Apologetics to the Glory of God

Choosing Hats

  • Logical Fallacies In Presuppositionalism

    “I’ll be honest Chris…it amazes me that just like Greg Bahnsen you’ve done a degree in Philosophy yet can’t see through the multitude of logical fallacies present in presuppositionalism. Like all other presuppositionalists you also appear completely unable to demonstrate to any degree of satisfaction how Christ presents you with wisdom, knowledge or certainty despite these bold claims.”

    Notice the assertion that there are a “multitude of logical fallacies present in presuppositionalism” as well as the claim to have come into contact with “all other presuppositionalists”. The author goes on to provide alleged examples of these fallacies, however it is …

  • Helping Dawson Recognize a TA

    This lengthy (well, at least by my standard) reply is in response to comments Dawson Bethrick and I have traded in response to my post “Dawson’s (Mis)Understanding of TAs” found here

    Dawson wrote: I’m not sure why this is so important to you. As I indicated in my original comment, not only does RK not provide an argument for his god’s existence, he does not – from what I can see – provide any argument for the position he’s defending. That was what I was trying to say in response to your claim that his argument is “presuppositional.” If there’s …

  • What’s up with the blog?

    Please excuse our constant change of face as I try out different blog templates over the next day or so.…

  • Dawson’s (Mis)Understanding of TAs

    This post is in response to a series of back and forth comments between Dawson Bethrick and myself in the post Missing the Basics below:

    BK wrote: “If you are truly uninitiated enough about Presuppositionalism as a method to think it is exclusively used in arguments for the existence of God, then I suggest you go back and do some more reading on the subject.”



    Dawson wrote: I never stated that presuppositionalism “is exclusively used in arguments for the existence of God.” I am quite aware of presuppositionalism’s intended aims, its devices, its gimmicks.

    The fact that you referenced RK’s …

  • Response To Mitch LeBlanc’s Odd Ontological Argument

    Mitch LeBlanc has written an alleged defense of his attempt to redefine God and hence defeat the presuppositionalist program. You may find his article here:
    http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/a-response-to-chris-bolt-on-presuppositionalism-and-gods-honesty/

    Mitch writes, “I would first like to explain that while the idea of a lying God is logically absurd on a Thomist conception of God, it is not logically absurd on a Presuppositionalist conception.” What follows this claim is rather odd. Mitch thinks that a Thomist appealing to Anselm’s “definition” of God can show that the idea of a lying God is logically absurd. The Thomist may do so as follows:

    “1. God is …

  • A Brief Introductory Response To Mitch LeBlanc Concerning His Question

    Mitch LeBlanc has written an alleged defense of his attempt to redefine God and hence defeat the presuppositionalist program. You may find his article here:
    http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/a-response-to-chris-bolt-on-presuppositionalism-and-gods-honesty/

    During a debate, Mitch asked of Razorskiss, “What if God is deceiving you?”
    Several times now I have stated that this question is subject to Fallacy of Complex Question. Mitch disagrees, writing, “I did not present a false dichotomy of a yes or no, in which case I would agree that a labelling [sic] of my question as fallacy would be warranted” and “my question (2) does not force an answer in a similar …

  • Dawson Bethrick, The Man Who Builds His House Upon The Sand

    Bethrick’s most recent response to my post here – http://choosinghats.blogspot.com/2009/09/all-bethrick-all-time.html is frankly one of the poorest responses I have ever seen him make.

    Objectivists, as I understand it, have never quite been accepted in the realm of academic philosophy (if you do not believe me, try to research the topic via philosophical sources; most encyclopedias do not even mention Objectivism or Rand). Their terminology is often extremely vague, and there is reason for this. Rand was after certainty in a world which told her, and everyone else, that there is no such thing. She presented ideas to counter this, to …

  • All Bethrick All The Time

    I asked Mr. Bethrick what “previously validated knowledge” is, since he claims one can know a great deal based upon this, to which he responded, “Previously validated knowledge is knowledge that has already been validated, specifically in the context of new discoveries.”

    Of course, circular definitions are definitions which are circular. I do not see that Bethrick ever actually defines what he means by previous validation in a non-circular way nor does he offer an example. He apparently attempts to offer an example of “previous validation” but the illustration only shows an alleged use of previous validation in science rather …

  • A bit of a rant.

    We are, essentially, an accident. The universe is a given, we know not its origin or whether or not it even had one though we have made some good guesses concerning the topic. From the mix of things came the first life. We do not know how. All we know is that we are here now as the result of an incredibly long chain of consecutive moments derivative of the contingent particulars of existence. Everything we are is the result not of random chance, but of biological evolution guided as it were through natural selection colliding with genetic mutations and …

  • Missing the Basics