Jeff & Sye | The Basis of Apologetics 

Do you want more exclusive content from Apologia Studios? Subscribe to Apologia All Access for that, and more! From podcasts to live shows, seminary training to behind-the-scenes, All Access has it all! Click here for more info! www.apologiastudios.com/subscriptions

Any good book that you can recommend as a starter explaining presup-apologetics, and how to do it? you had me dead to rights at the 14:00 mark.

LOVE THIS!

Why does the video end abruptly mid conversation? Is the full clip posted somewhere? Can someone post it? Thanks

Excellent! Please keep the THE Work...RnMT

Lovin' it! Long live apologetics on RU-vid!

I love your ministry teaching! Please lose the background music. It’s distracting. Thank you for considering this respectful request.

What up guy's!!

How is the 'necessarily circularily' in assuming the uniformity of nature not a viable alternative to the 'necessary circularity' of the transcendental argument for the existence of God? Basically, how would one counter the argument that "God is the precondition of intelligibility" vs. "the uniformity of nature is a precondition of intelligibility"?

'You've got Socrates, Aristotle...' Couple of hundred years out there.

I’d love to see Sye attend a William Lane Craig talk and step up to the mic during Q&A. WLC is definitely brilliant and has done some great work, but he avoids statements like “Jesus is Lord”...which is the whole point.

What good source I can go to research christianity the origins and all?

The music in the background is distracting

Wife God example very good. Thanks

@ 6:23 I thought the guy on the left passed out. xD

Wouldn't you know - good ol' WLC releases a video within hours of this video being released where he attempts to calculate the intrinsic probability that some form of a deity exists and then the probability that the resurrection existed and actually occurred. It's definitely interesting and worth keeping in mind, but WLC appears to consistently downplay the total depravity of man. After watching a ton of his videos, it appears that he accepts the total depravity of man, but then thinks that some universal "prevenient grace" is given to everyone so that everyone is on morally neutral footing to believe in God of not. I really like WLC and believe that he is a brother in Christ, but man....so much of the methodology fundamentally denies that regeneration precedes faith.

How does this not work equally well for every other religion out there? If you start out by presupposing the divine revelation of the Quran, the Pyramid Texts, the Vedas, etc., you can just as easily claim that the Christian can't "account" for the existence of truth without presupposing Allah, Ma'at, Brahman, etc. and say that the Christians is morally deficient for not believing in Allah, Ma'at, Brahman, etc.. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

Hey can one of guys debate Joe Rogan?

An Apologetics for The Elect. On Calvinism, the only people that Presuppositional Apologetics can have a positive result for is "The Elect" who have ALREADY been regenerated. No one else can and will be given the gift of faith to believe.

From the video description...."Jeff Durbin and Sye Ten Bruggencate talk about the basis of Christian apologetics and why it is the only rational position that can justify things like the laws of logic". At no time in the video did i hear a justification for the laws of Logic. Frankly, these guys don't know what they're talking about. It's trivially easy for an atheist to make sense of the laws of logic. Lets take the Law of Identity for example, A=A, a thing is what it is and is not what it is not. What we have here is a statement, A=A, and that to what the statement refers. What the statement refers to is that things are what they are, and that it is impossible for something to not be what it is. It is this impossibility for things to not be what they are that makes the statement A=A absolute and universal. That's what this law of logic is all about and what makes it absolute and therefore a law, the impossibility for things to be not what they are. That's all that's needed to explain what this law of logic is all about, what atheists can appeal to about it, and how no God is needed to justify it.

Arminians hav Ravi and Calvinsts have Sye 😔

I am a mathematician and find it bizarre that anyone can think the laws of logic require a supernatural basis. All systems of logic and related formal systems (ie mathematics in general) are derived from axioms that are consistent and non contradictory. The systems to which these axioms give rise have to conform to logical rules that are based on the axioms. While mathematical systems are useful in science and have a remarkable success in describing the natural world they are all man made constructs and do NOT depend on God, Allah, Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti monster. I have heard this form of the apologetic transcendental argument many times and most atheists find it bewildering and mathematicians just find it facile and ignorant. If you want people to believe in God, you will need to offer something more tangible, defensible and verifiable than just scrabbling around and saying without God you can't explain X. With X being logic, life, the universe, morality, the meaning of life or the price of fish, you have nothing to substantiate any of it. Stop offering up empty arguments and either offer real evidence or admit you are defending fairy stories.

“Fear of the lord is a beginning of knowledge. In Christ is hidden all the treasure of wisdom and knowledge”. It says in the Bible that knowledge belongs to Christ. Therefore you dear atheist can’t use knowledge (meaning I don’t listen to your reasoning). Therefore I win. Ha ha ha god exist. What sort of bullish argument is that!? No Me Sye. You can’t assume bible is true to proof god. Same way an atheist cannot assumes that “God does not exist” in order to disprove God. In order to use bible as authority you should first prove that god exist and your god is the true god. Second the Bible is word of your god. And third nothing in bible is untrue. Humans lives thousands of years before Christ and the had knowledge and wisdom. This is good enough to proof your bible is false and therefore your god does not exist

Fail. You argue a straw man of classical apologetics. WLC is not classical. Francis Turretin was classical. Bavinck was classical. All of the Westminster divines were classical. All of the reformed scholastics were classical theists and apologists and They all believed men were dead in sin. You conflate apologetics with the gospel. Only in the modern age after Kant did people feel the need to ground objective certainty in the revelation of scripture rather than the revelation Of God in nature. You pit these two things against each other. It’s God’s nature!!! How about honoring God in the fact that he revealed himself in natural revelation. Things are ontologically things outside of our minds despite whether people believe it or not. This grounds our claim of absolute truth needed to make absolute truth claims. You can’t even read the ink blots on the page of the Bible without all sorts of assumptions to even read about the true God. All truth is Gods truth and to say that you must presuppose the Triune God of scripture to know anything denies the universal claim of the Christian truth since the 1st century. Arguing the antithesis existed LONG before Van Til in the form of the classical apologetics’ reductio ad adsurdum. You also say you presuppose Gods revelation therefore you use presupp. Natural revelation is Gods revelation. Not many should be teachers lol.

Atheism does not have to make any positive claims for itself. All us atheists need to do is to show how theism is harmful and illogical. You theists are the ones who need to make positive claims for your position, though it is a futile effort. There is no need nor any evidence for a theistic god.