Materialism faces a fundamental philosophical problem: if reality consists of only one substance (matter and energy), then all distinctions become illusory and truth values cannot be grounded; if reality consists of many unrelated substances, there is no unifying principle to establish truth values. This ancient philosophical problem (2,500 years old) suggests that materialism cannot provide a coherent foundation for knowledge and reasoning, as it undermines the very nature of being able to recognize truth values.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
Presuppositionalism vs Skepticism: The Possibility of the Contrary featuring @mattslick
Added:And we are live now. That's debatable, guys. Hey guys, thanks for tuning in.
Um, I'm live. I got uh Matt Slick joining us. Um, give me just uh one moment. There's [snorts] a few things I got to make sure.
Last week we had an issue with the audio. It was coming in all like zappy and weird. But fortunately, Riverside >> worked it like that.
>> Was doing like that. All right.
>> Yeah, it was doing that.
>> We don't want that. Okay. We don't want >> Yeah, we don't want that. But but fortunately, Riverside was collecting all of it and so it got really good audio. So, if that happens this time, I'm going to re-upload the cor uh better audio version of it.
>> All right.
>> And also, I just sent you that email, Matt.
>> Thanks, man. [clears throat] But um yeah man so I as I said I got uh I got Matt Slick on and actually man you so I I am you had asked me before we had went live you had asked me if I um I'm an atheist. Yes I'm an atheist. Um I used to be a Christian. I was a reformed Christian. I was a presuppositionalist.
>> Okay. And so, and this this is gonna sound like a backhanded uh insult wrapped up in a compliment, but it's not. I swear, but >> I I used to be a fan.
>> Not anymore.
>> Yeah. Not because of anything you did.
It's just because of what I did.
>> Yeah. Right. It's a change in perspective, right? Yeah. So, yes, nothing personal, >> but I I did used to be a fan. Um I was um I was a pretty big student of uh Van Hill. I used to watch Greg Boston videos and I saw him as passing the I guess the proverbial torch to you and u uh Siden and um I I I like the I I would watch videos of y'all going at atheist and I I I enjoyed those debates. uh was like in impressed with the uh intellectual curiosity of presuppositionalism and I didn't really see that a lot in other types of Christian apologetics.
I [clears throat] I didn't really see the same appreciation for philosophy and other types of Christian apologetics. So that's what I was a big fan of.
>> Okay.
>> But yes, I am an atheist. I am a materialist. Uh, and of course you're presuppositionalist >> Christian. I use I use all I use apologetics. I use >> evidence and >> you're many things. You're you're many things. You're American. You're you're a man. You're human.
>> Annoying. [laughter] Yeah.
Now, um I so I am no longer a Christian presuppositionalist.
I am a priest. I think everyone is. So like as in I take the logical uh absolutes as presuppositional. But but before I I I wanted to get your take exactly on what the presuppositional argument against atheism is. But before I do that, could I attempt to straw man it? I I'm sorry, not straw man it, still man it.
>> Sure, go for it.
>> Okay. So presuppositionalism is the idea that you need God to reason.
Not you need to believe in God. You need God.
For like both atheists and Christians in any belief, they use the Christian God specifically for a reason. When they appeal to logic, when they appeal to reason, when they appeal to the logical absolutes, they are implicitly accepting the Christian God. Even atheists. So when an atheist makes any proposition even when they say something like there is no god they are implicitly accepting the thing that they are explicitly rejecting >> kind of >> would you would you would you disagree >> atheists can make rational arguments the issue here isn't that they can or can't or be moral or not moral can they ground their arguments and ground the logic that they news uh from their atheistic perspective. And if you're a materialist, >> then you've already, no disrespect, man.
You've already shot yourself in both feet, >> but we'll get to that later.
>> Right. So that's what I'm saying. So even the atheist, they have to uh appeal to the Christian God for their reason.
They have to do so >> ultimately. Right. Ultimately, right?
>> Okay. Now I think like so ways that could falsify that position as if I could just if I could explain how I can acquire knowledge without reference to the Christian God.
>> Okay.
>> But would would you agree with that be able to would that falsify it?
>> If you could demonstrate that you can have knowledge and reason apart from the Christian triune God. If you could using the logic that you presuppose as valid without justifying how you're using it or grounding of it, it might be interesting to see if you could. I don't know if you could or not, but uh then if you could perhaps we might grant that it would be a falsification, >> right? And I think >> it would not be a falsification that God exists, but the presuppositional approach >> would a another way to falsify it. Could it be to show how Christian presuppositionalists are not presupposing God whenever they make their propositions?
[laughter] >> Laugh.
>> Okay, go ahead. That I' never heard that one. That's pretty.
>> Oh, well, I'm Well, I'm asking >> exactly what what we do.
>> You You think you do that?
>> Okay. I certainly think I do.
>> Yeah.
Okay. So, uh well well first like but um would you care to elaborate on anything that I'm missing about presuppositionalism?
>> No, it's just the idea that uh in order to ground your reasoning, you have to have a terminus and the ultimate grounding. And so what is the terminus?
Is it material or immaterial? Is it personal or impersonal? These kinds of things. that we can get into. Are you familiar with the one in the mini issue?
>> Uh, >> okay.
>> Somewhat.
>> Okay.
>> I, you know, I was listening to uh what's his name? Darth >> Darth Dawkins mention that. Uh, >> yeah.
>> But do you care to elaborate on what that that problem is?
>> It's an ancient problem. 2500 year old problem. What is the nature of reality?
Is it one thing or many things? If the ultimate nature of reality is one thing, one substance, one whatever that is, then nothing really can be uh distinguished because everything is of one substance. What we see as distinguishing uh elements are really elusory distinguishing elements and that undermines truth values. This is the short version of a cake. I call it quick and slick. On the other hand, if uh everything is many, then you have disparate unrelated essences of different subcategories and categories without a unifying principle between them. And then that means you can't have uh truth values either. So if you're a materialist, then you fall into the category of one that the universe is one thing basically matter and energy. It's the combination because matter and energy are interchangeable. So you would say one thing and so your materialism would undermine the very nature of being able to recognize um uh truth values.
>> I feel like if if all of reality was made of one thing, you could easily solve this problem with with emerging properties >> like so like in a way like think like you're familiar with chemistry like all of all of the elements are you could argue that all of the elements are hydrogen, right? there's or you could just say they're all protons, right? So, one proton gets you hydrogen, >> two gives you uh helium, three gives you lithium, right? You know, you can just keep going. I don't see why you couldn't just say you keep if we just keep stacking the same um the same thing, but in varying quantities, you're going to get different substances.
>> Well, seem like an easy thing to explain. I mean, I I'm fine with all the reality being essentially just one thing.
>> Emergence doesn't solve the problem of the one and the many. It it does. It just says something emerges out of what the essence is. The question isn't emergent properties. The question is what's the ultimate essence? If you have emergent properties, the issue of the problem is that if everything is one, what you might recognize or see as distinctions really is not distinction.
So emergent properties would be emanations out of the one substance of all existence. So all perceived emerging property distinguishings wouldn't be re real. You still have the problem of undermining truth values. This is a serious problem in philosophy and the Christian trinity solves it. But if you're going to hold to materialism, not only is materialism self-refuting, which I can show you how, but it doesn't solve the problem of of the one and the many also.
>> Okay. I like to have you back on to have the one and the many uh discussion.
>> We can do it once or many times. Yeah, that's fine. So all right so presuppositionalism uh so now you talking about like justifying like my knowledge say well to start off I'm a materialist I'm a methological materialist or a methological naturalist >> type of materialist and so you know that that is distinct from a metaphysical naturalist >> so mark this down you're a methodological excuse me for I take lots of notes I have four 27inch monitors okay So I'm I'm you can call me a nerd. I won't won't be insulted. Uh you're a methodological naturalist.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> Methodological naturalist. And so >> thank you.
>> Mhm. So that that is not a position on the fundamental [snorts] that's not an ontological position actually. So a methological naturalist is just what any good scientist is. But for instance like I work in the realm of computer science. If for some reason there's a system that's not working, I'm gonna think, oh, you know, there's there's something wrong with the code, there's something wrong with the software, something wrong with the hardware. I'm going to assume a naturalistic problem. I'm not going to think demons, >> right?
>> You don't, >> right? Right. I don't The car stops working, it's [clears throat] cold outside. Hey, maybe the battery something's going with the battery.
Maybe not enough gas. Oh, I thought it was >> that >> I thought it was the Anunnaki in the Democrat's office. I I you know, I'm probably wrong.
>> Actually, I enjoy science. I wanted to be a marine biologist and I love science. Yeah. Oh, yeah. I I So, I enjoy mechanics. I used to be a computer tech guy, so you know. Yeah, >> we get along, I'm sure.
>> Well, that is the type of materialist I am. So, it's it's not about saying that nothing exists but material, but it's about not appealing to non-material as a cause until I have evidence of that.
>> Yeah.
>> So, I'm not even saying evidence doesn't exist of it. I don't. Every every computer problem I've ever ran into, the issue has always been natural. Like, it's never been ghosts, never been demons, never been God, right? is we've been able to >> look and to do science and figure out an issue >> and even the things that >> Yeah. Well, yes, it's it it is a philosophy on the nature of science.
>> That is that is the type of materialist I am.
>> But science is a philosophy. It's a philosophical approach at looking at the natural world.
Well, so there's a philos there's a philosophy behind science, but I would say science itself is not a philosophy.
There there's a philosophy to science, but after you get after you philosophize, now you get to the science part, there's not much philosophy going on, >> right? Well, actually the the basis of of science, you know, the observation of something, developing a hypothesis, and then developing a methodology to test a hypothesis, success or failure, modification of the hypothesis, >> that's all philosophical.
>> Yeah, that's that's right.
>> That's all philosophical. But what I'm talking about is like, but okay. But then when you get to the nature of doing science itself, like you you try to figure out like there's a there's a there's a I don't know your car isn't working and you try to figure out uh what that problem is, right? So you test this. You hey you look is there gas in the car? You you you look at the fuel tank, right? Looking at that fuel tank, you aren't doing philosophy.
>> You are right >> looking at something and trying to determine the nature of it, >> right? Yeah. And that's good. I used to do mechanics. I used to work on cars, too.
>> Okay.
>> Done a lot of stuff. And uh you know, as a hardcore Christian, the first thing I always look to is the naturalistic explanation of things.
>> But science is based on the assumptions, philosophical assumptions of the universality of the laws of logic.
>> Uniformity of uniformity of nature. I >> also assumes that the scientists will accurately honestly represent their findings. That's a philosophical approach and there has been doesn't mean science is false when a bunch of stupid guys do bad stuff, right? But uh you know it so it's a philosophical thing and and uh >> I I agree there's a philosophy of science. I just don't think science is philosophy.
>> No, science is a methodology based on philosophy.
>> I agree. So now so when we're talking about knowledge I've I presuppose one reality exists and two that reality acts in particular ways namely according to the logical absolutes identity excluding middle non-contradiction now I presuppose those things not because I I arrived to a desired result. I presuppose them out of necessity. If I don't presuppose those things, I can't reason.
Notice what's missing.
God, right? Could Could you explain to me why I would need a God to know truth by only presupposing that reality exists and and follow those fundamental logical absolutes? I'm not sure I understand what your what your first premise was, though.
>> I'm trying to catch up and write write things down.
>> So, you say you say what?
>> Uh, well, there was those four things that I uh I presuppose.
>> Okay.
>> I I don't know if you would call this a premise like this isn't like a a formal argument, but the four things was one was re reality and then the other three were the logical absolutes.
identity absolute and middle non-contradiction >> okay >> and so I think the the three are descriptions of the one >> so the logical absolutes are descriptions of reality re in reality a thing is itself in reality a thing is or is not in reality a thing is not not itself that is how reality behaves from there I can know things. I can know I can go into any particular reality and I can assess the proposition there either it is true that there either are or there are not monkeys. I know that proposition to be true without reference to a god by only presupposing the logical absolutes.
>> If lo see if I can understand what you're saying. So logic, we'll just say logic. Reality. Logic is a property of reality.
>> Yeah. It's a des No, not a property.
It's a description.
>> A description of reality. So in other words, you presuppose the universality of the laws of logic in order to have your your assumption. So it's circular.
You haven't grounded it. You've just stated it.
>> Well, yeah. I presuppose it. I don't I don't ground presuppositions. If I could ground it, then there'd be be no need to presuppose it.
>> If you don't ground it, then it's arbitrary.
It's not arbitrary because so those I need I use those four because without them I can't reason.
>> So I it's not it's not like I could I could swap them with something else.
Like I couldn't swap identity with I don't know like um general relativity like it doesn't work like that. Like the the these are not arbitrary. the I looked at the minimum things I need to be true in order to reason >> and problem I need >> yeah but you're not grounding anything you're just saying it's just the way it is and that doesn't do anything so if you ground something like what's the terminus what's the basis of which the laws of logic have their universality applicability uh etc uh there is a grounding if you say there is no need to ground them they just are then I can say well god just is and I win the argument.
See you later. I'm going to go walk, you know, take care of my cat.
>> Well, so my understanding wasn't that I So, I wasn't trying to ground reality. I was trying to ground my knowledge, >> but knowledge is based upon the laws of logic, which you mentioned. You said reality in the three laws. So, just say reality and logic. And so, you're finding them related. But the thing is, you don't know what reality is. Okay.
Uh, and I I like talking to you because I can tell you're not to be offended if I say something like you don't know what you know what it is. You know, it's nice. Um, >> 13 years army pretty hard to defend me.
>> Okay. Well, >> I'm used to getting yelled at. You used to yell at people.
>> Well, thanks for your service. I appreciate it. But um, if you can't ground something, then it's it's uh it doesn't have any any terminus by which you can then say that it is true or valid. It's becomes arbitrary.
>> You said ter what terminus? What what what does that mean? The terminus is that which of which there is nothing greater or nothing equal to. So you have the law laws of logic. Well, what are those laws? Are the abstract in entities, abstract individual entities?
Are they manifestations? Are these propert So so so reality is my terminus and the logical absolutes.
And then I I didn't just say logic because there's different types of logic. So for I guess for this conversation now we could just say logic referring to the three logical absolutes.
>> So but logic is a description of how reality behaves.
In reality it is what it is. But if you say it's a description you're presupposing the laws in order to describe them. So the law of identity something is what it is. It's not what it's not. You're saying I'm presupposing the law of identity in order to describe what something is.
that ball is not that horse. Okay. And or that chair. I use chairs and trees.
The chair is not the tree. And so um you're just you're just uh you're not grounding anything. You're just assuming them what you've done.
>> So no, I wouldn't ground it. So reality is determinist >> is the ter. So this determin supposedly is your terminus. We're going to get into that later. It is it is not.
However, just like God is your terminus, reality is my terminus. I don't go any further. Now, now think about this. If I was to ground reality, ask yourself the grounding of reality, is that thing real? If so, then it's by definition part of reality, which means you explain nothing. You just said reality, the foundation for reality is another part of reality. Well, obviously that's the case. We can just see see that like work out in with our own eyes, right? that I'm I'm real and there are other real things that must be for me to be here, right? So, reality itself couldn't have a a grounding. It seemed it would be it would be a contradiction.
>> Um there's problems. Uh you said reality is your terminus, right?
>> Mhm.
>> Okay. Well, you haven't explained where reality comes from or what its nature is. And stopping at what reality is doesn't explain why reality exists or why it's uniform or knowable. And so all you're doing is you're just saying it just is. But that doesn't ground anything. You're just stating it. And logically speaking, logic then is just being descriptive, but you're describing without what you're assuming. So your your circularity is there. Uh and infinitum. You're going back in a circle. You're not grounding anything.
You're just saying, "No offense, mate.
You're just saying it is because I say it is."
>> He's talking about the cause of reality.
Let's talk about that one.
How could reality have a cause? If the cause and whatever the thing that caused reality, it fits real, then it's part of reality.
Which means nothing was explained.
>> Have to define what reality is first.
>> Reality is that which is >> from your perspective. The reality is consists of the material world of of matter and energy.
>> No, that that is false. I am a methological naturalist not a metaphysical naturalist.
>> Okay. There could be things that are that are not physical that exist. They would also be part of reality >> like the laws of logic.
>> So logic is not part of reality. Logic is a description of reality. Just like speed isn't part of a car. Speed is a description of how a car moves through space.
>> So logic is a description of reality.
Okay. whose description.
>> So anyone who make want to makes any sort of intelligent statement about reality is going to be part of their description.
>> Yeah. But whose description? Your description of reality will be different than mine. So my wife, but she passed away 6 months ago, but my wife was obviously the most beautiful woman on the planet. Okay.
>> Okay. So uh yeah. And so, um, my description of reality doesn't necessarily match yours. So, which one's correct?
>> Okay. Well, we're talking about the the fundamental nature of of reality right now. I mean, I could say like my wife's hot, too. I mean, obviously, those are those are subjective things, >> right? So, we can have different we can have different perspectives on that. But when it comes to the the minimum things that we need to reason, those are all going to be the same things. reality needs to exist and it needs to behave in those three ways. From there you can make true things like think about this the the proposition that I gave earlier the true dichotomy. It is true that either monkeys do or do not exist. How could that be false?
>> You're presupposing the validity of LEM law excluded middle when you say that.
>> Right. No. So I'm I know what I'm presupposing but what I'm asking is how could that be false? How would the absence of a god make that proposition not true?
>> If the god did not exist, nothing would exist.
>> Is that true?
>> Yes.
>> Then you have truth without God, don't you?
>> Then what?
>> You have truth without God.
>> No.
>> You said you said if if God doesn't exist, nothing would exist. So let's say there's no God, nothing exists. If it's true that nothing exists, you have truth without God.
>> No. Because what you're doing is you're putting the cart before the horse here.
If nothing exists, then truth would not exist either.
Nothing is wrong.
>> If truth didn't exist, then nothing could exist without the because there wouldn't be it wouldn't be true.
>> No, no. Truth requires a mind, a truth statement. I'm talking to you. You're talking to me. Right. All right.
>> So, that's a truth statement. Now, you can go with what's called the correspondence theory, which has its problems, but truth is it. But if nothing exists, then no statements can be made and no truth can exist because nothing is what rocks think of nothing.
So what you're doing is you're not understanding that with truth.
>> I see what you're saying. See like like truth is a property of a proposition which could only come from a mind. If there's no minds, no propositions can be made. So there's no truth. Go. Okay. So let's say there's no God.
>> In reality, there's no God. And I make the statement there. It is true that there either are or there are not monkeys. Would that be false? Would that be not true?
>> It would be a nonsequittor because it would not logically follow that if there is no God that you could have a statement being made outside of his existence because he's the terminus.
Without the terminus, we can have no logic because logic is an invariant absolute uh abstract entity and it requires a mind because that's what their basis is. So to say that we would have a a a truth statement that's an absolute, you're then presupposing it can exist without a mind, but you haven't established that that's the case. You're just presupposing it, which is what uh Trib can call you Trib for short.
>> Uh yeah. Yeah. Trip. Uh you can say trip for short. That that means something weird in on the internet.
>> It does. I don't know. I I don't know.
>> Yeah.
>> I don't know. I mean, I'm almost 70. I'm out of >> You can say you can say trip, but it it it means a pretty sexually explicit term. That's what But >> Oh, I don't want to say triple.
[laughter] >> I don't want to do that. Uh so, uh >> but we we could say Trip. Hey, man. To to >> No, I'm not going to do that.
>> All things are pure.
>> No, that's I don't know what your real name is. I don't Is that your real name?
>> No, it's not.
>> Okay.
>> It's not my real name as Josh.
>> Well, Matt Slick is my real name for those who don't know, you know. Anyway, I'll just say hey dude or doofus. How about twofer [laughter] to that a lot?
>> Uh what you're doing is just you're just asserting things. You're not grounding anything.
>> No. Well, I'm asserting. So like I take so reality and a logical absolutes. I take those as aomatic. That is how I ground my reasoning. That is that is my terminus. There's nowhere else. So just like so [clears throat] like I could you talk about God is determinist. Hey, but you're not you're not grounding God.
You're you're not explaining the cause of God. Well, that's the point of a terminus, right? That that there is no there is no further grounding. You don't go any deeper.
>> Do you >> otherwise not a terminus?
>> Do you think a terminus must be self-existent, necessary, and able to ground everything?
>> Uh, [clears throat] self-existent. Um, I guess so. When you say self-existent, so you're meaning it depends on nothing else for its existence.
>> It's a C. It has it's a C. Okay. A say it is a say. If you say the so the universe is reality, right?
>> Granite. Yep.
>> Okay. Then you have a problem because the laws of thermodynamic state.
>> Oh, no, no, no, no. I'm sorry. Uh I maybe I spoke too soon. So when you said the universe, you're talking about our local presentation of spaceime. when I um so no there could be something outside the universe and that would also be part of reality.
>> Oh yeah, we agree. It's called God.
>> Okay. All right. So let's let's talk about this. So you had said so God grounds reality.
Is is that your your proposition?
>> Well, before we get to that, um I'm still looking at yours. grounding reason and reality only works if reality is a kind of thing that can ground reason. So can you demonstrate how reality grounds reasoning? So there are so reasoning in general I can demonstrate that by accepting theological absolutes as axiomatic >> right so I just accept them as axioms as presuppositions >> from there I can I can ground my reasoning now if you're asking could I ground the [snorts] logical absolutes or could I ground reality. No, that's the terminus.
It that's the point of the terminus.
[snorts] >> Um an an axiom is the starting assumption, right? Starting position, [snorts] right?
>> So you're just assuming that uh that in my notes here that the laws of logic are true and axiomatic, >> right?
>> It it's not a it's not it's not an assumption. It is an axiom which is something like an an assumption is something you just accept true without proof. Right? A axiom or presupposition is something deeper. It's is something that must be accepted for you to move forward.
>> But saying they're aimatic doesn't ground them.
>> It's remember that's the terminus. The your word terminus. But you're just saying >> I do not ground my ter you ground your terminus. Yes.
>> Isn't your terminus God?
>> Yes.
>> How can how do you ground God?
>> He is self-revel revelatory in Psalm 90:2. From everlasting everlasting he is God. He also is personal and one and many. So when you understand the trinitarian revelation of who God is, then he is the universal abstract mind.
Then the laws of logic which are universal abstract entities proceed from or grounded in his mind. the laws of of of uh universality and particular manifestations of universals we can get into also are grounded in him because he is the one and the many and the problem of the one and the many disappears with that because if you have one the concept like the universality of treiness and particular manifestations of trees how do you ground the universality of the concept of treeness which is an abstraction and then you need a personal mind to do this if you say the universe is the terminus and it's impersonal then you're saying that The universe is what's grounding uh personal abstract entities which are the laws of logic because they require minds to work and to exist.
>> Okay, there was a lot said there and I I wasn't follow I didn't understand those connections. There was things that I thought were just gas.
>> Just trust me. My name is Slick. Just believe what I say.
>> Okay.
>> I'm Reverend Slick.
>> You You said Okay. You said for you think you started off by saying like God you ground God and then you said he's grounded because he's self-revolatory.
That that that sounds like epistemology but we're talking about ontology.
Epistemology will come later. Like first you would need to ground things before you could ever say something is self-revely.
And and then another issue that I have with with that, I think you you pointed out a new problem because in order for him to be self-revolatory, you would at first need to justify your own reasoning faculties.
>> Well, we have >> because you wouldn't even know that the re the revelation is actually from God.
>> Well, we have ways of getting it. I can give you Bible studies for that. We can go through that.
>> Okay. But um why is the laws of logic the necessary starting point? You haven't grounded that. You just said it is.
>> Right. So because any proposition that I make requires those to be true. So if if I reject any of those, anything that I say is now incoherent. Like if for instance I say there is no law of identity, right? Not only would that statement make no sense because if there's no law of identity, the if the law of identity is false, then what did that falsify?
The law of identity isn't the law of identity. But more than that, I can't even say Matt Slick's on the show because Matt Slick isn't Matt Slick.
It's somebody else. And you He's not that either. Do you see what I'm saying?
Like you I run into all types of problems. I cannot make coherent statements. I cannot make any intelligible statement without assuming those. I'm sorry, without accepting those as axioms.
>> That's right. And we agree that you must assume them what is the grounding for their the validity of their assumption.
>> I I take it back assuming like it it is not an assumption. It's something deeper than that. Like it's not something I'm just accepting. I I have to out of necessity.
>> Then that would be the law of God written on your heart knowing that you're made in the image of God whether you accept him or not. That's why you would know that. But universals the laws of logic require grounding.
You cannot derive universal requirements from particular observations. The problem here no disrespect meant but uh you're you're what you're doing what I would think you're doing >> all right is that you are defising out of your own observations epistemologically which is um empiricism. So what you're doing is deriving empiricistic knowledge epistemological grounding based on your observations which you can't ground those as being right to begin with. So, so far you've have you have no way at all to ground anything. You just make assertions. You're saying this is just the way it is. But you haven't said why it is the way it is. You say it just is.
So, if the laws of law just are, but they don't have any reason for their existence because they're abstractions.
Let me let me explain something. So, here hold on. Okay. Here's my phone.
Okay. It's uh one of those folding phones.
>> So, it has while you're talking I'm not typing talking to someone else. I am taking notes. That's why I'm typing.
>> Okay. I always take notes when people talk.
>> Uh so this has characteristics and properties, you know, darkness and weight and mass, you know, blah blah blah. And so we can do that with all kinds of objects. All right? And so properties of anything related to the physical universe are measurable.
>> The laws of logic are not measurable.
You can't weigh them. You can't put them in a jar and things like that. So they are not of the physical world. they're of a different uh let's just say basis a different found a different ontos okay not physically based so if the universe didn't exist their existence is not dependent on the universe so therefore we could we could not say the universe didn't exist that that therefore they don't exist because what we're talking about here is these universal laws are are are here like if I say to you what's 1 plus one two you you >> analytically >> analytically right because you assume the validity, the universality of the concept of one and of pluseness and equality and summation. And you understand these universals which are identical in your mind and my mind. Why are they identical in your mind and my mind? Because if we're the products of evolution, my brain chemistry says you're wrong, therefore I win. But that's not a grounding for anything. So what we're doing in methological naturalism is problematic in that it cannot ground the universals which govern the material realm there these universal laws are something other than what they are related to the physical sense. So therefore we have to ask what is the grounding of those things because it cannot be the physical reality that does that. As you said earlier, there may be a reality beyond the reality that we're aware of. And that's that's a fair thing to say. But if it is, and if if the universals are grounded there, then that which is beyond the physical realm must have the properties sufficient to ground universal abstract entities like treiness, roundness, uh prettiness, you know, tuness. These are abstractions that occur in mind never under rocks behind trees. So the terminus beyond the universe and of which these universals occur must have the necessary ability to ground universal abstract entities logically with the universal abstract mind.
>> Do you think trees exist?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. All right. So I I I strongly disagree. There is no such thing as treeness. There there are trees and when we say treiness we're talking about a abstract a concept which is really a set of minimum properties that will constitute a tree.
[clears throat] >> But there is but there there is no such thing as that there is there are trees.
>> Um >> but if you say there's no such thing as tree nest then you can't recognize what trees are. treat this as an abstraction.
>> Well, yeah, it's an it's an abstraction.
>> Yeah, >> but but that that abstracts don't exist.
Only like concrete things exist. Like, are you pl Yeah. Are you plating this?
You think there's like there's some realm? Is is there a matte slickness? Is there a >> Oh, yeah. There is definitely there definitely. Yes, there is. And my wife would she would have rubbed her forehead while talking to you about it like this.
But yes. Um, so are you a nominalist?
>> Uh, the nine universal categories have real existence.
>> The cate so it depends what you mean by they exist. So the they have a problem.
>> They do not say the categories do not occupy spaceime. The categories cannot interact with real things. But >> a tree exists, a rock can interact with a tree. Rockness cannot interact with a tree.
>> But to sayess doesn't exist is a self-refuting statement because you're saying there's a universal abstract truth that of negation of treiness and you're saying it's universally true.
Which means you are presupposing a a a position contradictory to the statement uh treatess does not exist which is a universal. Well, you have a universal that is saying trus doesn't exist any place anytime. That's a universal truth.
So, you're contradicting yourself.
>> Can re Okay. Can can real things interact with other real things?
>> Yep.
>> What can trust interact with?
>> Treatness doesn't interact. It's not necessitated.
>> There you go. Then it's not a real thing.
>> Well, cannot interact with any real thing.
>> Yeah. But what you've done is you've said that real thing must be the category by which we can understand actuality. Is the concept of the number two a real thing?
>> No.
>> Then how is it you know it and I know it.
>> We we know it analytically.
>> Ah >> there are things that we can describe with two but there is no two.
>> So let's let's get let's do this. Let's do a little exercise.
>> You had to ask me if 1 plus 1 is two. I say analytically because you were talking about the correspondence theory truth which it doesn't >> correspond >> correspondence theory has its its weaknesses because you don't know what reality is by which you can say that statements are true and it's just an assertion that the that truth is what corresponds to reality haven't defined what reality is nor what truth is so it's presuppositional yeah >> there are minimum things about reality that I know to be true like for instance it is true that either monkeys do or do not exist >> yeah but my understanding what a monkey would be could be different than yours >> it Doesn't matter what what the understanding is. It is true.
>> Yes, it does.
>> No, no, no. Matt, listen. I said it is true that either monkeys do or do not exist.
>> It does not matter what you think a monkey is. That proposition is [clears throat] necessarily I gave you a true dichotomy that cannot.
>> Okay, that's in that sense. Yes, you say it's a true dicho. It's either the case that A exists or it's not the case that A exists. That's a true dichotomy. But here's the thing. Let's get back to the number two for example.
>> Two is not dependent on your mind or my mind for its actuality or truth value.
Would you agree?
>> Two does not have any actuality.
>> It not depend on >> is not dependent on my mind for actuality. It cannot have actuality.
>> It's truth value.
>> Okay. That you're nominalist. That's called nominalism. Okay.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. That's what that is. Is that there are no real essences even of categories.
So what you're denying is categories.
male, female, cat, dog. So, and if you're a nominalist, there are no real categories. Everything's of one substance. You're back to the one in the mini problem where everything is just one thing. And you can't ground distinctions, nor can you ground the laws of logic as universal abstract entities with distinct occurrences.
>> Okay, maybe. Okay, hold on. So I am not denying the existence of I am not denying the existence of categories in all in all sense. I am saying they do not exist in in actuality. They exist analytically like there is like there is no syn you cannot make a synthetic proposition about two. You can make synthetic propositions about two things. Two apples, two oranges, two Matt slicks.
You can't make one about two.
That that two cannot interact with real things which is a good clue >> of to whether or not it is real. It it it can't real things can interact with reality too.
>> Does it interact with your mind? You have the concept of two. You can think about it.
>> So then it has a relation property with your mind.
>> I I mean I can think about a lot of things. I can think about a pink horse.
I can think about I can think about atheist Matt Slick, >> man. Oh, now now you're getting >> Oh, isn't that right?
>> Well, I used to be I used to be an atheist. I used to be an atheist until something happened.
>> Yeah. But um Yeah, I used to be an atheist agnostic and I used to study in high school the thorium fuel cycle for fun.
>> Yeah. Oh man. Complete nerd. Absolutely complete nerd. So uh you're a nominalist which means categories and concepts have no actuality. But if you say that then uh the idea of tweness you say cannot interact with your mind then from whence are is the concept of two occurring in your mind.
or it's it's occurring as an as an abstract like so like when I think of two I'm I'm going to think I can either think of the Arabic numeral too or I can think of actual objects in in pairs that is it but I I cannot think of two outside of that like I could think of two apples two horses I I could think of the Arabic numeral that represents the representation as two, but I could not think of actual two.
>> There is no such thing as that.
>> Well, you're making another assertion without grounding.
>> So, in the problems with nominalism, I have my notes here. I'd open up another file for this. Uh, denying universals in nominalism means denying everything that transcends our experiences. Therefore, there are no absolute truths.
>> Okay.
>> No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
>> Okay.
>> I want to say Okay, good. Then there are absolute truths.
>> Okay. Good, good, good, good, good, good. So then you wouldn't be a nominalist.
>> No, you're something else.
>> I gave you some absolute truth. That that was my terminus that I gave you at the beginning. Reality and those three logical absolutes.
>> Those are absolute truths.
>> But you just you didn't ground them. You just said it. You just stated it. So I'm gonna do the same thing you're doing.
God exists. The Christian trinitarian God exists because it's necessary.
>> Okay. So is God God?
>> That's tautologist. Yes, >> it is. Yeah. I mean the law of identity is a tautology, right?
>> Uh I don't know if it is or not.
>> A is a >> it's a statement but I call it but anyway but but >> yeah it is what it is not what it's not.
It's just the first law.
>> So if things are not what they are could God be God?
That would be a nonsequitator because >> No, it's a question. There's no I I didn't I didn't make No, that's not a nonsequittor. I didn't make an argument.
That was a question.
If things are not what they are, could God be God?
>> It's a non-ircular because uh to say that if things are not, could God be God? The Christian trinitarian God's a necessary precondition for all intelligibility. So the statement that you're making presupposes the necessity the universality of the laws of logic which in you say aren't true which negates the foundation of them and it doesn't work for us.
>> Okay not from my understanding of a nonsequittor is when a conclusion does not follow from the premises.
>> I'm not making an argument. I am just asking a question.
>> Yeah that's part of it part of what it is.
>> Right. So like is it so if the law okay so if a is not a can God be God?
>> It's not an issue. A is no. No because God is not subject to these laws that then define him if a law exists.
>> So he's not subject to the law of identity.
>> No.
>> Then he's not himself.
>> No. That's not it. That's not the Christian perspective.
>> God. No. God. How could God if things are not what they are? If things are not what they are, then God isn't God. So remember, A is a >> I understand what you're saying.
>> That's a placeholder and you could put anything there.
>> I understand. I'm just saying that um >> could God not be himself?
>> No, it's impossible for God not to be what he is, but the laws of logic are not above him. They're part of his nature.
>> But you you said no, no, no. Okay. So the the laws of so the so the laws of logic require God to exist.
>> No.
Oh wait, wait. How do you mean predicate nominative here? So you mean the laws of logic their their existence can only be grounded by the existence of God.
>> That I would say yes to. Okay.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> Do you Okay. When you say that the laws of logic are the laws of logic God, >> no, they are not God. All right? Equal to him.
>> The laws of logic are not God because the laws of logic are the laws of logic.
>> And God is God.
>> Yeah. The laws of logic we could say we could say are impersonal abstract entities. Do you >> say that for now? But that's not >> Do do you not see how by saying that you are presupposing the law of identity?
>> Because you said the God is a prerequisite for the laws of laws of logic.
>> So what is the prerequisite?
>> God. But we all >> No, no, no, no. What? I'm sorry. What?
What?
>> We all make assumptions when we're discussing. We all presuppose certain valid uh certain concepts like the law of identity. You'll presuppose it, I'll presuppose it.
>> I agree.
>> And so we have to do this because we can't validate every single thought, everything, everything. That's not the problem. Circularity in that sense is not a problem. The problem is which worldview can ground and validate those assumptions to begin with. So if I assume the universality of the law of logic, I can do so by positing the Christian triune God as a necessary precondition for intelligibility. Where if you were to say the law of logic is grounded in reality, I would then say, well, what is reality? And if you can't describe it knowingly, you can't say that it's grounded in that.
>> Uh so reality is that which is it? It is the set of all real things.
If it's real, it's real. That is >> then that includes God, doesn't it? Then reality includes God.
>> So it it could if God was real, that would include God, which is my point that I was making that I was going to try to make at the beginning, right? You think you're presupposing God. You are not. You're presupposing the things I'm presupposing. In order for God to exist, there has to be a reality. God cannot be real unless there's a reality for him to be real in >> just a slight correction just for information. I don't presuppose him.
Something happened if I went from atheist to devout believer within seconds. I don't presuppose him.
>> Okay?
>> Uh I've encountered him that I'm not trying to get too mystical or weird and uh you know have you execute my experience. I don't offer this a proof but uh I just know that uh logically apologetically reasoning goes that the grounding needs a terminus and you have to have a terminus that is capable of grounding if you're going to say the laws of logic which are are based upon the mind. They don't occur in rocks and behind trees. You can't take pictures of them. They're not consistent properties related to the physical realm. So therefore they're independent of the physical realm. the physical realm. If if we say, and this is where we just get into a little bit of speculation, if we were to and different levels of assumptions, if we're to say, if we were to say, hey, the universe is only uh physical and and energy. If we said that, then we have a problem grounding logic. If you're to say, well, it's it's it's that plus the unknown. Well, then the unknown becomes just an escape uh parachute for anything and everything.
We just don't know. And that's not how you ground anything either because it means the grounding is in an area we don't have any knowledge of. That's not grounding. So that it's insufficient.
The Christian can ground the laws of logic as existing in the universal mind of God. Then this are precondition for intelligibility which we can then say existence, morality and rationality can be grounded in him. But as a materialist naturalist, you can't do that because if if you're a materialist naturalist, that position refutes itself.
I'm a metaphysical naturalist.
Metaphysical.
>> I'm trying to get you to admit to something so I can trap you. That's what I'm trying to do. All right. I'm I'm tangling the carrot out there, not biting on it. All right. So, >> I was a huge priest. I studied you for a long time. It's been pretty hard.
>> Yeah, I get it. But, uh I I do want to know. Well, anyway, that's okay. Uh so you had said it sound like you said at one point that God grounds reality.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
How >> let me say the physical let me narrow it just sorry for interrupting. Uh the physical universe. Let's just say that.
Okay.
>> Okay. Now when I say reality I'm not talking about the physical universe. It could be the case that there is nothing that exists outside the physical universe. If so, that would be reality.
But I am not saying that. I'm saying anything that's real. If there is a outside the physical universe, I'd be okay with that. That would be real. Like for instance, uh heaven and hell, right?
Those are outside the physical un Well, it depends on your type of the type of theology um one may have, but I believe that heaven and hell was outside the physical universe. I don't think you could like dig and get to hell. Now the laws >> maybe they are maybe they're not maybe they're located someplace I don't know >> right okay well I so if they were supernatural the laws of logic would still apply to those things because it's reality now and and those things will also be included in reality if there was no so when we analyze the proposition God grounds reality how could God exist if there's no reality Well, now we have to define what reality is. Okay.
>> That which is >> Yeah. Well, then if that's what is >> things, >> but if just to say that's which is doesn't do anything that's saying re what is reality? That which is well what is that which is that's reality. It's circular and it's meaningless.
>> All right. So I could say for for reality I could say a local presentation of spaceime and there is nothing that exists outside of that.
I don't think well I I know that I can't I can't justify that.
>> Okay.
>> So I'm I'm saying real things. So anything that is real and would be anything that's real will be capable of in interacting with reality for so if if God is real he could interact with real things like he could interact with me or he could touch my soul or whatever right okay now if there is so if there is no reality how could there be a god because what you're saying is nothing is real and also saying God is real at the same time.
You're making contradictory statements.
>> No, >> God reality has to ground God. There there has to be a reality for God to exist in.
>> Therefore, reality has to ground God.
>> Oh, okay. uh that assumes that reality has a beginning. Okay. Ent. Okay.
>> No, I don't I don't think reality has a beginning. I don't I don't think it could have a cause. I think reality just is. If the if if it had a beginning, whatever caused it to start, that would also be part of reality, which means that's not the beginning.
It seems to me it seems to me uh my notes I like to take lots of notes and uh it seems you're committing a category error by subjecting an ultimate uncaused being >> to the reality of the universe.
>> Um well I'm I wouldn't call the universe a being.
>> No to the reality of the universe.
The unc the being you're saying is subject and dependent upon or exists because of >> reality independent of him. But that would by definition not be the Christian God. So you wouldn't be arguing the Christian God.
>> Well, okay. So then I would say that by definition the Christian God can't exist because if if the Christian God is defined as that which uh is the foundation of reality then that can't exist that you are describing a contradiction.
>> Uh well what is listen we need to do this at this point. Uh give me I'm going to write this down. Uh oh, Julie says reality is >> quote fingers on the keyboard. What's reality?
>> What is reality? So reality is that which is >> that that's not saying it's not taking anything.
>> Well, okay. So I'm trying. So here's the thing. There's a bunch of things in reality. They do a bunch of different things. And what I have to do is give you a a common denominator that includes all of those. So the the [laughter] definition is going to be really basic, >> right?
>> Yeah. But it's it's it's nothing. It's a it's a useless uh definition. So reality is what is. Well, what is that's reality, right? Okay. Okay. Well, what is reality? It's just what is. Well, what is reality? Well, how do you know what it is? I don't. It's just what is.
It doesn't make So well no it makes it makes sense but think okay >> NO IT DOES NOT >> think the the problem say you're asking for a very specific definition that includes everything and when we talk about everything everything is really broad can give give me think about everything that exists in the our local presentation of spacetime literally every everything can you give me one definition of all those things >> that everything from a black hole to the Super Nintendo.
>> Yeah. I would just say reality is that which is constituted in the space-time continuum of both physical and energies and their varying forms from them that had a beginning.
>> Okay. But now if you're saying something had a beginning, that thing that caused the be it to begin that also be real?
>> No, that would be the cause. That would be the thing that caused reality.
[snorts] If I said it was our physical universe and you said local spaceime which is the physical realm of the universe that we're talking about, >> right? So what I gave you So what I gave you was a easier task than what you're asking. Right?
When you say when you're asking me I'm sorry when you say the cause of reality the cause is it real?
Is the cause of reality real?
>> If reality had a cause, then yes, it would be real. Logically necessary.
>> Well, you think reality did have a cause. The cause would be God, right?
>> No. No. See, when we your definition of reality has no meaning to it. Okay. Now, when you say that it's spacetime, I think is what you said. That's the most precise you've gotten to, right?
>> To exist. To be real means to exist.
>> Well, then God exists. That's real.
Okay. So then God is contingent upon reality. If he's real, he needs reality to exist. He in order to exist, he needs a plane of existence.
>> You contradicted yourself. If some reality is just what is and God just is, then that's he's part he's real. He's real.
>> He's part of reality. But you need these set. So but but God God is a member of a set of real things.
>> Oh, now you're living in universal categories. You you need that set.
>> Now you have a universal category.
I thought you were a nominalist at heart because now you're saying that there's a universal category of God in which a subset occurs which deals with what's called the one and the many problem and now you're taking those categories which are universal abstract entities.
So now you got a problem because you're borrowing from my worldview because all >> Can I jump in real quick? Sorry. I'm I'm new. My name is Fad. I'm >> co-host. I I'm lateish, but I've been listening for 99% of this. Uh, since you want a a hard definition of reality, I'd like to just venture a definition for you and and let you chew on it. The set of all things.
>> Okay, that's tautologist because what's reality? A set of all things. What is a set of all things reality? I I mean there there's no denying there's a tautology involved. When you ask what is everything that could possibly exist, does exist, would exist in any way, shape, or form, you're going to get a tautology. That is the nature of reality itself. When you say something is that it is, you're using the law of identity.
So, can I ask a question? Are you a pantheist? I'm going to assume no.
>> Is is all of reality?
>> So, but Oh, no. No, no, no. Triple A, stop. I don't want you going down that road.
>> All right.
>> I because you're you're going to go down a different road that I don't want you down.
>> Okay.
>> My your answer is no. You're not a pantheist. So, you recognize God as a distinct thing from something else.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. That is needing the first law of logic. That that is a precondition to get to such a deterministic state.
>> Wait, you're not making any sense.
Rephrase that. But the in order for God to be distinct from anything else, you must have the laws of logic.
Otherwise, God is everything or there is no distinction between God and anything else because identity doesn't exist.
There's no way to distinguish any one thing from anything else because there is no identity.
There's no way for you to identify God if there is no identity.
I'm trying to understand your argument.
It's not making any sense to me.
>> Okay. So, you want you you your your contingency as a presuppositionist is that God is the necessary precondition for all things >> for intelligibility. Yes.
>> Sure. I'm saying in order for anything to exist, including your intelligibility or your definition of God, you must use the laws of logic, including identity.
Otherwise, identity which determines something is distinct from something else >> is not.
>> Therefore, your your definition of God and your God is contingent upon the laws of logic.
>> You must use identity to distinguish it from something else.
>> Let me know when you're done.
>> I'm done. Go ahead.
>> You're placing a prior standard above God and uh that logic is not a separate entity. You're >> God is logic.
Okay, I'll tell you what. I would prefer to talk to TripleA because he's not rude like you are.
>> How am I rude, >> guys? Guys, guys, guys. All right.
>> How is that rude? Because you don't like my question.
>> No, because >> that's kind of silly, Matt. I've watched you talk many a time. I've I've listened to you.
>> All right. Hey, guys.
>> Because you don't let me finish my sentences. You couldn't constantly cut me off.
>> I I've said one sentence in response to your sentence. I've not cut you off.
>> You cut me off in the middle of mine, though. Hey, hey, hey guys, hold on.
Hey, facade, repeat your question and let Matt uh uh give a a whole answer. I >> I'm done already. I I I stated what I wanted to state. In order for anything to exist, if in order to have an identity, which you already stated that you were not a pantheist, therefore you have a unique identity for your god that is separate than everything. Your god isn't everything.
Right? So you already agreed that that is your definition of God. God is not everything.
God is not pantheist, right? So you must have a unique identity for that God, a way to distinguish it from things that are not God. In order for you to make such a distinction, you must rely on the law, the absolute laws of logic.
That was the end of my statement.
>> You're making an error, a mistake. The mistake is that you are assuming that the laws of logic are independent from the the God that we believe in and that therefore God is subject to those laws.
That's not our position. So you're offering a straw man, not a steel man of our position.
>> So just want to contend I'm not trying to make a steel man nor a straw man out of your argument. However, if you say that your god is not contingent upon the laws of logic, right? You must, are you willing to dismiss the laws of logic in order to define your god?
>> I don't think you really understand the conversation we're trying to have.
>> I I understand it fully, Matt. I I've been listening the whole time.
>> I don't believe so. You see, you seem to be categorizing God as one thing and the laws of logic as another. And then you're saying as you attack my Christian worldview, which is ultimately your goal, you're saying that the laws of logic are independent from God. And therefore, you're trying to set the laws of logic against God. You haven't grounded the universality of the laws of logic or what the reality is or you haven't even demonstrated that your reasoning can have any grounding at all.
You're just assuming certain validities and categories. And what you're saying is that uh our God is subject to that.
The law of identity is this universal, abstract, and necessary. And therefore, God must be subject to it. And that's not our position. That's not what we're talking about either.
>> I don't think you're really listening very well. Your your your presupposition is that a god exists. My presupposition is that the laws of logic and reality exist. We both have our presuppositions coming into a conversation. I don't need your presupposition to make additional statements about this the statement of reality in that we exist and the shared existence that we have. You claim that I need your god in order to do so. But by making your statement, all I have to do is make a statement to define your god as a necessary precondition of intelligibility by just inserting anything else I want into said conversation. All you've done is move the gold boost.
>> No, you have. So, let's do that. Let's do that. You made a statement. You would assert any replacement for God, right?
Cotton. A watt of cotton. Would you please demonstrate how a watt of cotton cotton? Excuse me. Is the necessary preconditions for intelligibility.
>> Sure. In order for your God to exist, cotton must first exist. And I know this because cotton has revealed itself to be true. It in fact inspired the Bible that you believe in and the God that you believe in. It created the God. It's a being that exists on its own. It's self- intelligent and it's sufficiently capable of creating the universe and your God as it exists.
>> Wow.
>> Your turn.
So your arbitrary assertion commits a category error of what cotton is and you give characteristics to it that's not that. So you're refuting yourself in your own argument. Look, >> no hold that's that's a blatantly incorrect statement of what you just did. Don't don't miscatategorize my argument and things try to >> Bye bye. I'm out of here. If you don't stop you don't shut up. I'm out of here.
>> Okay guys, >> I called you on the carpet. You blew it.
You made a mistake. You're rude. You don't listen. You don't interact with what I'm saying. I'm done. I'll talk I'll talk to TripleA. I don't want to talk to you anymore. Not because I can't handle you, but because you don't >> You clearly can't. Matt, [clears throat] >> you're categorizing my argument. You misstated what I just stated.
>> Look, you you're hostile. This is supposed to be a nice convers. GET GO AWAY. Go away. I'm talking to you, Matt.
I'm I'm going >> go away. I don't want to talk to you. Go away. Go away. Go away. Go away. Will you shut up? Go away. Byebye. Byebye.
Byebye. Go away. Go away. Please go away. Matt, earchild, please. God, >> facade, you are not the one to be able to say what a child and child is not because you don't have the universal grounding for what a category is. I'm the one who calls you on your arbitrary assertion. And the idea of asserting cotton is a replacement.
>> I can just make anything I want. That's your definition of God. I can just get rid of him. Get rid of him.
>> Okay.
>> Get rid of him. He's He is so illogical and he's shamefully bad at this. Okay.
>> He's one of the most ignorant, arrogant guys I've encountered as an atheist.
>> Wow, that's impressive, Matt. Yeah, it is.
>> I don't know if you've ever Why don't you go away? Why don't you go away? Go away. I don't want to talk to you. Trip, get rid of him or I'm gone in one minute.
>> I'm happy to I'm happy to go, Matt. I just want to say goodbye.
>> Go stop TALKING AND GET OUT SO I CAN SAY GOODBYE [laughter] TO MY start cussing.
Bye. Okay, please guys. All right, >> go. Well, what I wanted to say, so when when he said that when he said that uh cotton is the is the uh foundation for uh I'm sorry, the the the >> the prerequisite.
>> I'm going to drop just so you can talk to him. I I don't >> get out of here. Get out of here.
>> Let me say goodbye and get the [ __ ] out of your show.
>> Stop cussing. [laughter] Let your diapers filled. Come on. Do better than that. Go away, >> Matt. I'll see you for >> Okay, >> go on.
>> See, Matt, it it genuinely is a play.
>> Matt, >> talk about [ __ ] interrupting, dude.
OKAY, MATT. [laughter] >> LET me just say goodbye. And I told you I was getting the [ __ ] off.
>> I'll catch you, man.
>> Okay, TripleA. Nice seeing you, Matt.
Whether you hate me, whether you like, doesn't matter. It was really nice actually talking to you. I have watched you for a long time. I do respect you, whether you think that or not. It was a pleasure.
>> Me like an adult, not like a child like you just did.
>> Dude, you talk about [ __ ] interrupting. You won't let me get a word in.
>> Nothing would have been better.
>> I'm done. I just wanted to say thank you and I appreciate it either way. Bye.
Have a great day, Matt. Hope you enjoy it. Hope he gave you a little something to think about. Whether you think I'm a [ __ ] ignorant [ __ ] OR NOT, >> GO GET OUT OF HERE.
>> ALL RIGHT. Finish the stream.
>> Okay. Back to the back to the discussion. Back to the discussion.
>> I'm out. Bye.
>> I'll see you facad. All right, back to discussion. Can Can you hear me, Matt?
It It's just It's just you and I. Can you hear me? It's just It's just us two.
Can you hear me? Can you Would you put your headphones back on? He's gone. He's gone. It's just you and I. Okay. All right. So, what Sorry, Trip. Sorry about that. You said this would be a nice casual conversation.
>> Yeah, >> he was not that.
>> He made lots of mistakes. I called him out on it and he just got hostile.
>> When the atheists have done this before when they try and say something like cotton or a potato or whatever it might be can then be the necessary preconditions. So what they do is they screw up from that beginning because they don't recognize that what they're doing when they understand that category they're assigning divine values to it thereby valid excuse me violating their own law of identity of what something is and their argument based on it doesn't work and this guy doesn't know enough to know that he should be a lot better >> okay so now >> it is that simple >> all right so now remember when I had talked about uh um re how god God requ the prerequisite for a god would be reality, right? Yeah. God could not be the foundation for reality.
And then you said, "I am by definition not talking about the Christian God."
>> Uh I forgot what the context was earlier, >> right? Okay. So, we were talking about the uh I guess the determinus, right?
And we were saying we're talking you were saying how God is the precondition for the logical ab absolutes and for reality.
>> Right? If we define reality is I think I'm trying to misrepresent you >> uh is the spaceime within which we exist.
>> Is that good enough?
>> Okay. No. No. So well.
Okay. This is difficult. All right. I it's hard to explain.
All right.
>> I am so I'm a metaphysical naturalist.
>> So I do not appeal to anything outside of spaceime or anything outside of our physical reality as a cause for anything. However, I am willing to accept that there are things outside of that. There may be things that science and math could not explain and those will also be real things.
So I am So when I say real things, it could just be our local presentation of spaceime, but I would include other things as well, like the supernatural, God, heaven or hell, any other angels, any the things that are outside of those things. Now, I would say those are >> Sorry. Are you saying you you hold to the possibility of the supernatural existing? You just don't. Is that what you're saying?
>> Yeah. Yeah. I mean so >> okay >> I mean sure it's it is possible in a sense it wouldn't violate any logical absolute >> so >> okay so >> so when I say possibility I'm talking about like a metaphysical possibility which anything that isn't a contradiction would be >> oh okay >> possible in that sense >> okay okay that's really interesting so the existence of God would be logically possible It depends on the type of God. If >> Christian Trinitarian God.
>> Okay. Well, so Christian Trinitarian God, I'm okay with that. However, if your God is by definition one who grounds reality, I think that is a contradiction. If he is grounding reality, he is part of reality.
>> Okay. Okay.
Okay. So, you're you're defining Okay.
The problem here I think is a definition is is always the case. I don't mean to speak down here or nothing like that but but uh I think our problem is is how we're defining reality. You're defining reality including God, right? And I'm kind of not doing that in that I grant that if we define reality as whatever exists then logically he has to be in that. Uh but then we're just arguing of whether he is or is not in it.
So when you Okay, so remember reality is all real things.
>> Yeah, I'm seeing a problem popping up in my head with that position.
>> Let me see if I can formulate it. Can I try or one that you want to get your thought out?
>> Well, sure. Well, I was going to say reality is all real things. If God is causing something, he is interacting with reality, which means he is by definition part of reality.
Yeah, >> all real things would include that God, then he is part of reality.
>> But then >> I was going to say my bad. I'm sorry. So So the set is reality. God would be a particular of the set.
>> If there is no set, God could not be a particular of that set.
>> Yeah. I would say that that's a conflation of the category of God and the category of what exists. What's reality in a Christian perspective? What we call reality is the physical universe, energy, mass, universe, galaxies, galaxy clusters, you know, all those things in there. And that none of that existed from eternity ago, that it had a beginning, which physics and astrophysics seems to suggest. We can get into the logic of it and the evidence for it. So therefore, at a beginning, but you're saying, I'm trying to represent you honestly and and fairly. So I'm assuming what you're saying is, okay, even if the universe had an existence or came into existence, the thing that caused it to come into existence is still part of the reality of which the universe would would exist.
>> And if there was an outside the universe, as long as that outside of the universe is real, and it would be real, if I'm saying it's outside of it, that would also be part of reality. And the laws of logic would also apply to those things outside the univer. If you're outside the universe, you are outside the universe. And you cannot be outside the universe and not not outside the universe.
You can not be okay that I know what you're saying. Um, so is let's assume from what we were talking about that the universe had a beginning. Do you grant that it had a beginning?
>> Um, no.
>> [laughter] >> OH MAN, I JUST WANT to just Okay, so >> so okay there is the beginning of our local presentation of spacetime. So this space that we see, this spaceime, the thing that is expanding >> at about uh 73 km per second per mega per second, that had a beginning.
>> Really? I didn't know it was mega per second. Really?
Okay. Anyway, we could discuss some stuff. I have a theory on something about why things are moving and but anyway, that gets another thing. So, sorry, I got distracted. I I like talking about this kind of stuff just for fun. So, the universe, the the space-time continuum we're aware of had a beginning, right?
>> Mhm.
>> All right. So, the reality that existed before it caused it.
Was the cause personal or impersonal?
Um, I don't I I don't think it was personal.
I don't have any evidence to think it was personal. But if it was, it would have no bearing on my argument. Personal or impersonal, it would still be real.
Logic would apply.
>> I think I got you in a headlock here. I don't know. Okay. So, I'm going to try this. All right. Can I try and trap you?
>> Okay. Sure.
>> All right. So, the cause of the universe is it's either personal or it's impersonal, right?
>> Yep. If we only have two possibilities and one's negated, the other is necessarily true.
>> I agree.
>> Disjunctive syllogism. Okay. So, if we can negate one, the other has to be true. We don't have to prove it. It's proven by definition.
>> Right. Right. You you you don't need to to prove prove what is logically necessary.
>> Good. I agree.
>> So, let's take the impersonal cause.
Whatever the impersonal cause of the universe was, it had to have the necessary and sufficient conditions to bring the universe into existence.
>> Yes. Okay. Wow, man. You're I like talking to you, man. You're easy to talk to. Um, so necessary because a lot of guys go, "No."
So, if it had the necessary and if it was impersonal and had the necessary and sufficient conditions, then the the event of the creative universe would have necessarily had to automatically happen.
You said if it was impersonal the event of the universe would necessarily have to automatically happen.
Why would it have to be automatic?
>> Because whenever the conditions that are necessary and sufficient occur in an impersonal situation, the result is is necessarily automatic. Let me give an illustration. Flat surface um a small rock. We're going to use it as a fulcrum. There's a big rock next to it and we have a a non-bendable bar, >> flat surface, normal gravity. And let's just say that in order to move the big rock, we need 20 pounds of downward force or more. Whenever those conditions are met, the result is automatic.
>> Uh we what do you mean by automatic?
>> Uh it's not probably not the right word.
uh the results are necessarily going to happen whenever this necessary and sufficient conditions. So 10 pound I would that that's a deterministic universe. I agree.
>> Okay. Good. Good. So then if whatever existed existed eternally it's either the case it existed eternally or not eternally. Right? That's logically necessary. So we could just work with one at a time. If it existed eternally and it had the necessary sufficient conditions. It doesn't make a decision.
and it's just impersonal. Then the cause or the effect had to be eternal in the past.
>> It could be eternal in the past. There there is no logical contradiction. It's something so if you're talking about like I cause which began I cause start another cause we start another cause.
Right? So that violates no law of logic nor does it violate any law of physics.
I am okay with that.
There's there's philosophical problems with it. But nevertheless, if the thing that began the universe was eternal and it also naturally existed to having the necessary pre necessary and sufficient conditions, then the creation of the universe would have been an infinite amount of time ago. But that's not the case. Universe is not infinitely old.
>> No, I disagree.
>> Oh, it's logically necessary.
>> It is. It is not. So, okay. So, >> yes, it is.
>> All right. So, [laughter] so the the universe so infinity is not an is not a number or an even an amount like it's it's a description of a set.
So, think about this like any So, how many numbers are there?
>> Lots, >> right? There's an infinite number of numbers.
>> Twice as many as half.
>> But there's an infinite number. Would you agree?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Could you give me two numbers that are infinitely far apart?
>> Yeah. The first one and the >> Oh, I want to see last number. There is no, you know, because there is no Yeah.
Right.
>> There's no first number. There's no last number. Right. But like but any two numbers once you define those numbers, they're not infinitely far apart. So whatever started the universe that cause it happened at a point. that point is a fixed amount of time away from here we from where we are now.
>> So while the so while the plane of existence could be infinite no particular cause on the plane of existence would be infinitely far away from anything else.
>> I think you're confusing the actual infinite with potential infinite I think. I don't know. I'm not sure I'm understanding what you're saying. That's why I'm saying that. So if the thing that existed infinitely for an infinite amount of time before the universe existed is the cause >> then if it had the necessary necessary and sufficient conditions natural to it infinitely for an infinite amount of time then the result or the creation of the universe would have been an infinite amount of time ago which is logically problematic. So there is no infinite time ago because infinite is not a quant quantity. It's a description of a set. There's a hundred years ago. There's 20 billion years ago.
There's not an infinite ago.
>> That's a potential infinite.
>> It it'll be like it'll be like saying you weigh infinite pounds. That makes no sense. Like p pounds is going to be some particular quantity in infinity is not that. saying you weigh infinity pounds or that would be like saying you weigh you weigh apple pounds like you you're not saying anything. Infinity is the description of the set. It's not a number. So nothing can be infinitely far away far away. It it's going to as long as it's some particular distance and I'm a particular distance. If I'm at a particular point in space and something else is any other particular point in space, it is a finite distance and you could you could quantify it.
>> It >> but it's not infinite.
>> Yeah. It's a potential infinite. Yeah.
Once you begin counting something, right?
>> What? But don't you think that God is infinite?
>> Yes.
>> Or eternal.
>> Yes. So wouldn't he let's say I I accept your argument about if the universe is infinite then the the cause of the universe would have to have happen at infinity go or or whatever or you know you have this these infinite regression. Now, if God is infinite, wouldn't he fall into the same problem?
Because there was a particular point in time where God started creating the earth. Wouldn't we never get there?
That's a fair question actually. Um, it's [snorts] one of the questions I pondered uh and I don't have an answer to. It's not a defeater. There are certain paradoxes with the idea of what it means to be infinite outside of time, whatever that means. And I've wondered what was God doing for eternity ago. You know, he in the Christian trinity, he's fellowshipping and having this relationship, this experience with sufficient uh in himself. And then within his own essence, he decided to create which he did. He had decreed an infinitely long time ago. I'm just using these terms. And so how is it then that there was any time related to his essence? And at that point we get into is time a property of his nature or not a property of his nature. And at that point we have even more problems to define what time is. And I just think we just get into a black hole of of rabbit holes we can't go down. We can't solve anything. And that's that's my honest assessment of I thought about it many times. I don't have an an answer. I don't see any refu reputations for it. I just say there are just things we just can't answer because it's just so beyond us. That's where my that's where I'm at.
>> I thought I got it once and then I heard a in my head and then I I I quit because it wasn't working right after that.
>> Well, I we've got come to the end of our time. I told you uh I could have you on for an hour and a half. I don't want to take up more.
>> I can do a little bit longer if you want. It's up to you.
>> Oh, okay. Um well, listen 10 more minutes. Two more minutes.
>> Two more minutes. How to >> uh because I wanted to have you back on again.
>> Okay.
>> And I wanted to discuss this specifically.
>> Okay.
>> How how would you determine that Jesus is God? How would you determine that anything is God?
>> Jesus is God. How did you determine how would you determine that?
>> I don't. I would discover it.
What would you do to discover that? Like would be the process >> at this point? I'm not sure what to say because >> there's two roads to go down. One is an intellectual one supported out of scripture. The other is when he came to me when I was an atheist and I knew it was him and it was him. I don't offer that as proof, but it was the singularly most dramatic event of my entire life. And and I don't offer, you see, when I say that, you can't refute that. And it's not offering.
>> It's a personal experience. I I >> Yeah.
>> And I don't offer proof and I don't offer it as a defeater to you and say, "See, I'm not doing that. I'm just saying the reason I can only tell you the reason I know he's God is because I encountered him and it was the way it was. Not offering us proof. Okay. So, aside from that, we could then discuss the other aspects which is revelation out of scripture and things like that.
>> Okay. Here's a problem that I have, not with what you said, but what I hear with a lot of Christians because, >> okay, >> we have people on the show that previous guest, previous apologists, >> and they'll they'll point to things like the resurrection, the virgin birth, the ascension as proof or as evidence that he is God. And I will grant those things.
And I will say, yeah, we let's say I grant that he was born of a virgin. and I grant that he rose from the dead in three days. How would that demonstrate that he is God?
>> Oh, it wouldn't >> because we're in agreement.
>> It wouldn't logically necessitate it.
>> It does because >> because he could have another being who is doing these things to him. It doesn't mean he's God.
>> Right?
>> The question then becomes what does he say about himself?
Okay, let's say he's he claims to be God and then he do those things. How do I know that what he's saying is true?
>> That's a good question. How do you know what he's saying is true? Uh the biblical answer is you can't. Unless God opens your heart and mind, he'll perceive him. Okay. John 1:12 and 13, Acts 16:14, uh Luke 24:39 or 40 44.
>> That That was a super reformed response, Matt.
>> That That is That's a reformed response.
It's a biblical one. He has to grant that you come to Christ. God the Father grants you come to him. John 6:65. And he grants that you have faith.
Philippians 1:29.
>> And so God has to grant that to you. You can't because God's not granted it to you.
>> All right. So I I'll try to >> You're in my You're in my backyard now.
Theology. Okay.
>> I'm not going to beat you up with it.
It's all right.
>> On on that note, what did you grant that's So I don't believe. So obviously God has not revealed it to me.
>> Correct.
>> Wouldn't you grant that it is rational for me to be an atheist?
>> Uh no. Because the Bible also says that you suppress the truth of God in your unrighteousness. Romans 1:18 through and the rest. So it's not rational. And in part because our previous discussion, which I'm going to very politely say, I think was a good conversation. I don't think you grounded yourself very well.
you probably might say the same thing about me. And that's part of our our polite discussion, but I would say that you've not uh I would say they've not grounded your positions without presupposing the necessity of God. We could discuss it some more. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. Um and so I would say that's that's where the suppression of your in your unrighteousness, your sin is caused upon you. That's what I would say. I'm not offending you. I'm not trying to >> Yeah, I know. I I understand we coming straight from Romans 1 here. Like I I >> All right. I'm not trying to judge you.
I like you. Come to my house. You can eat steaks, smoke cigars, and talk snack about facade. Okay.
>> Okay. So now All right. So if I am h you talk about me suppressing the truth, how could I suppress the truth if it was never available to me.
>> God did not reveal it. So I I don't even need to suppress it. There'd be nothing to suppress. There was I cannot grasp it. So now >> that will mean make it rational for me to be an atheist >> that you must be presupposed then rational is what determines your truth and understanding of God. The Bible never says that.
>> So r being rational >> rational >> is how I assess the evidence or any sort of experience that God could give me.
So I I mean so the be being rational isn't itself the evidence but it's a prerequisite for the evidence. Like if I'm not rational I cannot properly assess it.
>> Evidence is an abstraction that becomes valid or invalid depending on a presupposition around it.
>> Okay. Let me explain. So my wife who passed away but my wife Okay. I'm in Idaho and you're let I know what state you're in. Not trying to dox you. DC.
>> Mhm.
>> Okay. cuz you're in DC. All right. So, uh, next door neighbor in your house where you are, there's a break-in and there's footprints in the mud and, uh, there's footprints inside the house.
It's ransacked. There's footprints leading out the front door. The footprints are evidence that a perpetrator entered through the door. I mean, entered through the window, >> right?
>> Because it fits. If I said to you, "Yeah, those footprints are proof I love my wife."
You'd go, "Well, I thought Matt was smart, but there's obviously something loose. He's not, you know, it makes no sense because it's not evidence then.
It's a phenomena." So, something becomes evidential when it fits a presuppositional world view, question, theory, idea.
>> Okay.
Man, I have so much I want to say there.
>> Come on. Come on. Bring it on. It's okay.
>> I can't I I told I told my wife >> I can stay longer.
>> I appreciate it, man. Yeah. Um, I I told my wife I was going to spend some um time with her before it gets too late.
>> Who cares about your wife? Come on, let's get it.
>> Don't tell her I said that.
>> Yeah, [laughter] >> I care. Right. But anyway, man, I I want to I want to um have you back on. I want to uh dive deeper into like just the nature of evidence >> and yeah le let's um I I'll I'll shoot you a I'll shoot you an email and the I'll shoot you an email soon and we can um >> pick up exactly where we left off because I I want to tackle that.
>> But yeah, man, I I thoroughly enjoyed the conversation. Uh I I [clears throat] I know it got heated. um still um uh had fun. Um appreciate you uh coming on and like I said, I used to be a fan, right?
>> No, you still should be. You still should be [laughter] >> because I'm just wonderful. Um look, I just want to say thanks. I had a good time talking to you. I really did. And um uh you're polite. You're not obstreporous. You're not rude. You're not accusatory. Not demanding. And I it's just a delight to meet someone like that. We disagree. we get disagree agreeably unlike some people. And so I get tired of I just get all these years I've been this for 46 years. I get tired of that facade attitude. I just get tired of it. But uh look, you're ever in my area, man, you got a place to stay.
All right, >> I appreciate it, man.
>> All right, guys. Tuning out. I will catch you guys next week.
>> All right, talk to you later.
>> All right, brother.
Related Videos
Communist manifesto was written by Marks and ?
ApnaHistoryOfficial
1K views•2026-06-16
Churches Were Preaching To Make Money | Michael Jones Inspiring Philosophy Speakers corner
LilLaaHilHamd
140 views•2026-06-14
Mandukya Upanishad | Day 52 | Swami Nikhilananda Saraswati
swami.nikhilananda.saraswati
119 views•2026-06-17
The Moral Ethics of Hamsterdam - The Wire
TheShowiest
1K views•2026-06-19
Discovering Better Logics in a Binary World | Dr. Tamice Spencer-Helms | TNE Podcasts
thenewevangelicalspodcast
148 views•2026-06-15
The Person You Protect Does Not Exist
TheChopraWell
1K views•2026-06-16
The Most Honest Lucid Dreaming Video I've Ever Made
luciddreamingteacher
153 views•2026-06-20
June 16, 2026
nickcbarr
1K views•2026-06-16
