Apologetics Methods and Dyer Debate Debrief (with Jimmy Akin) 

I disagree entirely on Muslims believing in the same God, read their Quran, read their hadiths, you will see their description of God is entirely and totally different than the God described in the bible.

I think Eastern Orthodox philosopher Richard Swinburne would of sided with Trent in the debate. He believes in "evidence building on evidence" as Jimmy and Trent refer to here. Yes, on some level we may sort of "presuppose" God, but we need to provide convincing proofs to those who may or may not find credible this TAG approach. Also, I don't think we need to fear the Kantian critique of pure reason the way Jay let's on in the debate.

As an atheist, Akon seems so much more reasonable than almost any apologist out there, good job having him on

Jay dyer, as far as debating goes, was brought up in the "blood sports" Internet culture, where debates are knivefights of culture war, not intellectual exchanges. where thrusts are being delivered, rather than ideas. Delivery as in punchlines rather than maieutic effect. Pride in being able to reference esoteric concepts and the carelessness to elaborate further are likewise hostile tactics rampant in those spheres, that serve to attach authority to oneself and denigrate the other as the one who might be unfamiliar. While passion and virility are of aesthetic importance, this is obviously not a fruitful concept of debate. Furthermore, he transferred this method on an exchange with a brother in Christ, which makes it so vain and immature. He is a passionate, likely well-meaning brother, weathered by culture.

It wasn’t until Trent began to cross-examine Jay that Jay started to make any sense in that debate, lol.

I'd like to see Jimmy and Jordan Peterson have a conversation. Bishop Barron tried it but the good Bishop tends to go all over the map where Jimmy is more focused, clear, and concise.

Thank you Jimmy. You are an excellent teacher .

Okay, bafflegab is word-of-the-day!

Trent and Jimmy, thank you. Your explanations of the Catholic faith are helping me grow in confidence the Catholics have it right. I’ve been pulled between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Both ancient, both beautiful, but specific differences in theology way to complex for a layman. Your simplicity in explanation is the key that unlocks my simple brain. God bless.

Trent clearly won by the content. He provided cogent reasons for why there is self evident truth, and he also gave the same regarding theism from the Greek Patristic tradition. What more could Dyer require? E. Ybarra

I'm glad I wasn't the only one. I ended up not watching the full debate because I understood nothing of Dyer's opening statement

I wouldn’t say presuppositionalism is circular but it depends on how you use it. The typical presupp would argue that we all presuppose God when using logic and reason as God is actually needed for logic and reason. This is a transcendental argument which isn’t circular(more about this topic on my channel). ? A presuppositionalist would argue from the impossibility of the contrary - that every other view leads to utter skepticism and that leaves Christianity as the only possible worldview left. Some Presupps do use this approach in a circular way but there’s nothing circular about it if used like this.

I totally skipped out of the debate right after the opening statements because I had no idea what Dyer was talking about. I never heard him directly point to the Achilles heel of natural theology. Looks like Jimmy made the same observation. Glad I came here instead of trying to look up and evaluate the myriad of sources to see if they were relevant or not.

Learned so much! God Bless the both of you 😇

0:53 2:08, 2:22, 2:43, 3:21 - Presuppositionalism and classical apologetics 4:36 - How Akin views debates 6:22 - What is natural theology? 6:43 - Dyer’s nuance 7:57, 8:11, 8:23, 8:47, 9:10 - Akin’s criticism of Dyer’s approach. 9:23 - Akin’s credit to Dyer 9:49 - Trent Horn on clear communication 10:21 - Akin noticing how people recognized Trent’s clarity

One thing presuppositional apologetics does is it forces the unbeliever to confront the incoherence of their own world view. Basically, instead of "putting God on trial" so to speak, it puts unbelieving worldviews on trial.

I enjoyed this debrief. One of the things I noted during the debate was that our Orthodox friends who accept presuppositionalism have to give an account as to how the Early Church Fathers argued presuppositionaly. Van Til himself argues in his book "A Christian Theory of Knowledge" (Ch 4) that the Church Father's apologetic method prior to Augustine all fell short due to the lack of presuppositionalism. I'm aware that some Orthodox Presuppositionalists argue that the Fathers were presuppositionalists (at least for the most part), but none to my knowledge confront Van Til.

Love the team.

EO here but Akin is spot on. Dyer is an interesting fellow, to say the least. I’ll leave it there.

How coincidental! I watched the debate today and was also writing about Vatican II’s teaching on the one God issue, and now y’all are making similar points that I’m making in my video lesson. I also agree with Jimmy’s assessment of the debate. There was a vast mish-mash of passing references to arguments and concepts but they were never articulated properly for a debate, leading to a sense of incoherencey or incomprehensibility. It wasn’t clear what his arguments actually were. Trent, however, was quite clear.

Thank you for this debrief! I always listen to RU-vid content at 2x speed, but had to slow down to normal during Jay's presentations. At first I thought he was just going into content far too dense for me, but then I realized, just as you voiced Jimmy, that he was simply throwing out high-level term after term that meant nothing to a lay person such as myself. I'm sure he's a brilliant man but his method of debate (especially his rudeness) will win few if any converts to Christ. That, in and of itself, is supportive of Trent's position.

Jimmy! you are just something else 🙂 maybe that is is why you are my namesake. Saying exactly what I felt about the debate though I could not articulate just confirmed that I was just merely Bais towards Trent in my low assessment of Dyer.

The main difference, as I appreciate it, between the classical approach and the presuppositional approach is that with the pressuppositional approach, both interlocutors have direct involvement so that denial of the premises forces fatal concessions. One can deny the universe has a beginning, for example, and only sacrifice his agreement with the scientific consensus on the matter. However, if one denies the laws of logic then he undermines his own rationality and by extension, his own position.

I don’t feel so dumb now. I thought it just me…

The Orthodox God 'The Holy Trinity' is different from the Catholic God 'The Holy Trinity"..........HOW?!

Thanks for an informative session apologetics, proper debate and the importance of being charitable and meeting people where they are at. Should I forward this to Jay Dyer? LOL. Blessings!

It is clear that there were 3 person's who Abraham saw, yet he refers to them and Sir (singular) Génesis 18:2-3 Looking up, he saw three men standing near him. When he saw them, he ran from the entrance of the tent to greet them; and bowing to the ground,a 3 he said: “Sir,* if it please you, do not go on past your servant. Is this different in thee Torah!? I doubt it

9:30 I think that the "bafflegab" is intended. The point is to overwhelm someone, tell them they presuppose God and have a good poker face. I honestly think that's Dyers schtick.

What a blessing you both are.

They were debating over something entirely different... I don't claim to fully grasp natural theology, but I can tell that Jay and Trent were describing two different things.

We need to get Jimmy Akin and Jay Dyer to debate!

The Blessed Trinity is famously intimated in Genesis 18:2 with the "men" visiting Abraham at Mamre.

Even though he was pretty anti-Catholic, I think it’s worthwhile to listen to Greg Bahnsen and his debates with atheists. The methodology can be broken down by what Bahnsen called “worldview analysis”. It basically is analyzing the coherency of any particular worldview based upon their presuppositions. Many moral arguments for God’s existence use this type of method. However, even when using TAG this way, you still use the more easily or commonly known things to reason to the higher things similar to classical apologetics.

Finally Jimmy Akin finally says something I agree with. I stopped watching the debate after 5 min.

At 51:40, Trent talks about how we can “know” things considering it looks like we are using our reasoning to come to the conclusion that we are reasoning. I recently interviewed a philosopher/epistemologist on the topic where I talk about it in the context of presuppositionalism and circular reasoning if anyone is interested.

Hi Trend and Jimmy, love you both! I need help understanding this: If Jews, Muslims and Christians just have different "levels" of knowledge of god's traits, I can understand they fundamentally believe in the same god, BUT if they believe in contrary things about god, it gets a bit confusing to me. If that's the case are we be able to say all believers in god believe in the same god? Thank you and God bless you!

Jay Dyer is very Anti Catholic , very Smug , Very Arrogant , not only that , he does have his Cheerleader group who actually has the same type of Spirit and this is the very type of people who follow him , and it is very sad.

38:45 ”…and he saw it and was glad” is the full verse

Is presuppositionalism compatible with Catholicism or is this methodology forbidden in the Church???

Is Reformed Epistemology basically presuppositionilsm?

18:56 Shots Fired!!!

Would it be right to say Jay believes the Logos of Heraclitus is not the second person of the trinity, however Trent would say it can be or it is essentially?

“Whom will he teach knowledge, and to whom will he explain the message? Those who are weaned from the milk, those taken from the breast? For it is precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little.” - Isaiah 28:9-10

St. John of Damascus calls the Hagarenes (Muslims) heretical, not apostates. This was a mind-blowing realization for me.

Trent, how about refuting Mike Gendron on Justin Peters RU-vid channel?

The debate was fascinating. I think Trent narrowly edged Jay, but it was productive and Jay was nicer than usual.

Hey, to Dyer's defense, at least he didn't insult anybody or called them names this time, so I guess he's improving 🤷‍♂

Yeah. That was my issue with the debate. Dyer's position , whatever it was, wasn't accessible. Does that mean he was wrong? No.

If you want to know who won the debate, go to the party-neutral channel that hosted the debate.

*shaking head* ya gottaaaa drop Flaccid designator” LOL

Jay Dyer is a coherentist. This is why in terms of justification, he asked the paradigmatic question. Trent was defending classical foundationalism, which goes back to the axiom “nothing is in the intellect without it first being in senses”. Descartes thought that we needed a rational foundation, which is basically the opposite. That there can be no sensation without there first being thought. Heidegger and the Postmodernists (specifically Derrida) challenge epistemology with the question of ontology. Of the three options, postmodernism seems the most true.

Do a second debate.

38:38 i wana add something regarding Abraham and Jesus in John 8, when Jimmy says it can mean many different things like "abraham believed in the resurrection of the dead" etc. Verse 40 says "But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this" It is rather clear for me that Jesus is saying "Abraham didn't try to kill me, but you are" then in this context, after some further exchanges, Verse 56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad" And this is how his audience understood him in verse 57 "“You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?”" Combining verse 40 + 56 + 57, the only thing that makes sense for me is that Jesus and Abraham conversed, and Jesus showed Abraham the future. You could argue that because of Abraham's intimate relationship with God, God could've made him aware of the Trinity to its full extent, but the overarching original point would still be valid that 99% of people or so didnt explicitly believe in the trinity, but many did believing in plurality in some sense.

Presuppositionalism is a dialectic, and not exactly an argument, therefore they are useful in a debate in trying to one-up your opponent, but not useful insofar as to uncover truth.

Presuppositioniolism applied to trinitarian godhead is contrary to the history of salvation. God doesnt look supportive of presuppositioniolism in his divine Revelation to mankind, applying a pedagogical process from lowest to highest revealing in Christ with complete clarity the trinitarian godhead nature. So God is wise.

I've noticed that in other debates Dyer seems to appeal to obscurantism.

Removing comments...really?

Is this the guy that said Arius and nestorius died devout Catholics? Makes sense.

Toolbox approach sounds right. Only TAG can prove God with absolute certainty whereas the other views only prove God probably. I think it’s a problem to put something like causality as more certain than God because any smart atheist will point that out and it’s also not congruent with the Faith. The way I think each of methods can be used is thus: Classical arguments show “That God is” (not who). These arguments worked great in the Middle Ages but in the modern philosophical landscape fall apart easily IF your opponent is smart enough to critique it. The best these arguments can do is open the door to someone to belief in my God. TAG: proves that God must be, Who God definitely is, How God is known, How we must act, etc. it’s the most all encompassing because it proves the entire worldview. It’s hard for people to understand it and it’s not always necessary for everyone but I think it should be used in any case. Evidences: this only serve there purpose after my worldview has been proven with TAG. Otherwise the opponent will just interpret the evidence according to their worldview and it will do no good at all. The classical arguments and evidentionalsit arguments work on unlettered folks. I don’t believe in natural theology. I believe in natural revelation. I would only use 5 ways to open the door but not as actually proving anything. TAG can be condensed for unlettered people and it works best on smart people.

Why not have a discussion on the essence energy versus the essence attribute approach and the claim that the orthodox have created grace but the catholic church has uncreated grace?

Thanks for clearing things up.

You should analyse or respond to Richard Rohr

Good debrief. I do feel like at times in the debate you two were talking past each other. Jay does throw out papers and essays throughout his statements and no that does not necessarily make him wrong, but it is his job to at least summarize what he thinks are the points of interest, like when he said Augustine's view on the Trinity was a deviation from previous understanding and that the 7th ecumenical council implicitly forbade using natural reason. Reminds me of his debate with Classical Theist where he just kind of states "The Church Fathers agreed with me". The debate was good but I don't think he really proved what he set out to do. Hopefully there's another debate on a subject where they can definitively draw Catholic vs Orthodox lines and hash it out.

¡Viva Cristo Rey!

What you guys say at 20:00 pretty much proves that Nostra Aetate is based on a fallacy

Isn't 'ELOHIM' a plural?

I think you should debrief latest Akin-White debate.

Impossible to watch these talks with all these commercials. Every few minutes new commercial comes

On Muslims... if they god they worship has a different nature and character than the God of the OT and NT, then how can they worship the same God that Christians do?

God bless u all

It seemed to me that Dyer was only trying to show off his "big words" and debate a position that was impossible for you to defend for the sake of just winning a debate against you and try and get "creds". I may be wrong, but that's how I saw it. He came off very arrogant and confusing and incoherent. He did not make his case. He did the same thing with Eric Ybarra.

@The Counsel of Trent Are you guys sure you understood the debate TOPIC the way Dyer did? Listening to you discuss the debate after-the-fact, it seems as if you considered it a debate about whether Natural Theology should be used FOR APOLOGETICS (as opposed to presuppositionalism). But, when I listen to Dyer, and try to tease out what HE thought the debate was about, it seems to me that HE was arguing that Christians shouldn't use Natural Theology as a basis for developing their own theology, or for understanding God. Trent, you and Jimmy seem to spend most of your review discussing what works better "in your toolbox" for planting a seed in the mind of an atheist. But as far as I can tell, Dyer wasn't even addressing that topic. He seems to be saying: "You shouldn't base anything that YOU believe on conclusions derived by natural reason alone apart from revelation, EVEN IF such conclusions are useful at getting an atheist to reconsider his atheism." Can you guys please double-check this, and tell me if I've gotten this badly wrong?

I think the problem with Dyer is that he has this view that Catholicism leads to Atheism so that he can’t just see natural theology or presumption as two different methods for the same goal. Ironically I think if the presumption position is to have any pragmatic value I say you have to be a very impressive communicator, which Jay dyer is definitely not. I say this only as half jest, that the biggest argument against Eastern Orthodoxy is Jay dyer.

Presup... because the best defense is a good offense.

I wonder if Jimmy have watched Dyer vs Erick Ybarra debate?? how dyer treated Erick the things he told Erick are incrediblely unprofessional,

Reason leads to virtues. Virtues lead to radical honest humility and nobility (to a degree). Rest is words and narratives. Narratives = adaption to ethnicities. And then you haves lies, and 'falsity'. Some people are not really equipped to use enough of Reason. They will use their time/lives to shape things around them. +

“Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.” (1 John 2:23)

Flacid designator XD

8:00--> Exactly, I've watched Dyer plenty before and he doesn't go into enough detail. He doesn't give specific examples on how exatcly his paradigm gives a more reasonable and coherent justification for the major philosophical problems present in any worldview. He should give examples on how the other paradigms fail to do this and contrast it with his, and how his answers to these problems are better. But he never does this, at least insofar as I've seen. And that would greatly improve his apologetic.

I know its petty and irrelevant, but i wish Jimmy would pronounce the Guy's name correctly. Dyer not Dwyer🤦‍♂️

A fundamentalist sceptic can`t doubt, doubt?

I would like to see an advocate of natural theology discuss these matters with an avowed Nietzschean; the supremacy of the will to power seems to be a more logical conclusion to naturalistic presuppositions, especially in the context of Darwinism, than Deism. For once you've adopted naturalism, all metaphysical categories become objects second-order knowledge and Nietzsche's criticism of them seems to be most logical within the system. There is enough agreement on presuppositions between various Christians that these questions don't really come up in debates between Christians (though Jay did briefly touch on them at times), but they are very important for evaluating naturalism. From where I stand, it seems that classical theism and natural theology died with Nietzsche, they simply aren't philosophically viable anymore. And that's without even getting into the inherent problems of internal consistency within logic itself as pointed out by Kant and as proven by Gödel. My personal criticism of Jay's approach is actually the exact opposite of what is stated here, he seems to make excessive use of logic and reason, including particularly dubious notions like causality (which is a nonsensical concept when taken outside of the context of time, say when dealing with God and eternity), without substantively addressing, much less resolving, these fundamental problems that bring into question the validity of using logic and reason at all in the pursuit of truth. This is especially the case given that we know, at the very least, logic to be incomplete and it may even prove inconsistent in the end (in any case, it can never be proven consistent). He does try to get around this by claiming logic and reason are revealed through the fathers, thus resting it on a firmer foundation than the sands of formal logic, but I'm not entirely convinced that the patristic approach to logic is the same as the Aristotelian approach that has been formalized and that he generally makes use of, this becomes especially apparent when reading certain fathers like St. Dionysius but other patristic sources also raise these questions. I do appreciate that Jay at least provokes these important and fundamental questions, even if I don't believe he quite has as comprehensive an understanding of them as he might think; though I don't think anyone does, to be fair, or at least I haven't encountered it in a Christian context, Fr. Seraphim Rose might come the closest, but even then I wouldn't consider his approach comprehensive. However, it's far better than just trying to sweep all the philosophical challenges of the last few centuries under the rug and pretend it's still the middle ages, that's not going to convince anyone in this world of Kant, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, and Gödel.

Jesus said by their fruits you will know them. Not that orthodoxy is perfect but if Roman had it "more correct" there would not be a need for traditional Roman catholics and non traditional there would be just Roman catholics eventually that in itself will lead to the possibility of another schism. This movement of ecumenism that Muslims worship the same God come on. Something is seriously wrong in the Roman catholic church and it all boils Down to the definition of papal authority. You don't need to have 20 degrees and be able to quote history and council to recognize Rome has lost the faith.

I am sorry but this was bad. It’s not relevant if Jays jargon is hard to understand for layman. Unknown God is a bad analogy because Muslims and Jews explicitly deny that God is triune that is why it’s not the same God. Muslim woman that asked you how Christianity treats females, reminds me of C. S. Lewis , are we men or rabbits, do we choose our believes because they are true or because they are convenient, she will leave Christianity too if convenience is her priority. “Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”” So Jews thought he was claiming to have met Abraham.

Who the hell is Dwyer?

Man, I so desperately want to stay catholic, but Trent did such a lacking job of defending classical thomist foundationalist epistemology. I am beginning to think its untenable, and really being pushed east.

Trent is the ONLY Apologist that has explicitly and implicitly taken Jay to task with the far out notions that one MUST begin one's Apologetics presupposing EO Trinitarianism. That Abraham understood Yahweh to be the God declared in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. Or that planet Earth is 6,000 years old, and animal death or predation did not exist BEFORE the Edenic expulsion.

Jimmy, who as a long time friend of Trent's, is a very biased guest commentator opens his critique of Jay (Dwyer? who) Dyer by saying Jay uses big words. Huh? This is not an introductory level debate among and for newbs. This debate is among two experts of opposing positions who have been debating for a combined 40+ years. More than that, Trent's audience and Jay's have been exposed to these grad school level sources cited for years now. Again, Jimmy, this isn't just for the rabble pulled off the streets who watch and believe CNN all day.

Well Trent you know that when he was saying buzzwords like circular argument, fallacies, etc… He is trying to score points for his audience and deflect from acknowledging the arguments. He also interrupted you when you asked for clarification to activate your fight or flight response and not allow you to think.

21:00 I think you need to point out how irrelevant the rigid designator talk was. Jay meant that the same word can be used in different senses, his concern isn't with people using 'God' differently in different possible worlds!

I wish everybody would be passionate about rejecting 1sl4m.

EMJ's "Logos Rising" breaks down Greek philosophical development and their understanding of mind, reason, and being, then shows how the Catholic understanding of The Trinity solves the problems they ran into. Basically, he does what Jay tried to do, only didn't claim that you can't comprehend anything outside of the Orthodox view of God, but rather that the Catholic view provides the deepest and most complete understanding of God, reason, being, mind, etc. Highly recommend it.

An analogy to the difference between presuppositional and evidentiary is akin to deductive logic vs inductive. Deductive is far more powerful.

20:15

Yeah, Jay was pretty hard to listen to

You guys (Jimmy, Trent) seems to forget the fundamental things Dyer is hanging on.... That is this metalogic that excuse him for using circular argument. This is the basis of his presuppositionalism.

This is literally what I thought of the opening statement. However, I wasn't all that confident in my observation and so assumed he might just be really smart. I remember the process of conversion and realizing I couldn't listen to him defend EO anymore because it was often just a string of disjointed ideas of what he thought the EO was. I don't have a psychology degree to identify how it all fits together.

I absolutely love these debate breakdowns. I think presup is a very unfruitful way of debating. Here's a hilarious example James white trying presup in a tag team debate with Jeff Durbin against a pair of atheists. James white enrages the older atheist to the point of challenging him to drink antifreeze. James White said he was about to tell the demon to identify itself! 🤣 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-vx0rlVap194.html

Muhammadens god share only his supposed creatorship with the Christian God. Multiple pagan gods also share this attribute. Can it be considered that this one attribute is NOT sufficient to say they believe in the one true god?

Hey guys great show, I am writing this in good faith and in charity. I honestly can’t find a possible way to agree with you. Citing a pope and a catechism really doesn’t solve the problem for me but rather just makes two new problems as it seems impossible to hold to your position. I am not trying to be a rabble-rouser but here is my problem. The consistent mentioning of this acceptance of monotheism somehow = the one true God after the explicit revelation of Christ to the world I think is a total contraction because what I don’t hear in these analogies is the difference between an unknowing with a certain confusion due to the time in salvation history someone is living in or maybe a culture that comes to believe in one God through natural theology vs an explicit rejection of Christ therefore God. If your point is do they worship one God okay I mean sure but to say they worship our God? The Trinity in some confused way? While also rejecting Christ? This is impossible. During the debate the idea that “well did Moses understand Trinity?” came up as a defense of this position. We don’t know he if he had a conception of Trinity in his earthly life so at best, we have an argument from silence or just no verdict but at the Transfiguration it is somewhat clear Moses endorses Christ. Again, not knowing clearly vs rejecting are totally different things. Christ's own words deny the multiple road pathway to God. • John 14:6 Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me. • John 5:23 That all men may honour the Son, as they honour the Father. He who honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father, who hath sent him. • 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus. How can we possibly say we worship the same God as them when ours has made this impossible? Again, if we want to say monotheism, sure. To say they can worship the same God with us without the Trinity and Christ post** revelation is simply false. My question to that would be what would it take besides a monotheistic belief to rationalize that a different group worships the same God as us? Or better framed, how much of the revelation we possess can someone reject yet still be right? Muslims do not believe they worship the same God as us which just adds to the case that this position is untenable. Islam’s Quran opposes those “who say that God is the third of three” (5:73). A further passage declares that “we worship God alone; we ascribe no partner to Him, and none of us takes others beside God as lords” (3:64; similarly in 6:161-163). The Quran also says that God asked Jesus, “Did you say to people take me and my mother as two gods alongside God?” Jesus then denied this (5:116). In this conversation you cited Aquinas as if he agrees with your position, I would like to see this, the only response from the Angelic Doctor I have seen, which I am sure you are familiar with, “On the contrary, he [Muhammad] perverts almost all the testimonies of the Old and New Testaments by making them into fabrications of his own, as can be seen by anyone who examines his law. It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity. It is thus clear that those who place any faith in his words believe foolishly.” I will wrap up here if we want to reject Christ’s teachings, Islam’s own teachings, Aquinas and just basic common sense about the laws of non-contradiction and the impossibility of rejecting such a fundamental component of our beliefs then sure I guess you can say we worship the same God as Muslims. I reject that position as they reject Christ as Lord and God.