Matt Slick Live

The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network. If you want to give me a call, all you have to do is dial 8772072276. I want to hear from you.

Give me a call. Today is a nice Friday. Busy day for me. I'll probably jump into some hate mail here a little bit because I like hate mail. For those of you who might be new to the show, sometimes I read people's emails to me on how much they dislike me and want to condemn me. In fact, I was reading some comments on one of the debates I had by some people. You can tell who is just lacking objectivity and just is full of hatred and stuff like that.

You know, it happens when I tackle people's cults and stuff like that. So, hey, look, five open lines. Give me a call.

8772072276. Let's see. Let's see. Let's see. I'm going to get into some hate mail because I like that. I'm waiting for the callers to come in.

Fridays are often slow. The sound should be good. It sounds good? You can hear me? Okay, good.

Just making sure. And if you want to watch and you can participate in the chat, too, you can just go to karm.org, C-A-R-M dot O-R-G. And on the home page on the right-hand side, you'll see a picture of me. And you click it and you can go into Matt Slick Live.

You can participate here in the chat. Of course, some people think the show just goes out over the Internet. No, it goes out over radio stations as well on the East Coast mainly.

Also in Ohio and in Utah. Well, there you go. If you want to give me a call, 8772072276. Let's see. Let's see. Let's see. Get some hate mail here.

All right. Inhabitants around the world. You know, when you have an email that's addressed to the inhabitants around the world, that has got to be a huge email list. Because what this guy did is he just emailed me about the inhabitants around the world.

That's what it's to. So I don't know if he's emailed everybody in the planet who has an email address. I don't know, because after all, what he says, it's inhabitants around the world. If you receive this email along with the attached PDF letter, then you are one of the lucky ones who've been summoned to the content within.

This is not a call for you to defend your religion or to test your super superb knowledge pertaining to the holy things regarding the heavenly creator. You know, when you read some of this stuff, a lot of times I get taken aback by the self-deception of what's going on with people and the the incredible arrogance that they often portray themselves to have. You know, they have the knowledge to the entire world that's from God, and they believe this stuff.

I get emails like this on a pretty regular basis. Anyway, but have you noticed there are thousands time thousands of differing places of worship around the world with millions of spiritual leaders contrasting millions of other spiritual leaders concerning the only true living creator? Yeah, you see, I just say that this individual does not have all his paws in the litter box.

All right, all right, all right, all right, let's see. Oh yeah, and it's about lost books in the Bible who says they're lost. This person says that he or she runs a particular ministry, and I'm living out some of the lost books.

What troubles me is that they may negate the triune one by bringing in a mother goddess. I don't know. I'm looking for good insults. I've listened to your interview. Oh yeah, we talked about this with Paul Young. The book, the shack heresy book was so, so bad. Okay, so here's an email my wife actually got involved with this and let me see. Are you people kidding?

I've never seen anything so far off base as your ridiculous critique of the shack. To say that the author book endorses universalism is outright deceit. No, it's not. He said so. He said God forgave every one of their sins.

Everybody. That's universalism. The very quote used contradicts your assertion.

You should be ashamed of yourselves. Maybe you need to ask yourself why this book is having such an amazing and positive impact on many in your lives. Oh, I've asked myself. It's because people can't discern truth from error. That's why.

Why and how is God using it to bring many people healing and deliverance from performance-based Christianity? Whatever. So my wife actually wrote back, Dear Mr. Soto, I appreciate your email.

Matt will be responding to it this Friday on his radio program because it's Hague Mail Friday in his service. And then he wrote back, Nice. So everyone who disagrees with you or your website is a hater? I expected as much. That's a very worn out and immature way to reply.

This. Wow. Why doesn't it surprise me that some that that.

OK. Let me try it again. Why doesn't it surprise me that name calling is one of your methods? Honestly makes me wonder if your organization is even Christian or not. If you are, you should think twice about trying to divide the body of Christ. The so-called apologetics in your site regarding the shack is woefully inept, in my opinion.

I'd be happy to discuss these issues any time with any of you. Man to man. Oh, I like that. My guess is that you'll take potshots at my email on the radio. Sorry. Well, this is from a few years ago, so it's old. All right. Let's see.

Oh, go to Mormon.org. You have heard the voice. What voice? The voice of demons? What? I don't know.

My name is so-and-so. I'm a Wiccan. I would like to point out there are no demonic forces involved, as you put it. Secondly, the dreams, et cetera, have nothing to do with Wicca. It is against Wiccan law to harm another or influence them against their will. Wiccans are healers, teachers, and protectors. I would also like to point out that your Christian holidays are based around the time of pagan holidays.

I have nothing against Christianity. It irritates me that I agree when we see Wicca being used to explain someone's bad luck. Yeah, I did a lot of research on Wicca years ago, and it was really interesting because Wicca is a form of witchcraft. Now, they're going to say, no, it's not, but it is, and they do spells, which is a form of witchcraft, and they say their creed is to harm none, but do you as you will and harm none.

Of course, they don't define what harm is, and so the demonic forces are, of course, very satisfied with Wicca because they've got these people in Wicca deceived, thinking that they're doing good, and they're not harming anybody while they're believing in gods and goddesses, and in Wicca, this is real. You can actually make up a god or goddess that you want to serve, and that's okay. I remember talking to some Wiccans about this and saying, wait a minute. Are you telling me you can just create your own god or goddess?

And this woman said, yes. I said, but how is it real? I was really dumbfounded. She goes, well, it's real to us, and that's all that matters. I'm like, what?

Are you thinking? It's like you're on a street, you're driving down the road, and it's a red light, and I say, well, no, it's green light because all that matters is what you think it is. I remember that conversation, and it was dumbfounding to me, that someone would actually admit to making up a god or a goddess, and that it was okay, and this person said others did it inside of Wicca. Wow.

And so I found that to be most perplexing. In fact, that reminds me, back in seminary, I use this analogy of the soft life with this guy, but back in seminary, we had to do reports and stuff like that in one of the classes. I did a report on the New Age movement because it was pretty much alive and well at the time, and I was living in Escondido, California, and so I interviewed a New Age shop owner, and I contacted him and said, look, I'm not here to debate you. I'm in seminary and doing a report, and you'd have firsthand quotes and things like that. Would you be willing to have a discussion with me?

I'm not going to take anything out of context. He said, sure, come on down. So we talked for a couple of hours, and I took a lot of notes and didn't have a laptop at the time. Back in the early 90s, 1990, you had to use this thing called a pen and this other thing called paper, and you would use a flat surface, put the paper on it, and then write with this instrument thing called a pen. I think I used a pencil, which means it's erasable, so if you make a mistake.

See, I don't know if people are up on that, but that's what we had to use back then. So I sat with this guy in his shop, and I think only one or two people came in, and it only lasted a few minutes, but we had a really good discussion. I asked him all kinds of stuff about the New Age philosophy and thought. I had a lot of good quotes, and I said, thank you very much. He said, okay, well, I'm on my way. He said, hey, before you go, can I ask you some questions? I said, sure. He said, well, what do you think about what I told you? I said, well, I can tell you, and if you want me to, I will, but remember, I offer just to come in and just ask questions, not to debate you, but I'm trying to be polite, but if you want me to respond, and you say go for it, I will.

I'll tell you, and he says, yeah, go ahead. I said, okay. I said, the problem with your theology is it's not based in reality, and it's non-falsifiable. So there's a principle, explain what this is, non-falsifiability. That means that, for example, when Heaven's Gate, Applegate, Heaven's Gate group, Applegate was the name of the guy, the leader, and about 40 people killed themselves with poison back in San Diego. I used to live in San Diego, so I got interviewed on TV about it down there, and they killed themselves with poison ritualistically, and the theology was non-falsifiable.

The theology was that the Hale-Bopp comet was coming, and on the far side of the Hale-Bopp comet was a UFO, and you needed to kill yourself so that the people in the UFO would come and get your souls and take you to the next realm or world or planet. So you see it's non-falsifiable. You can't prove it to be false. It's non-falsifiable.

You couldn't go out to the opposite side of that comet and look and say, hey, there is no spaceship, and even if you could, they'd say, well, it's invisible, and so it's called non-falsifiability, and generally speaking, things that are non-falsifiable don't rest in reality. So I said to him, I said, your view is non-falsifiable, which means it can't be demonstrated to be true or false, and the reason is because it has no connections to actuality that it can be verified. He said, what you're talking here about is creating your own reality in your mind, and then you behave as though that's true. I said, but you don't. I said, for example, if you and I were driving in a car, and I was driving, and I said green lights are red and red lights are green because that's what I believe, that's the reality I'm creating, I said, would you want to drive with me? He said, well, no. I said, yeah, because it would be dangerous, because even though I believe something, it doesn't work in reality. I said, your view only rests in reality, and only is possible because of reality.

What I mean by that is not that it's real, but you could believe that there's the ethereal conscious of the Christ unity thing, and it's non-falsifiable and detectable, and as long as everything in the physical world works regularly, you can believe this thing, which has no basis in reality, and so you think it's true. He said, that's a problem with your view. And he said, thanks. And that was it. Hey, folks, three open lines, 877-207-2276.

Be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking a call at 877-207-2276, here's Matt Slick. Everybody, welcome to the show. All right, let's get to, let's see, that would be Ryan from Pennsylvania. Ryan, welcome, you're on the air.

Thank you very much. I was just listening to you talk about the non-falsifiability of New Age, and I need to thank you for inviting me to call. And I was wondering, what is the criteria for falsifiability of the presuppositional argument for God? It is not falsifiable. It's not falsifiable, not falsifiable? Right, it's not falsifiable.

Okay, then it falls to the same critique you just gave to the New Age. But you see, God himself is the ultimate. He's the terminus of all things. He can't falsify his existence.

In the presuppositional view, you assume the validity of the truth of God's word, and you demonstrate that everything works because of the presuppositional approach. You can't falsify God and demonstrate that he doesn't exist. Well, but you can falsify the proof that you're trying to use in the tag argument. That's easy. In the tag argument? Sure.

Okay, I think you just jumped ship a little bit here, but so how do you falsify the tag argument? Sure, of course. Easily.

Okay. How do you do that? Would you like to know how?

Yeah, I'm asking you how. By showing that the criteria that you use for what you call the foundations of intelligibility are just as easily justifiable outside of the Christian worldview as they are inside the Christian worldview, by showing that the laws of logic that you talk about, they vary in meaning and structure, that they are not absolute, they are not unchanging. Wait a minute. The notion of worldview that you use. So like the law of logic, the law of identity, something is what it is and is not what it is not. Does that change?

I'm sorry, you're blocked out for a second. Could you please repeat that? The law of identity in classical laws of logic, something is what it is and is not what it is not. Does that ever change? Okay, first of all, yes, it does change, by the way. They are defined within certain logical systems, and they are defined differently within different logical systems. We're talking about, like I said, the laws of classical laws, the law of identity. You're saying, yes, the law of identity within that context changes. Now, you've got to understand, a fact is never independent. Facts always exist in a context, and the context always has a causal chain. And so we don't want to say that any fact is autonomous because then we would have multiple ultimates.

This is problematic. But nevertheless, in the classical laws of logic, the law of identity, something is what it is and is not what it is not, you're saying within that context it changes? I'm saying that the so-called classical laws of logic are no longer applicable to this sort of discussion because logic has expanded in its understanding, and the classical laws of logic occupy a smaller and smaller portion of the universe of logic. And outside of the classical laws of logic, the laws of identity change, and the laws of contradiction change. So then let's stick with the law of identity. So there are times when something that exists isn't what it is?

Okay. First of all, logic does not, according to your own definition, logic does not deal in objects. It deals in statements about objects. So when you're saying something is what it is, that's not a logical statement. To say that A is identical to A is a logical statement. Yeah, that's the first law of logic. A is identical to A, is it?

Yeah, A equals A, and the second is A, not B, or A or N or not A. Right, but to see the law of identity, it's just something is what it is. Are you saying there's times when it's not true that something is what it is? Are you saying it's what? It doesn't make any sense.

Okay. First of all, you're using the wrong terminology to say that something is what it is. It's not a logical statement. To say that A is identical to A is a logical statement, not an object is what it is. It does not deal in objects. It deals in statements about objects.

It describes objects. That's what logic deals in. If it's a dog, then it's a mammal. That is a statement about dogs and mammals.

And it's a statement about the relationship of dogs and animals. You are using the wrong terminology. This is not what logic deals in.

It deals in statements. So, but I affirm that the law of identity is that something is what it is. It's identical with its own self, its own nature. Isn't that what it is? Okay. Well, you're not using a logical statement at all.

Really? And so when you're dealing in logic and you're dealing in identity, the logical statement is A is identical to A. Not A is equal to A. That's a mathematical statement. But A is identical to A. Not something is what it is and not what it's not. That is not a logical statement.

So, first of all, again, the classical laws of logic occupy a smaller portion of the logic sense. But would you agree that everything that exists has a nature? Sure.

Okay. Is that nature concomitant with its identity? It could be to a certain degree, sure. Okay, so its identity and its nature are one and the same thing.

So something that exists has a nature, and so it's that nature is consistent with itself, the law of identity. Well, first of all, you're again confusing some terms. If I take an apple, then I say A is an apple.

Okay? And five minutes later, it's going to deteriorate. So, yes, it's still an apple, but it's not the same apple to the same degree. So you have a logic of degree that you must also account for. It's identical to itself within a certain time of framework.

It's going to deteriorate and become identical with something else afterwards. So when you say A is identical to A right now. Yes, because that has the property of change within it. So in logic, the law of identity is the first of the three classical laws of thought.

You know that, right? Right. And we're no longer limited to the classical laws of logic.

Okay. So each thing, I'm talking about the classical laws and the law of identity. So each thing is the same thing with itself, and it's different from another thing, right?

Well, now you're going into a different category. When you're talking about something identical to itself, it's identical to itself within a given time framework. If you're going to talk about that its nature is different from something else, you're talking about comparing it to something else. If you say A is identical to A, that's different than saying that A is identical to B. Or something is not identical to B. The thing is I've been reading off of different websites while I'm talking to you.

Importanceofphilosophy.com, I was reading off of that. Definitions.net, the law of identity. So I'm just reading these things and you're disagreeing with them. See, I figured you wouldn't agree with me what I said. And so now even the experts you disagree with. So I have a problem with the credibility at this point.

Well, here's the thing. Within modal logic you can have necessary identity, you can have possible identity, you can have compatible identity, you can have contingent identity. So the laws of identity varies within the logical system that you're using. It also varies within free logic.

It also varies within temporal logic. You've not falsified anything. Sorry, but you haven't. Yes, I have. Because the law of identity. No, you haven't.

We're going to go. But he's not falsified anything. He's just confused about what the law of identity is.

It often happens with people. I'm going to teach him what it is. For open lines, 877-207-2276. We'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. Everybody, welcome to the show. If you want to give me a call, all you've got to do is dial 877-207-2276. All right, let's get to Casey from North Carolina. Casey, welcome. You're on the air. Hello. Hello. Yes. I have a question about the complete Jewish Bible, but that guy with the logic kind of piqued my interest also.

Okay, we could switch if you want and talk about that. So what do you got? Well, if he's talking about logic, I mean, the Big Bang theory basically proved that there was a beginning to the universe. So it had to come from nothing. Right. So nothing can't be something. No, it can't be the case that the universe came from nothing, in that nothing is nothing. There's no attribution, so something had to cause it. That's what I'm saying. It had to be a cause. Yes, okay. And it's not, yeah, it's not what the Big Bang theory theorizes.

It has to be something supernatural. So I mean, if he's talking about logic, it might not prove Christianity, but it proves that we're here and everything else is here. Yeah, ultimately logic presupposes can only be based in the true Trinitarian God. And the reason is because things have a causal chain. So let me, I'm going to try this with you and listeners to see how this sounds, because I always work on new ideas, and here's a new idea I've come up with to illustrate something. Let's say you have a mountain, and this mountain is, it potentially could be infinitely high.

It doesn't matter. This is a thought experiment. And you take a rock way up there and you push it, and it rolls down a little bit and hits two more rocks. Those two hit two more each.

Those four hit, you know, two more and you have eight. So it goes two, four, eight, 16, 32, 64, 128, et cetera. And the further down it goes, the wider the events are, the more there are.

It's like a triangle with parallel lines that go out. And this is an illustration of one event that leads to other events. And I know of no instance where a single event only causes one single other event. I don't know if it exists, but I'm not aware of any.

I've researched it a little bit and just haven't found anything. So one rock hits, you know, hits the dirt and moves the air. And so there's other things that are affected by a movement, and heat exchange, and things like this.

It's never by itself. So the point is that events have an increasing number of interrelated things that they affect. The further down the mountain you go, the further down time you go, and the further down you go, the more events are the result of that single initial event.

Well, the thing is, that's an illustration to see. The further down you go in time, the more events have occurred. Well, if you go backwards in time, necessarily the triangle has to come to a point. There has to be a single uncaused cause. There has to be a single event that brings everything in.

What is the single event? And this illustration is to suggest that all facts, all actualities, exist in a broader context inside of a causal chain, that facts don't exist independently of other facts, of other contexts, because if they did, then they would be eternal, but because they would be non-contingent, and you can't have multiple eternal facts, because then each one of them becomes their own ultimate, and we have multiple ultimates. You have nothing that you can ground in any ultimate beginning or truth, if this makes sense.

I don't know if it does or not. Sure. Yeah, that's kind of the intelligent design argument that not only do you have an uncaused cause, but yet this supposed explosion of everything becomes orderly. Yeah. Well, there's other concepts, but the point is that what I'm trying to explain is that everything is related to a single uncaused cause. So what we're doing is we're down in that mountain a few miles down, and everywhere we look, there are events all around us, and we walk up the hill to go back in time, and the more back in time we go, the narrower the field goes and the fewer events there are, until we get to the point where there's only one, that first rock, that first movement. And so that's the idea that the initial rock represents the ultimate, the cause, the terminus.

Yeah. Well, okay, so that's just an illustration. When we get to the issue of the universe and causation, there's only two causes of something, impersonal or personal, and that's called the law of disjunctive syllogism, when you only have two options, and there are only two, God or not God, the personal or impersonal. If you only have two and one's negated, then the other one is verified. It's called the impossibility of the contrary. So if you can demonstrate that an impersonal cause can't bring the universe into existence, for example, then if that's falsified, it can't be shown to be logically true, then the other one is automatically verified. And so that's one of the ways of using that, that God must exist.

And then we get into, from there, I go into universals and particulars and demonstrate that the Trinity is the necessary precondition for universals and particulars. That's another whole nother topic. Sure. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, it was just interesting listening to that previous caller. Yeah, you know.

He's just, he's kind of starting in the middle. Yeah. Somewhere after the cause.

Yes. And what I was saying was, you know, in the classical laws of logic, I did it on purpose because atheists will often talk to me and say, well, there's other laws of logic. And I'll say, okay, other laws of logic, but we're talking about the classical laws. And they say, but there's other laws. I said, well, they'll have their day in court in the classical laws.

And I always pick the first one. Something is what it is. It's not what it's not. That's A equals A.

Is it true? And this guy was saying sometimes. Well, it doesn't make any sense to say sometimes because in the context of that first law, in the classical laws, something that exists is what it is itself. It just is what it is. I mean, to deny that is just irrational.

And so then we think that some philosophers think that the other laws, law of non-contradiction, law of excluded middle, proper inference, are derived out of the primary law, the law of identity. And so then we get into some other issues. But yeah, I've had lots of conversations like this with people over the years.

I enjoy it, but I don't want to kill people on the radio who don't understand what's going on because it takes a bit of linguistic and logical training. Excuse me. Well, I appreciate that. Sure.

Sure. So, yeah, anyway, your question was about the Jewish Bible, I think it was? Yeah, there's a complete Jewish Bible version I was starting to look into, and I was just wondering if you had heard of it or looked at it at all. I don't know what it is, the complete Jewish Bible.

I know there's many, many translations. Read the complete Jewish Bible free online. Oh, interesting. Look at the complete Jewish.

It's a CJB. I didn't even know that. Oh, let's see.

Oh, it has Romans. Okay. Open.

Close that. Let's see, I'm going to go and check the verse I always go to. Romans 5, 18, let's see what they say. In other words, just as it was through one offense that all people came under condemnation, so it is through one righteous act all people come to be considered righteous. Not a very good translation. Let's see, what do they do with John 8, 58? Let's see, let's see. John 8, doing this real time here.

We've got nobody waiting, so I can talk to you while I'm doing this. John 58, Yeshua said to them, yes indeed, before Avraham came into being, I am. That always bothers me, Yeshua. Now I understand what they're doing, they're replacing Jesus with Yeshua. But when you look at the Greek text, and it says Jesus, Iesous, that word, Iesous is 2424 in the Strongs. Oh, interesting, God really could do that.

Oh, how about that, I like that. It occurs 914 times in the New Testament. Now some people think that the early gospels were written in Aramaic, or maybe even Hebrew, and so this name would have been Yeshua.

But the later epistles were written in Greek, because they were written to the Greeks, Greek cultures and things like that, and the Greek word is Iesous. And so I have a problem when people take a little bit too much liberty, in my opinion, with a text. They say Yeshua said to them, no, it should be Jesus. Because that's what the Greek says, and they're changing it.

And I have a problem with that, I don't like that. That's just me. Is there a Hebrew word for Jesus? I thought that was Joshua. Nope.

Well, kind of, but something Joshua, but Jesus is just how it is in the Greek, and we should stick with what it says, that's all. There we go, there's the break, buddy. Okay? All right, man, God bless. Thank you.

Okay. Hey, folks, nobody's waiting. If you want to give me a call, all you've got to do is dial 8772072276. We'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 8772072276.

Here's Matt Slick. All right, everyone. Okay, so we get the last, let's see, the last 12 minutes or so of the show.

If you want to give me a call, we have five open lines, 8772072276. All right, so let's get into a little bit of hate mail. Because, hey, it's Friday. Your views on the Trinitarian doctrine is a bit narrowed and seem to be more philosophical. You seek to appeal to minds by using logic rather than facts. Now, you know, I enjoy statements like this because they're not logical. So if you have a fact, then you have to use logic to discuss the fact. You can't discuss a fact without using logic. If a fact exists, like, say, a parchment in a jar, it's a fact, well, then you're saying parchment, you're saying jar, in, you're saying location, you're presupposing the laws of logic, law of identity, law of non-contradiction. And you're using deduction and inference to make conclusions. This is all necessary when you have facts.

Facts cannot be understood without logic. So two plus two is four. Now, we can understand that because we understand what two is, because that's the law of identity. Two is a two. It's something that's what we recognize.

It has existence, nature. Plus is a concept of addition. We get that concept. And we have something called equality or equalness or summation and then another value called four. We see an interrelationship of identities in relation to addition with something of equality. This is all logically based.

And it's with us in our mind it's so quick. We don't even think about two plus two is four. All right. So you can't have a fact two without having some form of logic associated with it. Two, for example, this hesitates the classical law of identity. Something is not what it is. It's not what it's not.

Okay? It is identical to its properties. So two-ness, which is an abstract entity, is not something that can be written down and thus destroyed. If you write the number two on a piece of paper and then destroy that piece of paper, two-ness is not destroyed. Instead, what you've done is destroy a symbolic representation of a universal concept.

That's all you've done. The universal concept is not destroyed. And then a universal concept is important because you can think of the number two and I can't also. Because of that, the quality and the issue of two-ness exists independently of your mind and my mind, because if your mind dies and my mind dies, two-ness does not disappear. Other people know about it and can come in contact with the thing called a universal, the quality of two-ness, and it has its property. And so because two-ness is a universal, it's not dependent upon physical things. Because if it was dependent upon physical things and the physical things disappeared, then two-ness would disappear. Instead, two-ness is an abstraction that occurs in the mind. Two-ness is universal, universal abstraction, hence a universal mind.

Simple stuff, okay? And so these are the kinds of things that we do with logic and we think, and we apply logic with facts. Now, logic can only exist ultimately because God himself exists, because logic is a reflection of the character of the Trinitarian mind. Now, I say Trinitarian because God is a Trinity, and within the Trinitarian context, God exists. And he is one and many. He is one being and many persons, one being three persons. He's an entity, a being, who has the quality of oneness and many-ness within his essence.

It's called the issue of the one and the many. Now, the number two, for example, is a quality of oneness, not in a numeric sense, but it's one thing. And it can manifest in different locations, in different ideas, in different ways.

Number two, like the number three, or circle, or square. These are triangularity. These are concepts that we are familiar with that have universal applicability, because if we were to travel to Mars or to Alpha Centauri, the idea of triangularity is still true. But the location that we are in does not give actuality to triangularity or numerics or anything.

These are things that exist, and yet they are mental. They're abstract things. So I'll take a triangle, for example. Triangularity is a concept. You can understand triangularity, and I can understand triangularity. We can understand circularity, a circle.

We can understand these concepts. So there's many instances of triangularity. There are many instances of circularity.

They exist all over the place. They're called particulars. Particular manifestation of a triangle here or a circle there, and your house and my house, your clock might be in the shape of a circle, and the clock and my wall is in the shape of a circle.

In fact, the glass in my hand has an opening that is a circle. And so we have circles manifested in different places at different times. Those are called particular instances of the universal. Now, the question then becomes, what unites the particulars with the universals?

It's a serious question. Because if we want to say that a particular instance of a circle, like the circle that embeds the glass that I'm holding in my hand, the circular opening, is that the universal itself on this glass? Well, of course not, because the circle-ness exists outside of me holding this manifestation of a circle in my hand, in the representation of this glass.

So then if you have a glass with a circular opening and you drink out of that glass, and you understand circularity, as do I, we have particular manifestations of circularity in different places. Well, what unites your circle with my circle? What is the ultimate thing that brings them together? It has to be the universal idea of circularity. Well, that means then that the idea of circularity is the ultimate, which would mean then that there's nothing beyond it, that in this particular narrow view of what a circle is, we understand its actuality and we say, well, that's what a circle is, and we're seeing particular manifestations. What unites my circle with your circle to the universal? Because we could see direct unit representation between mine and the universal and yours and the universal. But how about yours to mine? Because if yours to mine is a manifestation of circularity, we recognize it, and we're saying in the horizontal between human minds, there's an actuality that exists, and that's a problem, because it implies that our minds become the ultimate.

I know I'm getting complicated. So what must be in place in order for the idea, I'll stick with circularity, to have its universal characteristic property that can be recognized by individual minds? What is the ultimate? Well, let's just say for now that the ultimate is the circleness quality.

Let's just say that's the case. Well, then what must be in place for circularity to have its universal truth value? What must be the condition that gives circularity its universality? Remember, circularity is a concept of the mind, and we identify certain physical manifestations or particulars. And so the implication is there's a universal mind behind them, just like a universal mind behind mathematics.

The number two, triangularity or upness or downness, these qualities that are abstract entities, abstractions, that imply a universal mind. The Trinity has both unity and diversity, one and many, universals and particulars, embedded within the very nature of God. And by assuming the Trinitarian view, we then can make sense of the universals and the particulars. We would say the reason this circle of your glass, the circle of the opening of my glass, those same things or circles, have actuality is because God gave them actuality because they reflect the universality of his mind, who knows all truths, he knows what circles are, and we're made his image and we can apprehend them.

If you have a being who's only one person, then you don't have the one and the many as a fundamental characteristic of his essence and the fundamental nature of the universe then would have to be employed as a one and the many property, which gives problems because it's impersonal and how do you have impersonal things because of universal abstractions which require minds. Yeah, this stuff gets deep, and I know a lot of you probably right now are having brain fog and are saying you just ruined my entire weekend, thank you very much, Matt. But this is the kind of stuff I talk about with atheists sometimes and it gets pretty heady. Let's just say this, that without the Trinitarian God, you can't justify anything. You can't justify facts.

To deny the truth of Christianity is a counter claim and people do that. To say that whatever exists, whatever does, exists independently is impossible. So how do facts relate to each other? How do facts relate to our environment? All facts have a causal relationship with other facts. And as you go back in time, the number of facts that are before those facts must decrease. And as you go back in time, it decreases to a singular point, the first cause.

It's either the case that the first cause is personal or it's not the case that the first cause is personal. If it's not personal, then it has to have what's called the necessary sufficient conditions to bring an event to bear. Now in the physical realm, that's one thing. But what must be in place for universal abstract entities to exist?

Like circles, circularity, duckness, hoarseness, carness, blueness. What must be in place for these actualities, these universals to be? Well, since these universals are abstract and they're universal, the implication is the universal mind. The universal mind is God. And it's a Trinitarian God because only in the Trinity is the one and the many personified. And in the one and the many, we have the precondition to be able to understand how universals, the one, can have many particular manifestations all over the place. And in Christianity, it works. But in other worldviews, it does not.

So this is hard to explain because the concepts are difficult. Let's get to whoever this is on calling in right now. Welcome, you're on the air.

We've only got about a minute and a half. Yeah, I was just wondering if you, I love just hearing that description and wanted to re-listen to it with my wife and just wondering if there's a podcast you have or something that I could get the audio to re-listen to that with my wife. Sure, all you've got to do is go to, where is it, Laura? You can type it in. I think it's, okay, let me do this, let me do this. It's on, okay, it's on YouTube, Matt Slick Live YouTube and look for today's show, Matt Slick Live YouTube.

We have several ones because people have complained about what I say, like I don't believe in certain politically incorrect things and people turn me in, you can't say that. So we've had to move around a little bit, that's fine. And so Matt Slick Live is the YouTube thing and it might be one or two of them and look for August 12, 2022.

Matt Slick Live, 8, 12, 2022, okay? Very good, thank you so much, have a great weekend. You too, man, God bless, buddy.

God bless you too, bye. Okay, I hope that was interesting. The problem is I've got to define that and I've got to work all that stuff out so that I can make sure that people can understand those things.

Step by step I want to be able to do those and it's not always easy to do because those are tough concepts. Maybe someone could transcribe what I said and send it back to me and I could polish it, all right. Hey, there you go folks, Thursday Music, I hope you have a great weekend. May the Lord bless you and by His grace, back on Monday, by His grace, I hope you have a great weekend. God bless everybody, we'll see you, bye. Another program powered by the Truth Network.