33:16 is probably the perfect few second clip to sum up your integrity and how serious you take the other side of the discussion If you have to resort to funny voices and mockery then you should think twice whether or not to speak at all
@RevealedApologetics wow, wasn't expecting a response. Thanks for owning up to it. It's very mature of you. If you don't mind me asking, could you expand on why numbers and mathematics can't be "just human concepts"? You bring up in your video maths being applicable in describing our world even in places we haven't seen yet, like distant stars and such, but what about places where we introduce mathematic concepts that have no relation to physical objects? Like complex numbers which we introduced as humans to solve other mathematical problems yet they don't "map on to the real world". Have we created a universal in the form of i^2=-1? Or can we somehow acces the world of universals without relying on particulars? Either option seems unjustified to me
@ Mathematics is a discipline of study. I would say that abstract concepts like numbers, quantity, and hence, logic, which numbers and math are based, exhibit qualities and functions that seem to transcend human minds and human invention. There seems to be a kind of necessity to mathematical truths. For instance, 2+2=4 seems to be a mathematical truth that is true independent of human opinion. Furthermore, given that math and abstracta are grounded in more fundamental logical principles, the question arises as to the nature of logic itself? Is logic universally applicable and necessary in its existence, or is logic too, human convention. Again, to suggest that logic is human convention seems to undercut the necessary preconditions for knowledge and intelligibility. Apologies if I don’t respond again, I am very busy at the moment. But feel free to respond or ask any follow up questions and perhaps I can try to address them in a future video:) -Peace!
@@RevealedApologetics well I don't really have a follow up question to be honest because you haven't answered my original quetion about complex numbers. It seems to me that you just repeated your point from your video which I watched and don't agree because it doesn't take into account situations in which maths isn't compatible with reality. If you're looking for some other arguments for a video I'd be interested in how would you explain situations in which maths simply breaks down and starts making no sense in terms of describing the real world. I'm talking about singularities, quantum physics, absolute zero temperature and other similar problems. These are areas where our mathematic models stop working almost as if they weren't perfect at describing reality and where created by people to describe certain properties but have their limits. Thanks for your replies and have a good day
@ Thanks for your clarification. I apologize if I missed what you were asking. I don’t typically engage too much in the comments because I’m busy, so I sometimes read them quickly and try to offer a response while multi-tasking. I’ll think about what you have shared and perhaps in the future, address it in more depth in a future video:) Take care!
Question: In the epistemology of covenantal apologetics, for a true belief to be considered justified (and therefore knowledge) must it be held with epistemic certainty? Or is it the case that justification for beliefs need not be epistemically certain for it to be considered knowledge?
@@shanelyons9966 In covenantal apologetics, justification for beliefs does not require epistemic certainty for them to qualify as knowledge. A belief is justified if it is properly grounded in the Christian worldview, which provides the necessary preconditions for intelligibility and knowledge. While some beliefs (e.g., “God exists”) are epistemically certain due to divine revelation, other beliefs can be justified and count as knowledge even if they are not held with infallible certainty. Certainty is rooted in God’s revelation, not the subjective state of the believer. So the Christian Worldview provides the necessary preconditions for knowledge (whether pertaining to knowledge held with epistemic certainty, or knowledge held in the more limited sense). Now the unbeliever might argue that they can have knowledge in that limited sense, but knowledge in that limited sense, in order for it to be meaningful and intelligible, require a worldview that provides those necessary preconditions of intelligibility. That, I would argue, the unbelieving worldview (in whatever variation it comes) lacks. :) Hope that helps a bit.
@@RevealedApologetics What are the "the necessary preconditions for intelligibility and knowledge."? And what criteria is used to determine the success or failure in that accounting?
@RevealedApologetics Lol Why can't you answer the manager? He asked what are these fictious preconditions for intelligibility? I bet you get them wrong. So your ridiculous argument is blown AGAIN!
Hey Eli, good explanation of how particulars are exemplified by universals and how that ties to God or Platonic realism. However, have you read Dr William Lane Craig’s book “God over all”? If not I highly recommend since he addresses the gritty details and issues with Absolute Creationism (Van Til’s position) such as the “bootstrapping problem “ and Divine Conceptualism, for the Thomists and all the issues that arise when you have to ontologically commit to the fact that these are real and concrete objects existing at all times in God’s mind. I’m curious in the future what your response is to some of those objections since it’s that reason WLC convinced me that an Anti-realism view with God as creator might be overlooked. Thanks
@@Jaryism Thanks:) It has been a while since I have familiarized myself with Dr. Craig’s view (I have read portions of that book, and I do own it). Perhaps I will revisit it when I catch the time. I do remember though, that I disagreed with his position when I read it, as I disagree with Dr. Craig on many issues (although, I really respect his scholarship). :)
Excellent video. I think, the problem people have is being able to think at the basic and foundational level. This is true of believers and unbelievers alike. But it's obviously more problematic for the atheist than for the Christian. We can give an account for why there is something (physical and metaphysical), rather than nothing. The atheist doesn't want to go there (which I think is fascinating).
@michaelsowerby8198 No that's not the problem. The problem is it's littered with baseless assertions, non sequiturs and we can't stop laughing whilst listening to it..
You said: "I think, the problem people have is being able to think at the basic and foundational level". Physical existence is the foundation of everything. Before we believe (or not believe) we exist. In Genesis 1:1 God created the heavens and earth. No mention of "laws of logic" nor "concepts", nor anything "epistemically justified", nor "grounds of intelligibility". In the New Testament, the center of everything is "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." Once again, nothing ontological, nothing idealist, nothing "conceptual". The creator came into His creation, to redeem. That is why PA should be rejected by Christians as a failed apologetic.
It's unclear to me what you mean when you say that the "consistency of numbers is a matter of definition." Also, when you say if God didn't exist, 1+1 would still only equal 2, I mean, that's just to say that God is not necessary for numbers, and that's the thing we are arguing about. What do you think numbers are? Are you a mathematical nominalist?
@@RevealedApologetics Yes, I could have said the first point better. The consistency of numbers which you seemed to want an account for, is explained by the fact that a single object can only and always be a single object. A single object, that represents the quantity we call 1, with another single object can only equal the quantity we call 2. God is not necessary for this to be so. Numbers are necessary abstract concepts. The concept of the quantity that any particular named number represents can't be other than it is. I don't know if I'm a nominalist or not.
@@Whatsisface4 Well, you said an object can only be what an object is. That seems to be the law of identity. And calling numbers necessary abstract concepts is not a grounding for numbers. You are simply describing what you think numbers are; namely, necessary, abstract concepts. On your view, is something that is conceptual something that resides in a mind? 🙂
@@RevealedApologetics If you were familiar with Gödel, you'd know you are deceiving people about the nature of logic. By the way, there are 2 Gödel incompleteness (and 2 completeness) theorems..
@ :I am familiar with Gödel s Incompleteness Theorem (Both of them). And being familiar with the theorems does not entail that I must be “deceiving people” about the nature of logic. That is an obvious non-sequitur. His theorem’s are dealing with formal systems of mathematics, which do not share a one-to-one correspondence with worldview paradigms and analyses. When dealing with transcendentals, we are dealing with issues of meta-logic, and the preconditions of logic, and hence mathematics themselves. I am fully aware of the incompleteness of formal systems of mathematics, that doesn’t even remotely propose a problem for me as a proponent of the Christian worldview.
@@RevealedApologetics Let's assume you are indeed informed concerning Gödel's completeness and incompleteness theorems. Let's also assume your "Christian worldview" (however you define it) is true. Please answer these questions (derived from Gödel) about the resulting logic and mathematics from your worldview: #1. "Is your mathematics (or logic) complete?" Is there a way of proving every true statement? #2. "Is your mathematics (or logic) consistent?" Is it free of contradictions? Will it yield a contradiction as true? #3. "Is your math (or logic) decidable?" Is there an algorithm that can always determine whether a statement follows from the axioms? If you are indeed informed about Gödel, you already know the answers. And from there, you will see the collapse of your entire apologetic.
question! eli im a huge fan!!! im learning the tag argument but im having trouble understanding why things need a grounding. like objective truth for example, how would you explain to someone that objective truth needs a grounding and can’t just exist on its own?
I contend that all logic and mathematics can be successfully accounted for, beginning with empiricism. That is, physically existent, sentient beings (persons) and a physical kosmos that that physically, sentient person encounters.
@@TheTheologizingSubject Everything we know (including our knowledge of God) BEGINS with empiricism (or existentialism), but it does not end there. Thus, I am not 'putting all my eggs in that basket". The "framework of empiricism" is pretty simple, we believe our senses (and sense perceptions) are reliable until we have good reason to doubt them (like mirages). That is why science deals in repetition of experiments, our senses can deceive us.
@@manager0175 No. God is the necessary precondition that gives empirical evidence meaning. For instance, justify your use of empiricism in a non-circular way? How would you demonstrate the sufficiency of empiricism without appealing to empiricism? You can't. If you have a standard of knowledge, but you can't apply that standard to examine itself, there's a fundamental problem with that standard. If our senses can deceive us, how would we know that the scientific method is producing consistent results? Don't you use your senses when using the scientific method? Maybe the scientific method is not working. Maybe that's just your senses deceiving you into thinking it's working? Logically (not chronologically) you need the God of the Bible to give something like your senses, reasoning, or the scientific method meaning. God provides the necessary preconditions for knowledge through his universal, transcendent, immutable, true, personal, and moral perfect character.
//"Philosophy is a very useful tool... but of course the boundaries *must* be bordered in by scripture... Our philosophy is going to be *governed* by principles that are grounded in scripture itself."// This is NOT philosophy - this is accepting a conclusion and trying to post-hoc rationalize (or retrofit) your "reasoning" to fall into line with it. Only it doesn't work without fallacious arguments involving question-begging, appeals to ignorance, or burden-shifting, does it? :) That's why - despite 'creative' attempts to disguise it - the presupper is stuck with making *bald assertions* that he is unable to support, and relies on the rhetorical tactic of demanding the interlocutor solve a philosophical problem that the presupper cannot deal with! On the whole, if you're going to indulge in *reasoning* , then do so. But if you're going to *abandon* reasoning as soon as it stops going the way you want it to, you may as well just state the preset conclusion you've already accepted (your *fideistic belief* ) and avoid this disingenuous PRETENCE of "reasoning" altogether! If you HAVE to believe that 'the moon is made of green cheese' because the 'green cheese' book says so, and what the 'green cheese' book says is what you HAVE to believe, then you are NOT indulging in "reasoning" at all, so should stop pretending that you are. The idea of "teaching" this fraudulent "method" raises an interesting question: Are presuppers innocent victims of a con, unknowingly passing on the thing they fell for, or are they guilty perpetrators of the con, knowingly dispensing deception for some other end?
Math needs rational thinking and you can only get that from a higher power. And the only Higher Power that stands up to scrutiny is the God of the Bible. Yahweh is LORD of Heaven and Earth for He made them and holds them together. Jesus is Yahweh, He is coming soon! Maranatha
That's amongst the silliest things I've ever heard. You say god stands up to scrutiny. Please present credible evidence that your god exists so I can scrutinise him. I predict you'll run away like a child.
This entire video is useless if you don’t provide a reason for why universals and particulars are truly separate and exist in two realms and need a bridge to gap them. I know this is an introductory level video on this particular concept but this thesis that math requires God is dependent on the above point about universals and particulars being true. It would have been better to spend more time on that. Because if the viewer isn’t convinced they won’t just grant that point either, which again is necessary for the thesis to be true. Eli I would love to discuss this with you further as someone who is a modified pre-supper, I don’t think math requires God. Would love to hear your thoughts about my thoughts
Eli never tells us what it required for a successful accounting. He never tells how to distinguish "X is a successful accounting for the groundwork of intelligibility." and "Y is not a successful accounting for the groundwork of intelligibility." Presuppositional apologetics is an abysmal failure.
Romans 1:18-23 18 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things."
Why on earth would us DECENT people believe ANYTHING in your silly book of fairytales? I bet you can't even support just 4 of the very fundemental claims of it can you?
This is truly hillarious. So eli you tell us you can justify something that doesn't need justifying by saying god (that you cant even show exists) did it. Congratulations. Another god of the gaps argument for a non existant problem that you yourself created! Absolutely pitiful 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
33:16 is probably the perfect few second clip to sum up your integrity and how serious you take the other side of the discussion
If you have to resort to funny voices and mockery then you should think twice whether or not to speak at all
@@jofsky9066 I apologize for my unnecessary sarcasm. I will keep that in mind for the next time:) -Thank you!
@RevealedApologetics wow, wasn't expecting a response. Thanks for owning up to it. It's very mature of you.
If you don't mind me asking, could you expand on why numbers and mathematics can't be "just human concepts"?
You bring up in your video maths being applicable in describing our world even in places we haven't seen yet, like distant stars and such, but what about places where we introduce mathematic concepts that have no relation to physical objects?
Like complex numbers which we introduced as humans to solve other mathematical problems yet they don't "map on to the real world".
Have we created a universal in the form of i^2=-1? Or can we somehow acces the world of universals without relying on particulars? Either option seems unjustified to me
@ Mathematics is a discipline of study. I would say that abstract concepts like numbers, quantity, and hence, logic, which numbers and math are based, exhibit qualities and functions that seem to transcend human minds and human invention. There seems to be a kind of necessity to mathematical truths. For instance, 2+2=4 seems to be a mathematical truth that is true independent of human opinion. Furthermore, given that math and abstracta are grounded in more fundamental logical principles, the question arises as to the nature of logic itself? Is logic universally applicable and necessary in its existence, or is logic too, human convention. Again, to suggest that logic is human convention seems to undercut the necessary preconditions for knowledge and intelligibility. Apologies if I don’t respond again, I am very busy at the moment. But feel free to respond or ask any follow up questions and perhaps I can try to address them in a future video:) -Peace!
@@RevealedApologetics well I don't really have a follow up question to be honest because you haven't answered my original quetion about complex numbers.
It seems to me that you just repeated your point from your video which I watched and don't agree because it doesn't take into account situations in which maths isn't compatible with reality.
If you're looking for some other arguments for a video I'd be interested in how would you explain situations in which maths simply breaks down and starts making no sense in terms of describing the real world. I'm talking about singularities, quantum physics, absolute zero temperature and other similar problems.
These are areas where our mathematic models stop working almost as if they weren't perfect at describing reality and where created by people to describe certain properties but have their limits.
Thanks for your replies and have a good day
@ Thanks for your clarification. I apologize if I missed what you were asking. I don’t typically engage too much in the comments because I’m busy, so I sometimes read them quickly and try to offer a response while multi-tasking. I’ll think about what you have shared and perhaps in the future, address it in more depth in a future video:) Take care!
Great video, Brother.
Gotta be kidding. It was pitiful
Question: In the epistemology of covenantal apologetics, for a true belief to be considered justified (and therefore knowledge) must it be held with epistemic certainty? Or is it the case that justification for beliefs need not be epistemically certain for it to be considered knowledge?
@@shanelyons9966 In covenantal apologetics, justification for beliefs does not require epistemic certainty for them to qualify as knowledge. A belief is justified if it is properly grounded in the Christian worldview, which provides the necessary preconditions for intelligibility and knowledge. While some beliefs (e.g., “God exists”) are epistemically certain due to divine revelation, other beliefs can be justified and count as knowledge even if they are not held with infallible certainty. Certainty is rooted in God’s revelation, not the subjective state of the believer. So the Christian Worldview provides the necessary preconditions for knowledge (whether pertaining to knowledge held with epistemic certainty, or knowledge held in the more limited sense). Now the unbeliever might argue that they can have knowledge in that limited sense, but knowledge in that limited sense, in order for it to be meaningful and intelligible, require a worldview that provides those necessary preconditions of intelligibility. That, I would argue, the unbelieving worldview (in whatever variation it comes) lacks. :) Hope that helps a bit.
@ That’s a tremendous help, thanks!
@@RevealedApologetics What are the "the necessary preconditions for intelligibility and knowledge."? And what criteria is used to determine the success or failure in that accounting?
@@shanelyons9966 Glad I can help:) -Blessings!!
@RevealedApologetics Lol Why can't you answer the manager?
He asked what are these fictious preconditions for intelligibility?
I bet you get them wrong. So your ridiculous argument is blown AGAIN!
Hey Eli, good explanation of how particulars are exemplified by universals and how that ties to God or Platonic realism. However, have you read Dr William Lane Craig’s book “God over all”? If not I highly recommend since he addresses the gritty details and issues with Absolute Creationism (Van Til’s position) such as the “bootstrapping problem “ and Divine Conceptualism, for the Thomists and all the issues that arise when you have to ontologically commit to the fact that these are real and concrete objects existing at all times in God’s mind. I’m curious in the future what your response is to some of those objections since it’s that reason WLC convinced me that an Anti-realism view with God as creator might be overlooked. Thanks
@@Jaryism Thanks:) It has been a while since I have familiarized myself with Dr. Craig’s view (I have read portions of that book, and I do own it). Perhaps I will revisit it when I catch the time. I do remember though, that I disagreed with his position when I read it, as I disagree with Dr. Craig on many issues (although, I really respect his scholarship). :)
Excellent video. I think, the problem people have is being able to think at the basic and foundational level. This is true of believers and unbelievers alike. But it's obviously more problematic for the atheist than for the Christian. We can give an account for why there is something (physical and metaphysical), rather than nothing.
The atheist doesn't want to go there (which I think is fascinating).
Cool, so why is there a god that created a universe instead of nothing?
@michaelsowerby8198 No that's not the problem. The problem is it's littered with baseless assertions, non sequiturs and we can't stop laughing whilst listening to it..
You said: "I think, the problem people have is being able to think at the basic and foundational level". Physical existence is the foundation of everything. Before we believe (or not believe) we exist. In Genesis 1:1 God created the heavens and earth. No mention of "laws of logic" nor "concepts", nor anything "epistemically justified", nor "grounds of intelligibility". In the New Testament, the center of everything is "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." Once again, nothing ontological, nothing idealist, nothing "conceptual". The creator came into His creation, to redeem. That is why PA should be rejected by Christians as a failed apologetic.
The consistency of numbers is a matter of definition. If God didn't exist, 1+1 would still only equal 2.
It's unclear to me what you mean when you say that the "consistency of numbers is a matter of definition." Also, when you say if God didn't exist, 1+1 would still only equal 2, I mean, that's just to say that God is not necessary for numbers, and that's the thing we are arguing about.
What do you think numbers are? Are you a mathematical nominalist?
@@RevealedApologetics Yes, I could have said the first point better. The consistency of numbers which you seemed to want an account for, is explained by the fact that a single object can only and always be a single object.
A single object, that represents the quantity we call 1, with another single object can only equal the quantity we call 2. God is not necessary for this to be so.
Numbers are necessary abstract concepts. The concept of the quantity that any particular named number represents can't be other than it is.
I don't know if I'm a nominalist or not.
@@Whatsisface4 So, do you ground numbers in the law of identity (or the laws of logic more broadly)?
@@RevealedApologetics I think I've already grounded numbers, in that they are necessary abstract concepts.
@@Whatsisface4 Well, you said an object can only be what an object is. That seems to be the law of identity. And calling numbers necessary abstract concepts is not a grounding for numbers. You are simply describing what you think numbers are; namely, necessary, abstract concepts. On your view, is something that is conceptual something that resides in a mind? 🙂
Eli, do you know about Kurt Goedel and the Incompleteness Theorem?
@@IronFire116 Yes;)
@@IronFire116 Yes, I am familiar;)
@@RevealedApologetics If you were familiar with Gödel, you'd know you are deceiving people about the nature of logic. By the way, there are 2 Gödel incompleteness (and 2 completeness) theorems..
@ :I am familiar with Gödel s Incompleteness Theorem (Both of them). And being familiar with the theorems does not entail that I must be “deceiving people” about the nature of logic. That is an obvious non-sequitur. His theorem’s are dealing with formal systems of mathematics, which do not share a one-to-one correspondence with worldview paradigms and analyses. When dealing with transcendentals, we are dealing with issues of meta-logic, and the preconditions of logic, and hence mathematics themselves. I am fully aware of the incompleteness of formal systems of mathematics, that doesn’t even remotely propose a problem for me as a proponent of the Christian worldview.
@@RevealedApologetics Let's assume you are indeed informed concerning Gödel's completeness and incompleteness theorems. Let's also assume your "Christian worldview" (however you define it) is true. Please answer these questions (derived from Gödel) about the resulting logic and mathematics from your worldview: #1. "Is your mathematics (or logic) complete?" Is there a way of proving every true statement? #2. "Is your mathematics (or logic) consistent?" Is it free of contradictions? Will it yield a contradiction as true? #3. "Is your math (or logic) decidable?" Is there an algorithm that can always determine whether a statement follows from the axioms? If you are indeed informed about Gödel, you already know the answers. And from there, you will see the collapse of your entire apologetic.
Amen, thank you
question! eli im a huge fan!!! im learning the tag argument but im having trouble understanding why things need a grounding. like objective truth for example, how would you explain to someone that objective truth needs a grounding and can’t just exist on its own?
You said: "but im having trouble understanding why things need a grounding." Excellent question. In fact, it does not need a "grounding"".
@ that might be why he replied to everyone’s comment but mine 💔
The ole counting without accounting am I right? 😅
@@TheTheologizingSubject 😂
I contend that all logic and mathematics can be successfully accounted for, beginning with empiricism. That is, physically existent, sentient beings (persons) and a physical kosmos that that physically, sentient person encounters.
@@manager0175 Even empiricism must be interpreted with a particular framework. I wouldn't put all the eggs in that basket.
@@TheTheologizingSubject Everything we know (including our knowledge of God) BEGINS with empiricism (or existentialism), but it does not end there. Thus, I am not 'putting all my eggs in that basket". The "framework of empiricism" is pretty simple, we believe our senses (and sense perceptions) are reliable until we have good reason to doubt them (like mirages). That is why science deals in repetition of experiments, our senses can deceive us.
@@manager0175 No. God is the necessary precondition that gives empirical evidence meaning. For instance, justify your use of empiricism in a non-circular way? How would you demonstrate the sufficiency of empiricism without appealing to empiricism? You can't. If you have a standard of knowledge, but you can't apply that standard to examine itself, there's a fundamental problem with that standard. If our senses can deceive us, how would we know that the scientific method is producing consistent results? Don't you use your senses when using the scientific method? Maybe the scientific method is not working. Maybe that's just your senses deceiving you into thinking it's working? Logically (not chronologically) you need the God of the Bible to give something like your senses, reasoning, or the scientific method meaning. God provides the necessary preconditions for knowledge through his universal, transcendent, immutable, true, personal, and moral perfect character.
//"Philosophy is a very useful tool... but of course the boundaries *must* be bordered in by scripture... Our philosophy is going to be *governed* by principles that are grounded in scripture itself."//
This is NOT philosophy - this is accepting a conclusion and trying to post-hoc rationalize (or retrofit) your "reasoning" to fall into line with it. Only it doesn't work without fallacious arguments involving question-begging, appeals to ignorance, or burden-shifting, does it? :) That's why - despite 'creative' attempts to disguise it - the presupper is stuck with making *bald assertions* that he is unable to support, and relies on the rhetorical tactic of demanding the interlocutor solve a philosophical problem that the presupper cannot deal with!
On the whole, if you're going to indulge in *reasoning* , then do so. But if you're going to *abandon* reasoning as soon as it stops going the way you want it to, you may as well just state the preset conclusion you've already accepted (your *fideistic belief* ) and avoid this disingenuous PRETENCE of "reasoning" altogether!
If you HAVE to believe that 'the moon is made of green cheese' because the 'green cheese' book says so, and what the 'green cheese' book says is what you HAVE to believe, then you are NOT indulging in "reasoning" at all, so should stop pretending that you are. The idea of "teaching" this fraudulent "method" raises an interesting question:
Are presuppers innocent victims of a con, unknowingly passing on the thing they fell for, or are they guilty perpetrators of the con, knowingly dispensing deception for some other end?
Philosophy teaches you to question everything and everyone (including God) unto absurdity.
Math Needs God? What an amazingly absurd proposition!
Math needs rational thinking and you can only get that from a higher power. And the only Higher Power that stands up to scrutiny is the God of the Bible. Yahweh is LORD of Heaven and Earth for He made them and holds them together. Jesus is Yahweh, He is coming soon! Maranatha
That's amongst the silliest things I've ever heard. You say god stands up to scrutiny. Please present credible evidence that your god exists so I can scrutinise him.
I predict you'll run away like a child.
Define rational thinking?
@ if you don’t know you don’t even have an ancient pagan understanding for the establishment of meaning
@@DaysofElijah317define rational thinking?
@DaysofElijah317 You claim god stands up to scrutiny! Lol. OK....let's scrutinise. First you'll have to show your god exists. Please do so..
That was so pitiful. It's laughable!
Eli presenting another god of the gaps argument for a NON EXISTANT gap in knowledge.
This entire video is useless if you don’t provide a reason for why universals and particulars are truly separate and exist in two realms and need a bridge to gap them. I know this is an introductory level video on this particular concept but this thesis that math requires God is dependent on the above point about universals and particulars being true. It would have been better to spend more time on that. Because if the viewer isn’t convinced they won’t just grant that point either, which again is necessary for the thesis to be true. Eli I would love to discuss this with you further as someone who is a modified pre-supper, I don’t think math requires God. Would love to hear your thoughts about my thoughts
Kinda sad you haven’t responded to my comment Eli, I think a discussion on this would be very useful for both of us man
Eli never tells us what it required for a successful accounting. He never tells how to distinguish "X is a successful accounting for the groundwork of intelligibility." and "Y is not a successful accounting for the groundwork of intelligibility." Presuppositional apologetics is an abysmal failure.
Sounds like you're looking for some good faith argumentation! 😉
Abysmal failure by what absolute and universal standard of rationality and truth?
@@TheTheologizingSubject Good seeing you here Bro!
@TheThinkInstitute Same to you good sir. I shot you an email just now. 🤓
@@TheThinkInstitute Very good. You have shown your ignorance of different levels of logical inquiry. Shall I explain your error?
Romans 1:18-23
18 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things."
Why on earth would us DECENT people believe ANYTHING in your silly book of fairytales?
I bet you can't even support just 4 of the very fundemental claims of it can you?
This is truly hillarious.
So eli you tell us you can justify something that doesn't need justifying by saying god (that you cant even show exists) did it.
Congratulations. Another god of the gaps argument for a non existant problem that you yourself created!
Absolutely pitiful
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂