Does the God of the Bible Exist? Eli Ayala vs. Dan Barker

My Opening Statement

Introduction

In this series, I’ll be sharing the various portions of my debate with atheist Dan Barker, beginning with my opening statement.

Before you read it, a brief word of context. Our opening statements were limited to ten minutes. As you know, ten minutes is not much time to unpack an argument of this magnitude. Each of the points I raised could have been developed in far greater detail. My strategy was to present the overarching framework of my case up front and then draw out the specifics during cross-examination.

Of course, debates are inherently unpredictable. You don’t always get to press every line of argument exactly as planned. Even so, my hope is that what transpired proves helpful to those who are thoughtfully engaging these issues—and that you’ll be able to see a clear and faithful presentation of the presuppositional approach in action.

Opening Statement

Good morning. It is a great privilege to be able to participate in this debate. I would like to thank Marlon Wilson of The Gospel Truth for the invitation to be here—twisting my arm and finally getting me to do one of these. And of course, I’d like to thank Dan Barker for his graciousness in agreeing to participate in this debate with me. I’m very much looking forward to a fruitful interaction.

And ultimately, I’d like to thank my Lord Jesus Christ for making all of this possible. By His grace, I desire to honor Him this morning.

Now, the proposition before us this morning is: Does the God of the Bible exist? I want you to notice that the proposition is framed as a question, and that is significant. It clarifies that there is a burden of proof on both participants in this debate. I will be arguing in the affirmative—that the God of the Bible does, in fact, exist. Dan will offer his arguments and reasons for why he believes the God of the Bible does not exist.

More specifically, I will be arguing that the God of the Bible exists not merely probably or plausibly, but by what is called the impossibility of the contrary. That is to say, it is impossible for Him not to exist, since—as I will argue—the God of the Bible, complete with His attribute set, provides the necessary preconditions for intelligibility and, by extension, knowledge itself.

Before proceeding, however, I need to make two important clarifications that are vital for you, the audience, to keep in mind as you evaluate this debate.

First, there is an important distinction between proof and persuasion. Proof has to do with rational argumentation—whether conclusions follow logically from premises. Persuasion, on the other hand, has more to do with psychological factors and personal disposition. The fact that someone is not persuaded by an argument does not mean that the argument itself is unsound. Proof does not require universal persuasion.

Second, it is important to recognize that this debate is not one in which isolated facts or data points are interpreted from a neutral standpoint. As a Christian, I am committed to the view that every fact is what it is and means what it means in relation to every other fact because God has created them to be so. God is, in a very real sense, what we might call the Father of the facts. All derivative facts of human experience find their meaning and coherence in Him.

As image bearers of God, we have access to these facts through the revelation He provides—through the created order, through His special revelation in Scripture, and ultimately in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

So in essence, both Dan and I come to this debate with competing worldviews—competing lenses through which we interpret and experience the world. A worldview is a network of presuppositions concerning reality, knowledge, and value, and these presuppositions determine what we consider possible or impossible.

Because of this, it is crucial to recognize that neutrality is impossible. I am not neutral due to my commitment to Christ and His Word. Dan is not neutral due to his own philosophical commitments. And none of you are neutral either.

So the question becomes: If there is no neutrality, how do we rationally adjudicate between two competing worldviews? I suggest that there are three crucial considerations.

First, we must ask whether a worldview is internally consistent—whether its fundamental commitments cohere with one another without contradiction. A worldview that undermines itself at a foundational level cannot be rationally sustained.

Second, we must engage in internal critique rather than external critique. That is, we do not impose our own standards onto the opposing worldview. Instead, we temporarily grant our opponent’s presuppositions for the sake of argument and ask whether those presuppositions can account for the things we all know to be true—such as logic, knowledge, and rational discourse. External critiques often miss the mark; internal critiques expose foundational inadequacies.

Third, we must ask whether a worldview can account for the very possibility of intelligibility itself—that is, whether it can provide the necessary preconditions for knowledge, reasoning, and meaningful experience. This is where a transcendental consideration becomes essential. Rather than merely comparing worldviews side by side, we ask what must be true in order for reasoning, science, morality, and argumentation to be possible at all.

This leads directly into the argument I will be presenting.

I offer what is known as a transcendental argument—an argument that seeks to uncover the necessary preconditions for the possibility of intelligible experience and knowledge itself. It is my contention that the ontological and metaphysical reality of the God of the Bible, as described in Scripture, uniquely provides these necessary preconditions.

My argument can be summarized as follows:

Premise 1: If knowledge and intelligible experience are possible, then the Christian worldview is true.

Premise 2: Knowledge and intelligible experience are possible.

Conclusion: Therefore, the Christian worldview is true, and by extension, the God of the Bible exists.

To justify the first premise, we must briefly consider what is required for knowledge and intelligibility to be possible at all.

Knowledge requires objective truth—a real, mind-independent reality that can be known. Knowledge requires rationality, including the laws of logic, which must be universal, invariant, and immaterial. Knowledge requires the reliability of our cognitive faculties, so that our senses and reasoning processes are truth-aimed rather than accidental. Knowledge also presupposes moral obligations in reasoning—that we ought to reason honestly, consistently, and fairly. And finally, knowledge requires the uniformity of nature, such that reasoning from past experience to future expectation is meaningful.

Does Christianity provide a rational justification for these necessary preconditions? I argue that it does.

On the Christian worldview, God is the creator and definer of all things. As metaphysically ultimate, He is the foundation of truth itself. Because God is personal, truth is accessible to His image bearers through revelation.

The laws of logic—immaterial, universal, and invariant—are grounded in the rational nature of God Himself. Logic is not an external standard above God, nor a human convention, but a reflection of His eternal mind.

The reliability of our senses and cognitive faculties is grounded in the fact that human beings are created in the image of God—intentionally designed to know both the Creator and the created order.

Moral normativity in reasoning is grounded in God’s holy and righteous character, which provides an objective basis for what we ought to do intellectually.

And the uniformity of nature is grounded in God’s sovereign and providential governance of the world. Scripture tells us in Genesis 8:22 that while the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night shall not cease. It is God’s faithfulness that underwrites the regularity upon which science and induction depend.

Another essential precondition for knowledge is the relationship between unity and diversity, what philosophers often refer to as the problem of the one and the many. We experience a world made up of many particulars—many individual things—yet meaningful discourse requires unifying abstract principles to make sense of those particulars. For example, is it even meaningful to speak of individual human beings apart from the abstract unifying principle of humanity? Or is it meaningful to speak of an individual fact apart from abstract principles such as the laws of logic, which allow us to understand facts in their logical relationships and draw rational inferences from them?

The Christian worldview offers a coherent solution to this problem in the doctrine of the Trinity. God is one in being and three in persons—unity and diversity equally ultimate in His nature. Because God is metaphysically ultimate, He provides the foundation for all derived unity and plurality in the created order. Thus, the very categories we rely upon in thought, language, and reasoning find their ultimate grounding in the triune God.

Now, how does this show that only Christianity provides the necessary preconditions for knowledge and intelligibility? The answer is that we are dealing with necessary preconditions, not merely sufficient ones. Because we are asking what is necessary, there can only be one ultimate foundation. If two worldviews could equally account for the preconditions of intelligibility, then neither would be necessary. And if they are the same in substance under different names, then there is really only one worldview after all.

So in essence, if Christianity is a worldview that can, in fact, provide the necessary preconditions for knowledge and intelligibility, then—precisely because we are dealing with what is necessary—it follows that it is the only worldview that can.

Taken together, then: if knowledge and intelligible experience are possible, the Christian worldview is true. Knowledge and intelligible experience are possible. Therefore, the Christian worldview is true—and therefore, the God of the Bible exists.

Thank you.