Matt Slick Live

The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network Podcast. If you want to give me a call, all you have to do is of the Truth Network Podcast. As a member of the Truth Network Podcast, please click the The Truth Network Podcastmaker and today's brought to you by Did You Get the Avocados? and what route did you take went north and how long were you in the store?

33 minutes and 42 seconds. All these questions, you know? And so I say to my wife sometimes I'll say, no I didn't get the avocados, I don't have any other information to any other questions if you were to ask them to me. Yeah, and then she gives me this weird look. She does this a lot.

She stares at me, her eyelids are half-massed and she rubs her forehead. I'm like, what's wrong? I just gave a good answer. Yeah, she's got issues. That's fantastic. Yeah, the issues are two.

They're called matte and slick. Those are her issues. That's good stuff. On the zealotry of Jesus' time in the first century there, Matt, what were they about? Were they Maccabean?

What was going on? Why wasn't he just a rabbi wannabe or a fisherman? What paid his bills? What paid Simon's bills if he was a political activist? It doesn't mean that when you're a political activist that they don't have farm work to do or families that they take care of.

It means, like a lot of people, that they might be an engineer, a doctor, a waitress, waiter, and they are also a Democrat, a Republican, an Independent, whatever. And they might hold to those views very devotedly and are willing to act upon them. So that's what the zealots were. But they were, from what I understand, also a little bit more interested in actually preparing. Think of them as preppers.

They'll go out in the practice, they'll do this, they'll do that. They're waiting for when everything turns Mad Max. So think of the zealots as preppers for the fall of Rome or the assisting of the fall of Rome.

It's a political movement and so they were ready. So Judas was a zealot. One of the theories is that he tried to force Jesus' hand by turning him in, forcing him to do a miracle to get the revolution started. That's just a theory.

We can't substantiate it, but given the information, it's a possibility, but we don't know. But Simon the zealot, he wasn't the son of perdition. What would Simon be in the 21st century then, Matt?

I like the analogy of a prepper, because they're in society. Not an oatkeeper or anything? Well, there's different kinds. And was he a god person? Everybody was.

All the Jews were. Hey, hold on. We've got a break. Hey folks, we have three open lines. If you want to give me a call, 877-207-2276. We'll be right back. Please stay tuned. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. Hey everybody, welcome back to the show. I just want to say thanks for listening. And if you want to give me a call, all you've got to do is dial 877-207-2276.

Let's get back to Buskman. Are you still there? I am still here, Matt. So do we need more Simon the zealots in our country today, Matt?

Yes. But in a godly way. We need Christians who are zealots for the faith.

Not in a harmful, ungodly way. But we need them to be people who will be zealous for the truth of the gospel. We need that. Do you think that we're lacking that as a nation based on what happens in our Christian churches here in America? Yeah, there's a form of zealotry, but there's not a united zealotry. People are willing as Christians, true Christians, to be able to stand up for the faith. But because we're so denominationally minded and subgroup and subchurches working, it's difficult to get cross-pollination.

So for example, I'm a Calvinist who's on the mill and believes in the charismatic gifts. Let's just say that I went to 20 churches in the area, Baptist churches, Presbyterian churches, non-denominant churches, and I said, look, I'm a Christian apologist and I'd like to offer my services. You can check me out and do interviews, make sure I'm okay. Just to be able to come in and maybe if you are interested, answer questions, teach theology, and answer about the cults and how to witness to Mormons.

I've been doing this for 42 years. I'm not saying I have all the answers, but would you be interested? None would say yes. Why is that, Matt? Well, they see my face for one thing and then they're not interested.

They only hear my last name and slick, not interested, and there is a sense, in my opinion, a sense of independence that exists. And I've actually thought about it years and years ago was to be a roaming preacher-teacher. Preacher is not the right word. A teacher in different churches and to equip their people. And I'm not saying I can do a job that the pastors can't do, I'm better. I'm not saying that.

But when you get a specialist who works on this and can produce the information and go and provide, you'd think it might be a good idea, but it's never, it's just not going to work. The churches don't want that. That's a shame because I have been following Karm, I've been going to your website, well, since the mid or late 90s, Matt, and one of the first, yeah, one of the first helps that you provided through your website was for when I was speaking with some LDS folks. A couple of young men showed up on their bicycles, and thanks to your Christian apologetics research ministry website, I was able to get just a wide, bountiful amount of information of the Latter-day Saints. And I was able to speak the truth to them in love rather than just kick them off the porch. And that's an awesome thing, Matt.

So I do have to say thank you, sir, for all the research that you've done. And though you might, hey, if you're ever in the Dayton, Ohio area, I would love to take you out for coffee, and I would love to be able to plug you into, you know, if I had the ability to plug you into the church that I would be a part of. Currently I'm in between churches, actually, keeping me in prayers. But I am interviewing, in fact, I'm using your, you have a list on Karm on how to find a good church.

And I think those are excellent questions. So anybody out there listening to Matt's slick show right now, he does have, if you're looking for a church like me, he does have a resource on his website that gives you a list of, kind of a checklist of what to look for in a good, solid Christian church. So thank you for that, Matt. But I would love to have you, you know, speak in a Bible study.

That would be awesome, honestly. But once again, I'm a slick fan from way back. Well, I appreciate that.

But thank you for what you do. And any time I get a question that comes in my head, and out here in Ohio, you come on at 6 p.m., I'm like, oh, I'm going to call Matt slick and see if I can get this, because I've always wondered. Or, it's funny, Matt, sometimes I'll run into a portion of my life, and I'm like, I don't quite know the answer to that.

But hey, Matt slick comes on at 6 o'clock. So hold on, brother, either tune in, or I'll post a question to him, see if he'll put me on the air, or I glean the information from you, sir, and I download it to my friend's family who's ever inquiring of me of a certain topic. So you are an awesome resource for those who have the internet, or I'm listening to you on 106.5 here in Dayton, Ohio, and I just think, tell Stu Epperson thanks for reaching us down here in Dayton, because he's based in Toledo. If I remember right, that's where our repeaters start, is up in Toledo, Ohio, and I'm way southwest of Toledo. So just wanted to make a shout-out, and thanks for the information on Zoetri.

Yeah, no problem. It's there on CARM, and thank you for your kind words. My goal is to equip the body of Christ, to give him information. I have a rare privilege of being able to do this full-time, and I've been able to do it full-time now for about 17 years on CARM, just full-time, and before that I did it for many years with a job.

And so I put it into CARM, and it's there for free, and that's it. We just want people to get grounded in the truth. Yeah, and thanks for that, Matt, and tell your dear wife that allows you to be on the radio for an hour, but if it is a sacrifice, it really is reaping a lot of rewards.

I know it has in my life, Matt, and that's the truth, brother. She wouldn't call it a sacrifice. She'd call it a blessing because it's not around her for that hour to bother her and ask her. So she's like, oh, go do radio. It's okay, go do radio. So it took about 20 minutes after she said, I do, to say, uh-oh, I'm done.

So I think that's what it was. Well, thanks for everything you do, Matt, and blessings to you, and I'm sure I'll be calling the Matt Slick Live program probably in the near future. So thank you for being there, Matt. All right, man.

And one last question. I'm going to look on Google Maps. What center are you in? Dayton, the home of aviation. Oh, okay. The Wright Brothers, their house is not too far from where I live.

Oh, that'd be fun to see. It is, and if you're ever in the Dayton, Ohio area, Matt, and all your listeners, come visit the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Museum. It's free. It's awesome. I mean, they have artifacts in there that will blow your mind. I take my daughter there. She wants to be in astronomy, and she likes to go and see the NASA exhibit, and it's just a really, really good resource. I'm very proud of it as a Daytonian.

I actually grew up in a town just southeast of Dayton, but it's considered the Dayton area, and it's a wonderful resource, the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Museum, and it's free. It all goes on donations, so you don't have to pay to get in. All right. Well, praise God now.

Praise God. Thanks for calling, buddy. Appreciate it. Thanks, Matt. Bye-bye. All right.

God bless. Why don't we just jump on here and get on with, oh, yeah, four open lines. You want to give me a call?

877-207-2276. There's the break. Sorry, Ryan. Hold on. We'll be right back after these messages, folks. Please stay tuned. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. Hey, everybody.

Welcome back to the show. We have three open lines if you want to give me a call, and just let me remind you that we're doing an end-of-year matching funds drive. If you want to support the show and you want to keep the ministry on here and other things, please consider supporting us. We ask $5 a month. All you've got to do is go to karm.org, C-A-R-M dot O-R-G, forward slash donate.

All the information you need is right there. We ask $5 a month, and whatever you donate, $5 a month more or a one-time donation, it'll be matched. We have a donor who's going to match whatever comes in, and, boy, do we need it. We could certainly use it.

Please consider supporting us. Let's get to Ryan from Pennsylvania. Ryan, welcome. You're on the air. Thank you, Matt.

I appreciate you inviting me to call anytime. I was looking at your Transcendental Argument for God on KARM, and I noticed your examples of the laws of logic, law of identity, something is what it is, something that exists as a specific nature, law of non-contradiction, something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time, in the same way and the same extent, and the law of excluded middle, a statement is either true or false, thus a statement is true or false is either true or false. And I was curious, as you stated, is the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction, are they applied to objects only, and the law of excluded middle only applied to statements only, or are they interchangeable? Well, it depends in which context what you're talking about, but the law of identity is sometimes some philosophers think that all the subsequent laws are derived out of that one, since that which is itself cannot contradict itself, hence the second law, LNC. But the statements, that's what LEM stands for, statements cannot be both true and false, so the answer is right there in the laws themselves. Well, my question is still, is the law of identity and contradiction, non-contradiction, only applied to objects? You say something is, that's an object, and non-contradiction, something cannot be itself.

What else is it applied to? Is it also applied to statements? When you say object, do you mean abstract objects or material objects, or would it be conceptual?

No, you're saying something. Something is what it is. Is that an object, or is that a conceptual object? Does the law of identity only apply to that, or what? It can be whatever we're talking about, the laws of logic themselves. It can be a concept that has actuality, but in the abstract conceptual thing, in particular, concrete particulars, are those things that are the manifestations of the universal abstract principles. So I don't know if you're familiar with that, but it's an open-ended statement, and those who are familiar with these things are open-endedness intentionally. Well, as I said, you use the first two and say some thing, and then the third one, you say a statement.

That's the reason why I'm asked, because it's my understanding from 35 years of studying logic that both the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction and the law of excluded mental are all applied to statements about objects rather than the objects themselves. Well, yeah, you can say that. Sure, that's fine. I don't have any problem with that. Okay. I would like to send you a response to your transcendental argument by email, because I believe I can destroy it from end to end at just about every single step without destroying the Christian worldview, because I am Christian. So I think that it's a bogus proof, and I believe it is flawed from beginning to end, and I'd like to show it to you, and I'd like you to respond. Just put in there the permission to reproduce it on Karm with a response. Absolutely.

I'll be glad to. So let me ask you. Do you believe in transcendentals at all? How do you recognize something that is transcendental? I said you believe in transcendentals. Do you know what they are, right? Hang on.

Sure. Here's my question, though. Let's say object A is transcendental and object B is not transcendental. How do you distinguish between the two? Because transcendentals are abstracts, or abstractions.

Okay. Again, how do you recognize them, that A is transcendental and B is not? Like, for example, the idea of the transcendental necessity to say A equals A, the law of identity, it's a transcendental. It's not dependent upon space and time for its validity, hence the idea of transcendence. So the nature of the law of identity is not dependent upon space and time, so hence it has transcendental quality.

We just recognize it by looking at it. Okay, so a rock that weighs three pounds, or rock A weighs three pounds, is that a transcendental or is that not? The concept of rocketness and weight has transcendental necessity, and we're talking about the manifestation here of the one and the many, the issue of singularity universals and particular manifestations, and that's all that's going on there. Okay, when you're talking about transcendental, do I believe that there are some things that are always true? Sure, of course there are, if that is what you mean by transcendental. So yes, I do believe in transcendentals, if that's your definition. Okay, so then transcendentals have particular manifestations, right? Like duck, an individual duck, an individual tree, for example. The idea of treeness is a transcendental, right? Okay, yes. Okay, so I've got a question for you. What's the ultimate nature of the universe then?

Is it one or many transcendentals or particulars? Well, the problem with saying that duck participates in duckness and tree participates in treeness and things of that nature is that you have completely adopted platonic idealism, and platonic idealism has collapsed. And there's nothing Christian, in fact there's nothing more anti-Christian than idealism.

It had its flower in the 19th century and it has collapsed. So you're borrowing from not a Christian worldview, but a pagan Greek worldview that preceded Christianity. And again, that has already collapsed and is no longer relevant to the Christian worldview in a postmodern world. I reject platonic idealism.

I don't believe it's correct and I have publicly stated that I reject it. Furthermore, it says in Romans 1-20, it says that the creation of the world, his invisible attributes, his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen. So God is Trinitarian in his nature, right?

Correct. So how is his divine Trinitarian nature clearly seen in creation? Because he's the creator of it, just like the artist himself is inside a work of art or a piece of sculpture. He is eminent within his creation because he created it.

Since God is both the one and the many, in that he is one being in three persons, that's why I affirm the truth of that actuality. And since the Bible says his divine nature is seen in creation, creation in my opinion is in three categories. We have the material, we have the spiritual and we have the conceptual. Now the conceptual in God's mind is eternal and God is in that spiritual category too. But the main areas that we understand are God's material world, the spiritual world, the conceptual world, the Trinitarian in itself.

And I see each of those having three subdivisions within themselves. So would you then agree that the transcendental necessities and the things that we would know are actually reflections of the infinite knowledge of the mind of God? For example, tree-ness, which is something that God has created in his mind, and then in the created order we recognize particular trees.

Would that not be consistent with the idea of God's divine nature being clearly seen in creation? No. I love your answer. You made me laugh because you gave a mad answer. One syllable.

I loved it. Here's the thing. The reason we see God in his creation is because he created it. Just like we see an artist in an artist's rendition of a salt sculpture or a painting. We see things like, and by the way, they're not abstract objects, but the laws of logic are extracted models from existence or reality. So in other words, we see a whole bunch of dogs and we say all dogs are mammals.

We see a whole bunch of men and we say all men are mortal. And we extract these things from the world around us. They're extractive models. They're not realities themselves, but they're just like mathematics.

We take two dogs and two dogs and we say two plus two equals four. We extract out that model from existence or reality, and that's how we come about with logic as well. That's an atheist argument. The problem with it is that you have to presuppose certain ideas and certain things, but you presuppose the validity of the law of identity in order to even have the statement that they're extractive or model extractions from actuality. You have to presuppose a uniformity of nature.

That's not true at all. That is because you have to presuppose a law of identity in order to even have the question or even the discussion. Here's what you need to presuppose. You have to presuppose that we are an existing creature in an existing world, and when we encounter things in this existing world, we know things. That's it, and you can draw the rest from that.

Whether that's an atheist viewpoint or not, nonetheless, it is absolutely accurate and it is correct and does not rely on anything else being presupposed. Are the laws of logic properties of the physical world? They're transcendent in their nature. They are not properties of the physical world, but they are things that we extract out from the physical world.

They're abstract entities that are apprehended by different minds. That's another topic. Hey, we're out of time, though. Okay, we've got to go. Thanks for the conversation. Write that stuff out. Okay, I have this discussion on a weekly basis with atheists, just about weekly.

I've been doing it for years, so I'm very familiar with it. I love the topic. We'll be right back after these messages. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. Hey, everybody. Welcome back to the show. For those of you who had no idea what that guy and I were talking about beforehand, these are some of the topics I get involved with, with atheists and other groups on a regular basis, dealing with these kind of highfalutin topics, and I enjoy it.

To me, it just shows the greater majesty and glory of God. So there you go. If you don't understand it, that's okay.

It took me a while to get it, to be able to argue about it at 40 miles an hour. So, hey, look, if you want to give me a call, all you've got to do is dial 877-207-2276. Let's get to Gary from Georgia. Gary, welcome. You're on the air. Hey, Matt.

Appreciate that, bud. You had a couple callers that one was, he was at a date, and he said he was in between the church. I've got a great church to recommend. It could be on your list. I haven't checked it. Can I just give that to you?

Sure. Yeah, it's called the Pastor's Kin, but it's Quest Church in Middletown, Ohio. Middletown, Ohio.

There's no question. I got saved about 15 months ago, and I remember going, I now moved out of state, but, man, there's no question this church is amazing here. And the Lord sent me there. I went there for about as long as I lived there.

If I actually moved back, I would go there again. But I could give you the phone number if you wanted to. Well, he can look it up, but I'm looking at their staff, making sure there's no women pastors. That's good.

No, no, no, no, no, no. I don't listen to women pastors either yet. Not going to call them. Good, good. And then what we believe, I'm checking that out right now. Actually, sorry, that's Methodist, isn't it? The women pastors? A lot of bad churches have women pastors and elders, yeah. I know that's not biblical. That's right. But, yeah, it's off of Hendricks Road. There's a male, so he's male, and he's the senior. Ken would be the senior pastor.

Yeah, I would never recommend it. I know the Lord sent me there, and a friend of mine was there, and that's kind of why I went. Okay. You look at the statement of faith. Oh, there it goes. That's a much better one. Oh. Oh, I like this. I don't even have time. What do you think? Well, they're going through the statement of faith.

I'm looking at it, and I don't even have enough time to go over it. That's because it's big. Oh, okay. That's good.

No, that's a good sign. Oh, yes. Great, great, great. No, no, no. I was just thinking about it.

Honestly, you know, the spirit can't, I mean, can't, the spirit wouldn't have me there. Okay. That's how I feel about it, you know. Okay. And looking at their return, they don't, oh, they're not promoting any particular millennial view.

They seem to be open. Oh, I sort of like that. Oh, good for them. I want to say it says, I want to say I read, you know, it's like an alliance. Does that, do you know what that is? Yeah, it's an alliance, yeah. Okay.

One group might align itself with another and have a tenuous alliance, depending on circumstances and conditions. Yeah, he's a great pastor, bud. I mean, it's, you know, I knew, I felt, I felt at home when I, I felt at home, I mean, I drove, I lived in Cincinnati and, you know, I drove past, I don't know how many churches to get there, but I didn't need, at the time, you know, looking back at it, I'm like, wow, the Lord clearly sent me there. I can't speak that for everybody, but the guy that, you know, he did very well. Well, it looks good from what I've seen. Oh, yeah, I can tell you. Okay. So, what do you got, man?

What's your question? No, yeah, well, you know, about that atheist, it's funny how... Ryan, the guy you just called? Don't most, yeah, don't most atheists just confirm they're atheists? He said he was Christian. Yeah, I've talked to him before, he has a decent understanding of Trinitarian theology and affirms it, but in my opinion, he misses the boat on a few of these philosophical issues, let's just say. That's my opinion, he'll say the same thing about me. Sure. What's good about him is he doesn't take offense to statements like that, just like I don't.

We just disagree. So, hopefully, he'll write me that. I think I've got a lot of people who are supposed to do that, and I want to reproduce the articles and then respond to them. And, you know, so I do this regularly. Absolutely. With atheists. Absolutely. I got lost there.

I was trying to follow you guys. Well, here's the thing. Let me explain it briefly.

It doesn't sound biblical to me, but... Well, if you think about it, God is a Trinity, one God in three persons. He's both one and many at the same time. That's just it.

Okay. Philosophers have been wondering about something about reality. What is the ultimate form of reality? Is it one thing, one substance with many particular forms of it?

Or is it a bunch of different things that we're perceiving? So there's only two possibilities. There's one thing, or it's not the case that it's one thing. Just simple logic. So if it's one thing, and everything's the same one thing, in trees and ducks and statements and people and water and clouds, then if it's all one thing, how's that possible? It doesn't quite make sense. And if everything's one thing, how do you have distinctions by which you can make truth statements? So it's just part of the discussion. If everything's many, like a bunch of trees, a bunch of birds, each individual tree and each individual bird, the individual things are what's ultimate.

That's what the universe is made of, of particulars. Well, if that's the case, how do you bring unity to them? Since a bunch of trees, you understand the concept of tree.

What unites them? Is it an imposed idea? I see those multiple trees, so I'm going to conclude that there's a quality called tree-ness. But if that's the case, what about your brain? Does it say the same thing? Because if it does say the same thing, then how are we saying the same thing? But what if it disagrees, and your idea of tree is different than mine? Well, then how do we know which is correct, which is the universal truth? So that undermines truth values as well. This is a serious discussion that's been going on. And what the discussion does is set one against the other. The one, tree-ness, or individuals of trees, and they say one of those is ultimate.

That's the wrong approach. In Christianity, the one and the many are equally ultimate in the nature of God. God is the author of tree-ness and the author of individual trees. They have their coherence in the mind and work of God and in his creative work. Neither one is ultimate, but God is ultimate, who's behind them all. And we look to the ultimacy in him. And that's the solution that the Trinity gets. That's the short version of stuff. Amen to that, bud. Yeah. I could add more.

Trust me, I could add more. You're right about that going 40 miles an hour. I don't want people to go comatose while they're driving.

Some of those guys get exhausted. I'm sitting at home, I'm just standing. Check this out. Okay, I'll have a little more fun. So there's three realms, material, spiritual, and conceptual. Material is time, space, matter. That's three. Spiritual is God, man, and angels. That's three.

Conceptual is knowledge, reason, and ethics. And that's three. So I see the Trinity, not just the being of God, he's the creator, he happens to be triune. But I see the Trinity as the creator of all things, but the condition of existence itself that's reflected in the nature of God. So the actuality reflects God's Trinitarianism. Actuality consists of the material, spiritual, and conceptual realm. And each one of those is derived into three itself. I see the realms of existence as Trinitarian and each of those to have three-ness within them as they reflect God. Because it says his eternal power and divine nature are seen in creation. Why do I start thinking about that?

What does that mean? His divine nature is Trinitarian, but it's also one. One and many. So we can understand that reason, for example, is what we're talking about, the laws of logic. They are universal, that's one, with particular manifestations of them in your brain and my brain. That's many.

God's behind it all. Anyway, there's a little bit more, but I don't want to get too much into it because I'll kill you guys. Yeah, one last thing real quick. Now, they're all equal, so the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit is all equal, right? Right, okay. Equal in their ultimacy, yes. Now, within the doctrine of the Trinity, we have the equal ultimacy of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, but there's a hierarchical difference. It is the Father who sent the Son, and it's the Father and the Son who send the Holy Spirit. There is, within this discussion, what's called the eternal generation of the Son, where the Son proceeds from the Father. So people will ask the question, does it then mean that the procession of the Son from the Father means he had a beginning? If he had a beginning, then how can he be divine? So this is called temporal procession, that there was a beginning in time or in the existence of God when the word was not and proceeded and was generated from God the Father.

That would be a heresy. Then we get into the solution here of what's called temporal priority, in that the three members of the Godhead always had their eternal existence, the three persons. But that, logically, one is generated from the other, but that they are each eternal.

How that works, I don't know. But it's like electricity and light. When both are in the light bulb, then light is present, but electricity is what generates the light, not light generating the electricity. But both are there simultaneously from the very beginning. I use that logical analogy that's called logical priority in relationship to the Trinitarian essence. There are things about God we cannot comprehend. But I'm enjoying the discussion and the examination of the very nature of God's essence in all things. And before it was, well, God just made the physical world and he's outside of it and he looks into it and we act.

I'm thinking, wait a minute, there's more to it. Even in the idea of our understanding of actuality, God is necessary for us to even have that ability to understand. And that the very nature of reality exists itself, the nature of logic and reason, conceptuality, transcendentals.

All of these, they have their place because they reflect the mind of God. And so, when I'm thinking like this, I'm thinking, there's something more that is so awesomely beyond the comprehension of our existence, of how God relates to actuality. It's like mathematics. Why does mathematics work in a physical world? Math is conceptual. Math occurs in the mind. You don't find two plus two equals four under a rock. I'll say two plus two is four or what's three times three and you'll give me the answer.

Three times three is nine. Well, that's because it's a conceptual thing. Why does the conceptual consistence of actuality work in the real world?

Now, Ryan said, we observe these things, the ideas of logic in patterns. But in order to see that, you have to exist, you have to have a mind, you have to presuppose certain things in order to be able to recognize consistency. And you have to assume universality in order to recognize patterns. Because if there's not a universal system of regularity, you can't trust that your conclusions are universally true. And so, what must be in place for the mathematics to work in a physical world?

I've been thinking about this for a long time. And I don't have the answers. I'm not that smart.

There are guys out there who make me look like an idiot. And, oh, it's true. And so, they write these articles, why does math work?

Well, I'm thinking it works because the Trinitarian essence of God who is the one in the many and the universals of mathematical truths exist in the mind of God and he has somehow connected them to actuality and God himself is a bridge between the actual and the potential in his own mind. And that everything has its place and substance in him who holds all things together, even our transcendental necessities. If that made any sense. Oh, man.

And there's the music. We've got to go. Sorry about that.

But you've got to go. Call back tomorrow. We'll talk some more. All right, brother. God bless. Hey, everybody. That was fun. Talk to you tomorrow.