#217 Christian vs. Atheist Debate: He Questions Demons and Ends Up Challenging Knowledge Itself

Summary

Podcast Summary: “Christian vs. Atheist Debate: He Questions Demons and Ends Up Challenging Knowledge Itself”

Worldview Legacy | The Think Institute – Episode #217
Host: Joel Settecase
Date: July 2, 2026

---

Episode Theme

This episode features a philosophical and worldview debate between Joel Settecase, representing a Christian perspective, and “Forte,” an atheist guest. The conversation begins with questions about the existence of demons and quickly evolves into a foundational discussion on knowledge, truth, certainty, and the underlying presuppositions of both atheistic and Christian worldviews. The dialogue puts a spotlight on epistemology, the nature of evidence, and the viability of each worldview’s approach to truth.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Introduction and Initial Questions about Demons

[00:00–03:00]

• Forte, an atheist, joins the stream and immediately asks Joel’s view on demons.
  • Forte: “What do you think about demons?”
  • Joel: “I’m against them...I don’t like them...the more I learn about demons, the less I care for them.” (00:49)
• Forte challenges the idea that demons are real, positing that biblical references to demons may be ancient explanations for misunderstood phenomena (disease, mental illness, etc.).
  • Forte: "[People in the Bible] didn’t really understand what caused crops to fail or rain or thunder...they didn’t know electricity existed." (01:34–02:03)
• Joel affirms belief in demons based on biblical testimony, which leads Forte to question the sufficiency of such evidence.

---

2. Science and Explanatory Mechanisms

[02:03–04:34]

• Forte argues fewer demon accounts exist now due to scientific advancement.

• Joel pushes the conversation toward epistemology—how we determine what is true or false.

  • Joel: “How do you come to judge whether anything is true or false at all?” (02:43)
  • Forte acknowledges uncertainty: “Yeah, that’s a good question. I don’t know.” (02:58)

---

3. Standards of Truth & The Epistemology Challenge

[04:34–08:40]

• Forte outlines a basic empiricist approach: “Does it comport with reality?”
• Joel labels this “circular,” challenging Forte to define or justify “reality” and “truth.”
  • Joel: “That’s just circular because...the very question we’re trying to ask is, does this comport with reality?...So how do you go about judging that?” (04:43)
• The conversation becomes a debate over experience, evidence, and justification. Forte admits: “I just weigh my life’s experiences and the evidence that I’ve gathered and argue to the best explanation...” (05:08)
• Joel pushes: “Would you not say that the best explanation is the one that’s true?” (05:41)
• Forte: “It might not be obvious that something that is true could be the best explanation...could be not the best explanation and true.” (06:04)

---

4. Certainty, Fallibilism, and Self-Referential Coherence

[08:40–12:16]

• Joel cross-examines Forte’s degree of certainty, probing whether knowledge is possible with his level of skepticism.
  • Joel: “Do you believe your experience is the ultimate standard for truth?” (07:45)
  • Forte concedes his knowledge is negligible compared to all possible knowledge.
• Discussion about being certain of analytical truths like “2+2=4.”
  • Forte hesitates: “I’m not certain about that, no. Because I am a fallibilist.” (09:24)
• Joel exposes what he claims is an incoherence in Forte’s skepticism:
  • Joel: “So you can’t be 100 certain about anything?”
  • Forte: “Well, to. I would say yes, but I can’t even be certain of that.” (09:34)
  • Joel: “That’s a statement about everything that exists...that’s self-referentially incoherent. Your position is absurd.” (09:43, 09:49)

---

5. Christianity’s Claims to Certainty and Truth

[12:16–15:33]

• Joel contrasts Christian and atheist epistemology:
  • Joel: “The only possible alternative, is Biblical Christianity, which grounds all knowledge in the being of God and his revelation...God is there and he is not silent...” (12:12)
  • Certainty, he argues, is available “not grounded in myself or my observation...the certainty is grounded in God.” (12:18)
• Forte asks if God could make someone certain of something that’s not real.
  • Joel: “The God of the Bible does not deny himself. He doesn’t lie to us.” (13:20)
  • Forte: “So he’s limited in power.” (13:30)
  • Joel explains that God’s nature limits him only from “defects,” not from “power” as such.

---

6. Moral Perfection, Omnipotence, and Internal Critique

[14:31–15:33]

• Discussion continues about whether God can lie or be otherwise “limited.”
  • Joel: “God’s omnipotence is not externally defined. It is internally defined. It is not a power to lie. That is a defect of being.” (15:10)
  • Compares lying/deceit to a moral defect, not a real “power.”

---

7. Salvation, Faith, and Human Reasoning

[15:33–20:40]

• Forte asks why God would judge someone for skepticism, if God endowed people with intellect but did not sufficiently convince them.
  • Forte: “God gave me skepticism...why would he provide me with that and then punish me for using my reasoning powers?” (18:00)
  • Joel: “No, he would punish you for your sin.” (18:39)
• Discussion about faith and eternal life:
  • Forte: “If you said your hair is made of spaghetti...well, by just common sense, like that wouldn’t be common sense.” (16:55)
  • Joel: “Believing is more than just propositional ascent. It’s not just saying he is God. It’s entrusting yourself to him.” (17:19)
• Forte references the debates of presuppositional apologist Greg Bahnsen, reflecting on skepticism and consequences of unbelief.

---

8. The Gospel and Atheist Resistance

[18:39–20:40]

• Joel emphasizes the historicity and centrality of the Christian message:
  • “God sent his son, Jesus Christ, the best attested figure from ANC history...It’s verifiably historically true...embedded in the only worldview that actually makes sense of reality.” (18:55)
  • Argues Forte’s lack of conviction points to “the condition of your heart,” not the evidence.
  • “Even our reasoning is tainted by sin...what you need to do is to repent and trust in Christ. He will give you the mind of Christ.” (19:45)
• Forte acknowledges the possibility and thanks Joel for the conversation.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Joel (on demons): “I’m against them. I don’t like them. Matter of fact, the more I learn about demons, the less I care for them.” (00:50)
• Forte (on biblical explanations): “The people of the Bible...didn’t know electricity existed.” (01:34)
• Joel (on epistemology): “How do you come to judge whether anything is true or false at all?” (02:43)
• Joel (on best explanations and truth): “Would you not say that the best explanation is the one that’s true?” (05:41)
• Forte (on certainty): “I’m not certain about that, no. Because I am a fallibilist.” (09:24)
• Joel (on incoherence): “That’s self-referentially incoherent. Your position is absurd.” (09:49)
• Joel (on Christian epistemology): “God is there and he is not silent...God has revealed himself such that we can be certain of particular truths.” (12:08)
• Joel (on God’s nature): “God’s omnipotence is not externally defined. It is internally defined. It is not a power to lie. That is a defect of being.” (15:10)
• Forte (on skepticism): “God gave me skepticism...why would he provide me with that and then...punish me for using my reasoning powers?” (18:00)
• Joel (on faith): “Believing is more than just propositional ascent...It’s entrusting yourself to him.” (17:19)

---

Key Timestamps for Important Segments

• 00:34–02:26: Demons in the Bible vs. modern scientific explanations
• 02:43–03:07: The initial challenge on “how do you judge truth?”
• 04:43–05:41: Circularity of “comporting with reality” as a standard
• 08:40–10:24: Dive into certainty, fallibilism, and possible knowledge
• 12:12–12:40: Contrast between atheistic and Christian epistemology
• 13:20–15:10: Discussion on God’s moral excellency and omnipotence
• 16:55–19:45: Faith, evidence, the role of reason, and the offer of salvation

---

Tone & Closing Notes

The conversation is respectful, sometimes lighthearted (notably, on demons and math puns), but primarily philosophical, with Joel pushing firmly on epistemological questions. Forte maintains humility, admits uncertainty, and challenges Christian doctrines from a skeptical perspective. Joel sees this as evidence of the necessity for a biblical foundation for knowledge and truth, closing with a clear gospel invitation and call to repentance.

---

For Listeners:
This episode offers a candid look into the clash between atheistic skepticism and presuppositional Christian apologetics, especially as they pertain to the problems of knowledge and certainty. If you want to understand how deep worldview differences shape conversations—not just about demons, but about how we know anything at all—this is an essential listen.

Transcript

[A]

So now I don't think Forte has been on. So here's the thing. Our next guest has been trying to get on, and he always comes right at the end, but usually we have a ton of people waiting at the end, so he came perfectly at this last one. He might have been on once before, actually, but. Forte. Welcome to the stream, brother. How you doing? Good. How are you guys doing?

[B]

Great. Have you been on before?

[A]

Yeah, I was on once before.

[B]

I thought so. Okay. It's been a while. So. Remind me of your worldview, Forte.

[A]

I am an atheist.

[B]

Okay. What's your best argument for atheism?

[A]

Well, I mean, that was. I do have probably a couple. But I was just gonna ask you what you thought about demons.

[B]

I'm against them.

[A]

Okay. Anti.

[B]

I don't like them.

[A]

Got it. All right.

[B]

Matter of fact, the more I learn about demons, the less I care for them.

[A]

All right. Do you feel like they are, like, real?

[B]

Yeah. Do I feel like they're real? Yeah, I feel and I know that they're real. What about you?

[A]

Well, I. I don't think they are real.

[B]

Now, if you like this episode and you want to take your learning further, you need to know about what we're doing to help revolutionize the way that Christian mental interact with their faith. We want to help you get more equipped to lead your family to answer any objection to share and defend your faith. And I'll tell you more about what we're doing to help you do exactly that after the episode. Stay tuned.

[A]

I think there's two explanations. Well, obviously they're real or they're not. But they show up a lot in the Bible. But also, like, the people of the Bible, they didn't really know, like, really anything that we know. So they didn't really understand what, like, caused the flu or epilepsy or psychosis or anything. They didn't really understand what caused crops to fail or rain or thunder. They didn't know electricity existed.

[B]

Okay. But now we have science. Thank God.

[A]

Yeah. And so it seems like our demon accounts have kind of shrunk a little bit, and we have, like, a lot more knowledge of, like. Like, what things are. And I just, like, you know, is it the case that demons are real or is, like, an explanation mechanism that they had to explain the world and they didn't really know anything about the world?

[B]

No, they're. Yeah, it's. It's the fact that they're real.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

But you're. I think that you're. I mean, very obviously you're not going to believe in? Well, I guess not. Obviously. I suppose you could believe in demons without believing in God, but. But you don't believe in God, Correct. You don't believe the Bible is the word of God?

[A]

I don't know.

[B]

No, Right. So, I mean, so in a sense, in your mind, you're kind of free to pick and choose which things you believe in and which ones you don't. How do you come to judge whether anything is true or false at all?

[A]

Yeah, that's a good question.

[B]

I know.

[A]

I don't know. But I mean, how would we determine if, like, demons were true or false?

[B]

Well, for me, I open up the Bible and I. I look in there. Hold on. Look in the Bible here. And I look in there and I go, see. Okay, go to Mark's gospel.

[A]

And

[B]

we got. Here we go. Mark, chapter five. They came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the garrisons. And when he had come out of the boat, that's Jesus there. Met him out of the tombs. A man with an unclean spirit who lived among the tombs. So I read that, and I go, oh, okay. Yeah. So demons exist. So you could just do the same thing that I do.

[A]

Yeah, but is there, like, any tests that we could do for demons? Or, like, can we debt. Like. Like, if I say, like, you know, there was a demon in my friend Steve, you know, he was acting crazy. There's competing explanations. Like, if we. Yeah, we gave him, like, an antipsychotic pill and. And he was, like, cool the next day, that might eliminate, you know, like

[B]

a. Yeah, that might help. It might also help if we call in the mighty name of Jesus Christ and he's fine the next day. And, you know, and that happens quite a bit. But again, my question is, how would you go about judging whether any truth claim is actually true? It seems like, as an atheist, you don't really. Well, I'll just ask, what is your mechanism for determining which things are true and which ones aren't?

[A]

That's a good question.

[B]

No, I already asked it.

[A]

Yeah, I guess. Like, does it, like, comport with reality?

[B]

Well, but that's just circular because the question is, the very question we're trying to ask is, does this comport with reality? That's another way of saying, is it true? So how do you go about judging that?

[A]

Yeah, I don't know. I don't know.

[B]

Well, you. You know that God's not real, right? According to your view?

[A]

I believe he's not real.

[B]

Okay. How do you judge that belief?

[A]

I would Just weigh my life's experiences and the evidence that I've gathered and argue to the best explanation based on what I've collected.

[B]

Okay, so best again, again, that's circular because best entails that it's true. Right? The best explanation is the one that's true. So how do you judge what. What is true?

[A]

Well, I don't know if best would necessarily entail what's true. It's just like, what the. What the.

[B]

I'm sorry. Cut you off. Go ahead.

[A]

The choice option would be, you know, the.

[B]

So would you not say that the best explanation is the one that's true?

[A]

Not say that? I mean, I guess. I don't know. Like, it might not be obvious that something that is true could be the best explanation. It could be not the best explanation. And true.

[B]

How could something be the best explanation but not true? Respectfully, that seems totally and completely absurd.

[A]

I mean, Bill, I mean, it might be, like, contextually, based on the evidence that you have. So, like, God might be real. Right. But my best explanation could be, like, he's not real. So it doesn't. Wouldn't necessarily.

[B]

Well, but if God is real, then the best explanation for everything that exists would be God, and that would be true. Right.

[A]

Okay. Okay, I'll just.

[B]

I'm just. I'm sorry. I. I'm shocked. There we go again. Okay, hold on. Camera. There we go.

[A]

If.

[B]

Yeah, I'm sorry. I was just shocked that you would say that. The best explanation is not always the true one or the true one's not always the best one. I mean, just. Unless. Unless you're trying to come up with a false explanation. The best definition just. Or the best explanation is the true one. That's not to say you cannot. You always have access to the true one. Maybe you could. You know, we get things wrong, of course, all the time. But the thing that I'm looking for is you. What? By what standard do you judge? Because you've made a lot of claims. I mean, you've. You've said, because we have science now, we don't need to believe in demons. You've said that you are an atheist. I'm looking for that epistemological weight, man. I'm looking for the standard. How are you judging things? Because I told you, I. I opened up the Bible. The Bible is my epistemological standard. And I look in there and I say, demons are real. Whether or not I've ever experienced one. I think I have. But, you know, my experience is not the standard. God's word Is do you believe that your experience is the ultimate standard for truth?

[A]

Sure, I guess, yeah.

[B]

Why? All right, and do you possess all knowledge?

[A]

No.

[B]

What percentage of knowledge do you possess?

[A]

I do not know. Probably some low. Low percent.

[B]

Like what? Like estimate. What would you say? One percent less?

[A]

Yeah, something like that.

[B]

You think you have 1% of all possible.

[A]

I don't know, just some low amount.

[B]

Okay. I think it's. Would it not be fair to say that it's negligible in the grand scheme of how much knowledge is possible?

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Okay, so then why would you be the ultimate standard of knowledge and truth?

[A]

Okay, I. I don't even know what that ultimate standard like justified to belief. I believe, you know, like, you know, you know what's true is what I'm. What I experience, what I believe to be true. I'm justified in believing is true. Like I don't know. Yeah.

[B]

What are you certain of?

[A]

What am I certain of? I mean, there's some analytical truths, but.

[B]

Like what?

[A]

I don't know if that's absolutely certain. Like two plus two.

[B]

Two plus two is what?

[A]

Two plus two is four always. I mean, I don't even know if some people say that that's an analytical truth that you can be certain of that. But I mean, if you're ultimate fallibilist, then even that is subject to.

[B]

I know that, but I'm not talking about abstract people out there who are fallible or I'm talking about you forte. Is two plus two always four?

[A]

Sure.

[B]

Four is right there in your name and you got to know this one. All right. Okay, so if two plus two is always four, are you certain about that?

[A]

I mean, I'm not. I'm not certain about that, no. Because I am a foul ballist. So.

[B]

Okay, all right, so. So you can't be 100 certain about anything.

[A]

Yep. Well, to. I would say yes, but I can't even be certain of that. So.

[B]

Okay, so that's a. That's a statement about everything that exists.

[A]

Yep.

[B]

Which is a certain statement. That's a universal, all encompassing statement.

[A]

Yep.

[B]

So that's self. Self referentially incoherent. Your position is absurd.

[A]

How so?

[B]

Well, because you just told me you can't be certain and then you made a certain claim about all reality.

[A]

Yeah, but I. I am not certain about that. So I have a high degree of confidence that that is true. I'm not certain.

[B]

You said that you can't be certain about anything. Anything encompasses everything. The word anything encompasses all things. That's a universal Statement. It's a. It's a claim of certainty about all things that exist. You said you can't be certain about anything. Can't implies impossibility.

[A]

All.

[B]

Anything implies all things.

[A]

Yeah, but I'm not, I'm not certain about that. I can say something and potentially be wrong.

[B]

So, so do you know anything?

[A]

I would say I do, but I could be wrong about that.

[B]

Okay, so you don't. Because even the very well if you

[A]

can be wrong doesn't mean that you are wrong and therefore you don't know anything.

[B]

Well, if you're making a universal statement about all things that exist and you say you can't make universal certain statements about all things exist, that is a contradiction. That's definitionally false.

[A]

Okay, Okay.

[B]

I mean, do you see that?

[A]

Sure. I just. I just don't know where this gets us.

[B]

Here's where this gets us In. In your atheistic framework, your epistemology boils down to making absolute claims and negating all absolute claims. That is an incoherent worldview. And I'm not saying that to be mean. Logically we've seen that. We've seen that it's an incoherent worldview. Now I want to compare. So it. That must be false. Definitionally, that's false. No contradict are true. So if your worldview leads you to absurdity, the wisest thing you could possibly do is to say this. Is there any better alternative? And the better alternative, the only possible alternative, is Biblical Christianity, which grounds all knowledge in the being of God and his revelation. God is there and he is not silent, as Francis Schaeffer said in the previous century. So God, he is there and he is not silent because God is there. Logic, the other preconditions for knowledge and epistemology, those all hold together. Those are all real. All those preconditions, even moral obligations and the laws of logic and the preconditions of intelligibility, those are all there. And God has revealed himself such that we can be certain of particular truths. The. The truth that I exist, the truth is that God is real.

[A]

So you're saying that you are. You have certain truth?

[B]

In some things, yes, but that certain. But hear me, that certainty is not grounded in myself or my observation. How could I possibly ground certainty in myself? The certainty is grounded in God. When you start with God, you actually get certainty. If you arbitrarily, and I do believe it's arbitrary, deny God at the outset, you're not going to ever get to certainty about anything. Even the Fact that you don't have certainty.

[A]

I mean, like. So you're saying, like, you can have certainty with God. Could it be the.

[B]

You do.

[A]

What can you do?

[B]

Have certainty with God? Yes.

[A]

What could you be certain of with God?

[B]

Well, for one, the demons are real.

[A]

Could God have made it such that you believe it or make it seem like they're real and, and they're not?

[B]

Well, are you asking if God can deny himself?

[A]

Well, I mean, if it, could he make it seem. I guess. Could he make you think that you're certain of this, but it's actually not the case that. That it. That it is?

[B]

No. The God of, the God of the Bible does not deny himself. He doesn't claim, he doesn't lie to us.

[A]

But it is he capable? I guess.

[B]

No, God is not capable of, of lying to his people? No.

[A]

So he's. He's limited in power.

[B]

That's not a power. That would be a negation. Evil is a negation. Evil is a lessening of being. So God does not. God has all excellencies, including all moral excellencies. We don't get to arbitrarily define what it means to be omnipotent and ascribe that to God and then ask him if, you know, ask him to conform to our standard. We don't do that. Instead, we start with the biblical definition of what it means to possess all excellencies. And that is now our definition of omnipotence. So omnipotence does not include moral imperfection.

[A]

Okay. Okay, so he, He. He wouldn't be able to do that. Okay, no, God.

[B]

God cannot deny himself. The Bible says God's word is tantamount to his being. That's why Jesus Christ is called the word. For God to say something that is a lie to us, to tell us that demons exist when they don't, that's tantamount to denying himself. And the Bible expressly tells us that he can't do that.

[A]

Okay, so he, so he is limited in, in power in some ways. Okay.

[B]

No, he's not limited in power. Again, it would be a negation of power. It'd be an inconsistency in God's being. To lie, that would be a negation of being. God is maximally excellent in all good things. He is thrice holy. So what you're trying to do is you're trying to do an external critique and you're trying to say, by my definition of omnipotence, God is not omnipotent. But respectfully, forte, no one cares about your definition. We care. When we're doing an internal critique of the Bible, we have to start with what the Bible says.

[A]

Okay, so he is capable. It would just be contrary to his nature.

[B]

God is not capable of lying.

[A]

No, he's okay, so he doesn't possess that power to do that.

[B]

I want you to hear me very carefully. God's omnipotence is not externally defined. It is internally defined. It is not a power to lie. That is a defect of being. You have to define things in biblical terms if you're going to do an internal critique of bib. Do you. Let me ask you this. Do you think it makes you a better person to lie and deceive to those you love?

[A]

Overall? No. No. No.

[B]

Well, I would certainly hope not. And if your loved ones watch this, I would certainly hope that they would hear you say, no. No, it's a defect in being. God does not have any defects. And the problem comes not from God. The problem that you have is the same problem I have is that we are morally defective. We are sinners. The same Bible that tells us that God is morally perfect, possesses all excellencies, is omnipotent and all knowing and I'm omnipresent and is Lord, he can. He possesses all authority, control and is manifestly present everywhere. That same Bible tells us that we fall short of the glory of God. You've sinned against God. So have I. Denying the possibility of knowledge doesn't change that. But the good news is that God sent Jesus Christ to die for sinners like you and me. He was buried and he was raised to life on the third day. And if you forte will trust in him and repent, he will save you.

[A]

Yeah, yeah, that's. I mean, that's another kind of a weird thing that doesn't really make a lot of sense.

[B]

But by what standard?

[A]

Well, I mean we're. God gave us intellect. So I guess the standard of intellect, if he is real, would be the standard. Like, you know, if. If you said your hair is made of spaghetti. And I'm like, I don't really know if that's true. And you're like, well, what? By what standard? Like, well, by just common sense. Like that wouldn't be common sense.

[B]

That would be observation, Right?

[A]

Yeah. So if like someone says like. Yeah, I mean like the whole notion of like, I'll save you forever if you just believe I'm God.

[B]

No, that's not what I said. Well, that's not what the Bible says. The Bible doesn't. You already Know that he's God. The question is, how are you going to respond to him?

[A]

Well, believe in me you shall not perish. Have everlasting life.

[B]

Believe in believing is more than just propositional ascent. It's not just saying he is God. It's. It's entrusting yourself to him. It's, I believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross for my sins. He was buried. He was raised to life on the third day. I submit to him in John chapter 1, verse 12, it says, to all who received him who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.

[A]

Yeah, this is a point. I watched. I like Bonson. I started to watch Bonson recently. Bonson's a really smart guy and I watched him. Yeah, forgot.

[B]

Yeah, well, I guess he still is. He's in heaven, so. Yes.

[A]

Yeah, very sweet.

[B]

He's smarter now than he was here on Earth. Sorry, go on, go on.

[A]

And he debated Tabos, and Tabos is really a smart guy too. He's still, I think, a teacher or professor somewhere. Anyway, yeah, that was great to me. And so the inverse of this is like, believe in me, you shall not perish. But it's also like if you essentially, like if you don't believe, consequences going to hell. But like, let's say I'm not convinced that this individual is God. Like, God gave me skepticism. It's like, I'm not convinced. Like, why would he provide me with that? And then like, he'd punish me for using my reasoning powers. That doesn't really.

[B]

No, he would punish you for your sin.

[A]

But he set up the system and all I have to do is believe in him, put my faith in Him. But if I don't do it real

[B]

well, listen, I know God is real the same way you do. God is inevitable. God. God alone grounds the. The laws of logic. God has revealed himself through miracles. God grounds all the transcendental. God sent his son, Jesus Christ, the best attested figure from ANC history. The life, death and burial of resurrection. Life, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ is the fact of history. It's the. It's the dividing line between BC and AD It's. It's the pinnacle of all storytelling. It's the fulfillment of all human heart's longings. And it's verifiably historically true. But not only that, though, it's embedded in the only worldview that actually makes sense of reality. So Forte for you to simply say I'm not convinced says something about your own, the own, the condition of your heart. But it doesn't say anything about the obviousness of the truth of the gospel. And I say this very respectfully, Forte, because you seem like a nice guy, but you will not be judged on Judgment day because you use your reasoning too well. I use my reasoning all the time. I'm a Christian and I use it consistently. Don't use it perfectly all the time. Ask my kids and my wife. But what we have to understand is even our reasoning is tainted by sin. So what you need to do is to repent and trust in Christ. He will give you the mind of Christ. But we're. We're to have. Our reasoning is not infallible. And I think that you know that. I. Based on our conversation so far, you do know that.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

So. Yeah. So if your reasoning is telling you that God is not real, well, there's something else going on. And I would encourage you to go read Romans 1, 18:25 to see what

[A]

that is for sure possible. Thanks for having me on, guys.

[B]

Yeah. Thanks so much for coming on Forte. It was a real pleasure.

[A]

Yeah, take it easy.

[B]

You're a Christian man. You want to build a legacy, answer the world's questions and lay down a solid foundation for your family in God's word. But everywhere you look, you see decline, disorder, chaos. Your neighbors don't know the Lord and too many churches are filled with apathy. In today's world, we need men who understand theology, know scripture, and who are committed to leading their families in the biblical worldview. That is why we're building the Hammer and Anvil Society, the ultimate discipleship community for Christian men. With weekly cohort calls, a full library of resources and courses, weekly challenges and live teaching. You're going to sharpen your mind and your character. Our full library of courses is going to help you deepen your knowledge in the Christian worldview, family, discipleship and apologetics, the defense of your faith. But it's not just about building your knowledge base. As important as that is, it's also about brotherhood. That's why you'll also have access to an online community and live cohort calls, live teaching and real accountability. So you can have fellowship with like minded brothers who are on the same journey as you. Member Kevin says, the Hammer and Anvil Society has been the most beneficial thing for my family's spiritual growth in years. This unique brotherhood has made me more bold in my witness and more sensitive to God's leading. AJ says today I stand stronger and more rooted in my faith. The Hammer and Anvil Society has been instrumental in transforming me into the man of God I am striving to be. Get unlimited access as a member or try out a single course in the subject of your choice. Learn more now. Go to TheThink Institute Society get equipped. Build your legacy in community. Join today.