Sequence of Faith, Session 2

Introduction

Okay, I like this section. I’m not sure it adds a lot, but I’m going to do it. Maybe you’ll get something out of it. This is I’m It’s called presupposition. I’ll quickly tell you the story of the man born blind. You remember that story in John? The disciples asked, we know who sin, this man or his parents? Which there’s something wrong with that question. But but anyway, Jesus kind of ignores that in a way. He said, “No, it’s there’s a bigger, larger purpose here. We’re going to glorify God here in just a minute or two.”

So he healed the man. What’s fascinating to me though is the Pharisees who you remember had said if anybody confesses Jesus, he’s going to get thrown out of the synagogue. And that seems to be a restriction for the parents. Now I think the parents knew the truth. Jesus really did heal their son. This really is their son. You know, they tried that path for a while. Well, he looks like him, but I don’t think it’s the same. No, it’s our son. And uh yeah, he really was born blind.

Yeah, they So they kind of confess all that. But what’s interesting to me is that one point and uh I used to have a bunch of charts on this. I think they’re in the backup if you want to get these. But um there’s this one point where they they say and of course the irony in John’s account is who’s the guy that really sees clearly in the whole story? The blind man. [laughter] You know what I mean? I’m thinking if I’d been blind my whole life and somebody opened my eyes, I would not be able to interpret what I was seeing. But who’s the clearest thinking guy in the whole room?

Right? Well, they say, “Well, okay. Uh, well, we know Moses. We know. Y’all remember now know means special. We believe Moses. We know Moses.” Like in the Sabbath day and all that. This man, we don’t know anything. All we know is he must be a sinner. You know what I mean? And and you really, if you came into that situation with that presupposition, you’re never going to get to him being the son of God. Y’all understand that if I don’t question that pre pre before supposition I never get to the truth and they don’t and they say we don’t know where he’s from and the blind man wonderful guy that he is says well here’s a marvel that you don’t know who he is we know God doesn’t hear sinners he’s just done something that’s never been done from the beginning of the world and you can’t figure anything out about that you know so you get the idea this is a humorous story but it does suggest that there is a power presuppositions that we should be warned against in our faith [snorts] and uh and everybody all humans not just people in this I mean everybody should be thinking what am I assuming going in and is it going to you know stop me from reaching the truth that’s key and I I want to just talk about that for just a minute so let’s so here are the uh objectives define what it is list advantages dangers and examples of that uh explain how a presupposition may end up making closed minded reasoning.

List two modern examples of presupposition. I want to show you some of those from the world that we live in. And then just for fun because I think it’s great. Hume’s argument. You ever heard of David Humeman? Anybody in here ever heard of him? Well, he is known, he’s famous for having disproven that miracles could ever happen. All right. So, I’m going to look at his proof word for I’m quote him, right? We’re going to work on that. See if we can figure out where he might have fallen off the tracks somehow. All right.

1. A Presupposition Can Rule Out Valid Conclusions

Uh so, this will be fun. I hope it will be short. As a little bit of an illustration, I want you to find a way and you can put nine dots on your paper if you have a pen and do this puzzle if you like. And the the the challenge here is I want you to connect the dots without lifting your pencil from the paper. All right? And you can only use straight line segments. Where’s my paper? You want to do it? Connect all the dots with straight line segments without lifting your pen or pencil.

Okay. Without going to any dot more than once. Um, no, I’m not saying that. Okay. You got to think outside the box. Yeah, that’s where we’re going with this. It It may not be worth the time, but I’ll show you how you might have solved this this problem. Right. One 2 3 4 5. Does that work? Did I solve the problem? Okay. Well, not really. Actually, there’s another constraint I forgot to tell you. Rule. Only four line segments are allowed. So, work on that. Try to do it with four line segments.

I didn’t [laughter and clears throat] say that at first. You want to try? Don’t bark in my paper. Okay, I’m I’m getting conscious of my time here. So, okay, I’ll I’ll show you the answer. Are you ready? Right. Here it is. One, two, three, four. Got to do it. Okay. Why? Why might you not have thought of that answer? Can’t go across. You start thinking now. Was that a rule I said? In fact, Randy helped us by kind of blurting out, right? can and and all I said was I’m not saying that.

But if you had a presupposition, crossing lines is illegal, right? Or you can’t go outside the box, right? That’s another one. You then you would never sol I’m telling you, you would never solve this. Y’all get that? So here’s my here’s my point of that illustration. That is if you have a presupposition, you need to be careful that you’re not ruling out valid evidence and valid conclusions. That’s all I’m saying. And so from that statement, I’m just going to ask a value question.

Do you think it’s better to have more presuppositions or fewer presuppositions if you’re trying to determine truth? Few. Oh, of course, fewer. And I’ll I’ll I’m I’m I have a temptation to pull you into uklidian math on that because we have postulates and so on that are very useful in geometry proofs. The fewer the better because you don’t prove them. You accept them to start with. All right. So here they are here. And I actually went to this site called presuppositions.org.

And I thought, well, who would know better? You know, and that’s it’s the worst definition I could ever read. This is what they wrote. A thing tacitly assumed beforehand at the beginning. Is that redundant? Beforehand at the beginning, guys, come on. I guess AI didn’t write it. I don’t know. But of a line of argument or course of action. And that’s from that website there. Um, so I edited it a little bit. Um, I put assumed and scratched out beforehand because it was redundant, but it’s a thing tacitly assumed at the beginning of a line of argument or course of action.

So, think of it this way. I’m looking at evidence, whether I’m establishing faith or even knowledge, either way you want to think about it, uh, faith or sight, I should say. And then that leads me to a conclusion. There’s some evidence there. or these observations, an additional deduction, another conclusion, and then maybe reach the conclusion I’m after. Y’all can imagine that in some kind of theoretical terms. Yes. Your use of the word tested instead of explicit explains it all because we go through life assuming certain things.

I know they’re never written down. Thank you. And in fact, I think that’s another I believe you’ll see another definition that I think I tried to write. Yes, I crossed out tacidly. Why don’t you say what your presuppositions are? Would that be helpful? Right? I mean, so he’s trying to get me to say my presupposition. You can’t go out of the box or you can’t cross the line. Would it have been helpful if I told you those or at least you’d ask about them?

You said, “Now, are we assuming I can’t go out of the box?” You see what I mean? Why in the world would you keep them tacit? That’s kind of going to be essential to how you proceed and where you end up. You know, um it might have helped those people in John nine to say, “I don’t care what you present in front of us as evidence. We are not taking this guy to be the Messiah. Period. That might have made the whole incident a lot shorter. I don’t know. But let’s state our presuppositions if we have some. All right.

So, what it turns out to be, this is my attempt to write a definition. It is belief. That means I I can I’m holding this as if it were true, right? As I go into this are accepted usually without proof that’s correct and used as a basis. See, I build on it even though I don’t prove to infer or validate other facts. And that’s why fewer is better, right? Because I’m actually operating often on intuition or some other thing that’s not quite as trustworthy.

So, it would look like this. Are these real observations? I’m presuming that I’m making these accurately, right? That I’m not deceived or hallucinating or something. There’s a presupposition. I’m not hallucinating, right? And then I have some others that say, “Well, that’s a valid thing. this other thing I don’t think I have to rule it out and so on. But in the end, I might actually say, and only this set of conclusion is allowable, and I think that’s what those uh Pharisees in John nine were doing, right?

Oh, yeah. I see this blind. We heard his parents. We heard all that testimony, but I’m sorry, we’re not concluding anything outside the box we’ve drawn, which is he’s a sinner. Do we ever do that? Yeah. You show me all the evidence you want for inspiration. Show me all the Bible stuff. But if you say to me that that homosexual is in sin, I’m just not accepting that. Period. And as [snorts] a result of that, I just throw out all of this and all of this, however reasonable it seemed, but I I began with that belief and I still have it and it limits the conclusions I’m going to draw. Yeah.

2. Presuppositions Are Necessary, but Fewer Are Better

Another word for presupposition is called common sense. It is precisely right. In fact, I’m going to talk about that. It really is. They are necessary. You’re doing good. I mean, I He’s just ahead of me. That’s you you need them and I’ll show you how they how they flow into our faith. Um but anyway, uh I and unfortunately now I’m kind of going in all different directions at once. I think in our modern world there’s some new presuppositions that that worry me a lot that keep us from even pursuing any arguments like my truth is not your truth.

There’s no objective reality. You know what I mean? How do you prove that? In fact, it disproves itself if you say it loud enough. There’s no objective reality. Is that an objective reality? What I just said? Y’all y’all understand that it’s almost a self-defeating argument. But any case, if you believe it, what’s the point of what’s the point of proceeding? Y’all understand that? So, that worries me. That’s a that’s a tangent, but let’s come back.

It’s a necessary starting point. Its precursor facts or limits are usually based on common sense. He said, I said, shared experience, observation, intuition, and sometimes because I just can’t think of any other way it ought to be. For example, let me give you one. Do you think you’re a reasonable person thinking for yourself? Can you prove that? [cough and clears throat] Well, I mean, here’s the best proof I can give. I think we all feel we are thinking.

You know what I mean? It’s kind of an intuitive thing. I I actually do think I’m thinking right now. I actually do think I make choices. And I’m going to accept that as a presupposition. But I I’m telling you right out loud. So, if you want to argue about that, we can. But I’m just telling you, I’m tell your presupposition. You see how that’s necessary? If you lived in a world where people really think we’re in the matrix and there’s nothing real, it changed the way I approached the this thing.

Now, can I prove it? I don’t know. Now, I’m not trying to shake your faith. I just want us to understand the importance of this. Okay? And it is required for all kinds of human reasoning. I’m sorry to tell you that. So, I’m a mathematician. Y’all know what Ukidian geometry is. It’s based on Uklid’s laws. Really, they’re not laws. They’re presuppositions. They’re postulates. For example, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line.

Prove that. Now, I mean, you don’t prove it. You assume it. And there’s a whole branch of geometry, believe it or not, that’s called nonucl I can’t say the word non- uklitian geometry, which does not assume that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, y’all. But y’all are comfortable with that assumption, I think, aren’t you? I’m looking at you and thinking, well, you know, that’s kind of my shared experience, you know, and uh there’s no other counter evidence for that, you know.

So, are you okay? You’re thinking really hard or you’re confused or something, but okay. All right. This is good. But it is required and I can talk to you about that. Uh I mean, here’s one for physics and I actually went to a debate between a guy from the physics department and the philosophy department. And the premise of the u of the debate was that physics was at its heart an irrational study. Well, I got defensive, of course, right away. But the argument was this. How do you know the laws of physics will be the same tomorrow that they are that they are today?

Prove that to me. You have to go back to Jeff Wilson’s argument about two months ago. Yeah. Well, I think as Christians, we have a little more, you know, contemplative view of that. In fact, we’re going to talk about what a miracle is. It’s when the laws of physics are not the same today as they were the yesterday, but we’ll get to that in a minute. But for now, as a physicist, you know what? I just assume that. And I have I have good reasons. I guess I’ve never seen it be any other way.

I can’t imagine why it would be any other way than that. It is my universal experience. I think it’s yours, too. That that you drop something, it falls the same way yesterday as it did today and tomorrow. So, I mean, it’s just required. I I’m not I’m overkilling this thing. And for example, in philosophy, you know, there’s this I think, therefore I am. I think you got to start by saying I’m at least real here. But that’s questioned on occasion. There is a reality. Truth exists, etc. And then of course pre fewer presuppositions are better and and but the problem is too many or the wrong ones will inhibit our investigation and also limit the conclusions we come to.

3. Bible Examples and Modern Presuppositions

And I’ll illustrate that maybe with some others. Here’s some Bible examples. I think I’m at least I’m going to squeeze them in as examples of presuppositions. Uh they’re scoffers in second Peter 3. What was their presupposition? It’s actually up there, but you remember that Peter’s saying, “You know what? There might come an end of time, the end of the world, the earth, and everything is going to be burned up, right? And there’ll be a judgment day.”

But the scoffers say, “No, things have things continue as they when have they ever changed before? They continue the same as they have from the very beginning.” Y’all see that’s a presupposition that they’re not going to change. Noah, they said that. Well, what so Peter’s answer was this. They willfully forget. We’re back to the forgetting and knowing. They forgot something. That is not a universal experience, right? And I would argue that Peter is full of those where he says that same word that flooded the earth created the world.

Was that a change in the laws of nature to create the world? I think so. Whoa. There’s a counterproof that things don’t remain [clears throat] the same forever. Okay, so there’s that one. Uh when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. You remember that? Mars Hill, Paul’s preaching. He got He says he’s appointed a day which will judge the world’s given assurance that he has raised Jesus from the dead is the idea. As soon as he said those words, they started mocking. Why?

Did they have counterfactual information? That’s a modern term, I [clears throat] guess, of the fake media or something. I don’t know. But um No, they mocked. Why is that? They just The idea of a body coming back. I don’t think so. Too hard. We’re not We’re not going there. Don’t you think that was a presupposition they had? I wonder if there are ever any counter examples of that that you could build your faith on. Of course, that’s the whole point of Jesus resurrection.

Uh are you deceived? Have any of the rulers of the Pharisees believed in him? But this crowd that doesn’t know the law, they’re a cursed. John 7 that’s where they’re reasoning about Jesus at the feast of tabernacles there’s a presupposition there only the conclusions of educated and powerful people are valid you right so if you say something in the this is not written in the published literature scientific literature then I’m I can’t accept it uh how can you believe who receive honor from one another do not seek the honor that comes from God the approval of others validates our conclusion if you start with that as a premise you’re not going to get there.

For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds be exposed. I think that hints at a presupposition that I don’t want to accept anything that causes me to be condemned. We’ll talk about more in the sermon tomorrow. We are in a culture in which if you condemn someone’s behavior and certainly say that God disapproves and will judge you for that, you have harmed them, right? You’ve created trauma in their life. Y’all know what I’m talking about? And they might even get PTSD because you taught them that there’s a judgment day and all that.

I know we chuckle at that, but it’s Oh, boy. It’s sad. I know. But it’s real. And but anyway, I think the same idea you say that uh you but I was born this way, whatever. But you condemn my behavior. That’s it. We’re out. We’re done. We don’t do that. We don’t condemn people or their behavior. You see how that’s a little bit of a presupposition that keeps you from coming to conclusions. It just stops you from getting there. Here’s some more about that. We choose them sometimes, always I guess, but often not for the best reasons.

They may with use turn out to be wrong, in which case start over and do it right. That’s the way geometry works anyway. Uh poor choices result in faulty conclusions. That’s an obvious thing. And of course, the main thing is we’re accountable for God for these. I mean, think of all these examples that I’ve shown you in this chart. Is God holding these people accountable for coming to the truth with these presuppositions? I think that’s the case in everyone.

So it’s we have to be careful about that and what they are. Here are some uh modern presuppositions. Religious truth is ultimately unknowable since God if there is one is totally spiritual and man is totally physical. That’s called the totally other argument. And that is since God’s way out there and he’s not physical and I’m only physical. Do you see something wrong with that presupposition? I mean, could God kind of interfere in the natural world? Do I have a spiritual nature that may could?

So, ruling both of those out is a presupposition. I would let’s rethink that. Let’s think about it. Would you leave open the possibility? For example, um reason itself, no matter how much evidence presented, is a subjective experience. That is, it’s in my head, not yours. And you know what? You can never validate that because it’s just something in your mind. Is this a popular view? I mean, I hope you sense some of this in the modern religious world.

I’m telling you, these are presuppositions. And I think they’re more closed-minded than the alternative. Everyone has to come to his own conclusions. By the way, this is oldtimey grammatically correct. Right? In the old days, this was singular and this would be a masculine pronoun. Nowadays, I have to say everyone comes to their own conclusions, but anyway, even though it’s plural, not singular. uh and no answer is superior to any other. Okay. Uh what I feel inside is my guide.

I can’t accept any rules or doctrines that go against that. Man, is that the world we live in. Uh I’ll not accept any doctrine that would not contradict what my parents believed. I heard that more when I was a kid. You know what [clears throat] I mean? I mean I if I said if I believe what you told me, I’m sending my parents to hell. There’s there’s something logically not right about that. A lot of people believe that strongly but would never say it.

Yeah. Oh, I think a lot of these are often un that’s why I lot didn’t like that word tacitly, right? Let’s say it right out loud. If that’s the way you’re starting with, let’s say it. Let’s just say it and talk about that. I think that’s important. Talking to someone else. any religious teaching that includes something anything I don’t like could be anything role of women condemnation of homosexuals or whatever I just don’t like it I don’t think God would do that and so I’m out I’m done uh and then whatever this fill in the blank is something I can’t give that up I’m not giving that up no matter what you teach me whatever kind of proofs you make I’m doing that that’s who I am I’m not giving that up and I agree that’s a very good point a lot of times we just act that way we would never say the words out loud, but that is sometimes the way we are.

And I’m just going to say to you, some of these say, you know what, for these top three, there’s no point in going any further, right? I mean, if I can’t reason or we can’t reason together because it’s in my head and not yours, we’re done. No need to talk anymore. These others, it seemed to me, limit conclusions that are allowed, right? So, if you get to the end and you come up with this answer, strike the whole thing. That’s not right. If you’re working with someone and they’re expressing that in terms of a question with regard to their parents.

Yeah. How would you what words would you use if they asking you about the destiny of their parents? Yeah. What words would you use? Well, so I’m interested in y’all’s opinion. What’s happening there is more of an emotional reaction, it seems to me, than a logical argument. Unfortunately, you could say the logical thing. Sometimes it makes the emotions worse. What you do does not have anything to do with the fate of your parents. It’s you and God.

And maybe it’s in God’s hands what happens to them. But you know, you understand what I mean. But boy, what an emotional. I mean, I I feel it. And you know, I have relatives that are not they’re not saved, and I don’t feel good about that. But it’s clear that what I do, in fact, I’ve heard the arguments in sermons, well, if your mom and dad had known the truth, they would want you to obey. you know, kind of a well, if you’re going to bring your mom and dad into it, well, let’s let’s think of it in a different way.

I don’t know. That’s a So, this is too maybe too technical. But I think, you know, here’s some evidence that there are there’s adaptable design of living things, but if you presuppos presuppose there are no supernatural causes, uh, I’m I’m struggling whether to include stuff or not. I’m kind of looking at the faces to see. Um, sometimes we’ll we are open to the the uh accusation that the Bible is not scientific. And what people mean by that is, and I kind of agree with them in this way.

Um, when people say scientific, again, let’s quantify these terms here. Let’s use the terms correctly. What they mean by that is sight, measurement, equations. You all know, you know what I mean. So I guess if you say it that way, yeah, okay, the Bible isn’t scientific. So if I’m trying to explain the uh variety of life forms, say, and how complex they are and how they’re adaptable, living things in particular, man, what a mind must be, right? I’m trying to do that.

But I say I can’t explain this in any way any other way but the super up. Stop. Don’t say that word. That’s not scientific. Y’all understand? In a way it isn’t scientific. If science is limited only what I can measure using the scientific method. So y’all you see what I mean by that? So but but I can say okay forget whether it’s scientific or not. Are you going to rule out supernatural clauses? By the way, a guy named Steven Meyer has written some books, the God hypothesis and some others which kind of address this dilemma.

He’s a scientific guy, but it’s not really a dilemma. It’s just a definition of term. But if you say this, I’m only left to conclude, well, I guess it came from nothing. And then I guess all these features, wings and beaks and lungs and sex organs and everything else must have just popped out of, you know, out of uh chance, random things, which seems silly, but it’s just awkward, but but what else would you conclude if you say this to start with?

Y’all see what I mean? In fact, I would argue might be the most reasonable answer you could give if this is where you start. I hope that’s making some sense. fulfilled prophecies in the unity of Bible content. That’s an evidence for inspiration. But if I pre assume that the Bible can only be a product of human thought, no divine intervention, no inspiration, then I have to do some other things. I have to postdate the prophecies. I have to despite the archeological and other kind of textual evidence, y’all, you know, I hope this is making some sense.

Or I have to say, well, that was just a coincidence. I understand Isaiah 53. Yes, it’s in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but coincidence. Coincidence. Or somebody added it. Well, I guess they didn’t because it’s old text, but you know what I mean. I’m left with some awkward conclusions. Why? Because I limited my choices with these presuppositions. Am I killing this to death? I’m beating this dead horse. I think spiritual character of man, choice, guilt, love, pity.

I have a hope for the Is this true of most everybody, even non-Christians? Yeah, it is. It’s built into me. I think it’s part of the design of God. But that’s my the my conclusion about it. But if I conclude start with I mean pre presupposition. There’s only physical world. There’s no supernatural. There’s no spiritual influences. What I have to conclude about this is they’re just illusions. You think you’re making choices, [laughter] right? You’re just a machine. Chemistry and electrons.

You know, I know it feels like you’re make that’s just an illusion, right? That’s not who we are. See, I think that spiritual character that gets it what you were talking about Ecclesiastes 3:11. Yeah. There’s just some there’s something there that right it’s there. God put it there. And I I know it seems subjective and I might agree it’s subjective, but I’ll tell you it feels like hard evidence to me. You know what I mean? I’m I’m kind of past the presupposition that I’m in the matrix or I’m not real or something like that.

4. Hume’s Argument Against Miracles

You get past that and say, “You know what? I really did feel guilty about that. That’s hard evidence, man. I feel it. You know what I mean? And I and other irrational things. I think that’s I would see that as maybe just as hard evidence as the, you know, the the running down of time proves there had to have been a beginning or something like that. Some ways more direct because I measure it or I feel it myself. All right, here we are. This is going to be fun. Hume’s argument. Now, you need to fasten your seat belt.

Again, I mentioned this. This is the classic argument dates back to the 1700s that proves, did you hear me? Proves that there is no such thing as miracles. You’re looking at your watch like, do we have time to disprove this or not? I just wonder how much longer we got of this. I think we got I want more time. Oh, sorry. I think I have till four. Am I Did I do that right now? Is it Is it 45? just finished working. Okay. Did you hear that? They’re scooting me back. I can tell. 3:45 maybe. Okay.

We’re okay. Um, all right. Listen. Look, look closely. See if you see any presuppositions in this argument. It’s a little archaic language, but I think I think it’s not too hard. A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature. Y’all agree with that? Yes. I do, too. I mean, what else is it, right? I mean, And as firm and unalterable experience, that is human experience has established those laws. What laws? Laws of nature. Right? The proof against a miracle from the very nature of the fact is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined.

Now, at this point, I’m actually gratified to see people going like this. What? God. He’s just saying because he ain’t seen it. It can’t be. You’re right. You got that out of the first two sentences. It’s going to get worse. Okay. Since a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature, we agreed on that. Yeah. Which a uniform experience has established that is the laws of nature. We all experience those. We all uniformly experienced them, right? Everything that deserves the name miracle must have a uniform experience against it from the very nature of the fact it cannot be otherwise.

Nothing is esteemed a miracle. That is we don’t call something a miracle if it ever happens in the common course of nature. Y’all agree with that? For example, it’s no miracle that a man seemingly in good health should die all of a sudden. I’m translating a little because such a kind of death that is a sudden death though more unusual than any other has yet been frequently observed to happen. Y’all agree with that? If I fell over dead, I looked like decent hell except for that Bell’s pausy thing.

You know, you wouldn’t say that was a miracle. You might say it was unusual, but it’s not against the laws of nature because we Why isn’t it? Well, because we’ve seen it before and we’ve seen it happen. Y’all with me on that? Keep reading. It is a miracle that a dead man should come to life because that’s never listen never been observed in any age or country. That’s a little bit of an assertion, but okay. But you see why he knows that can’t be true because it’s never happened.

And because it’s never happened, it can’t be true. There must therefore be uniform experience against every miraculous event. Otherwise, the event would not merit that name. And as uniform experience amounts to a proof uniform experience, by the what would that be? Whose experience? Mankind. All of mankind where when there you go. Right. Exactly. Right. That’s a proof. I don’t know most of those people. I don’t either, you know, and uh I’m old but not that old.

Right. Anyway, uh there is there is here a direct and full proof. I don’t know if you you guys might have missed it, but there’s a full proof. We just from the nature of the fact against the existence of any miracle, nor send can such a proof be destroyed. You can’t destroy this proof or the miracle rendered credible, but by an opposite proof which is superior. He’s just saying, “I got the best argument in town, and you’ll not come up with a better one.” How do y’all feel about that? I’m telling you, that’s a classic argument, right?

I’ve highlighted a few things in here. You can look at um unalterable experience. And by the way, there’s something else that’s not that he is premising out of this whole discussion. Remember, a miracle. There are other words for miracles. You remember what they are? Miracles. Signs. And wonders, the fact that there’s signs and wonders, that implies there’s an effect on the person who observes it. Have you ever thought about that? I I mean I mean Jesus could have gone out in the desert and blown things up, you know, miraculously. Would that really have served the purpose that he had in mind?

No. The point is you do this in front of someone who knows the laws of nature and they say, “Whoa, that violated laws of nature.” And you know what? tomorrow it will still be a law of nature, right? Y’all you see what I mean? There’s a suspension of the laws of nature. That’s the point. That’s what a miracle is for. For people to watch it and for it to point to something, prove something. Y’all see that he’s missing the whole idea that there are humans.

Yes, we know there are laws of nature. That’s the point of a miracle, right? He’s kind of skipping over the fact that they had a purpose for people who do know unalterable human experience. you know that miracles or the laws of nature are consistent from day to day. I hope that makes sense. Okay, this will be fun. I’m going to read CS Lewis. This is a quote from CS Lewis. [clears throat] Now of course we must agree with Hume that if there is absolutely uniform experience all men all time all that all men everywhere right against miracles if in other words they never happen why then they never have there’s a that’s a tautology in case you haven’t noticed it if there is if they’ve never happened then you know what we can conclude It never happened.

Yeah. Right. That’s right. All [clears throat] right. Unfortunately, we do know the experience against them to be uniform only if we know that all of the reports of them are false. And we can never know all the reports to be false. I’m sorry. We can know all the reports to be false only if we already know that miracles have never occurred. And in fact, we’re arguing in a circle. The question, do miracles occur? And the question, is the course of nature absolutely uniform?

Are really the same question asked in two different ways? You agree with that? I mean, it’s like, right? So, Hume by slight of hand treats them as two different questions. He first answers yes to the question whether nature is absolutely uniform and then uses this yes as a grounds for answering no to the question, do miracles occur? Do you all see that those are really the same things? And what he’s assumed is that there aren’t any miracles. That’s his presupposition.

And from that there’s all this fuzz and argument about we never saw it or something like that. [cough] The single real question according to CS Lewis here is which he sets out to answer is never really discussed at all. He gets to the answer. He gets the answer to one form of the question by assuming the answer to another form of the question. You all see that? But I think it’s a good illustration especially in our time where people are just saying you know what I’m just not going to this supernatural place.

Sorry. Is that is that something they can prove? It’s taking a scientific argument and transferring it to the philosophical. Yes. The only source of truth, right? Performed the scientific experiments that would verify that argument done. That’s right. Yeah. And that even that that’s why that term scientific and in reading that um Stephen Meyer book helped me understand I don’t quite object to the idea of being non-scientific if you mean by that just the world of you know labs and and you know physical experiments but [snorts] yeah okay you have to remember those laws physics geometry all the math be careful with those okay I’m a physics major gentle okay those laws are not ours.

They’re God. And God said it. I mean, he owns them. He designed them, right? And can pull them apart and suspend them temporarily. And I actually think that the Bible is a revelation. I look at it a little bit from scientific. I’m using the word differently now, maybe philosophical point of view. Did God ever change the laws of nature? At least as far as the revelation, which we have come to have trust, faith in. Did he ever change the laws of nature?

Think about it. He suspended them. I mean, can think of that. That’s what a miracle is. I wonder, were the laws of nature before the fall the same as the ones after the fall? Or were there some things, processes that maybe operated differently after the fall? What’s that? Well, um, death came into the world. Something’s different. uh different kind of plants rain thorn rain came along I think the flood might have been another case yes they were suspended but maybe even actually altered in some way yeah and this is theory and I I’ll arm wrestle you about this but not much okay the the Tower of Babel maybe there’s something happened I think God put into the human nature not okay never mind we’re not going there but but I I think those to me stand is a maybe some evidence reasoning that God has not just left the world totally uniform since the beginning of time but he made it more temporary more troublesome more cursed you might say after the fall and maybe at the flood some things changed that’s why rainbows appeared and no flood will ever come again in that to that scale or you know sorry to go there that’s all speculation I should never have done that man’s life expect.

Yeah. Yeah. DNA or or radiation or who knows what. But yeah. Okay. So, here’s what I want you to say. Examine our presuppositions when we evaluate evidence for our belief faith. Uh and and if you know or help to address our doubts with by examining our presuppositions and when we’re challenged, I think it’s a really good thing that you just ask a person kind of go back to where they started. And here’s a way to do that. And I’m going to suggest this as we get to the last little segment, segment three.

Um, when you go to reason with someone, do you think it might be good to be explicit about their presuppositions? Like, are you going to allow for the possibility that there’s a God? You just I’m not telling you I’m not telling you believe it. I’m not even asking you if you believe it. I’m just saying, is that a possible conclusion? Would you allow that possibility in your world, in your life? And you know what? If they say no, what’s what have they said?

No point in talk. Yeah. There’s a presupposition that you you can say all you want to. It’s not in their room. And does that sound very open-minded? Really? I mean, that would be my response. Hey, is that the most open-minded approach to take that you’re just ruling it out before we even start talking about evidences? Y’all see how system does to some degree? What’s that? Our court system does that to some degree. Oh, you find this person guilty.

Oh, good point. Yeah. Right? Are you open-minded enough to hear the evidence or have you already decided that? Yeah, I hope y’all heard what he’s saying. We recognize that when we’re trying to get an unbiased jury, we don’t want people who’ve already decided the answer. Uh, in fact, I always wonder how do we know that? But anyway, that’s Yeah. Okay. So, that’s good. All right. And then I think in life decisions um I think we should be alert to make sure we’re not driven by social acceptance or my emotional reaction or the fact that I like doing that and tempted but in the way I interpret scripture too.

Y’all know what I mean by that. I don’t like this answer that the Bible keeps telling me. Why? Well, it’s not socially acceptable, right? It hurts me my emotions or I know a situation or my dad mom or whatever. Yeah. Okay. All right. Um, I’m going to skip over the test. That was the test. I hope you got that all good. And then I need to get to this last part. It was a little hands-on here. Quickly look at John 10. I’m going to skip over that exercise.

5. Believe the Works, That You May Know and Believe

Um, in John 10, I think it’s feast of dedication. I believe that’s right. And uh, Jesus is in Jerusalem and he um, he’s saying some stuff, but anyway, he gets to the point where he says, “I and my father are one.” John 10:30. The Jews took up stones again to stone him. And Jesus said,”Many good works have I shown you from my father. For which of those are you stoning me?” You see some sense some humor in that. [snorts] Like which miracle are you killing me for doing here or something? You know, I’m glad you all laugh.

I I just think this is there’s humor in this. Jesus answered and said, “Uh, sorry I did that.” Oh, sorry. The Jews answered and said, saying, “For a good work, we do not stone you, but for blasphemy, because you being a man, make yourself God.” Did he really do that? Did Jesus say he was God? Be careful. Read the first few words in this text here. Father, blasphemy. Did he do that? Well, that’s kind of close, right? And that’s kind of close. And you’ve seen me, you’ve seen the father.

I said you’re bl you say I’m blasphing because I said I am the son of God. That’s kind of close. I think he actually said that. I’m just, you know, I’m not trying to be uh count. You see, do you see that he said that? Yeah, they understood implicitly but not. Yeah, they understood. They knew what he was saying. I mean, okay. I am the father of one. I think they understand that. By the way, it reminds me of the shama, right? Deuteronomy 6. There’s just, you know, God is one, right?

And uh so that’s that was a statement I think of monotheism really, but still that that reminds me of that. Anyway, yes, he said that. And if he said it, it’s blasphemy. Unless it’s true. Y’all see that? Now, now you see where their what their reasoning is. Yeah, you said that, but it can’t be true. And Jesus says an interesting thing. I’m skipping over the gray part. It’s a quotation from the psalm. I don’t fully understand. I think I do, but not not time.

But 36. Do you say of him whom the father sanctified and sent into the world, you’re blaspheing because I said I’m the son of God? Look verse 37. If you if I do not do the works of my father, [clears throat] what don’t believe me? We’re It’s done. Do y’all see a little bit of belief faith and trust faith operating here? If he was the son of God, he didn’t look like it. I mean, he was I mean, Isaiah says he was not much to look at. I don’t That’s a parap terrible paraphrase. Y’all know what I’m talking about. Isaiah 53. I He think he was 5 foot six and a half, just so you know, right?

He had no form or clumliness, I think, is the quotation. you don’t look like you don’t look like God. I’m sorry. You can see how that would be an issue. And Jesus said, “Okay, okay. If I don’t do the works of my father, don’t believe me. But if I do, though you do do not believe me, believe in the works.” You hear that word belief? Pist, right? What works is he talking about right here? Right? The signs, the miracles, right? Believe the works that you may, and here it is again, of all things, that you may know and believe.

You see those two words used right together there, that the father is in me and I in him. What’s Jesus’ point here? Is there an order you should think this problem through? Or do I start with the fact that you don’t look like God to me? Y’all see what I mean? Where should you start according to this? He altered nature. He altered nature. The works. Right. Right. And it’s almost like he’s saying, “Yes, I know these are difficult sayings to accept.

I’m not asking you to start there. I’m asking you to start with some things that you touch, taste, hear, have credible evidence, and all of that. But if that’s true, then what? You have to accept the things that are hard, that may be counterintuitive, that may not be socially acceptable, and all of that kind of stuff because that’s trust faith.” Y’all see that? That’s the idea there. So I think it’s what he said. So here’s here’s the picture of the below the line direct observation right with a presupposition you know that natural laws can’t be broken except miraculously.

And for us I think we’re in this picture for us it includes is John a credible witness and the other apostles and the other eyewitnesses who wrote right some first some secondhand and the effect it had on their lives and all that history. Is that credible or not? You got to answer that question. That’s our version of looking at the works, I think, right? Looking first at the works. All right. And it looks like he did miracles, right? And I assume presupposition assumed natural power exists.

And that if you don’t cooperate with that power, you don’t do miracles, right? All that tells me is Jesus must have been approved by God. And that was the argument of the blind man. Remember that is here. You know, I don’t know who he is, but he’s got to be from God because nobody can open the eyes of a man born blind. That’s that’s just an obvious conclusion. By the way, did that blind man know Jesus was the Messiah at that point? He did not. How do you know he didn’t know?

He didn’t know. He said he didn’t know who it was and Jesus came to talk to him. He said, “Well, it’s me.” Right? So, there are some things we can’t know without being told. And it might not even have been something that he would have ever thought of on his own. couldn’t prove it scientifically, but he did know some things from evidence and that led to trust and that led to accepting that teaching. If that makes sense. All right. Um, so if Jesus is approved by God, then I conclude that his words are probably authoritative.

Not only can he do things God enables, but he would say things God approves of. And so human observation in the physical world and in our case witnesses, blessed are those who have not seen and yet believed. reason to reach a conclusion about the credibility of Jesus teaching. Now, I’ve looked at the diplomas on the wall. Y’all know what I’m talking about. I’ve looked at the Google reviews. And from that, I think, well, I guess I better listen to it.

I guess it’s authoritative. And so, what does he say? He says, “I am the father of one.” I would have never thought that, but I guess trust faith. There I am. I got to do it. Y’all see that? I mean, I hope we can. Okay. So, yes. And then if that’s true, then of course the logical inference would be I guess it isn’t blasphemy after all because it’s true. It’s true. All right, that’s a long way around. Here, see if we can do this exercise and I’ll feel like we’ve almost gotten to the end. This is in your book. It’s part Roman numeral 3 number A.

6. The Sequence in Which You Draw Conclusions

And I want you to work for two or three minutes and see if you can do y’all understand that the sequence in which you draw conclusions is kind of important because you may try to start at the bottom and get all tangled up. I don’t like this. I don’t understand. I can’t find any evidence. Oh no. Start at the right place and then work. So see if you can do that with these uh seven or eight conclusions. Seven, I think. Uh just put them in the order.

Now please listen to this part. I’m not saying that one of these proves the next one. I’m just saying you need to conclude them in this particular order. Does that make sense? I’m trying to think of a good illustration. Um, let’s see. I I had I’ve used it before. Now I can’t it won’t come to my head. Okay, it’s raining outside, right? Uh, and never mind. I’m I’m sorry. I’m getting tired. I can’t think of the illustration. I’m trying to think of two conclusions that have to follow one another, but one doesn’t prove the other one. Y’all understand what I mean. I But I can’t right this minute. I had a good one. Now I can’t remember it. Sorry. coincidence but not causitive.

It’s not positive. Coincidentally, right? I’m just saying if you don’t decide this, then this question doesn’t make any sense. Right? Y’all y’all see what I’m saying? And maybe I could say with the it is possible, but that kind of is too much of a hint for the question. That’s what’s throwing me off here. Right? So, if I said it’s possible it’s raining outside and then it is raining outside. One of those has to be decided first. Do you see that?

Is not causation. Is that what I’m trying to think of? No. No. It’s just a sequence. I’m just saying one conclusion has to be determined. And if you’re if you don’t decide the right thing, it’s game over. You’re get thrown off the path. In other words, if I don’t think it’s possible it’s raining, then asking, “Is it raining outside?” You see, that question doesn’t make any sense at all. I’m off the I’m off the game. If that makes sense. Just because I say you say it’s possible it’s raining doesn’t prove it’s raining but allows the possibility.

That’s what I’m trying to say. All right, give it a try. I love to do this with the guys at camps. I let them go for quite a while. I can hear them arguing in the back. It’s just it’s it is great. It’s the most I did that used to say it’s possible there’s a God. That threw a bunch of people off. And I decided to relax that statement a little bit and just say, well, it’s possible that there’s something beyond the natural, something bigger than me, something outside the natural world.

So, but I I did that on purpose to kind of show that we’re relaxing that Okay, I’m impatient. [laughter] I can’t wait. I’m worried about keeping you too long. Um, so this the first one is always very easy. What do you think the first one that you need to decide first? Yeah. Yeah. I mean, and and you see the point I’m making is if you don’t accept that, it’s I keep saying game over. We’re we’re done. We don’t need to finish thinking. All right. The second one beyond the natural world.

What’s that? Okay. So, you guys gave the two answers that the boys always argue over the most. Right. It kind of, and I’ve been through this enough, it kind of depends on what you mean by each one. But here’s where I’m trying to go with it. I think that you have to ask the presupposition question. Are you going to allow the possibility of anything beyond the physical or not? Because if you don’t, game over again. Y’all see that? Now, if I allow the possibility, now I start looking around and saying, “Hey, this is a pretty organized place, right?

There’s some amazing things here.” So, what might be the next conclusion? Shows. Yeah. D there’s evidence of intelligent design in the world. You see, if I don’t allow something beyond the natural up here, then I the idea of talking about intelligent design, that’s a no, that’s not a that’s a non-issue. It’s a nonquest. It doesn’t make any sense. But I understand the other point of view. Uh I finally have gotten to where I don’t argue with the guys about it.

But anyway, wait, what would come next? Yes. So, so D kind of does have some evidence to point to G, but it just turns out if you don’t see any evidence for intelligent design, you wouldn’t ask or allow the possibility of a god, right? What would be the next thing? What’s that? Yeah, this is an interesting step. I I didn’t talk so much about that. It has to do with the third thing we talked about. Is it possible there’s a God who has a brain and reasons and communicates and plans and works out a plan which I see in the creation by the way?

And by the way, I’m the same way. Imagine that. I think, I plan, I reason, I get angry, right? You know, where did I get all that from? Well, if he’s that way and I’m that way, is it possible, maybe even likely, that he might want to talk to me? I mean, I want to talk to him. I can tell you that for sure. I have questions like, who am I? Where did I come from? Where am I going? What happens? Why is this the way it? You know what I mean? So, I have questions without answers. I have this character.

Is it likely? Is it possible? This a presupposition question that God would speak to humans somehow. Maybe he would shout in my ear. Maybe he’d have a dream. Maybe he’d put up billboards all over the city. I don’t know. Something he would communicate with me. Right. All right. Let’s keep going. the Bible is inspired. Now, I jumped to that. I jumped over a lot of evidence along the way, like, you know, fulfilled prophecy and unity and all those kind of things.

But I come to that conclusion and then I have to look at the Bible and say, well, okay, if it is from God, what does it say about itself? It might have said, here’s some suggestions, men. Do your best. Add to it as you need to. Take what you can scientifically measure provable. Y’all know does it say that? No, it doesn’t. You see, I almost have to take the users’s manual and interpret interpret what is it telling me to do with it. But once I’ve decided it’s from God, that’s not a hard that’s not a hard thing to do.

Oh, okay. He wants me to follow this. I guess he could have said, “This is a start. Go use all go find all the other religious uh literature in all of humankind and try to synthesize that and come up with something.” Or if you read this and it gives you a buzzing feeling in the bottom part of your brain, then use it. Right? If it doesn’t, leave it alone. He could, right? You all understand that a question could God have, you already know the answer is yes. The question is, did he?

And how do I know? Well, I just look at it says no. You need to follow this. And there’s no other truth. And it’s exclusive. It says that. And if I’ve accepted the source, then that’s a below the line trust conclusion. This is a key point I’m trying to get to before we leave. I’ll I’ll say it in a different way. And the last thing maybe I might conclude after studying all of these things and coming to conclusions would be what? Now, this is scientifically provable, right? There’s all kinds of evidence and experiments I can run that proves that you should not use an instrument in the worship.

Y’all see where we are here? I’m below the line. Y’all know what I mean by that? Now, I hope I’m in the trust faith area. And I might say, “But I love it. It helps me worship. Makes me feel good, right? My parents did it. I I can make all kind of arguments, but that’s unfortunately I’m or fortunately maybe I’m below the line, y’all.” Okay. All right. You got it. So, I’m going to put these uh in order. This is the order. Where would you draw the line? This is almost a gimme. Where is the line, the trust faith line in this sequence?

I I put them in the order we just talked about. [clears throat] Where would it be? Pardon? Could be. Actually, I’ve actually spaced the lines so you should know the answer. [laughter] Here’s the point. I’m looking at all the, you know, the diplomas and everything and I decide, man, this doctor, she knows what she’s talking about, right? She’s talking real medicine. She knows a lot more about this than I do. And as a result of that, if she says, “I’m going to give you the right answer, and that’s the only answer, and don’t try this other thing.

It’ll kill you.” I’m going to believe that, right? even though I can’t prove that I have to trust on her in her uh in her um liability. So I could go through these that’s a very first presupposition and I think because we live in the 21st century we have to say that if you went back a few centuries people would say you’re doing you ask what what do you mean you don’t exist? What’s that about? I mean that didn’t make any sense but here we are. Um right an infinite personal God.

Schaefer language by the way meaning that there’s infinite power and supernatural presence but there’s also a personality meaning planning communication reason those kind of things that’s a Francis Schaefer term um and then that’s a minimal conclusion but again if you’re talking with someone I think these are important questions this one and that one you see they’re presupposition questions are we going to allow be allowed to go any further or not and if not you’re kind of being close-minded okay you’re not even allowing the possibility.

So I think you go there. All right. There’s the trust faith line. And then anything below the line you accept because of the source, the credibility of the source. And sometimes I think we forget how many things are below the line. I’m going to talk about that in just a second. So here’s the more complicated version. Um I think I may have put uh here’s this is my version of the process here. I exist. The universe exists. It’s possible they’re supernatural.

Some evidence. In fact, let me go to the next chart. Uh, and so when you do your evidences studies, it seems to me you need to decide what, not decide, be clear about what part of this tree you’re talking evidences about. Y’all understand that? I think sometimes in our evidences classes, we jumble a lot of things together. Let’s talk about does God exist? Right? All right. Let’s talk about maybe moral law or the purpose for creation and work our way through with these kinds of evidences.

These are meant to be the I think I have this on the very back sheet. Did I put a copy of the whole thing? Yes. Okay, great. And I want to make one other point and this is a foot stomper too. Oh, sorry. Let’s talk about below the line. Here are some things that if I believe that the Bible contains information from God and I open it up and by the way that’s evidence-based unity, fulfilled prophecies, transcendent quality, integrity of accounts, historical accuracy, the preservation over time.

All those to me are evidences that yes, that’s the one. But it says that everything in there is right. I don’t know how to prove that except the authoritative source. And I’m going to ask the question, you say yes as soon as you can. Is it possible that God? Yes. Is it possible God could have given us a Bible that has some bad stuff in it? I hope he didn’t, but it’s possible. But he says he didn’t. Okay, I’m good. Right. The history and the facts are authoritative throughout all of time. They don’t change. Is it possible God could have given us a revelation?

Said, “Well, now you need to modify this as the centuries roll along. In fact, I’m going to put the church in place to keep this up to date. We’ll add to it. Take away things that are not relevant. Here’s my question. Could God have Yes, he could have done that. The question is, did he what did he say he did? No. For all of time. It’s exclusive truth. You all know what that means. This is a below the line conclusion. Means you can This is such a relief to me.

You don’t have to keep looking. [laughter] And I somehow we have this sense that well you got to go read the Quran that God would require us to go look at every potential religious document and decide whether that’s what I need to live by or would he maybe say you know when you found the one you’re finished looking if the evidence shows you that. You probably heard the argument based on the um counterfeit currency. You know what a real one looks like.

You got it. Yeah. Do y’all understand what I’m saying by that? And in our culture, this is so emotionally offensive that this is exclusive. You mean if I don’t follow it, then I’m wrong. Well, maybe I don’t like that conclusion either. Okay. But what does the Bible say? And this is a belowtheline conclusion. And if you’ve decided that if I find something that excludes all other sources of truth, I’m not going to accept it. That’s a presupposition.

Why did you rule that out? You see what I mean? Now, I don’t know that. And again, answer my question early. Is it possible that God could have? Yes. Given us some of the truth and said, “Go find the rest somewhere else, right? Or do your best or add to it or do whatever he could have, did he?” is the question. And the only answer I can come up with is kind of below the line. I accept that by trust. That other question you said earlier would be with why would he do that? I know.

I could argue that it’s a reasonable thing that he would do it this way and I would say, “Yeah, but what what in the world would that be?” Would God arrange for his word to be preserved to the extent that I could always find truth? Could he do that? Could he not have done that? The answer is yes. Yes. But did he? He says he did. It’s below the line. I accept it by trust. Will he judge the world? Can I prove that scientifically? No, it’s below the line.

But I have the trust faith based on belief faith which is built on evidence. One key point that I want to say here, here’s another seems to me almost equally powerful approach to this same sequence. Y’all understand why I’m saying sequence of belief here. You go in order. Start at the right place. Write presuppositions. Work your way down. Get to the line. Obey it. That’s what that’s kind of the picture for me. But I’ll tell you another strong argument is okay.

Personal existence and ability to reason. Yes or no? Yes. And if you say no, game over, right? I mean, I don’t really exist and I can’t reason. So, okay, we’ll just go home. I think it’s a powerful argument to say, do you live consistently with that? What’s the alternative really? And the answer is, I don’t exist and everything’s meaningless. Do you live that way? I know you don’t, but I’m just saying the person you’re talking to, is that the way you live?

Is that what you teach your kids? Is that the way you want your leaders to act? Is that the world you want to live in? You see, that’s a kind of a power. You got to think about the alternative. And in in the case of a jury trial, one of the ways that a defendant or sorry, the prosecutor might work would be to say, “What’s another theory? Can you put any evidence on?” In fact, a defense attorney might do that. Right? Here’s an alternative. Okay. Well, let’s think about what are the alternatives. What’s the alternative to the universe existing? Same thing. I’m floating around in meaning.

Well, I’m not actually anywhere. I don’t know how to say what I’m doing, but okay. It’s It’s possible. What’s the opposite of it’s possible there’s a supernatural? Opposite. Impossible. Impossible. Now, that’s a proof of the negative, if I’ve ever heard one. Yeah, I guess you’ve looked everywhere of all time and seen that there’s all the evidence universally true that it’s not there. A closed universe, only physical and material, and yet we can rule it out.

There’s no purpose. There’s just meaninglessness. Uh, okay. Supernatural origin. What’s the alternative, by the way? Well, one thing is maybe we the universe has been here forever. And that really dominated humanistic thinking up until around the 17 1800s until some knucklehead discovered the universe was expanding. And he actually calculated and he could actually calculate backwards and say well it and a lot of the scientists did not like that idea.

The idea of a uniform universe was great if you didn’t need God, right? Because it’s always been here, right? Well, that’s kind of been debunked. Interesting that science debunks itself occasionally. But any case, what’s the alternative of that? Is spontaneous or closed or and then of course man is just a machine within the machinery and there’s no purpose. Y’all see where I’m getting with this here? I think it’s important to stop and think through the alternatives too. Is there more evidence for that than the thing that we would conclude is the reasonable?

Y’all remember the scales here. We’re trying to and and so on and so on. I don’t go through all of these um you know the alternative this on the red. I think I put this on the back, too. In red. You printed that in color, too. Thanks, Jim. Okay. So, you’ve got that. All right. I think I’m I’m finished with that. I just wanted y’all can answer these questions like the sequence of events, Jesus miracle, and all that. All right. I had one. Now, does anybody need an IV? We’re on section four.

Um, here’s what I want to say about that. These are I was going to say more about, by the way, just a quick point. I I think evolution is a below the line topic. I’m just going to assert that. Y’all can think about it if you want to. Um, and uh I I love to study the, you know, creation science, but that’s my faith isn’t built on that. I accept what God said about the creation even though I have to admit there are a few scientific facts I think that kind of that go counter to that statement but I’m okay that’s a below the line y’all know the names of the first man and woman do you know did you hear me use that word how do you did you did you find their sign their signature on a document somewhere y’all understand all that we know about the origin of the world is kind of revelation from God and I think It’s mostly below the line.

In our high school classes, I think stirring together evolution and evidences might be a mistake. Yeah, study evolution if you want to, but don’t pretend that our faith depends on disproving Darwinism, as easy as that seems to be sometimes. Do you all understand what I’m saying with that? The creation account is a below the line thing. But that’s Marty talking. Sorry, just a side point. Um, okay. Let’s go down here. Here’s what I want to say. [clears throat] Let’s put these back together again.

Conclusion

Believe faith based on evidence. Uh and then that leads me to have a credible source and that leads me to trust faith. What happens when I keep obeying usually? Not always. Things work out better or not. Yeah. Yeah. So what happens is I get some blessings. And where is that in this picture? If I live this way and I realize, wow, what joy there is in my life because of this. I there this must have been a pretty good plan somebody thought of right to live this way to believe these things to be with these people to follow these principles of behavior does that confirm my faith it’s evidence again here’s the problem I don’t think you go to an unbeliever and say see my life proves that this is true because I’ it’s all turned out good for me y’all y’all see that doesn’t work but I do believe sorry I shouldn’t say that I’m overusing that term I’m asserting to you that our life and the blessings of God come back to us as evidence that it’s true.

But it takes a while. You got to live it. You got to suffer and live through those things and see the blessings that come out the other side. And so there’s there’s a kind y’all see how this glues them back together again. That is there’s kind of a cycle there. Blessings of God become evidence. uh Psalm 34, taste and see the Lord is good. Blessed is the man who trusts in him has that trust faith and he’s blessed and that becomes additional evidence for that.

Uh and then you know the dangers we don’t just go witness to people. That’s a denominational thing about you know what our faith has led us to feel. That’s not that’s not the path. That’s not the Bible pattern. But it certainly is true that it should strengthen our faith in that. Okay, I think I’m done. I think you understand that you could probably use something like this to talk to your friends who are unbelievers. I say this to the younger folks. Ask them, “Where are you on here?”

Let’s work our way down through here. Look at the evidence where we need it. I’m done. I got did get done before 4.