The Toothpaste Proof of God's Existence

Last evening I spoke to you about responding to fools but not becoming a fool yourself. And the last note that we had was taken from Proverbs, the 26th chapter. And that's where I'd like to begin. And so assuming that you haven't thought anything between last night and this morning, I can just pick right up where I left off. We're in Proverbs 26, verses 4 and 5. Before I read it. Just a reminder that the Bible throughout styles those who do not believe the word of God and refuse to live in terms of it as fools. Not in the name calling, emotive sense of just trying to insult people, but describing a condition of mind that is morally obstinate and therefore is futile, cannot really live appropriately and successfully in God's world because it's really cutting against the grain in terms of the way the world really is and what we should know about it and what God expects of us in our lives. So knowing that unbelievers are fools, Paul says, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. Listen to what Proverbs tells us about how to answer the fool. Proverbs 26:4. Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Ended with last night, but now notice the next verse. This may distress you a little bit. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. When people who are kind of desperate to find something wrong with the Bible try to find contradictions in the Bible, always wonder, why don't they go right here? Here's a direct contradiction in the Bible that, right. The one verse says, don't answer a fool according to his folly. The next verse says, answer a fool according to his folly. These are contrary commandments. Now how can that possibly be? Well, you don't have to be a PhD in logic, I think, to figure this out. The Bible gives us two procedures here, two strategies, and there's a place for both. Notice that in the first case we're told not to answer a fool according to his folly. Why? Because if you buy into the foolish philosophy, to the presuppositions and the way of looking at the world of the fool, you're going to end up being a fool too. If you try to reason the way in which unbelievers do, they're going to win that argument because you've already lost it. You didn't realize that. Maybe. But by giving into their presuppositions, you've lost the argument from the very beginning. So don't answer the fool according to his folly. Don't try to to agree with him in terms of our ultimate commitments about the nature of this world, our ultimate commitments about how we know what we know, our ultimate commitments about how we should live our lives. Don't try to agree with him on that and then bring him back, you know, gently, step by step, into the Christian faith. But rather, don't go along with that, because if you do, you're going to end up where the fool ends up. You're going to be a fool as well, as I told you last night, Atlanta too. So start out with the fool's methodology, and you're going to end up at the fool's destination, pure and simple. Don't answer him according to his folly. But there's another strategy for dealing with fools, and I think both are important in apologetics. And that other strategy is not contrary to what you've just been told, because you'll notice there's a different explanation given for why you do. Now, answer a fool according to his folly. We began by saying, don't answer a fool according to his folly, because if you do, if you buy into that, you'll be a fool as well. But now there's a place for answering a fool according to his own philosophy. Answer a fool according to his folly. But why? Lest he be wise in his own conceit or in the Hebrew, lest he be wise in his own eyes. Lest the fool leave this dialogue and conversation thinking that he's got things worked out, lest he think to himself, well, I'm a pretty smart guy. I know there is no God. I know that I don't need divine revelation. I'm doing just fine. I understand the nature of the world. I know why. I know what I know. I know how to live my life just fine. I can be happy without God, lest he be wise in his own eyes. Then give his philosophy back to him so that you might gag him intellectually. And so the Bible says, here's how you deal with unbelievers and other fools as well. But the fool who is so obstinate is to say there is no God, or who will not response be of life. Because if you try to become neutral or go over to the other side, say, okay, I'll agree with you on what you're saying. And then from there I can still prove my worldview or my outlook on life. The Bible says, don't go along with the fool. But while you hold the line in terms of your own basic commitments, then say to the Fool. Well, for argument's sake, let's assume that you're right. And then what follows from that? And this morning's message is going to be an attempt to illustrate that we have a shorter time this morning. I can't do as much as we might, but I would like to whet your appetite a bit. But what it means to answer a fool according to his folly, that is, go ahead and run with his philosophy, to show that with his philosophy you can't run at all. So that if what you're Saying is true, Mr. Unbeliever, whether it is in a debate situation at the local university or just over coffee with your next door neighbor, you say, well, if what you say about the world is true, then you couldn't make sense out of anything. You can't be wise in your own eyes. You have no reason to think you understand anything. Given that view of the universe, given that view of how we know the things that we know. I'm going to illustrate this in terms of what I call the toothpaste proof of God's existence. Now, don't go running out and picking up books on standard apologetics looking for the toothpaste proof of God's existence. You'll find the cosmological proof, you'll find the teleological proof, you'll find the ontological proof. But as far as I know, no one has used the toothpaste proof of God's existence. And so I get full credit for this one. It's just an illustration, really. And the reason why I use toothpaste, perhaps, maybe calls for explanation. Recently when I debated Edward Tabish at the University of California, one of the things that he challenged religious people, and me in particular with, is where's the existence? He wanted God to show up in the auditorium that night. In fact, he was very arrogant, challenged God, said, God, if you exist, stop hiding, show yourself, come into the auditorium tonight. And I later replied that he should be very happy God doesn't take him up on that offer. Because when God shows up, it won't be for academic purposes. It's going to be the Day of Judgment. And so let's be glad God didn't put an end to history and you know, and respond to this. But the point, I mean, apart from his sarcasm and so forth, the point that he was trying to make is, well, if we're supposed to believe in God, then where's the evidence? Where has God shown himself? And a very big mistake, I think, is made by Christians, which when they want to reply to this kind of challenge by thinking the evidence I point really important and special, something extraordinary. It's like if I'm going to prove that there's evidence for God's existence, then I'm going to have to point to some kind of miracle. You know, like perhaps I could convince my next door neighbor that God exists if I could just, you know, tell her or tell him that I had this terrible disease and I prayed about it one night and the next morning it was gone. That would be evidence for God's existence. But if you stop and think about it, the unbeliever wouldn't have to take that as evidence for God's existence. He or she. But the unbeliever could also say, whoa, boy, really strange things happen in this world. Submit it to the doctors, maybe someday they'll have an explanation for how that happened. The unbeliever isn't forced to believe in God just because of some miracle or what you thought was a miracle. But my point is we think that when people want evidence for God's existence, they're looking for something really special, out of the ordinary. My reply to Mr. Tavish at the debate is that the evidence for God is so pervasive that it's every God has flooded us with evidence of his existence. Of course, God has shown himself, according to the Bible, in the wonder of the created order. You know, though, people who are running from God may not be affected by this because they are working very hard to keep from drawing a conclusion detrimental to their own interest. They don't want to have a God that is going to condemn them. People may resist it. I've always wondered, when you're out in the mountains, on the stars, I mean, you know what I'm talking about, where you can hardly find a dark space in the sky because of the stars. I just don't know how people don't realize that we're answerable to a creator when they look at that. There's true wonder in that. I live in California and you make jokes about that, and we sometimes joke about it as well. But the fact of the matter is California is a beautiful place. And you go out to the Pacific Ocean, you watch the ocean, you wonder how can people not believe in God when you see that God has given evidence of himself everywhere. However, when I say that God has flooded the world with evidence of himself, I'm not even thinking of those, if you will, emotionally significant events of the wonder of the stars or the power of the ocean. What I'm saying is we can't live our lives in the most mundane way. We can't do the most trivial things that we do in this world without believing in God. And that's why I speak of the toothpaste proof of God's existence. So with that kind of setup, let me get into the proof, explain it to you. I hope you understand what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to show you that you can take the most mundane thing here, brushing your teeth, and from it demonstrate to the unbeliever that you must believe in God. Why is that? Well, let's just begin with the procedure of brushing our teeth. You pick up the toothpaste tube, you squeeze it, and what do you expect to happen? You expect toothpaste to squirt out? Right. Everybody with me. Now, class, you've got to encourage me. You should be nodding your head. Just, you understand, so far. If you don't understand this much, we're in real trouble this morning. Okay, Maybe it's because you're all, you know, a bit wary. You say, oh, Dr. Bonds is trying to. There's a trick in this question. No, there's no trick here. When you squeeze the toothpaste tube, you're expecting the toothpaste to squirt out. And so I just have a real simple question. I mean, this really disarms the unbeliever you're talking to. Say, why do you expect the toothpaste to come out? And they may look at you and scratch their head kind of, you know, Say what? Of course you expect the toothpaste to squirt out. I say, why? Why do you believe that? Well, because of experience. I've had plenty of experience brushing my teeth squeezing toothpaste tubes in the past. And when you squeeze toothpaste tubes, I've learned that the toothpaste squirts out. So it looks like such an obvious answer to you. But now I want you to put on your thinking caps here, because you've got to be more analytically sharp, more precise in your thinking than the unbeliever. Because is it true that we know that the toothpaste will squirt out, or we fully expect it to squirt out simply because of experience of it in the past. Let me put this together and see if you can see the gap in the reasoning in just a moment. I mean, it's not long into the future. Granted, just a second or two. But in a second or two, I'm expecting the toothpaste to squirt out of this tube. I'm going to squeeze it, it's going to come out. And I'm asking, why do you believe the future two seconds into the future, why do you believe the future is going to have that kind of event? And then you answer, or the unbeliever answers, well, because in the past we've done this many times, and in the past, when you squeeze the toothpaste tube, the toothpaste comes out. So at this point, the case is in the past it's happened this way, and therefore we know that in the future it will happen this way. Anybody see a gap in the reasoning there? Is there some kind of bridge that's called for? Well, of course there is. How do we get from past experience to future? Granted, two seconds in the future, but future experience? Why should we expect that what's going to happen right now or in just a moment is going to be anything like what has happened in the past? Now, unbelievers are not accustomed to being forced to think these things through. That's the great advantage. Christians, you see, do think about these matters. And so you want to make it clear that you expect the toothpaste to come out just like the unbeliever does. It's not as though we as Christians have bizarre views of the way things happen in nature and who knows whether the toothpaste will come out. What you want to say is, I believe the toothpaste is going to come out, but I've got a reason for believing that and you don't. Then believer says, well, of course I do. It's happened this way in the past. And that's when you're going to move in. This is the crucial apologetical move you want to say, well, but then you must believe not just that it's happened this way in the past, but you must also believe what that the future will be like the past. You must believe that there is, to put it in pedestrian language, uniformity in the natural world. I know that doesn't perhaps impress you. Even you who are believers this morning. It may not impress the unbeliever immediately, but I want you to reflect on that. The unbeliever, in order to brush his teeth, in order to squeeze the toothpaste tube, must believe something about the nature of reality, something about the nature of the world in which we live, something about the nature of history, if you will. And that simply is that there's continuity, there is uniformity between the way things happen in the past and the way they are to happen in the future. That is a huge belief that is a very significant, systematic, uniform conception of the nature of reality as a whole. No one has seen the nature of reality as a whole apart from God. None of us have experienced everything there is to experience. None of us know everything that has happened in history or will happen in history. And the unbeliever knows that. The unbeliever knows that he's in no position to make any kind of universal judgment. The unbeliever can't say it will always be like this. The reason why the unbeliever can't say that is because the unbeliever hasn't experienced, always hasn't experienced every event. And so short of that, unbelievers must tell us that the future will be like the past. And yet they haven't experienced the future. And so now you have them, don't you? You say, well, now, why do you believe the future will be like the past? I want to suggest that unbelievers operate this way. And they believe this because they know the God who controls history. They know God in their heart of hearts, and they know very well they're living in God's universe. And in God's universe you can count on brushing your teeth, but you couldn't count on brushing your teeth in an atheist universe. You couldn't count on the future being like the past. Because in an atheist universe, everything that happens, happens by chance. Everything is random. There's no connection between events. Everything that takes place is just what happens to take place. There's no reason for it. And so you can't really count on the future being like the past. Now, I'd like to deal very quickly with two responses to this argument. The toothpaste proof of God's existence. The proof to rehearse it for you is if you compare worldviews, the atheistic worldview and the Christian worldview, and ask which one can make sense out of which one can give the preconditions of intelligibility. Remember that the preconditions of intelligibility for brushing our teeth, expecting the future to be like the past, that fits into the Christian worldview. It does not fit into the atheistic worldview. Now, one way in which people will reply to that is to say, now, wait a minute, wait a minute. We know the future will be like the past because it's always been that way in the past. In the past, the future has always been like the past. Now, I know this may sound a little confusing, so I'm going to have to play this out for you for A minute where I'm standing right now is the present. When I turn this way, that's the future. And I've been asking, how can you know that the future over here is like the past over here? The person responding to this says, well, let's go back to the past over here now. And let's just ask ourselves, in the past, was it true that the future, which is our present, was like the past? The answer is yes. Well, we go a little bit further over here in the past, even further back, was the future like the past? And the answer is, well, yes, it was. So if you start looking at all of our past experience, some people have argued in the past, our expectation of the future being uniform with it has never been frustrated. So we have good reason to believe that the future from this point will be like the past, because back here the futures were always like the past. Or as philosophers like to put it, past futures have resembled past pastas, so that now the future will be like the past past. If you didn't like that last sentence, forget it. I was just trying to be funny. Will our present future be like our present past if in the past the futures were like the past? Now, as fancy as that may sound, or as complicated as it may sound, anybody detect an error in this reasoning? What we call begging the question. Because the issue here has to do in general with whether the future, from this point the future will resemble things that have happened in the past. And the answer that we've been given here by the second round of disputants with us, the answer we've just been given is, well, in the past, the future was like the past past. Don't you see? That doesn't answer the question, though, does it? Because the question is, will the future be like the past? And if you say, well, in the past it was that way, we still want to know, well, but in the future, will it be that way? And so unbelievers, I don't deny they try to be clever and they think they can answer these questions, but if you just follow it long enough, you realize that's not an answer to the question, that's just repeating the. The issue all over again. Will the future be like the past? Christians have every reason to expect that we can live in this world having gained a knowledge of what it is like and can predict what will take place and therefore have dominion in this world, because God created it. And God is a God of order, and he's made our minds to understand this world and to obey him. In this world and to subdue it to his glory. And so the preconditions have been provided to us in God's revelation for expecting the future to be like the past, or if you will, to expect uniformity in nature. But the unbeliever doesn't have those preconditions. The unbeliever can't use. Well, the past has shown us the future as being like the past. And so now the future will be like those experiences. Well, it's still future and we have no reason, no basis on the unbelieving way of looking at the world to expect it to take place. Now, the second answer that you'll hear from people, that was a fairly sophisticated one, but it really just begs the question. The second kind of response you get from people also misses the point, but it misleads many Christians. People will say, well, we can't be sure, but very probably it'll be like that. I can't be absolutely sure that the toothpaste will squirt out of the tube, but very probably. Now the reason why this misses the point is that we're not talking here about the certainty of the toothpaste squirting out. After all, there may be something blocking the tube and it won't squirt out. That's not the issue here. It's not a matter that, well, very likely it might happen. And now I'm challenging you to tell me how I can be absolutely certain. No, I'm saying how could you have any basis for even thinking it will probably squirt out? Because stop and think about it. What does probability assume? We say it's very probable that something will take place, that a certain event will transpire. What have we assumed about the nature of the universe? Interestingly, probability itself assumes uniformity, doesn't it? In a non uniform universe, in a chance universe, there wouldn't be any probability of anything. So probability. When people appeal to probability, they're saying there's a kind of uniformity in the world that though I cannot be intellectually certain, to the degree I've got the evidence, I can project the probability into the future. But that's the whole issue here. Can you project anything into the future, whether with certainty or probability? If it turns out this universe is not controlled by God, if this is not an orderly cosmos, can you expect that you can brush your teeth even? Probably. And the unbeliever fails the probability question as well as the certainty question about brushing his teeth. Now, okay, I didn't want to sting you too badly here with philosophy. So please come back, be with me. Now, those of you who have tuned out, we're done with the tough part of today's lesson. What I'm getting at is that the evidence for God's existence is evident to us in the most trivial, mundane affairs of life. We could not live our lives in this world if we did not assume the existence of God and God's character. We couldn't even brush our teeth. Because when we brush our teeth, when we squeeze the tube, we're already saying something about the nature of reality as a whole. And we have no reason for saying that if we aren't Christians. Basically, we have no reason for saying there's uniformity if we aren't Christians. But it's not just toothpaste. There's any number of things that show us that we're assuming God's existence and the living of our daily lives as well. Before I give you a couple more illustrations and then let you ask some questions of me this morning, I'd like to add one last thing about our view of the uniformity of nature or our conviction that the future will be like the past. You see, the point that needs to be made to the unbeliever is not just that the unbeliever assumes the uniformity of nature, but the unbeliever insists on the uniformity of nature. Let me say that again. It's not just that the unbeliever assumes the uniformity of nature, just kind of blithefully taking it for granted, but the unbeliever insists on the uniformity of nature as well. Now, why do I say that? Because if your next door neighbor were to squeeze his toothpaste tube and the toothpaste did not come out, what do you think the next door neighbor would do about that? Well, now, if I were an atheist, here's what I should do about that. I should say, well, in a chance universe, who knows what will happen? So much for that. But no atheist that I'm aware of and that I think you'll ever meet does that. When you squeeze that toothpaste tube and the toothpaste doesn't come out, you don't say, well, it happened that way in the past, but I had no reason to think it would in the future. And today it's not doing it, what do you do? You start looking for another explanation. There's a factor that I didn't take into account. Maybe the toothpaste is hardened in there. Maybe there's something blocking the tube. Maybe somebody's Pulling a prank on me. I don't know what hypothesis you'd start working with, but the point is you would start working with the hypothesis that what assumes uniformity. And the reason why I'm not getting uniformity is because there's a factor I didn't take into account. And if I knew what that factor was, then I could say, yes, that's what I would expect, given the fact the toothpaste is hardened in there, or whatever else it may be. Think about this. The reason why people go looking for another factor, a further explanation for why their expectation was frustrated is precisely that they will not give up the uniformity of nature. Not only do they assume it blithe, but they insist on it. There was a time when astronomers made many, many observations of what was a deviation in the calculated position position of the planet Uranus. Those of you who know the history of astronomy will be very familiar with this. They could not, to their frustration, figure out why the planet Uranus deviated from the projected orbit they had for it. Now, I want to suggest to you that those scientists could easily at that point have relinquished their belief in the uniformity of nature. They could have said, well, we might expect Uranus to be at this particular position at this point. It's always off a few minutes here and there. And that's just the way the universe is. This is just kind of a sloppy, random chance place that we live in. And so you can't count on anything. You see. They might have said the position of Uranus cannot be predicted because nature isn't uniform. Is that what scientists do? Did, though. And I'm not talking necessarily about Christian scientists. I don't mean the cult Christian science, but scientists who happen to be professing believers, even unbelievers, even atheistic scientists. They didn't give up the uniformity of nature. Instead, they held on to their conviction about the uniformity of nature and concluded there must be some further factor that's influencing the orbit of Uranus. And they hypothesized a body, another planet, that was affecting the orbit of Uranus. And eventually we discovered that planet to be Neptune. Isn't that amazing? Here's an example of scientists acting as though they know the nature of reality as a whole. It is predictable. It is uniform. And refusing to give up that conviction, even when the facts were against them, or at least what they perceived to be the facts were against them. They said, there's got to be something else to this. There must be another factor. We all know what that's like from discovering if the toothpaste has hardened in the tube to predicting the position of the planets. Everybody not only assumes the uniformity of nature, but insists on the uniformity of nature. We all reason in terms of that inductive principle. And that's what I was getting at when I told Mr. Tavish that the debate that the evidence for God's existence is not of the special extraordinary type, that he's looking for God showing up in the auditorium that night or doing some grand miracle or something. The evidence for God's existence is so pervasive that we can't live 10 seconds of our lives without assuming the existence of God. And yet unbelievers are constantly saying, no, no, no, no, God doesn't exist. They know the truth, they live that way in God's world, but they suppress the truth and unrighteousness. I promised you a couple more illustrations and then we'll have some questions. Another way in which unbelievers are constantly showing that they believe in the existence of God is that unbelievers are drawing more moral judgments. Unbelievers are drawing moral judgments. Stop and think about it. It's impossible to live your life. Even I'm not talking just about moral judgments, like judging Tonya Harding. You know, you have to be the judge to decide the fate of this skater and so forth. You know, some big deal that the news media will pick up on. You can't live your daily life even in private, but you can't live on a day to day basis without making moral judgments, without distinguishing between what you consider to be right and what you consider to be wrong. I'll try to give you what might appear to be at least the beginning of an example of someone who doesn't have to make moral judgments. What if someone were to say, no, I don't have to think, think about right and wrong. I only have to think about truth and error. I can just be like a computer, you know, And I see what are the facts that are perceived and what are the laws of logic that we apply to those and what conclusions can we draw from them? I live my life. The unbeliever might say, not in terms of what's right and wrong, but just in terms of what's true and what's false. Anybody see a problem with this? When someone says, I live my life in terms of just what's true rather than what's false, what they're saying is I have an obligation to follow the truth rather than to follow error. I realize it's Hard for you to do this because you don't believe this is a Christian. But when you answer the fool according to his folly, you got to say some silly things. You got to be more skeptical than you would really be. So you're going to say to this unbeliever, why do you have any obligation to follow the truth? Why shouldn't we live our lives in terms of error and falsity? Why not? You see, when people say you should look at this world, find the facts and follow the facts wherever they lead you, they're telling you how to live your life. That is a moral judgment. And in an unbelieving philosophy, an unbelieving perspective on life. You have every right to say, why should I follow the truth? By the way, the truth hurts, doesn't it? I know in my own life there are certain things that I wish were not true and I'd be a lot happier if I could just ignore them. And so when someone says, follow the truth wherever it leads, why can't I say, in an unbelieving view of the world, why can't I? If I'm going to be following the foolishness of the fool's philosophy, why can't I just say, no, forget the truth, that hurts too much. I'm just going to go with what's convenient. I'm going to go with what's making me feel good. In fact, I'd be a lot happier. You have to kind of throw this out to the end. Why shouldn't we believe in Santa Claus? Wouldn't that be nice if there was a Santa Claus? The unbelievers says, no, wait a minute. You know, I thought the whole point is that you Christians think you're supposed to believe in God because He really exists. And you say, yeah, I mean, I'm on my worldview on my way of looking at it, but I want to know on your way of looking at it, why shouldn't we all believe in Santa Claus? That'd be a happy sort of thing, wouldn't it? Non believer is going to be shocked when you point out that it's not Christians who believe that we, we can follow our imagination whatever feels good, but it's unbelievers who are free to do that sort of thing if in fact there is no God whose absolute character determines how we're to live our lives. And so given the unbeliever's worldview, he cannot even support our daily living in terms of truth or any other kind of moral judgment that is made when the unbeliever says, I don't think it's right for that person to have taken the parking spot that I was getting ready to go into. What's he assuming? He's assuming there's a right and a wrong in this universe and that he or she has been violated by somebody taking their parking place. Unbelievers cannot brush their teeth. They cannot live their day to day lives making moral judgments without renouncing the very worldview that they tell you over a cup of coffee that believe. Answer the fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. One more illustration and then it's your turn. The unbeliever says, I don't believe in God. I don't believe that there's anything special about human beings. We're just the outgrowth of evolution. We're just the, the product of evolution that has gained some kind of ascendancy in the realm of nature. Man is just an advanced animal. There's nothing more to him than biological tissue. You say, oh well, if there's nothing more to man than biological tissue, then that has to be the nature of man's thinking too, right? When men think about things, it's just the, the brain tissue up here that is operating according to the laws of biology and physics and chemistry. You'll find many unbelievers say, that's exactly right. That's all there is to us. What we say, what we think is just the result of the laws of chemistry. In the gray tissue upstairs here. Answer the fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit and say, oh, okay, well that means that what I think and what I say is not really a matter of my considering all the options and the evidence and drawing the best conclusion that I can, asserting that it's true. What I think and say is predictable according to the laws of biology and physics and chemistry. If we knew all of the factors, of course we don't. So it looks like we're making three decisions to believe this or believe that. But if we knew all the factors, we knew everything that was affecting the gray matter, then we could predict what would be said and what wouldn't be said. What would be believed? What wouldn't be believed? Because this is just a physical matter. It's just a matter of the outworking of the laws of chemistry and physics and biology. But if that is the case, then the assertion that the mind is really nothing more but brain tissue, subject to the laws of science, even that assertion is simply the outcome of the biological tissue and the laws of physics and the laws of chemistry at work. The naturalist thesis that we don't really have any truth, that we affirm, that our brains just dictate what we're going to say, undermines the naturalist thesis as well, doesn't it? Because then what the naturalist is saying, he couldn't help but say. And by the way, what I'm saying in opposing him, given his worldview, what I'm saying in opposing him I can't help but say either. Because the laws of chemistry, the molecules bouncing around in my brain, to be real blunt about this, lead me to say that there's something more to man than just biological tissue and the molecules bouncing around in the unbelievers brain. And there's really no reason for us even to discuss it. There's really no way to decide that. And finally, there's no reason for the naturalist to believe what the naturalist is saying, because the naturalist couldn't help but say that anyway. The unbeliever pulls the rug out from under himself every time he tries to reason. Because the nature of the world in which he lives is so different from what he professes it to be. As he tries to live in this world, as he tries to brush his teeth, as he tries to park, you know, and to be polite about that, as he tries to reason with you, he is assuming things about the nature of the world which are not in accordance with what he professes it to be. So answer the fool according to the his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. I hope that you can now put together what we've learned thus far in our apologetics seminar this weekend. I'll summarize it for you real briefly. We've learned that we have a moral obligation to defend the faith, no matter what the objection, no matter who the objector may be. You have an obligation to answer them. And you must answer them not by assuming some kind of neutral common ground, some view of reason that doesn't have any pre commitments to it. You must answer them in accordance with the lordship of Jesus Christ. We've also learned that those who will not submit to the revelation of God are, in the view of the Bible, fools. They are not to be held in high regard and esteemed because they've really got things wired. The Bible says they are foolish fools, and this can be demonstrated. And we are not to answer fools according to their folly. We're not to go over to their way of looking at things, because if we do, Proverbs says we'll be like them. However, we may, for argument's sake, say to the fool, well, if what you say is true, then notice what follows from it. We can answer the fool according to his folly and show that the evidence for God is so pervasive. It's not just in miracles. It's not just in grand, awesome events or experiences like the stars of heaven. But even in brushing your teeth, you couldn't make sense of what you're doing if you did not believe in God. Now, what would you like to ask this morning in the few moments we have left? Yes, That was an easy one to answer. The fact that the unbeliever insists on the uniformity of nature. How would you do the fact that as Christians, we see that as only God's grace and looking back at Noah's blood, where the atmosphere of the earth and everything will change dramatically and we don't believe. Well, in the first place, when we say that we hold to the uniform of nature, we accomplish everything we need to on a practical basis by saying that for the most part, you can expect this. We also believe in miracles. See, we believe that sometimes nature is not uniform. When Jesus rose from the dead, that's not the natural expectation. But our point as Christians is that whatever happens is subject to the sovereign providence of God. And God, in his providence, could make everything different from. From moment to moment, so that everything's miraculous. But because of what God has called on us to do in this universe, he controls it in a way which is. I'm not trying to be literal here, but 99.9% uniform, which is really all we need for the confidence to brush our teeth. And these other illustrations as well. When somebody says, well, you don't believe in this nature and keeps it, for the most part, uniform, that we might live our lives productively in it. What else? Sure, I could mention it. What would you like to know about it? According to quantum physics, the indeterminacy principle that is utilized in quantum physics says that. That you cannot determine simultaneously the location and the velocity of a subatomic particle. And therefore it's indeterminable that you may know these things simultaneously. That is a long shot from saying that there is no location that is predictable or velocity that is predictable. The indeterminacy principle is, to answer in terms Ken will understand, is an epistemological, not a metaphysical point. Because the procedure of determining the velocity affects the location of the particle, or the procedure of determining the location affects the velocity, they cannot be simultaneously exacted. You cannot determine them both at the same time. That is not the same. Say, however, that there is no uniformity at that level. It's just that it's not available to us by any detection method. And so the indeterminacy principle, though many people will bring that up, is somehow, we don't believe in a uniform world. Doesn't affect that at all. It's a misperception of what the physicists are talking about. But even if it were not a misperception, I need to add as well that regardless of the indeterminacy or unpredictable subatomic particles, the world in which we live is not the world of subatomic particles. It's a tough thing to get through people's heads. You know, it's a logical fallacy. When we're talking about the world in which we live, we have to understand we're talking about the world of macro molecular structures, right? We're living in a world of trees and rose bushes and plants and rivers and streams and all that sort of thing. Now, it is true that they are made up of subatomic particles, perhaps, but what you say about the part, the subatomic level is not true of the whole. Those of you who've had logic with me know that, right? That's a fallacy of composition. A fallacy of composition is committed when a person takes a set of Legos, maybe many sets of Legos, and builds a Statue of Liberty. And let's say that Statue of Liberty is 15ft high. And then the reasoning goes like this. Because every Lego weighs less than an ounce, then the statue must weigh less than an ounce. You know, what's true of the part must be true of the whole. Well, that's a fallacy in logic. And so even if.