflation I agree that when we say we believe X we're assuming that there is an X that obtains in reality but those are still distinct things ontology and epistemology >> yeah they are definitely distinct things. Um what what I'm trying to get at here is that um if atheism does obtain that there's going to be things that are going to fall out of that. I think that you you and I may it sounds like disagree on that idea, but um that's kind of like what we're saying is wherever you start, there's going to be things that come out of it and things that you can get from it and things that you can't. just says with an evil god you can't get knowledge out of it and you would get other things out of it. Um like evilness or whatever. Uh if you start with a good god then you can get knowledge out of that that sort of thing. That's all ontological. That's not epistemological. I I mean do you think that that's epistemological?
>> No. No, that's ontological. I'm agreeing with you there. Right. I'm agreeing with you there. But that that's the point that there is no one atheist worldview just because if God doesn't exist, you think a certain set of onlogical facts would be the case. I agree with that.
Although well maybe maybe not. I do think that if God doesn't exist, there might be multiple possible worlds so that there's not just one set of propositions. But nevertheless, the the actual states of affairs that obtain themselves is part of ontology. That's not part of the worldview. It's what we believe about the states of affairs.
Because people all have different beliefs. They all have different worldviews. There's just not one atheistic worldview. That that's still predicated on on uh um conflating ontology with epistemology.
>> Um I I really don't think that it's a conflation. I because let me let me put it to you this way. The Christian is not saying if you presuppose that Christianity is true then you can get knowledge. Because if Christianity wasn't true, then presupposing Christianity was true wouldn't get you knowledge, right? Like let's say the evil god uh hypothesis obtains. But then I don't know that. Okay? So I'm living in the world with the evil god and I'm just going to presuppose that Christianity is true and I'm going to say okay I've presupposed that the Christian god is true and so therefore I can get knowledge because of x y and z.
Well that wouldn't actually follow right. It's not enough just to presuppose Christianity is true to get knowledge. Christianity actually has to obtain ontologically to get knowledge.
Right. That's what we're saying. We're not just saying you just presuppose it.
We're saying ontologically it has to be the case. So, >> Right. Right. No, I I I totally get that. But the point is that that really doesn't have anything to do with the worldview. So again, in the example I gave you where if everyone vanished off the face of the earth, you would still have facts that obtain, but you would have no coherent concept of a there would be no worldview because there would be nobody believing anything. And again, I think based off of your definition, you're you're defining which everyone gives a a worldview, a definition of worldview that applies to epistemology because we're talking about what people believe. So there's just there's a difference between what people believe and what actually obtains. And and I agree with you that there's a difference. That's the whole point.
That's the that's why I'm saying there's not one atheist worldview. And and this is also why I would say there's not one Christian worldview because even if God does exist and God did all the things that he said in the Bible, there are still I agree that that that would be an onlogical state of affairs and certain propositions there would be either true or false um black and white. But what people believe, that's what makes up their worldview. And so because people believe different things, people have different worldviews. And that's separate from the facts that actually obtain in objective reality. That's my point.
>> I I I think I understand. Um I still don't think that I Okay. I I obviously agree that there are subchristian worldviews and they're also sub atheist worldviews. Okay. So I want to be clear about that. I I understand that atheists have different worldviews and Christians also have different worldviews. But um even in Christianity, I think that there's actually just one true Christian worldview, you know? So when we disagree about like something like the Eucharist um or the Trinity or or whatever, right?
Um all these questions, there's only going to be one correct answer. So, so if you think about like a a dialogue or or you know, a bunch of options, you know, and they're branching out um and and so it goes down and then branches out and then all those branch out and then all those branch out um you know, like a tree or something. Well, there's only going to be act there's only be one solid line down all those branches, right? That's going to be like the authentic real deal Christian worldview and then everything else is going to be wrong, you know? So I I don't you know if I were going to say like the Christian worldview that would mean the real one like the solid line not the ones that are wrong right? Uh and in the same way sorry you want to say something.
>> So I I think you you hit the nail on the head. I think you added one word that >> that changed it all which is you said there's only one true Christian worldview as opposed to there's only one Christian worldview. Yes, I would agree with that. Well that that's assuming that that Christianity is true. Right.
But think about this now. If that's the case, you can't then turn around and say, "And then there's only one true atheist worldview." Because on the precept line, the impossibility of the contrary means there is no true atheist worldview, right? There there is no atheistic worldview that tracks reality because atheism is false by the impossibility of the contrary. Um, and so >> we entertain it hypothetically, you know, just like I can entertain the evil god and and I can show why we should reject that, we can still entertain it and show why we should reject it and what would fall out of it. So that's >> if you're going to entertain it, right?
But if you're going to entertain it hypothetically, then you can't say atheism entails materialism unless you demonstrate that. And I'm not saying you said that, but that's what in the clip with Bonsson, that's what Bonsson is going to say. He's going to equivocate between atheism and materialism. And so what he would have to do then is he would first have to show that atheism necessarily entails materialism. Um and then he could go about providing an internal critique. But if he just off the bat says, well, if you're an atheist, then you believe uh in ma that everything is matter in motion, which is what he says, which he hasn't done the leg work to to um to justify that.
>> Yeah. Uh, so the whole materialism thing is interesting because um I think that you you can make the argument that atheism entails um materialism. I think that's a difficult argument to make.
don't think I would make that argument, but um you know, it's weird when atheists uh reject God, but then they're like trying to appeal to more complex metaphysics that we can't see or anything because a lot of a lot of people, not necessarily you, Stephen, but a lot of atheists when they, you know, try to cut God out, they're trying to go to like the simple stuff that we can see, which is just the material, you know. So usually uh epistemologically it makes sense to just you know if you're trying to do the whole aams razor thing and and cut everything that we can't see out and there's just this material stuff well then that's all you need and and bada bing bada boom right so um I I understand what you're saying that you don't have to be necessarily a materialist but it does make sense why a lot of atheists are materialists because of the the way that they kind of you know cut God out of the picture. Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah.
>> Yeah. So, um, but but what I'm saying also is that if there is no God, I I think that what you said is interesting.
You said like there there could be multiple worlds that obtain, but I still think that either in reality like you think about the whole totality of reality. Either moral realism would obtain or wouldn't. I mean, do you disagree with that?
>> No.
>> Okay. So, so we agree that either moral realism would obtain or wouldn't, right?
We agree. Sure.
>> So like these these foundational things and either knowledge would be possible or it would be not possible, right?
Would we would you agree with that?
>> Sure. But I and I don't want to interrupt you, but I want you to realize that just in what you've said, you've already created four different permutations of po of maybe possible worlds. So now you've created possibly a world where again where God does in all these worlds God doesn't exist. But now you've created a world where we have moral realism but no knowledge. But then we also have another possible world with moral realism and we do have knowledge and then another possible world where we have uh I'm already losing track. Uh we have um >> that wasn't my point though.
>> Moral moral anti- Yeah, but that point is there right there. You now you have four four possible worldviews that the precept has to refute. Right. And that's just two because now once you add on well but what's your view about the laws of logic? Are you a universalist or are you a nominalist? then you have more permutations and then and then what's your view of uh of the one and the many or whatever you know whatever philosophical like precondition that you want to put there and so now you've you've splintered um the the the atheist worldview into so many and it's it seems like to me Daniel you you're just you're not as aggressive as as the other presuppositionalists which I view as a good thing because because it's the presuppositionalist who claims that they're going to demonstrate the impossibility of the contrary that has to demonstrate that all these worldviews, all these um splinterings of the atheist worldview, all of those have to be false, right? Um and it seems like you're you're telling me that that's not the line you take, which I think is is more defensible. But for someone like Bonson, he tends to equivocate and just and just um equate uh atheism with materialism. And you recognize that there's nuance there. And I and and maybe Bonsson also recognized that as well, but in his debates, he seems not to. And even in his in his written work, he seems to not always do that. But anyways, I'll go ahead.
>> Well, yeah. I mean, I think that obviously Bonson knew that not all atheists were materialists.
A lot of atheists have been materialists uh throughout, you know, history. I think um and and more and more atheists are moving away from that because I think they're realizing the enormous problems that it has, especially having to do with consciousness, but I don't I I don't want to go down that huge tangent there.
>> Yeah. I think we we have about an hour left.
>> Yeah.
>> So, I don't know if you want us maybe jump to clips that you think are more pertinent or if you want to talk about >> um because I know Nathan also wanted to jump in towards the end and I don't you know I don't want to leave him hanging.
Is there anything are there any clips specifically that you want to that you want to go through or anything specifically that you wanted to talk I know you want to talk about laws of logic and induction. Um >> but you you let me know where you want to take it.
>> Okay. Well, are we still disagreed about like what Christians mean by the atheist worldview?
Uh, so I think if you're going to claim that there is one atheist worldview, yeah, we're going to disagree because again, I think that's a that's a conflation of of ontology and epistemology. But if you want to say there's only one now, again, I don't think you can say there's only one true atheist worldview. I think you can say there's only on your view there's only one true Christian worldview. Um, but I still don't think you can subsume >> all the different atheist worldviews into one and then try to refute that single one, which is what the impossibility of the contrary necessitates. It seems to me like you don't you don't take that that um avenue.
>> Well, well, think about this, Stephen.
So, if you listen to an argument with presuppositional apologetic uh apologist, right? You listen to the argument and the atheist says, "Oh, um, I believe that I can have knowledge."
Right? So, so the Christian priest, he says, "You can't have knowledge." The atheist says, "Oh, I can't have knowledge." And the precept says, "You can't have laws of logic." And the pre uh the precept says that, and then the atheist says, "No, I believe in laws of logic." What does the precept do as soon as these things start being said? He starts trying to show them that on their worldview, they they actually can't get this stuff. So in other words, they're saying, "I can get this thing." And the precept is trying to show them, "No, if we take your worldview to its logical conclusion, you can't get this thing.
This thing would not obtain." Right?
Because there's a correct answer to this question. Like, could knowledge obtain?
Uh could uniformity of nature obtain?
And they're trying to show the atheist that these things can't obtain. That the answer that they're giving is wrong.
that that if the if the atheist said um I don't believe in uniformity of nature the precept would be like great I don't have any problems that you you answered correctly wouldn't they >> correct correct >> yeah so so when you're dealing with a precept we think that there's a correct answer on atheism like if hypothetically atheism was true that there's a correct answer to all these questions and whenever the atheist steps outside of one of those correct answers we argue with them or the precept argues with them and they try to bring them back onto their worldview. Right? So that's what we mean by the atheist worldview is the real one, the true one if it were true.
Uh yeah, that's fine. So I guess the issue there would be, you know, so so jumping back to like Bonson's comment where he says, you know, if you're an atheist, you believe in matter in motion, then what he should say is if you were a consistent atheist, you would believe in matter in motion. And then he has to demonstrate how that follows. But that's the thing too. Usually that's never demonstrated. It's just said you believe in matter in motion and so let me tell you why that's incoherent.
Instead of saying if God doesn't exist, there must be only matter in motion and let me demonstrate that and then I'll move to refuting it. So I agree with you there. Like but then the the debate tactic there there's a lot that would need to be tacked on there. But that I I think we can agree there. Well, well, of course, Bonson would if he were debating an atheist and the atheist said, "I don't believe in uniform or say say he believed in uniform nature." So, Bonson's debating atheist and the atheist says, "I believe in laws of logic and that they're eternal and blah blah blah." Um, Greg Bonson wouldn't say, "No, you don't believe in them." He wouldn't do that, right? He wouldn't like argue with the guy about that and say, "No, you don't actually believe that." He would try to show him that if uh atheism was true that his idea or his conception of laws of logic wouldn't make any sense. That's what he would try to do, you know. So, so when he says this in a uh a classroom to other Christians, that's really shorthand for the way that the argument actually plays out. And I I think obviously Bonson knows that atheists don't all hold the same worldview and all that. So, I don't know. I think Bonsson does, but I the issue is you have so many like presuppions who will follow his lead without understanding these nuances. Um, and and just like just to give you an example like Jay I don't know how much Jay Dyer follows Bonson, but Jay Dyer is one of them where you know and and I have a video where I go through it and he's he's talking with an interlocutor and he said, you know, we're going to we're going to demonstrate the impossibility to the contrary. And so his interlocutor tells him like, "Okay, go ahead." And Jake says, "Well, I need your worldview first. I need to know what you believe."
And the whole point is you shouldn't need to know what what the other guy believes. You should do exactly what you said, um, Daniel, and say, "If you believe that God doesn't exist, then all of these things follow from it, and that's what I need to refute." But like Jay doesn't do that. He wants to know his interlocutors specific beliefs and um his specific presuppositions and then refute those which that doesn't demonstrate the impossibility of the contrary. At best you would demonstrate excuse me at best you would demonstrate that the interlocutor has an inconsistent worldview but he hasn't refuted the atheist worldview. Um so >> no that's correct. I I agree with you there. See I told you we were going to agree. But I will say one one thing which is that if you're trying to show somebody that you have like the best tool for the job or let's say you you you say my only my key can open this lock and other people are like no my key can.
>> Well, it kind of makes sense a little bit to be like okay well try it. You know like give me your key you know like put it in the lock. Let's see if it actually opens it. And I think that's that's what Jay is doing. Um but it you're correct that it wouldn't uh that that doesn't lead to the conclusion that Christianity is uh necessary for these because what he's doing is more inductive. It's like let me you know whack-a-ole. Let me >> we can keep going. I think we're agreed.
>> All right. So I just want to um we have a hard cut off in a little less than an hour. So, I just want to tell the audience that um we're going to be holding this up for maybe I would say just so Stephen isn't running up right on his time. Let's try to end in like 45 minutes to give him like 15 minutes after we end. Um and then I did see it looks like someone donated to you Stephen. So, I wanted to give you an opportunity to say thank you to them.
>> Oh, I appreciate that. Uh never seen full proof of the imposs either. That's the That's my whole point is I I've never seen that. And I And again, I think that someone who takes the avenue of of Daniel has a better chance, but somebody who claims that they're going to demonstrate the full impossibility to the contrary. I I just don't think that that's a burden that can be reached. And I definitely don't think that that's a burden that any precept has has reached, but that's obviously my my opinion. So, thank you, honest. I appreciate that.
>> And and I'll just say I also think that it's massive burden.
Yeah.
>> Yeah. It is a massive burden of proof. I agree with that. And that that's another reason why I don't like the presupp. I think it's like that that is a burden that would take like 700 pages to meet of a book. And >> Daniel said the exact same thing. Like >> Yeah. I think more than 1500 pages.
>> Yeah. It's just that to me it's not worth it. I'd rather do something else.
And maybe this this will lead into our next conversation, but there's also issues where remember that in order to demonstrate the impossibility of the contrary, you're trying to demonstrate that the the opposing worldview, let's just say there is one opposing worldview, that that opposing worldview is inconsistent. But there are worldviews and and this might lead into a a discussion about laws of logic.
There are worldviews that allow inconsistencies. And so, how do you perform an internal critique on that?
It's very difficult to do so. And I had a video on my channel of Jay, not to mention Jay Dyer again, but of him trying to debunk a trivialist. And I don't know how because I had to go look that up.
>> Yeah. I mean, I I think trivialism is a is a ridiculous position, but I don't even know how you would attempt to >> perform an internal critique.
>> You should tell everyone, Stephen, what what trivialism is because I had to go and look that up because it's it's pretty funny. Trivialism is the belief that all propositions are true. All propositions. So if you say Nathan is wearing a hat right now, that is a true proposition. But if you also say Nathan is not wearing a hat, that's also a true proposition. So obviously it violates the law of non-contradiction.
>> And it also doesn't violate the law of non-contradiction.
>> And it also doesn't violate the law.
Right. Right. Right. So uh anyways, yeah. So, so Jay was trying to perform an internal critique of that, trying to demonstrate that it's inconsistent, but the trivialist will say, "Of course, it's inconsistent." Like, yes, that's the whole point. It's an inconsistent.
>> All propositions are also not true. Uh, >> exactly.
>> Not inconsistent.
>> It's also not Yeah. Yeah. So, anyways, um, yeah. So, I don't I don't know, Daniel, where do you want to take the discussion? Because I know Nathan, you said to give me 15 minutes, but my daughters get out at my time, 3:15. So, if I cut off at 3, I'm good. I have that time to to go get them. Um, so we we do have >> a little under an hour. So Daniel, you can take take this wherever you want. If you want to look at more clips or if you want to just jump into more abstract discussions on our own, let me know.
>> Before we do that, uh, I did see a question in the chat for Daniel. Uh, Daniel, you did kind of answer this earlier, but I think they tuned in a little later. So if you just want to engage this question, um, it says, "Question for Darwin. Would you say Tag is proving a particular type of Christian theology like Calvinism or Eastern Orthodoxy or something like that? Or is TAG just saying the brute facts of reality point to the God of the Bible?
>> Well, ultimately it just depends on what version of Tag that you're arguing. So, what I was saying initially is that I would make the transcendental argument just for God because I think that that's much easier to make and I'm talking to atheists. So, why am I going to argue for Christianity with somebody that doesn't even believe in God in the first place? I think that that's kind of ridiculous. And as soon as you start talking about Christianity, then um there's a whole bunch of red herrings that come flying at you. You know, they're going to be bringing up the Bible and all that stuff. So, um I'm trying to establish God when I argue transcendentally, but you can be more specific. You can fine-tune your tag argument to get you to Christianity. And I think you can even fine-tune it to get you to uh Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholicism or even Protestantism. I don't I'm not saying any of those actually go through, but you can certainly attempt it. But the more refined it is, the more difficult it's going to be to make it. I mean, it's so so >> get you to Protestantism, >> right? Does that answer your question?
Did I answer it?
>> Yeah. Yeah. I think they were just kind of wanting to know if you go all the way to a specific kind of uh Christianity.
Um so yeah, >> I I wouldn't I wouldn't try that. Um it it would be a monumental task even just going all the way to Christianity. I think like I said, a thousandpage book easily and and years and years of of like thinking about it and you're still going to be putting together very very contentious premises.
Uh, so yeah, >> looks like we got another question for you on the shape of the earth, Daniel.
Um, >> what shape is the earth and why does your god disagree with you since the Bible is wrong? Then the contrary, atheism is correct.
>> Well, that's a nonsequiter, but all right, you you can engage Daniel if you'd like.
Um, I mean, I think that the earth is round, and I think that the passages in the Bible that suggest or that atheists take to suggest that it's not are um misinterpreted, obviously. So, >> yeah, I want to go with that.
>> I think, but I think flat.
>> There we go. I think that ancient Christians believed it was flat, to be honest, but I don't think that calls into question the truth of the Bible or anything like that. That's my hot take on that. But anyways, um so let's get into and by the way guys, if you for the chat, if you guys want to ask more questions, just leave like question or Q at the beginning of it and uh we can interact with that. Um but Daniel, in this article that you have us looking at, um are there any clips that you really want to get to before our time's up?
>> I'm looking at that right now. Um there's this one thing that's said uh by Alex where he says that um that the Christian uh precept would say that there's only two worldviews, materialism or Christianity. And I don't think that that's accurate at all. That was another thing that Alex said where I was like, gosh, doesn't he debate precepts all the time? I've never Now, I understand why he might think that because precepts do talk about materialism a lot, but can you really blame them uh when most atheists are in fact materialists? I mean, Stephen, don't you agree that most atheists are materialists?
>> Yeah. Yeah. No, I agree on that.
Oh, go ahead. Sorry.
>> Um, no. Yeah. Yeah. I I completely agree. Um, but I think again just because on a lot of those clips we played they make that conflation. Even Greg Bonson, right? He says, "Well, if you you know if you're an atheist then you believe in matter and motion." So, but but I do agree that that the majority of atheists are physicalists or materialists. Um, >> but I I mean I do think for now we've kind of settled the worldview issue. So I would think >> I don't know if you want to move on to to something else that we can talk about.
Um, no.
>> Yeah. Well, while Daniel looks through those clips, uh, another question came up.
>> So, uh, he said, "Oh, let me see."
>> Was it the Darth Dawkins one? I would love to.
>> Yeah, I there's a bunch of people that have commented since then. Let me look here. Let's see. And you also got another super chat, it looked like. So, >> I appreciate it, honest.
Is the description ever the described?
>> I don't exactly know. I'm sorry, honest.
I don't exactly know uh what you mean.
>> I know exactly what it means, but um I can't tell you. So, >> if if he if he told you, then he would be the described.
>> Oh, be the describer.
>> Honest. Try to say that uh again, please. Yeah, you don't need to put it in a super chat again if you want to >> if you want to articulate.
>> What are y'all's opinions on Darth Dawkins? I don't know who that is. So, >> you know who Gar Dawkins is? Oh my god, >> I definitely know who it is.
>> Darth Dawkins is the >> He's probably one of the the biggest uh Oh man, he's just so aggressive. He's like he's like Jay Dyer on cocaine or something. He I don't know. He just he's so freaking aggressive and he's so patronizing when he would have discussions. So I would recommend Nathan you watch his discussion with Alex with Alex Malpass. Um uh and he's here's the thing he's not overtly he's not like cussing or being he's just the way it's very condescending the way he talks.
It's very aggressive and he I don't know, this is just my preference, but what always bothered me was the way he says your name after he asks something because it sounds very passive aggressive. It's like if he says, "Do you think you can prove to me um how God can be omnisient and also have divine foreign knowledge?" Nathan, can you explain that to me? Nathan, Nathan, can you It's just like, oh my >> Hey, Sarah, I see Sarah in the chat.
Good to see you, >> Nathan. Yes, I can. And I will debate that.
or uh sorry, Stephen, have you talked to Darth Dawkins?
>> I've never talked to him.
>> Okay. Well, >> is he a Christian or not? I'm assuming by the name. No, >> he's a precept. Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Oh.
>> Um I I wish he would change uh a little bit. Um I I think that taking the Eli Ayala approach is much better.
>> I I really enjoy watching Eli's content, you know.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I mean you don't have to be uh super abrasive with it and it and and I think that the ideas of precept h are very interesting if you really think about it but the way that it's approached so often um by a lot of the people that we're all thinking about right now it puts a bad taste in everybody's mouth just because of the tactics that are employed and then people just don't even want to think about what's being said. And hopefully uh this sort of conversation that we're having now will at least get people to think about it a little bit. You know, if we can just divorce all the rhetoric and the you know the pummeling of the opponent and all that uh from the actual ideas that that are being employed you know I think it's a really fascinating argument you know like what what are the preconditions for intelligibility and what worldview does make sense of them and these sort of things. So >> oh yeah I just saw Sarah Sarah in the chat as well. She did a response video to me a long time ago. Like a year or two ago.
>> Who's Sarah?
>> I didn't know that.
>> It was a long time ago.
>> You guys don't know Sarah. Who's Sarah?
I don't know Sarah.
>> She's a She's a atheist YouTuber. I think she's atheist. I know she's a non-believer. Um and uh she's h she had a really good video recent recently and uh I can't remember. Was it on Andrew Wilson?
She had a really good video and it didn't get a lot of views and I which sucks because it was a good video. But if you guys are not subscribed to Sarah, I would go check out her channel. Oh, ex-Muslim. I did not know that. Wow.
Okay. Wow.
>> Yeah. Go find her uh go find her response to me. It'll be fun. Uh that was >> I know she did a response to you.
>> That was a long time ago. I I don't even remember what video she responded to, but I remember that I watched it. So >> yeah, she said Andrew Wilson. Yeah.
Yeah. Okay.
>> Um Awesome. All right. Um so, uh are there any clips you want to check out, D? I think there are uh a lot I think there's a lot more disagreement now. I think we've worked through basically most of the uh things that I wanted to discuss as far as clarifications and that sort of thing. So we can go on to the discussion topics at the bottom. Um >> okay >> because that's really interesting to me I think. So so these are three clips that I found very interesting. I wanted to just discuss with Stephen because I'm not really sure if we disagree or not >> and I kind of want to pick his brain on it.
>> Sure. So, which which one? Sorry.
>> I think it says discussion topics, laws of logic, and rules of inference.
>> Yeah, >> let's see. I'm gonna try to find it real quick.
Maybe I'll >> go all the way to the bottom and then go up three. That's a quick way to >> one, two, three. Okay.
>> Yeah. And I mean it's it's more esoteric, but like it just the phrase the laws of logic is kind of an antiquated sort of I don't know 17th 18th century kind of uh port royal logic sort of old school way of looking at things and I mean um you know don't want to get too much into the weeds about it but there are different like um you can so for instance take some like classic law of logic like the law of non-contradiction or Like these guys will say, you know, you hear this so often on the internet. Classical logic has three laws. Identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle, right? And as if that's it, then all you need to know is there's three laws in it. But if that's all you think logic is, you sort of fundamentally misunderstood like logic is about inference. It's about like certain things in like entailing other things.
That's what it's the study of. It's not just the study of like let's postulate three principles and just see, you know, well, see what see what follows from them. You have to have some notion of inference. That's what like >> um and and point is just that like there is a system of logic that's called classical logic and >> you know propositional logic most basic logic that um it's kind of like the equivalent of arithmetic is sort of thing you could learn in school. It's like really super easy and there's hardly any terms in there and you know um and in that you have uh you can prove the law of non-contradiction and the law of excluded middle although um curiously there is no law of identity in that because there's no identity symbol. So like you know you don't there are logical systems that don't have identity. uh so it can't be like this universal law that apparently is applicable in all remains except propositional logic where it's not even stated but I mean the point is that you can you can specify that logic without having non-contradiction and excluded middle as axioms as laws that that you have to put in by hand. There's like an infinite number of ways that you could set up. You could have different axioms.
You can specify it without starting with axioms. You could give a kind of semantic account of of how the logic works and then the axioms just kind of fall out of the semantic machinery that you have. So like modern logic kind of is kind of gone beyond this oldfashioned way of talking about laws of logic. So even that is anacronistic and kind of kind of cringe in the first place to be like you know asking aggressively asking people about the laws of logic like it betrays like a lack of familiarity with modern logic.
>> I do like hearing uh Dr. Mess say that's kind of cringe. Um >> I uh I have a couple of comments real quick before we get into responding to the clip. Um, so it looks like Sarah Mindy responded to me on the empty tomb.
She did respond there. So if I have a video uh trying to show that the empty tomb narratives in the gospels are historical and Sarah has a video trying to refute me. So if you guys want to watch both of those, we'd appreciate that. And then uh the person who left the super chat, I forgot the name. An honest outer >> honest outer.
>> Um yeah, honest outer clarified. So is the map ever the territory? Is the description concept ever what is described? If not then uh there is never correspondence between any concept and the truth as is if yes how >> if not then there's never correspondence I guess I don't I don't understand why that would be is the description concept ever what it describes well the the con you know what you're conceiving of doesn't isn't your concept right I guess unless you're conceiving of yourself conceiving but I guess I don't understand why that would mean that there's never correspondence And it's yeah I don't understand why that why that would follow I guess right if you're conceiving of again if I'm conceiving that the cat is on the mat and the cat is actually on the mat then my proposition has the property that it corresponds to reality and that that's what truth is for me right truth is a property of propositions so I guess I guess I get the first part of your question but oh oh if not then then there is never correspondence between any concept truth as it is. Yeah. I I guess I I wouldn't agree, right? That you know, >> I mean, isn't that self-defeating?
>> What do you mean?
>> If we were to say that there's no correspondence between any concept and truth as it is, wouldn't that itself have to correspond with truth? Like that's >> Yes. If you're saying that there's no correspondence between the concept and the truth as it is, maybe I'm misunderstanding his question, but you're absolutely right. If that's if that's the claim, then yes, that would be self-defeating.
>> Yeah. I mean, I I think that the map I I understand like the idea of the map and the territory being two different things, but if you just think about different propositions, you know, um like something some something either exists or it doesn't exist. One of those has to be true. Um and and just because we can we have to conceive of it in our mind, that doesn't mean that it it like what is in our mind can't obtain in reality or something. So maybe I don't understand um still what exactly is trying to be got at here. But if I do understand it, then I I think that what we conceive of uh can absolutely obtain in reality and it kind of has to. You know, you could you could just say um either I can't conceive of of what's happening in reality or I can right there. That's that's a true dichotomy and one of those is true and you've conceived of both, right? So, >> well, and even even if you if you were to become like an epistemic skeptic or or a like an external world skeptic, >> you even if you're conceiving um you you have to postulate something about reality that you think it you have to postulate something, right? Even if you think that external world skepticism is true, that that proposition or that belief system would still have to correspond to reality, right? So, yeah, I I I agree with >> we understand the map uh is not the territory. We understand that like if you draw a map that's not literally the place and when we try so so the point of that is to say like when we conceive of things that's not necessarily like how they actually are which I think goes back to the whole Kant idea which is like the thing in itself or the thing as it actually is versus how we conceive of it. But when you think about a proposition as being true or false, um I think that that proposition has, you know, certain propositions have to obtain in reality, it can't be both and it can't be neither. Um you know, >> well, I also think what they're saying too, if I'm understanding it correctly, is that like this is a can, right? I could say this is a can, but like the word can is just a description of what this is, but it's not a literal correspondence to what it is. But I think that that's just the nature of language that yes, language doesn't directly correspond with the object itself just like a map doesn't correspond to the territory itself. But the map can be an accurate picture of the actual reality just like the word can can be an accurate description of what it is. And like I can describe the can as pink and we could all agree like yes it is pink. um even if the word pink isn't a direct correspondence with the qualia of pink or pinkness, right? I think that's what they're getting at.
But um so in a sense, they're right.
There isn't this direct correspondence between the word itself and the thing being described, but at the same time a proper can be an accurate or inaccurate description even if there's no, you know, direct correspondence. If that makes sense.
>> Yeah, I think so. I think >> do we want to talk about that clip now?
>> Yeah. Yeah, I was about to ask let maybe uh since we played the clip a few minutes ago if you want to recap what he said.
>> Yeah, I can recap it. So, Alex was saying that uh the traditional presupp the three laws of logic bringing that up is is cringe because I think what he's saying is that there are other conceptions now and and that's kind of like an antiquated view. It's it's old and uh and stale. And I think I think that Alex is kind of missing the point if I understand him correctly because whether whether or not that's true, I think that there are definitely rules of inference. Um you know, when when Alex says this argument doesn't work, he's going to appeal to a set of rules of inference. You know, if you say why doesn't it work, he's going to say, "Well, because of this, this, and that."
And I don't think that he believes that those rules of inference are just arbitrarily chosen. I What do you think, Stephen? I mean, do you think like we just make up these rules of inference and or or do you think that they're like discovered?
>> Uh, that's a good question. I I think that we make them up as axioms and rules of inference and they apply within certain formal systems. And the question is, do those formal systems like does the formal system of classical logic apply wholly and exclusively to the real world? I think that's the question because there's so many different formal systems and to to just give uh an analogy and I gave this analogy in one of my streams, right? Um, we we could say the same thing about like the rules of uklidian geometry. Like it seems like did we discover that the three that the three angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees or did we invent that? Um, and and I guess you could claim we discovered it. The problem is we learned later that ukitian geometry is not applicable to our um to our four-dimensional universe. that actually non- uklitian geometry is what is applicable. And so the whole question of like did we discover did we invent the postulate that three angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees seems to me to almost be a wrong-headed question because that that question only applies within a formal system of uklidian geometry. Right? And now we've learned that it's the non it's the the formal system of non-ucuklitian geometry that applies to the world. Um and so I do think in a sense we we we make up these axioms and rules of inference to apply within a specific formal system. The question then becomes does that formal how how broad is that formal system and does it apply to reality or does it only apply to a specific pocket of reality? I don't know if what I just said makes any sense but >> I I think I understand you. Um I'm not sure that I agree. I mean, wouldn't you just say then that the uklidian geometry is is just simply wrong and what and we discovered that it's wrong? We didn't make up a new system, right? We just discovered that that system doesn't map on to our world, you know, and and um I mean, >> yeah, I mean, I also think for >> Sorry, go ahead.
>> I was going to say I think for some of the what we call laws of logic, um they're true analytically. Like I I think we can know them with certainty because of the analyticity of the propositions themselves. Like >> it you can't have a and not a at the same time in the same way. Once you know what all those words in that sentence means, it's necessarily true can't be false and it can't be denied. It's like encouraable, but it's and all these things. So I think that with concepts like that, I don't think it would just work within a specific framework. I get what you're saying about like uklidian geometry and all that, but like I think with things like the law of non-contradiction, I would want to push back and say I don't think that works just within a specific system. I just think that we it's weird to say it's discovered, but it probably is just the case that it's discovered to be true because again, it's it seems necessarily true by the analyticity of the proposition itself.
Um, so that that's kind of how I look at those things. So I I would say I understand why you might think that and and and I agree with that to a degree.
The problem is there are non-class logics. That's why I gave the uklitian and non-ucuklitian uh geometry example because there are classical logics and then there's non-class logics and there are non-class logics that reject the law of non-contradiction. There are there there are even mathematical formal systems that reject the law of excluded middle like constructivism and intuitionism. Um so yeah I mean there are other systems right you would still have to make the case that it's the classical logical uh the formal system of classical logic that does apply to our world um and this is this is why this is difficult because what you want to then do is you have to find some way to disprove those other non um non-classological systems but if they are okay with if they admit of inconsistency how are you going to disprove them and and this is again This is why I think this is crucial for precept because if you're going to be a precept who argues for the impossibility to the contrary, which we've seen Daniel doesn't exactly go that far. Um, but if you if you are one who's going to push for the impossibility of the contrary, you're going to have a difficult time because you have to somehow perform an internal critique of one who holds to a non-classic logic. But how do you how do you perform a reductio adab of absurdum if their worldview admits of inconsistencies within that formal system?
>> Yeah. I mean I I don't know that you actually can because I mean at at that point they're just being like absurd, you know? I mean imagine if uh you're you're trying to get somebody to stop smoking because it causes lung cancer and they're like actually I want to die, you know? What do you say then? um you know, you just have to kind of like hope that they have some common sense. And um you know, so if somebody's uh adhering to a system that they know is inconsistent or contradictory, you know, like you might not be able to reason with them, but that doesn't mean that their system actually works. Um you know, I think we would just have to appeal to basic common sense. And and Stephen, um you say that you have arguments against the triune God. I I would wager a fair amount that if you were to make an argument right now against the triune God, you would be appealing to either the law of non-contradiction or the law of identity. Am I wrong?
>> For sure. For sure. And >> yeah. No, absolutely. But see, that's why I'm not claiming that I hold to a non-class logic, but this is why the the burden is difficult for the precept because they're the one who has to do that leg work. I absolutely I if I'm arguing against the trinity, I'm going to assume things like laws of logic and and classical rules of inference. But um and see here's what's interesting. I don't know if you guys know um I was about to say I don't know if you guys know Michael Jones. Of course, of course you know Michael Jones from um inspiring philosophies, but >> he when I critiqued his video, one of his videos on on monarchical trinitarianism, he actually said, "Well, I don't hold to a classical logic formal system. I hold to a non-classical logic formal system and it seems to me like he does that so that he can um accommodate contradictions in the trinity and we don't need to get into the trinity but um yeah I mean even a Christian might do that to to affirm what they might see as an inconsistency but yeah I mean you're right uh Daniel I operate as if the um I operate usually as if um the the the laws of logic with regards to a formal system are correct whether or not they are necessary truths. I I would probably say likely they are, but I don't know for sure. Again, because and again, just take something like quantum mechanics, right? Um which seems to posit wave particle duality. There's just stuff about reality sometimes that I'm like maybe reality doesn't fit into those conceptual um bubbles that we want to put it in. Or maybe it does, but I don't know, right? But see, I'm not the one positing the impossibility to the contrary. The presupp is. And so that's why I think they have that burden where I don't I don't have a burden like that to to uh to bear.
>> I'll just say real quick I I totally agree that this is why the burden is so high and and I Daniel agrees that the burden is so high. Like you have so many worldviews to disprove and it's like how do you even disprove uh what what was that? Trivialism I think is what you called it.
>> It's like how do you disprove that if they're just like willing to admit like yeah everything's true. It's like everything you tell them, they'll be like, "Yeah, yeah, >> you just have to like, >> you know, that that sounds like a fun worldview to hold to." Like, I don't have to question anything.
>> Be like, "Okay, well, this guy's dumb, so moving on."
>> That's like a That's a pretty fun world view to hold on to, though. It's like I don't have to question anything. I can just leave it all. Anyways, >> and so I think No, go ahead. Go ahead, Nathan.
>> Well, I was gonna say we have a couple questions in the chat. So, if you want to leave a thought real quick, then I'll throw up some questions. Well, I was going to say like so I think Daniel, if someone's going to take your position, I that's why I think going for the impossibility to the contrary won't work. But if you're going to go from like an abductive argument, that might be better. I think though that you run into issues. I think you run into like author type dilemma when you try to ground classical laws of logic in God.
And we can talk about that that if you want. We don't need to. But that that's also why I reject that whole precept line about laws of logic. Um because I think even if you try to make an abductive argument which might be a little bit more successful, I still think that you run into a type of youth the fro dilemma with the laws of logic and how they pertain to God.
>> Yeah. I mean that there would obviously be a debate there. Um it sounds like you don't like divine conceptualism. I know Alex talked about that. So um yeah.
>> Um all right. So, we have about 30 minutes, a little less than 30 minutes.
So, what I would like to do is I would like to answer some questions. I would like for both of you to kind of like summarize the conversations we've had and then if possible, I'd love to talk about the topic that I had uh proposed at the beginning.
>> Can we go through one more clip?
>> Sure. Uh which one would you like to do?
>> The next one, I think. Okay.
>> Because this was the least interesting.
>> What's the motivation for tag or the problem of induction?
Uh, the problem of induction.
>> Okay. All right. Let me pull this up.
>> Here we go.
>> Proof of God's existence. If you squeeze the toothpaste tomorrow and expect the toothpaste to come out. If you squeeze the tube and expect the paste to come out, I want to argue you're working within a Christian framework about reality.
Why is that? Well, because how do you know that the pace is going to squirt out tomorrow? You're going to answer, "Well, because of past experience."
But of course, past experience is not relevant to what's going to take place tomorrow, is it? Unless what? Unless you add this premise. The future is like the past. Now, has anybody ever observed that? Has anybody observed the future?
Go back to David Hume a few minutes ago.
We were talking about No, no one knows the future. No one's observed it directly experientially and no one knows what their relationship is between the past and the future. Therefore, whenever you expect something to happen based on past experience, you're assuming the Christian view of the universe that God controls all things and keeps them regular.
In an atheist universe, there shouldn't be any science. There shouldn't be any brushing your teeth. For all you know, the best way to, you know, dental health is not to brush your teeth. You don't know the toothpaste is ever going to come out. You don't know anything about the future.
But of course, atheists can't live that way, can they? Atheists must use the laws of logic. Atheists must assume the uniformity of nature in order to think scientifically. And atheists have got to live in this universe as though there are moral absolutes.
>> Okay.
All right. I've just I've never understood. Again, it's it's just like the apologist is like you said making a story. Greg Munson is making a story for why they can supposedly they're able to I guess solve the problem of induction or account for the uniformity of nature and the again quote unquote atheist worldview can't. But I've I've never really understood again how the the Christian presupp worldview provides these somehow necessary conditions that the atheist can't have other than just saying like to me this is just a God did it. God grounds uniformity of nature because he just does.
>> Yeah. I think that like um there's on one hand the problem of induction.
>> Okay. So, Stephen, I'm curious. Is that really what you think um the the position is? I mean, if you were to read um you know, Van Hill or Bon or anything like that, uh regarding the uniformity of nature, do you think that they would say something along the lines of, you know, God God did it because God just does or something?
>> I I think I mean, they might uh they might uh sorry, there's a fly here. They might use different words, but I think that that is essentially what it boils down to because they're remember that, sorry, there's a freaking fly right here. Um, remember that the problem of induction is an epistemic problem. And what they're doing, and I think Alex mentioned this in the video, is they they sidestep the epistemological problem to posit a metaphysical or an onlogical foundation for it. Um, yeah, >> which again they're they're positing a sufficient condition. So they're positing a hypothetical conditional, right? If P then Q. Um, so yeah, I mean in a sense I think that's what they're doing. And and granted at maybe my view is a little bit deflationary. Um, but that essentially is what it boils down to. Um, I mean not not just God does it because he does it, right? I mean, they're going to try to ground it in his nature. Um, but yeah, sorry. Go ahead if if you want to go from there.
>> Yeah. So I I understand why you bring up the epistemic uh problem. Um, because we do, right? precepts do bring this up. Um there is the problem of induction and that's one thing and then there's the onlogical grounding of uh uniformity of nature which is another thing. Um but I don't know that there's necessarily uh a conflation that's happening if you actually go and and think uh or or read the where they're really thinking about this and writing it out. Now there there certainly can be a conflation. Maybe even Dr. Bonson made that conflation here. Um I'm not quite sure that he did but um there's two different questions right so the first question is can we know that the future will be like the past I would say no and I don't even think Dr. Bonson would say that we can know. I don't think even he would say that. But the the so so there's that.
That's the first question. And then the second question is um what gives us what set of beliefs would make sense of why we can believe in uniformity of nature.
So once again, if we go to the evil God uh hypothesis, if God was evil, then obviously thinking that there would be uniformity of nature wouldn't really make sense because uh God would want there to be chaos and confusion all the time, you know, like that would that would be much more in line with an evil god. So we wouldn't want to posit an evil god as an explanation for why uniformity of nature would obtain. So basically we need to believe that uniformity of nature uh obtains and then we need to ask well what makes sense of that which is going to be ontological and and then we're going to you know the the Christian presuppositionalist is going to try to say uh that Christianity is is the best explanation because of God's nature he's unchanging and he wants you know his desire is for us to live in a world uh that we can make sense of you know if everything is just changing all the time that would be crazy and chaotic. How are we supposed to be good stewards? This this sort of thing, you know? So, so there are two different questions here. Um, but I'm not sure that they're actually conflated when you when you get to the literature and that sort of thing. What do you think, Stephen? Matt, >> I'd have to go back and read specifically Bonsson on it. And I wish I would have uh and I um I didn't. But I mean I I have no problem if if you think that they don't make the confl the conflation, but I think that at the end of the day, the problem of induction isn't solved epistemically by the Christian worldview. I think that the Christian and and the the non-Christian worldview are in the same boat there.
And see, me personally, I'm a determinist. So, I actually think that if we're going to step outside of the epistemic problem and posit an an ontological some type of ontological apparatus that helps um ground the uniformity of nature, then I actually think determinism works pretty well for that. I think it probably works just as well as God. Um, but that's assuming we can step out of of again step out of the epistemic problem and make it an ontological problem. Um, so I don't know if that if that answered your question.
Yeah, I I think it does. Um I'm just trying to say that there's this uh >> wait, if it's an ontological problem, >> wouldn't we still have the induction issue even on the ontological level?
Because how how do we know that even on a deterministic framework, what if it was determined that the laws would change tomorrow? Right.
>> Right. And and that was my point. I don't I don't think either worldview actually solves the problem of induction. I think and again I think Daniel's trying to make more of an abductive case like if God exists, right, it would be more likely that we would expect uniformity of nature. Um and and but yeah, I mean I agree with you. I don't think either one solves the epistemic problem because yeah, positing determinism is still going to rely on on induction and it's going to be circular.
So absolutely.
>> Well well think back to the other axioms. Um you know let's say rationality, right? So, Stephen, would you agree that you can't actually know that you're rational? Because in order to know that you're rational, you have to use your reasoning in order to like deter >> Yeah. Like I can't I can't know that my cognitive faculties are reliable because that would be to argue in a circle.
Sure.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, so that's that's an epistemic problem as well, right?
Like we can't know that we're reasoning, but we we have to believe that we're that we're reasoning correctly. Remember I I talked about if you could just flick a switch and turn off these foundational beliefs uh like belief in uniform of nature, belief that rationality exists or that you're a reasonable person, these sort of things, then you couldn't make sense of the world. Like if if you turn these beliefs off in a person, they couldn't make sense of anything if they genuinely stop believing these things.
So we have to believe in these things.
And then we have to ask, okay, so these things must obtain in order for us to get knowledge. We have knowledge. So then what best explains the existence of these things? That doesn't mean that the epistemic problem goes away though. It doesn't mean that if God exists then therefore I can know that my reasoning is valid. But it does mean that I can make sense of why my reasoning would be valid. It does mean that I can make sense of why uh nature would be uniform um and these sort of things. So >> that's that's what we're getting at. I'm not saying that this solves the problem.
>> All right.
I have one quick thing to say. All right. So, for everyone in the chat, we have a hard cut off in about 18 17 18 minutes. So, um we're going to try to wrap this up. And so, what I want to do is I want each of you to like kind of give a summary of the conversation we've had today and just kind of say like I'd like for both of you to give one thing that you appreciate about the other uh about a point they brought up today. And then I'd like for you guys to maybe say one critical point of disagreement between you guys. and then um after that we'll answer a few questions and then if we have maybe a few minutes we can uh talk about the approach to apologetics and all that.
>> So uh sure >> which one of you would like to start on that?
>> I'll I'll go first. I mean uh you know Dan most people don't know. So Daniel and I have had an interesting past couple of years. We've talked on Twitter many times and we've had a lot of disagreements and there were times where we were like hey let's be buds and then we kind of got on each other's nerves.
Um, and so I really appreciate this discussion with you, Daniel. Um, this is what I'm talking about. Like when we have a discussion like this, you're a great dude. Like you're a great person to talk to. So I really appreciate um the discussion. Uh, I mean, I I just think I think you seem to you take you don't take as aggressive a stance as other precepts. So I think that your position is is more defensible than a precept who argues the impossibility of the contrary from Christian theism specifically. So um so you know there are just things that Alex and I said in the video that maybe just don't apply to you and maybe that's why um why they maybe rubbed you the wrong way. Um you know I think there are things in the video that maybe Alex and I could have been a little bit more uh precise about.
But I do think that some of a lot of the things we said do apply to specific presuppositionalists, just maybe not presuppositionalists of your variety.
Um, but uh, Ale, hey, Alex Mal Alex Malpass joined the chat and he says, "What did I miss?" You missed a lot, Alex. You missed a lot. Um, so um, in fact, we're about to wrap up here. Alex, thanks for joining.
>> Yeah, if Alex would ever like to discuss this with me, I' I'd be happy to. I I tried to reach out to him through Ben Watkins because Ben Watkins knows him.
But apparently he told Ben that uh he's not uh interested in talking about presub, but here he is listening to this. So maybe he's interested again.
And if you're interested, Alex, I would love to pick your brain about this video as well. So hit me up on X or whatever and uh let me know if you want to discuss because I would love to discuss it with you. Sorry I cut you off though, Stephen.
>> No, I didn't I didn't have much more to say. Um, so I just thank, you know, thanks thanks for a good discussion. Um, and uh, yeah, Alex says it must have been some time ago, but no, I think I think we had a fruitful discussion. I know we still have a little bit more to go, but uh, it's been it's been a good discussion. So, it's all it's all yours, Daniel.
>> Yeah, I just want to say a couple of things. So, um, when you say that things uh, you know, some of these things apply to preups, that's certainly true. um some of your critiques of the tactics of precepts is is valid, but what's more important, I think, is for atheists to understand the real argument that's being had, not just the tactics of certain precepts versus other precepts.
You know, the the argument is what matters. And that's why I went to your first video or or I I put that video first where you said, "Look, I could have a valid argument against Jay, but I don't think I don't know if I'd beat him in a debate." you know, it's just two different things. So, I really want atheists to try to think about what's actually being said, what's really being argued, and try not to focus so much on the tactics of of people that are trying to win at, you know, any any cost, right? You know, sometimes.
>> So, so hopefully I've made that case.
Well, I think that I have. And I really appreciate uh you, Stephen, and and the way that you've uh been throughout this.
We definitely have had our disagreements, but you know, we have very different uh paths so far in life.
I think we're about the same age and you're coming from a life as a Christian and now you're like an agnostic atheist and I am a lifelong atheist who is now a Christian. And I think that it's a shame that you and I haven't had this sort of conversation before. And personally, I think we could have a lot of great conversations in the future about stuff like this. and I always have, you know, so it's great to finally get to do this with you. I really enjoyed it.
Hopefully, I've made the case uh today that um you know, I've at least explained why Christians should or or why atheists should uh try to take presuppositionalism a bit more seriously. Um why you should, you know, why we're all presuppositionalists in in some form or fashion and why it's not just like an obviously wrong way of reasoning. And uh yeah, we we had a lot of uh of agreement. I think I think we kind of agree on the tactics and and that they could be better, especially by guys like Darth Dawkins. Um and I think we also agree that there's a more serious argument that is under the surface of all this. And um and that we should we should take a look at that too. And you don't agree that it works, but atheists should at least understand that argument, I think. So, >> right.
>> Um it I think it was a good conversation. I don't know if I actually did everything you wanted me to, Nathan, but that's what I That was good. I I guess uh for both of you, um if both of you could just identify one place where you think the conversation could be further, like if there's still one like place of disagreement between you guys that you guys would like to see moving forward, um that might be good.
>> Can you wait restate that again, Nathan?
Say it again.
>> Yeah. Yeah. if there's just like if either of you think there's a place in the discussion where there's just like this disagreement where you feel like maybe you weren't heard all the way or maybe uh there's still more to be discussed in the future. Um is there anything like that that you guys would like to see?
>> Oh, me personally, I felt like the discussion went well. I think when me and Daniel had disagreements over terms and whatnot, I think we got that worked out pretty well. So, I mean, no, I mean we could talk about this stuff for a long time. There's still a lot, you know, I I know Daniel loves to talk about morality because I think that's his go-to about how morality presupposes God and that can be maybe another conversation we have in the future. Um, but no, I mean, I felt like we understood each other pretty well and I felt like it was a productive conversation.
>> Yeah, I would totally agree. I think that No, I think that we definitely got on the same page on all the stuff that uh that I wanted to and I'm glad that Stephen was uh as reasonable as he was.
And I think that um this conversation went really well. We got to basically all the clips that I wanted to get to. I made all the points that I wanted to make. So, um yeah, I think that Stephen and I definitely have a lot of disagreements still, but this was a really fruitful conversation. And Stephen, I would definitely love to talk to you about moral realism at some point because I don't know your stance, but I love talking about ethics. So, >> yeah. Yeah, for sure.
>> Cool. Well, I'm happy to hear that. as both of your friends. I I love that we can do this. Uh I think I said that wrong. As a friend of both of you. I was glad this went well. Okay. Uh so let's get to these questions real quick. Um I want to make sure that the audience gets their questions in. So Sarah had a question.
She says, "Do you guys think only the Christian God can ground logic and knowledge?" So I guess this is for me and Daniel. You want to go first, Daniel?
Well, if Christianity is true, then I think that that would necessarily follow because there's only one truth at the end of the day, right? So, whatever worldview is true would necessarily ground logic and and these sort of things that we need for intelligibility.
Um, and that's kind of that's kind of the argument. So, obviously, as a Christian, I'm going to say yes, only Christianity can do it. Now, I was thinking about this earlier, and this hasn't really come up yet. Um, and I didn't think it was it was going to come up, but you kind of brought it up.
There's there's this idea of something uh apparently u accounting for, you know, like laws of logic. So, you know, the atheist can say, "Well, I'm a plaintist, you know, uh, and so I account for laws of logic like that or whatever." That that might be an example. And that would be like accounting for it, but only apparently because if atheism is false, then that wouldn't really be the explanation, would it? the true explanation would be the real explanation, right? So, so there's like this idea of an apparent explanation and then and then the real actual working explanation. And yeah, as a Christian, of course, I'm going to say that Christianity is the real explanation for it.
>> Yeah, I think that in a in an onlogical sense, like I do believe God is the ground of those things. Um, do do I think I could actually make a case to demonstrate that he is the absolute ground of it and show the impossibility of the contrary? I I think that's too high of a burden to meet, which is why I'm not presupp. But, uh, yeah, I I think that ontologically speaking, he probably is the ground of those things. Uh, epistemically speaking, I think that we can I I kind of Have you guys read uh God and Cosmos by u Barrett and uh Oh, man. Who's the other guy on that book? Um, >> talking about moral realism.
>> Yeah, it's about moral realism. Uh, I like the way that >> need to finish.
>> I like the way they approach it. Like what they do is they basically say, look, um, the cosmos gives us a lot of good stuff for morality, right? Like when you see someone hurting someone else, like you have this something in you that says like, hey, that's wrong, right? And um we also have all the uh the resources that kind of naturally come with the world. And so what they want to do is they want to grant that to the naturalists and the atheists and all that and they say okay but let's like keep going and like uh see what is the best explanation of all these other aspects of morality. And so I think that that approach is helpful. Um I think that it's probably more helpful to in conversations like this about uh you know God's existence and all that. it's probably better in my opinion to say like all right this world gives us a lot of rich resources let's start with those and then let's see what we can build from there um so I think presupp is more like uh let's start at the foundation and go up and I think this is more like hey let's start at the um the general and go to the specific so it's like kind of the opposite so um yeah that's kind of what I would say there and then let's see uh next question here question. Uh, how can Christians believe in the uniformity of nature?
>> I think they're talking about >> Yeah. miracles and stuff. Yeah.
>> I was thinking about writing an article about this. I have thoughts.
>> Do you want to go first, Nathan? I'm sorry. I'm just eager to talk about this.
>> Oh, I mean, you got it, dude.
>> Yeah. So there's this idea that if uh if God can intervene in nature then then we really don't have uniformity of nature because the what a miracle is is it seems to be the suspension of the uniformity of nature. But I would say that the exception actually makes the rule and and we can believe in uniformity of nature and miracles because the whole point of a miracle is for God to signify something to us that's very important. So, we need to believe in uniformity of nature. Um, and and miracles are just the way that God, you know, says, "Hey, this thing is super important. Pay attention to it.
Here's a miracle." Um, you know, and that's what he did with the resurrection. You know, that was the whole point. So, I don't think that there's an actual problem with uniformity of nature and uh and miracles. I think that the the two work together very well actually. They they complement each other.
>> Yeah. So I think that um it just doesn't follow that be in fact what's interesting is on an epistemic level I think that what allows us to know that miracles happen is is the backdrop of the natural laws. I actually have a video on miracles where I talk about this how um be to just use the resurrection for an example like when human beings die they don't rise from the dead and so like we have that backdrop of knowledge and so if we were to see someone die and rise from the dead we would immediately know like something's different but let's let's imagine that there wasn't uniformity of nature um and let's just say like things were kind of sporadic and random. It'd be kind of difficult to identify a miracle. And so um and this was uh Tim Mcgru he had he has this argument against um uh David Hume because David Hume wants to use the uniformity of nature as evidence against uh you know uh the resurrection and miracles and things like that. But Tim Mcgru says basically it's like if uh the backdrop of the laws of nature is necessary for us to identify a miracle then the backdrop of natural laws cannot possibly be evidence against miracle claims. And so um that that's essentially his route.
So I thought I think that's a pretty interesting way to go.
>> I think we're basically saying the same thing, Nathan.
>> Yeah. So um cool. Let's see if there were other questions. Let's see. Here's another one.
How can Christians believe in the Bible when they so calmly reject the flat earth worldview? What are they using the atheist worldview of putting science over meth or why are they using the atheist worldview? Uh this person seems very highly fixated on the flat earth thing. Um um yeah, I don't know. Uh, I think that the ancient believers uh or ancient people believed in a flat earth and I just don't see why that has anything to do with uh what the Bible has to say or anything.
>> Yeah, >> I would like I'd like Stephen to tap into his former Christian self and answer that question.
>> Do uh well I when I was wrestling with questions like that, I became kind of like an accommodationist. So I believe that you know that that God accommodated himself to the mistaken worldview of the ancient Israelites. So I would have said yes, the Bible in some instances promulgates a flat earth, but it's not like God put those words into their mouths, right? He was just working through them in their limited perspective. That's what I would have said.
>> I have never heard that before. That's really interesting. I'm glad I asked.
Yeah, like >> I've never heard that before in my life.
Have you ever heard that, Nathan?
>> I mean, yeah, I essentially uh hold pretty similar views there. I think that um >> I I don't hold to what's called like uh what is that called like pleenary inspiration or whatever it's called.
It's like where it's like God decided the exact like word for word what the Bible would say, but rather he inspired them within their limited uh knowledge in order to bring us, you know, the scriptures. We only have a couple minutes here, so we probably do need to wrap up. I just noticed that we have like three minutes. So, >> I mean, if I go last question, >> if I go if we go five minutes over, it's not a huge deal. Um, I know you're trying to cut off for me because I have to go pick up my daughters, but I literally have to walk a couple blocks and they get out at 3:15 my time. So, if we go like 5 minutes over, it's no, it's not a huge deal.
>> Okay. Awesome. Uh, well, uh, >> I would, >> yeah, that's kind of like my view of inspiration as well. So he he held he held a very similar inspiration view of inspiration that I do. So yeah, >> Nathan, you want to go to that last thing that you want to talk about because otherwise we go through another question we might get derailed.
>> Yeah. So um I kind of had as the host my own selfish question for these guys. I wanted to ask what do we as a uh Christian who is you know willing to defend priest up probably thinks priest up works as an agnostic he used to be a Christian rejects priest up and as myself a Christian who doesn't hold the priest up apologetics what do we think would look what would it look like if apologetics was done like in an ideal way like 10 out of 10 gold star what's what should be the standard for apologetics I want to hear from you guys >> um I I guess for me. Again, I've never liked the presupp even as a Christian.
And and here's the thing, like talking with Daniel now, he he holds to some of the precept methodology, but a lot of the things where the precepts would normally argue, again, the impossibility of the contrary, he makes that more of an abductive argument. So, it's almost like he does become an evidentialist in some sense. Um because he is arguing, he's just saying like this evidence points to God, right? is not saying it's totally impossible um that this evidence could you know obtain in another instance. So I mean for me I've always just valued more evidential apologetics and I know that the Bible has a lot of verses that precepts interpret as well there's no neutrality and the you know the mind of the believer is already darkened so you can't you can't ask him to come and judge the evidence um you know you can't you can't put him um in the judge's chair so to speak. So, you know, there's a lot of precepts that are like that and and again, I'm vehemently opposed to that and I just don't think that the precept methodology works. So, I guess, you know, um yeah, I'm just not a big fan of precept. I I've never thought that their arguments work. If they're going to go full line impossibility to the contrary, I've just always been a fan of evidential apologetics. Um that's that's what I mean. But then again, evidential apologetics is what eventually led me away from the faith because I felt like the evidence just wasn't there. But that's that's my opinion.
>> All right, Daniel, what is your uh view on how should apologetics be done?
>> Well, before I answer that question, I want to say that I was an atheist. I already did say that, but I actually came to Christianity through precept.
Not by listening to other precepts, but just by reflecting on the entailments of atheism. And it was atheists who told me uh that if there was no god that morality would be subjective. And I didn't believe them. I thought that that was ridiculous. And they explained some of the problems with trying to get an from an is and these sort of things. And I set about to try to prove them wrong.
And it after about three or four years of really trying to prove that you could get actual obligations from atheism, I gave up, which is something I very rarely do. But I just realized that u I it it doesn't work. And and so that's this sort of presuppositional argument, right? You're saying if atheism then moral subjectivism or moral anti-realism, which I think is totally untenable. And then if theism then you can get moral realism. Um now I know I can already hear people screaming you for a dilemma. I I got you guys. I I I understand. But um I I I also thought about knowledge. I thought, you know, is is knowledge actually possible um under atheism? If if all of our thinking is really just the result of like chemical reactions and cause and effect and these sort of things, could we really know?
Would we ever have actual justification in these sort of things? And I I came out of that question thinking that knowledge was impossible on atheism. But I still know things. Um I know that 1 plus 1 is two. You know, I know that I exist and uh etc etc. So if I know things and knowledge is impossible on atheism, then I have to reject atheism, don't I? Um, and there's only one other game in town, which is God exists. So I'm just saying that to say that um, presupp to Christianity. It was these kinds of uh, ruminations that were just going on in my head for years thinking about the entailments of atheism. So I care about this sort of thinking quite a bit. I respect it. I I do think that a lot of it goes through. Um now, do I think that it works for everybody? Absolutely not.
I mean, if you talk to most people that become Christians, it's not through presupper who beat me down and and you know, like made me uh question my worldview. It was atheists that started that uh with with morality. It it was it was atheists that caused this, right? So, blame them. But um I don't know that priest is the best way to bring people to Christ, but I I think that it depends on how you argue it. Um I think that has a lot to do with it. You know, like if you give your wife a ring in a box that's covered in dog poop, even if that ring is worth like $10,000 and it's totally beautiful, the presentation matters, right? And she's going to feel super disrespected uh because the the box is covered in poop.
And so I I think that the there is a diamond here uh when it comes to presuppositional uh apologetics and it's very important. That's why I'm here, you know, explaining it. Um but I do think that it could be presented much better um than it typically is. I really like the approach of uh Eli Ayola, which I know Stephen will agree with me on that.
And um and and so I think there's a lot of validity with that. And I also just think that truly the best approach is to just become friends with people and and love on them, which is something I'm terrible at. So I'm a total hypocrite when it comes to this. Okay? But um you know, we all have our strength, our strengths and weaknesses. I like to think logically. I like to make arguments. But I think that the best thing you can do for somebody that's not a Christian is to just demonstrate to them the love of Christ. That's what I truly believe. you know, that's really what's going to make people uh seriously consider Christianity is your acts, not your arguments. Um, not your virtue signaling, but how you treat them. Um, and and and what you really do, you know, do you actually live like a Christian? Um, I think that that is the strongest approach to apologetics personally. So, >> all right. Well, it is 50:04. Um, we're over our time here, so I'm going to run.
I'll just say for apologetics for me. I agree head and heart. We got to love people like Christ if we're going to, um, you know, be effective. But, uh, thank you guys so much for having a great conversation, Stephen and Daniel.
For everyone watching, uh, go to the Skeptical Agnostic on YouTube. Um, you're also, uh, it's he penny Packer on X. And then for Daniel, it's, um, Darwin to Jesus on YouTube on X. And then for me, I'm the Epitomy Ministry on YouTube and Nathan Boseman 2. Uh just my name right here and the number two. And that's me. And uh thank you guys for watching. Hope you guys have a blessed day. And we'll see you guys in the next one.
>> See you.
相关推荐
BSA Goldstar - I gave up! And why animals beat humans!
thebingleywheeler
102 views•2026-05-31
3 Dreams That Changed Philosophy Forever
mommyplus24
731 views•2026-05-31
don't put shein's responsibility onto individuals #shein #neoliberalism
ScintillaePod
231 views•2026-05-30
I Cringed Watching These Protestants Critique Catholicism
jaynijackson
458 views•2026-06-05
Scholar Explains: WHAT IS A GNOSTIC?
fightbackpodcast
965 views•2026-05-31
When They Ignore You, Do This Instead | Stoicism
ZenithWisdom-e3k
615 views•2026-05-31
Why Pure HEDONISM Is IRRATIONAL
qnaline
12K views•2026-05-31
Nietzsche's Last Man Explained in Minecraft
twozziii
117 views•2026-05-30
