Presuppositional Apologetics | The Transcendental Argument for God

0:00 Tag. You're it. Hey, that's that's the if you're just trying to be cool in apologetic circles, just just say tag transcendental argument for God, I guess. Yes, transcendental argument for God. I didn't even know that they had that and I was asking some questions back and forth with chat and it I said transcendental argument and then it came back with tag and I was like is this a common? Thing like the lingo, all the kids are all the new apologetics. Cool kids are just, you know, tag and we've covered this in, you know, a previous episode, but this will be good through maybe closer to precept and you can give your insight like, hey, this is like exactly the same.

0:44 It's different, you know, the the nuances, maybe it's the exact same. We'll we'll kind of get into it today and then at the end of the episode, I think this might be helpful. Talk about the Sproul Bonson debate, specifically the concerns in the beginning of this debate. Sproul was like, love you Bonson. Here's 7 or 9. There's a bunch here. I got a list of concerns. This is what concerns me about precept and went through them. Some were big, some were small, but I think they're helpful as we and we've kind of discussed some of these. I have a list of concerns too that I compiled me and I was like, here are my concerns. I was I was asking chat what are some other concerns that people listen? So I wonder how much that they'll. Overlap maybe? Yeah.

1:24 How much you speak like Sperle? I love it. Well, let's go ahead and take it to the next level. Let's fire up that twanga music. From the hearts of the Low Country in South Carolina. It's the Take Two podcast, but we take theology to the next level. If God does not exist, you cannot prove anything at all. That's not like a preceptor. It does. I gotta be like on the street preaching and like yelling. I think that that is basically true. You I I think that there are other systems potentially like Platonism might be able to make a claim that we can ground logic. I don't know that their system.

2:12 I think their system fails for other reasons. But in that specific area. It doesn't make sense to me that there's the form of a, a triangle out there and it's the most trianglest triangle that there ever is 'cause there's also on this idea there's a form of an air fryer out there and it's the most air fryer that an air fryer can be. It is the very, it has the most air fryerness that's there. It's like everything that exists it it is basically bringing down a form. So I only reason I say that is even though I don't believe Platonism, I think you might be overstating your case if you're saying that that that Christianity is the only system that could ground logic.

2:57 Islam can probably ground logic. OK, yeah, you know what I'm saying? Like an authority and you know a preceptor might say not only I mean in the vein of you can't prove anything at all. You can't prove science, you can't prove logic, not morality. You can't even say the statement God doesn't exist and that you know they would ground this is this is what the Bible this biblical worldview, this this is the reality based on this transcendental arguments. I'll. Try not to say too much. Oh, it's good. But Chiman. Yeah, Chiman it. Seems like maybe you know 'cause this is we're arguing for in and you might put this argument into a syllogism. Like if God does not exist, then logic does not exist. Logic does does exist, therefore God exists. I don't know why the ID method per Paul Frank gives you a probable God.

3:55 And and I, I wanna say, is it we, we should get I need to look this up. Is it Paul Taylor? Oh, am I saying Frank the whole time? Yeah, we, we, we've got back and forth a. Little bit Sorry, it's Paul. Frank Taylor. Paul. Frank, there's go. So we're we're all right. That's right. Oh man, I I now you should have corrected me earlier in the last. One I know, I just thought about it. Now, Yeah, yeah, yeah. Paul Taylor. Paul Taylor. So I need to put like a little flash on our previous episode. Paul Taylor. Yeah, Paul Taylor. That's good. But Paul Taylor would say that that these other, well, he he specifically said this. Sorry, I know I'm already derailing. It hey, he wrote this guy wrote a a thesis state a a a whole research paper on this book. And that was only halfway done. I've added more to it since then.

4:36 It's going on Goodreads, so you'll you I'll, I'll eventually share it with you. But he says he makes a statement that the Kalam cosmological argument only proves the God of the philosophers, not the God of the Bible. He does not have the attributes of the God of the Bible and therefore it is an idolatrous God. And the Kalam cosmological argument is sinful to give that argument. How is that different than this argument, the transcendental argument? You're not going to find that this God. Is a you necessarily have to. Have all the attributes of the God of the Bible. So it's just, it's just crazy to me. I think you could take this argument and you could say, you know the Old Testament.

5:22 You don't get all of the attributes of God in the Old Testament and therefore the Old Testament proves a blast. It's blasphemous 'cause it proves a it's like no one, no one really thinks that way. I have a moth land on me, but no one, no one thinks that way. So and so this is will cut against the the tag argument as well. But there you. I like that. Well, with that being said, let's jump into it and let's take it to the next level. Bam bam bam bam. Did we already take it the next? We already took it to the next level. Well, let's, let's, let's take it to even higher level. I'm just blindly, you know, running along here. 'Cause I wrote that in there to remind us to take it to the next.

6:03 Level. I guess it's better to do it twice than not at all. Let's jump. Do you want to run through the description passages or do you want to jump to what is tag? Maybe we should talk about what is tag and then it's great come back. You want to do that? Let's do. That 'cause you've already kind of set that up a little bit. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So transcendental argument, I think we talked about it. Most of the time it's given in a. Let's see if I can remember this modus tollens or. Modus ponens. Oh, I remember us talking about it now. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So I I can't remember which one's which I should, but one of them, the classical argument is P, then QPQ. Nice. I think that's modus ponens. I think that's right.

6:47 You should you should tell me Modus. We'll just go with that. The opposite is not Q, not P. Pardon me? Yeah, let's see. Yeah. If not Q, then not PPQ. OK, So what we're saying is, and that's most of the time we give it in that phrase. So like the the the moral argument will say that if God does not exist, then objective moral duties and obligations do not exist. OK, yeah, I gotcha. But objective moral duties and obligations do exist. That's right.

7:27 Therefore I. See. That's good. And that's the same form for the tag. If you know knowledge logic, you could put that in there. You know if God does not exist, logic does not exist. Logic exists, therefore God exists. OK, gotcha. That is essentially the transmental argument that God is the necessary foundation that makes reasonable reasoning possible in the 1st place. We talked about Cornelius van 'til. I love people that have three names like, you know, they're important. Greg Bonson talks about a lot, a lot really, that that's the foundation, the precondition for logic, science, morality, knowledge. We talked about this last week.

8:13 It's not saying here's evidence, therefore God exists. This is trying to argue without God you wouldn't even have evidence, logic or reasoning in the first place. The internal critique method. Now keep going right? Yeah, so a pre supper might say that. They might say, I haven't given you evidence that God exists, but you have. You're calling him out, you're saying? You're, you're saying, hey, look, just like I was saying in the last episode, like they're pointing out like, hey, look at this, this thing right here, it's declaring the glory of God is telling us more about God. This is evidence that God exists.

8:54 Look, here's logic. It's and, and I, I have no problem with that. Just don't get on to me from saying here's the beginning of the universe. It had to have something that caused it. Here's fine tuning in the universe, here's morality. You know, those type of things. Let's talk the internal critique method. So they probably wouldn't say today I'm going to prove Christianity to you. They're actually going to ask you can your worldview actually explain reality anyway? And, and, and really the goal is what we talked about a lot is just try trying to show where it collapses, where it's inconsistent. Show them their worldview. It is bad. What? And then what they would say is we're not going to adopt this worldview.

9:36 We're going to expose it essentially. So for example, an atheist might say only science gives truth. They might say, is that statement scientifically proven or is that a philosophical assumption? And and so they're, they're just trying to ask these questions to reveal inconsistency. Next, if you listen to any of these debates, we love to talk laws of logic. Are you gonna jump in with something? Different. I was just trying to find out where you were in the notes so I could follow along with you. Where? Where? I'm in Section 3, the three pillars of tag. OK, gotcha. Gotcha, gotcha. Sorry. The laws of logic so and this comes up in the bots and debate. They talk about them being universal, unchanging and abstract or not, not physical.

10:18 And and this is like the exact thing Botson goes to the law of non contradiction. You know, a is not equal to non A essentially, is this a prompt for atheism? They would say, yes. You know, if reality is only matter, if it's only particles in motion, then how do we account for these immaterial, universal, abstract, unchanging laws? Where where do these things come from? And so they'll ask questions like, you know, are is logic physical? Is it cultural? Is a personal preference. Where do you run into trouble? Listen, listen. I've listened to some of these debates and if they don't like, if you can't, if you can't agree on this, then it is real. It's really you're not going anywhere. Yeah, If I were an atheist, I might say something like this to to counter the. If I if I was like put in the atheist seat, I might say something like.

11:06 The fact that there is being that something exists indicates that we have to have something like the. So the three laws of logic are the law of identity. I can say what something is and it is that like a is. A Yep, makes sense. The law. Of non contradiction, a is not not A and the law of excluded middle, like for a well defined property, either you're a or not a. You're not something in the middle. That's right. There's no Yeah, that's right. Yeah. So those are the three laws of logic and those kind of come into the fact if anything exists, you have to have that because you can't have both existence and not like you can't say, you know, Aristotle is famous for designing truth, for defining truth as to say of what is that it is to say of what is not that is not that is true. To say of what is that it is not or to say of what is not that it is that is false.

12:05 You know, just a basic definition that true means that something reflects reality. OK, that makes sense. So an atheist might come back and say that and then I would just say great. So that being has what you know, what caused the being to to be there. Like when I say being, I don't mean I mean existence itself has has to be around Parmenides would say a being existence itself can either come into existence or go out of existence. To come into existence, something would have had been there to start it. It can't go out of existence. So cause for it to go out of existence, something has to be causing it to go out of existence. And of course, the next great philosopher, what's her name, she sings in Sound of Music.

13:00 I can't. Remember, I can't believe. Julie Andrews, she sings, you know, nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever will. So she picks up on Parmenides there. That's that's the funny part. But I messed it up by not remembering her name. So anyways, so this is This is why I think a preceptor might just say this and walk away. And I'm like, there's more conversation to be had here about 'cause. I, I, I think you're right, 'cause I've listened to a lot of preceptors, like, argue on this and that's exactly it. They, they really do focus on this, you know, unchanging, universal, that that's really what they're beating at Trump versus like everything you just said.

13:40 And I agree with, I agree with them. I'm not saying that I don't disagree with it. But it's like one of those things like you, you can't expect you to say something and the other person just to put down their arms and say, yeah. Oh, I take you at face value, right? Yeah, That that makes sense. Next area, The uniformity of nature. I've heard this get hit on a lot. That that really. Science assumes that what happens in the future will be like the past. Gravity's still gonna work today. It's gonna work tomorrow. Physics don't randomly change. So. So the problem is you. You want to expose This is why should that be true? If the universe is random, if it's unguided, if it's accidental, then why do you have this consistency?

14:23 Why do you expect the same thing to happen tomorrow? I agree that this is good. It's a good argument. I I also agree that this would give us a good indication that nuclear decay rates don't change over time. Oh, OK, there you go. There you go. There shots fired for the the young Earth creationists. Oh, and and you know, if they're trying to illustrate this, 'cause I you're getting 2 for one with Paul Taylor, right? Right. I mean, maybe there are, and I wonder if there are any old earth presuppers. I I would just assume that RC Sproul, I don't know RC Sproul's creationist view. I don't know if he's young Earth or old Earth. I don't know. Well, I know that there are young earth classical apologetics. I wonder if there are any old earth presuppers? That's what.

15:06 Oh, yeah, I see what you're saying. Yeah. Yeah. I'm trying to think. I don't know enough presuppers. Yeah, I don't find out. 'Cause I think you I the presupp presummers. I know they tend to have their young earth presub and Calvinist that like. All those three things go. Together. Yeah, Yeah, I, I think you might be right. And so on this science point, you know, you wouldn't expect to wake up tomorrow and gravity's reversing, fire's freezing or time runs backwards. Everyone would say that's absurd. You should be like, why is that so absurd? Like what? Why is there even consistency? Their answer is God is faithful. He's consistent, He sustains his creation in an orderly way. But you atheists, you really have no, no grounds for this next one. Moral absolutes.

15:49 People will say murder's wrong, racism is bad, justice matters. Probably talked about this before. In a godless universe, there's really no standard, only preferences or, you know, evolutions going to do its thing. So, so really at the end of the day, is morality objective? Is it binding on all people or is it subjective? Just a matter opinion. If it is objective, The classic question, by what standard? You gotta have a standard you're appealing to. The Christian would say God's character. It's not arbitrary. It's rooted in who God is. Any all good, all good. We're we're we're tracking, we're good. Let's move on to Section 4.

16:30 The impossibility of the contrary. Greg Bonson and one of his debates, one of his, his writing says the proof of Christianity is that without it, you couldn't prove anything. You're not just saying Christianity works, but that everything hinges. Everything else would fail without it. They really hinge in on, sorry, RC Sproul famously said that not only do I see the sun, but by the sun, I see everything through it. And I think this is what they're saying. And again, I, I think that you could, you could probably ground logic in a couple of other systems. I don't think those systems are good for other reasons. So you, you might, if, if you're giving this argument that Christianity, because we're changing words here, because above it was like God's existence. Now we're going straight to a particular version of God's existence.

17:32 And I don't know that you can make that leap just from logic alone. That's why we would say give good evidence that the Bible's trustworthy, that, you know, all those things, you know, Christ, you know, risen from the grave. You know, if, if a guy says he's going to die and comes back to life and then he does that, he's someone you should listen to, right? To start, so so to like recap some of these arguments of an atheist says there's no truth, preceptor might say, is that statement true? If an atheist say, hey, my worldview atheism is based on science, you might say why even trust science in a random universe? Lastly, an atheist might say morality is subjective. Preceptor would respond.

18:16 So you're saying genocide's not objectively wrong? I think the Holocaust was good, you know? Yeah, and these are the exact same things, I think those types of things I think a classical apologist does. All day long we try to reveal the the bad thinking that underlies atheism and the fact that to be a good consistent atheist, you have to say that the Holocaust or not the Holocaust is is ultimately is like picking vanilla or chocolate ice. Cream, it's just a preference. Yeah, that is crazy. Let's skip down to some of this Sprole Bahnson debate. I and I thought this debate was really good. And I think people people don't like to enter debates because I think they especially in this day and age, you think you're gonna look bad, get a social clip. But this debate was good.

19:06 Were they really we're able to like they in the cross examination they were able to talk back and forth a little bit like it was very friendly. I thought it was good positive learning I have. I need to relisten to this one, I need to relisten to both of the Bondsen ones 'cause it's probably been five years since I've listened to them, but we really studied them back in like I think I graduated 2018, so maybe like 2015, 2016, We've really studied them and I've listened to them a couple times since then. But yeah. Yeah, they're they're they're good. Bodson obviously is presub Van Till style RC sprawl this classical evidential approach. They both at the outset would talk about, you know, we have firm biblical authority believe Christianity is rational, reject neutrality in a total sense, kind of like what you're you're like I agree with all these things, but they differ in how you would argue for Christianity, what role human reason place Bodson this Presub position.

20:02 We've hit these No neutrality exists. All reasoning starts with presuppositions. Presuppositions #2 God is the precondition for intelligibility, logic, science. Morality only makes sense of Christianity is true #3. Again, yeah. And I, I wonder if you know, because it says God up top and Christianity in the sub bullet. And that's a leap to me, 'cause there's there's a classical Christianity would say, a classical apologetics would say that is another step to get from theism to Christianity. So you're just noticing 'cause we that's been a, a few of this year #3 they would use that tag transitional argument for God to show that these other non Christian worldviews collapse internally.

20:48 And then they would reject autonomous human reason that your reason must be submitted to God's revelation because you could be on the wrong. I mean, you know, if you're not, you'll be on the wrong track. So Sprole his his core point, he he made the argument that there is this form of functional neutrality. Maybe there's not moral neutrality, you know, AKA Romans one, but you can have a thought experiment, you can have this rational common grounds if. If you couldn't, how could you talk? With anyone there, you can't. Yeah, yeah. And that, that's good. He really harped on natural theology we read about in the Bible. He was like, and what I loved is that Sproull was like, hey, you ever heard of John Calvin? Like just knowing that like hits a nerve with with he's like, he's like, let me quote John Calvin for you for a little bit. And he like had his like, quote his, you know, citations ready 'cause I was like, where is that? You know, like, you know, trying to look at that where Romans 1 supports the arguments for from creation. When you look at these other arguments outside of the transitional argument, cosmological argument, the teleological argument, those are legitimate as well because the presub camp like dismisses all of these other ones. Like they they say, I don't know if it's flawed, but they're like it has been shown like and like it's like been debunked. He might have even said debunked. I don't know if he said that, but you know what I mean? Like says like, oh, those have been, and it might not have been Sprole Bonson, but Bonsenstein.

22:14 He might have just been conceding that being like, hey, I agree. Those have been, I think Stein said debunked. But but you know, Bonson was like, hey, I'm right there with you, man. Yeah, yeah, it's kind of interesting, right? Sprole says. Using evidence and reason to point to God is good that Christianity's not just presupposed, but you can demonstrate it, you can look out and see it. And unbelievers can also reason truly, maybe not perfectly, because they they're made in God's image. That counts for something. Right. Yeah, it seems like they pre suppers want to take like little slices here but then take the other slice there like you know what I'm saying?

22:54 Yeah, I I see what you're saying. Yeah, they're not consistent in what they're doing. I was just going to read, you know, Well, Thomas's Doubting is a. Big. Oh yeah, that was it. Plays a big. Role in Paul Frank Taylor's book and I think it comes to the wrong conclusion on that. This is good like. Thomas's doubting is unreasonable doubting. He has been given like guess what, he was given evidence, eyewitness account of people seeing Jesus resurrected from the dead and he saw Jesus's miracles. And when he does, when he is confronted with Jesus, the person, he, I don't even know that he actually does like Jesus says, here's my hands, here's my side.

23:39 And he just falls down his feet and he says, you know, my Lord, my God, the very next verse, John says many more things Jesus has done. And you know, we couldn't contain the count of them. But these have been written so that you may believe, right? John's given evidence right now. I think a preceptor would say, well, he's given evidence that I don't know what that Jesus is true, but you would never he, you'd never give evidence that God exists. Oh, that's interesting. Yeah, yeah. If they would make yeah that. Hyper the distinction between those yeah yeah but I just say that to say like the whole Bible is evidence Jesus when that's. A form of evidence.

24:20 That's good, yeah. Yeah, when the the paralytic man is brought down, he turns to him and I, I just love you know what you these pictures you get of Jesus, 'cause you know, he's just poking and the Pharisees and he's like your son, your sins are forgiven. And he just kind of waits around looking, knowing that, that the and he's like, why are you grumbling in your heart? And he says, what's easier to do, to say your sins are forgiven or to say rise up and walk? And it's 1 is easy to say but hard to do. 1 is hard to do but easy to say. But he says, but so that you guys can believe that the Son of man has authority to forgive sins in heaven on earth, I say to you, rise up and walk. And so he's given evidence like he's he is, he's not just. Saying only believe, right, Right, right. Yeah, yeah.

25:16 I'm giving you evidence. So all the miracles, tongues, all all that stuff, evidence that we can believe. That's great. Let's talk about is there any neutral ground? This was a point of disagreement in there debate. Bahnson is totally on the path of neutrality is a myth. All reasoning is worldview driven. Sprole's kind of like, well, we we can't have this shared rational arena 'cause if we couldn't, we can't argue with unbelievers at all. Just I mean, we like we, we like only have gospel conversations and that's the only thing you can have. Which begs the question, what what's the role of human reason? What's the point of human reason? Botsa kind of rejects autonomous reason and says, you know, you'll look at classical evidential apologetics.

26:01 You're you're given too much, you're given too much to human thinking because man has fallen. Like, what can you expect? Essentially? Sprole agrees. Reason has fallen, but and we're in God's image there. There's things we can use. It's valid, it's usable, and he's concerned that if you take a precept view at at some level, if you don't, even if you don't believe it, you can sound like you're undermining rational argument in of itself 'cause you're not. You're like refusing to engage. If if you're a hyper Calvinist. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And you believe that you get I'll use it pejoratively. I know I'm, I'm poking at you a little bit, but if you believe people get zapped and regenerated and that regeneration happens before faith chronologically, so you're zapped and then sometime later in your life you come to faith, then I guess you're OK with this.

26:56 Because when you're given the gospel, you are reasoning with people and you are asking them to make a judgement about their sin, their guilt, who Christ is. You cannot get around reasoning with people. And I I guess if you're a hyper Calvinist, you don't have to give the gospel anyways. Right. You don't you don't have to you don't have to evangelize, but for us good, the correct normal Calvinist who believe that God works sovereignly through both. He works through means to accomplish his sovereign end, then you are going to be reasoning with someone. So I think this just cuts too far.

27:38 Like they say it and they think they're sounding sounding, saying something good, but it it's, it's not if, if what they're saying is true, then you can't, can't give the gospel out 'cause you're asking people to reason. Another point of disagreement, you know, can you prove God or only or, or do you presuppose God? Bahnson would say God must be presupposed. That's the foundation. Sproul would say You can't argue for God's existence. Evidence logic point to and and underneath that Sproul was concerned that a pre supper, it can really just sound like we assume God. We don't argue for him. We just assume him. We're not going to say anything. And he wanted some of these arguments like we've talked about in previous episode, to be accessible to to unbelievers. And if you're just not going to talk about these, it's like they're just not there, you know what I mean? Yeah, it's hard for me to go from three to to four. We don't prove God, we presuppose him. The transcendental argument for God is the ultimate proof of that God exists.

28:39 Yeah, yeah, I, I, I know what you're saying. And it's like, that's the, that's like the one argument they'll hang their hat on. Sproul likes like you, the traditional argument. But he does question, you know, sometimes. He's basically saying there's other arguments you can use, you know? Yeah. And I think what Sproul points out here is the fact that when we're talking like this, you use a transcendental argument to try to say that people know God exist and what? But in practice, when you use it, you yes, this is you are you are saying that therefore God does exist, not therefore you know God exists.

29:19 And those are different statements. And that kind of leads to this main concerns that your arguments can sound very circular. You must believe in God to prove God and it can feel like question begging. It can be unpersuasive at the no one, no one likes. Same thing with Paul Frank Taylor's book. You know all he would say. All of the evidence looks like it's points to evolution when you're an evolutionist. OK, I guess it's OK to be an evolutionist because they don't see anything wrong with the evidence, right? There, there, there you go. Spro was also concerned that it it your natural revelation is there. You're totally downplaying it. Even though you affirm Romans 1 presuppers, you're not utilizing these natural theology arguments and and there's missed opportunities everywhere you look.

30:08 There is a reason you you're able to reason from creation to creator that that's a big part of natural revelation. He's also concerned that it makes Christians seem anti intellectual if misunderstood. It can be like evidence doesn't matter, reason doesn't work and it's like we don't want to be. We don't want to be like in that camp. Yeah, Ken Ham specifically said I am no longer going to provide evidence that creation is true. I'm just going to try to shotgun your worldview, your presuppositions. I'm going to say that your presuppositions are bad. And you, if you start with the right presuppositions, then you'll you'll end up the right spot.

30:48 That's like that's. Yeah. Is that super? Helpful. That's not helpful. And and it leads to something that that Sprole really was concerned about. It risked miscommunication and evangelism that you can make it inaccessible. You can like shut down conversations. That could be you're just going to, you're not throwing out of these seats. You're just like, boom, boom, boom. Yes, Sir, you know. Yeah, yeah, there. You know, Harold, camping people would. They would try to rile him up, they'd call him call up and say, Hey, what, what must I do to be saved? And he would say, I can't tell you what to do to be saved. That's a sovereign work of God in your heart. And so and and I mean, I think he's being consistent with his hyper Calvinism. So if you're a hyper Calvinist, then it doesn't really matter if you miscommunicating the evangelism or not. You don't have to be winsome, which, you know, at the end of end of his book, Paul Frank Taylor's book, he talks about being winsome.

31:41 Why you had to be winsome. Just if God is going to just, you know, without means save people, you don't have to worry about this. But if, if you're not a hyper Calvinist, then all these things do matter. You do want to clearly communicate the gospel. I, you know, not that I think I, I do think God is sovereign in who's going to believe. So I don't think that I'm going to stop someone from entering the Kingdom, but man, I could be a stumbling block to them from being a Kingdom, right and and cause more heartache and, you know, not be a good faithful servant to to Christ if I'm not clearly communicating so. No, I, I, I think, I think all of that is good.

32:24 And really I think that that's where a good place to end. Yeah, Talk a lot of priests up. Got it out there. I think we did a good job of articulating what they, but I think most preceptors, maybe they don't appreciate all the push back. But I think we like, I'm saying buzzwords that I, I mean, and I'm not the expert, but made all the videos watching, it's like they're saying these exact kind of things. Yeah, yeah. And at least when I bought the book, it was on sale for like $2.50. So you can get only believe at least a couple weeks ago for like 2, two, 2 1/2 bucks. So perhaps it's still on sale. You can get it an audible list to it. It's not a long read. It's like 4 hours, four and. 1/2 And really the goal is to some people might say Bonson is inaccessible.

33:12 It's really there to be like, hey, here's like an on ramp or, you know, really understand, 'cause sometimes you can read Bonson be like or Van Till and be like, I don't know what you're talking about. Well, there, yeah. It's like, I don't know, like Hegel comes along after Kant and philosophy and like there's different types of Hegelians after him. Like there's like two different camps and Karl Marx is in one of those camps and 'cause there's they just disagree on what he was saying. And I think from what I understand, there's two different Van Till camps too. Like they're like, they're like, that's not what Van Till meant. Like, Oh yes, it is. So yeah. To be fair, I've not read a Van Till book. I've not read a Bonson book.

33:56 I've listened to Bonson. I may I don't know if we have any recordings of Vantil. It seems like we did play a recording of Vantil in in that class, but it I I could be wrong, it was a long time ago. That's great. Even listening to like these old debates, which I think the Bonds and Stein ones like from like 1985 or something, it's not that old, but it's like the audio and stuff like it just sound. It sounds really old. It's not that old, but sound it's I'm like what? What? I was like what year was this on what? Was y'all not thinking ahead and trying to preserve this for posterity? Like get a good digital camera there with like 4K, you know? Yeah. What are Yeah, what are we doing here? It's like that's yeah, that's and that's only 1985. That's like not that long ago. It just seems like it's a long time. It's like it is it's. 40 years ago. We're like, you know, you see these things where you're like, we're closer to 19, seven, you know, you know, it's like we're farther away from that than this. We're like, oh, time is like does not slow down. I know it's crazy.

34:52 It is crazy. Man, well, good. I think this is a great time to transition. Some of us were born in the late 1900s. I know that's that's insane. Yeah, that's very true. Well, let's let's get to the our final take here. Oh yeah, you heard about Jade and Ivy? I heard about it, yeah. Yeah. I didn't really look into all the details, but from what I heard, it seemed like not a great, not a great situation. It's it the way it was painted to me or what I read was like this guy's a he believer. He tweeted something, hurry, I don't remember what he said. And then he was like, released by the Bulls. Yeah. And and it was like, I don't know how good a basketball player he is. Like, is he, is he good enough that he shouldn't have been released? Or is he like so so and like? We don't need the controversy.

35:34 I don't know. I don't follow the Easter. I mean, I don't follow basketball closes. I I used to he he. Posted Sorry. He posted a video on Instagram Live criticizing the NBA support of the LGBTQ community and Pride Month, labeling it as unrighteous. It was a 42 minute video. He discussed his religious beliefs and claimed God did not create men to be with men or woman to be with a woman. The Bulls, who had just required acquired Ivy from Detroit in February, cited conduct detrimental to the team for his release. So they just traded for him and released them. He's one of those guys he was supposed to be good. Like I think he was a high lottery pick, like four or five or seven overall.

36:20 And I think he was like he was kind of, he was fine. He wasn't, he wasn't great, but I think they're, I mean, he has some athletic ability if you're picked that high. So I I don't follow him too closely, but I feel like that that's the one topic you like don't talk about. Oh yeah, you can't. I mean, John Morant like has Instagram videos, multiple of him, like holding a gun, you get suspended for a few games, you're back, but it's like kind of crazy that that's like, you know, I mean, that's not tolerated by NBA, but by comparison, it is like it is kind of a it's like multiple times he has a gun out. It's like, what are what? Are we doing so Trayvon Henderson? Man, I like this guy despite him being from Ohio State. Oh man, that's tough to get over. But yeah.

37:03 It is tough. He's. A patriot. And he's a patriot. Strikes, man, that's very tough. But man, just a believer, I think. I've been. I've talked. About them before I think. Like he had this video out about like, hey, I was in sexual sin and couldn't keep going and I had to tell my my girlfriend at the time, who now is his wife. Like we can't keep doing this. Like I got to anyone who's going to be like that vulnerable in a society that you say that's crazy. Like I think he's the real deal. You know, I don't know why he would. Yeah, I mean, obviously I don't I don't know him well enough to really know, but all indications are. So he came out in in in support of Ivy and and tweeted us like, you know, then retweeted and was, you know, saying basically. That and a lot of other Patriots were getting on board, coaching staff in particular.

37:57 Oh, wow. Well, I don't know about the I think there are other believers. I don't know how he got on board. But then Mike Vrabel was asked. And did you hear what? He said no, I didn't hear what? He said, Oh, yeah. So Mike Vrabel basically said, yeah, you know, I like Henderson. He's a young guy. I'm paraphrasing, so this is not a direct quote, so I might get it. And he's like, yeah, we want people to believe what they want to believe, but yeah, we need to school them up to be more inclusive when, you know, in media. So basically he's saying Henderson needs to learn to be more inclusive with. His I know where this is going and that makes that insane. Yeah, because, like, wait a minute, are you inclusive of Henderson's beliefs? Like, you know, there's, there's probably been a lot for me to get ticked off at the Patriots that I haven't.

38:43 But like, this really has put a sour taste in my mouth over Brabel. Like it's like there. But nothing else happened with April, which was good. It just stopped there, right? So two days later, I think it was like literally 2 days later. Bad timings. Incredible. He gets caught with a picture holding hands with some other married woman and he's a married guy. Man, it's like, you know, it's like. God, putting the spotlight on immorality like you going to, you're going to call out this guy and this is what? You're doing. That's crazy. So. What had the Patriots said anything at this point? What's? The Vrabel released a statement. He said he wanted to talk to the team. He said I had a long time. This woman was random or was she affiliated with the team or anything?

39:24 I can't. I don't know. Why don't you look that up on him? My, my, the back of my mind says she was some type of reporter. But I could be wrong. That could be like totally wrong, but he said he wanted to talk to the team first. And I guess they're kind of. She, yeah, she worked for The Athletic, but it led to her resigning. She's probably forced to resign from The Athletic, the sports publication. She was some type of. Reporter So I'm sorry about that. Yeah. So, yeah, just. He said he wanted to talk. And he said that he, he released a statement. You know, it was one of those very vanilla like, you know, I value family and stuff.

40:08 And I've had some tough conversations with the team and with my family members and, you know, so. Yeah, that's crazy that it is interesting that she. Yeah, I guess, man, that is insane. I wonder what press coverage has she written on the Patriots or what was her area like I was. Wondering it it is such like a a disgusting. Yeah. Set of events for me, it's like I haven't dove into it and I've been busy like we talked about them. Yeah, yeah. Last weeks podcast. Man, that is. And the crazy thing, I think this is going to be like second week of May when this hits.

40:48 So we're really going to be removed when this when this airs because we're trying to get a little bit ahead for the summer. But yeah. Yeah, I really wonder what's the do you know what the not maybe not blowback, but the response has been are people like most people like man, hypocrite, inconsistent or they're like, hey, people just have different views. Like it's fine. Like, are people like no big deal? I I on the the patriots link that I saw where he posted his views, the comments were we still love you coach. Just keep coaching. Well, it's just the same. It's like the same thing from, you know? Yeah, it seems like the whole whole culture's that way.

41:31 It's so funny. I was at a work meeting last week. Like we had a bunch of like, my boss came to town and she like manages South Carolina now, but she also made it like our New England footprints. And it just is like so different in New England. Like she was like telling a story about like we were talking about like dress code. Like, oh, you know, what are people you know to work? What are we allowed to wear? And she's like, Can you believe it? Like someone like we allow people to wear like whatever they want as long as they look professional. Like we don't have strict rules. We used to have strict rules like khakis and like now you can wear scrubs as long as it looks nice T-shirt. She's like, well, we had someone they wore AT shirt that says like that said like God's got this or something and they're like, boy, it was like the worst thing in the world. And we were all kind of like like there were like so many patient complaints.

42:17 Everyone was calling and it was huge things like everywhere she went for patience. Terrible. I was like, if you wear that hair, like you get like brownie points, like, you know, it's like it's like a whole different a. Whole different thing. Because even if you don't like if you, you can probably find a few here, but the average person, even if they're not religious, if you said something like, hey, can I pray for you? Or they'd be like, sure, you can pray for me. I don't care. Like they're not going to be offended at it. Like, 'cause there's still at least you know, enough in the culture that yeah. It is it is crazy like I and they all kept talking about things. It's like we would like never. And it's like, hey, like I've been it's so funny. Like for these, you know, you walk around the different assisted livings. I've been at places and they're like, hey, Zach, you go to church, pray for our lunch or whatever, or you know what I mean?

43:01 It's like a it's like a thing that like, and it's like older people too, where it's like we pray for everything and all these things too, where they like she was like, I cannot believe you, you. You it would. It would. It would be. It would. Be like, you could even pray. It's so generic too. It's not even, it's like. I know. I wonder she should wear a shirt that says Allah's got this and. See with social experiment, yes. What's your take on this Allah? You know, Allah is just the word that they. Use for God. So Coptic, like Egyptian Christians, they pray to Allah because that's the word, that's their word and their language for God. So but you know, for us, if someone says a law, it's like, oh, you're definitely Muslim, you're in Islam. Yeah, yeah.

43:55 Yeah, I don't. Yeah, we have I've. So could you could could you as a Christian wear a shirt that says Allah has got this and be OK? Or do you think you know? Yeah, I, I probably would not. I probably would have to like fully commit to like whatever, whatever language you know, and just like have it like straight one way. Yeah, I, I, I, I, I would. I wouldn't. I wouldn't love it. For me. Yeah, for me. Yeah, yeah. What about Thor's? Got this. No, I wouldn't like that. Well, I'm saying she could wear that. Oh yeah, it's probably fine. Probably like totally fine, yeah, probably good. Probably celebrated. Zeus has got this. Yeah, yeah, I know.

44:35 It's like, it's one of those things, it's like. And God is so generic. So generic like what? Yeah. Brahma's got this, Vishnu's got this. Yeah, You know, it was just like such a, it was one of those things like, wow, it is like a different, the word that was like a huge like HR violent. Like it went all the way up the chain. It was like a big deal. And it's like down here, like, not just way different, you know? Yeah. So you can wear anything, but not that. Yeah, yeah, really. Well, they made it really like you can't wear like graphic Tees or words. It's just got to be like, you wear a black T-shirt if you want to, or you know, you can wear a polo, but try not to wear things that have words on it, so. You couldn't wear a shirt for The Beatles.

45:15 Yeah, there you go. Fox, what are you gonna do? There you go. Well, that that was this is that wraps a precept. Yeah, I think you had another tab there, but I think, I mean they don't want to hear me diatribe in on precept for three episodes. That's just yeah, make our whole podcast I I love it. Who knows what our next series is? Oh, I think you do know what? Maybe 1. I don't know if it comes after this or comes on the other day. I think it'll come after this. Yeah. I think I'm gonna do just a short one on spiritual warfare. It's good I. Don't know what I don't know what I was listening to, but I was like, we need to do a podcast on spiritual warfare. And this is like when we were deep in the middle of a cult. And it's so funny to me because starting with the Catholic one, the the, the Mary and prayer to the Saints, we're like, this is probably our last one.

46:06 And then we do one on each emotional docks and we're like, it's probably our probably our last. One, we just are glutton for punishment. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. No, I think it was even, I think, no, I think it was even worse 'cause we did the one on authority. We said with our next ones, we're going to be the last one, and then we did the one on the authority and we're like, yeah, this is probably the last one. And then Eastern Orthodox, probably the last one. And then Amish. But we at, at the point in time we did the Amish, we knew we were doing Jude too. So we didn't, we didn't, we didn't say last last. But yeah, so I, I keep 'cause we were so far ahead. I'm listening to them as they come out and I'm like, Oh no, this is not going to be the last one. Man, I love it. Yeah, there we go.

46:47 We should just just this should just be a bit. It just like went indefinitely. It's like the preacher is like I'm my final point, I'm wrapping up, you know, and finally. The fake out. Love it. Well, there you go, It's almost midnight. It's not really almost midnight, but it's close enough for me. Yeah, that's our thing. Thanks for listening to Take Two. Find us wherever you find podcasts and on YouTube for those who want to watch our video cast.