Apologetics to the Glory of God

Year: 2011

  • Mr. White, Mr. Grey, and Mr. Black IV

    In our last post, we examined the Romanist, “evangelical,” and putatively “Reformed” apologetic methods, as advanced by Jacques Maritain, Dr. Carnell and Charles Pinnock, and Dr. Sproul, and applied them to our discussion. In this section, we address Mr. Black, and begin to examine in greater detail the difference in approach that Mr. White and Mr. Grey have in their apologetic. This section comes from pgs 317-319 of Defense of the Faith.

    So also with Mr. Black. He daily changes the truth of God into a lie. He daily worships and serves the creature more than the Creator. He

  • On Using Logic In Apologetics

    As I have noted before, every once in a while it is necessary to make plain one’s disagreement with even those closest to oneself in terms of thought for the sake of clarity and development of a topic. I have received a number of questions and comments concerning a recent post by Jamin Hubner called Lessons in Logic and Argumentation: Propositional and Symbolic Logic and Their Place in Apologetics. Since there are some points in the post that pertain to future posts I’d like to write on TAG and since the post essentially would lump me together with skeptics …

  • dios_mio and the Proverbs 18.2 principle

    A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion. (Proverbs 18.2)

    An unbeliever who has made appearances in various places on the Internet under the name dios_mio recently left a comment on one of the posts related to RazorsKiss’s debate with a Muslim. Unfortunately it does not appear that dios_mio (DM) has learned very much since my conversation with him several years ago.

    “Scientific miracles of the Quran” is nothing but dishonest kookery. It belongs to the ranks of ideas such as “the aliens built the pyramids”. Having said that, I should also point out

  • Is Fristianity Actual? (Updated with response from David Byron)

    UPDATE: David Byron has offered clarification in a comment, but I did not want to risk people missing it. Please see his response now included at the bottom of the body of the post.

    _______________________________

    One of the greatest worries with the Fristianity objection is that it is often defined in conflicting ways. For example Sean Choi writes, “Of course, Fristianity is not an actual worldview or religion, as is, for example, Islam. But no one – certainly not I – is claiming this.” Yet in a footnote Choi cites David Byron of the Van Til List as popularizing Fristianity. …

  • Certainty, Possibility, and You

    I was directed today to a post by C. Michael Patton, posted roughly a month ago, entitled “Why I am not Completely Certain that Christianity is True“.

    In the podcast to follow, he describes today as “an age of scientific, enlightenment discovery, and scientific methodology for inquiry, and discovery.” He goes on through the podcast to explicate his view of certainty and possibility. “From a scientific standpoint, many of us look at knowledge, and see it as something very cut and dry, very black and white; it’s either true or not true, and that’s it. 2 + …

  • Is Fristianity Sufficient?

    Michael Butler as quoted by Sean Choi contends, “If Fristianity is otherwise identical to Christianity, the only way for us to know [that its god is a quadrinity] would be for the Fristian god to reveal this to us.” Choi takes this proposition to be false and explains why.

    That the Fristian God is a quadrinity is something we know to be true in virtue of stipulation… (Indeed, that is how Butler himself introduced the concept of Fristianity.) Butler is suggesting that there is mystery here when there is none. “Fristianity” has come to mean what it does precisely because

  • A Case Study In Apostasy by ZaoThanatoo (Guest Post)

    I had planned to write a chapter-by-chapter critical review of prominent atheist John Loftus’ book, Why I Am an Atheist; however, upon reading the book I believed that such an analysis was overkill and unnecessary in refuting Loftus’ claims.  Providentially, shortly after I finished reading Loftus’ three books the fellas over at Triablogue released their collaboration, The Infidel Delusion, in response to Loftus, et al.  So I thought my little collection of posts might just be blogospheric white noise in the flurry of responses exchanged.

    So I reworked the bit that I had written in response to Loftus …

  • Mr. White, Mr. Grey, and Mr. Black III

    In our previous post, we saw the beginnings of the typical evidential/classical method, as posed by Dr. Carnell. We will continue our journey through Van Til’s dialogue, on pages 316-317 of Defense of the Faith.

    Of course, Mr. Black will be greatly impressed with such an argument as Mr. Grey has presented to him for the truth of Christianity. In fact, if Christianity is thus shown to be in accord with the moral nature of man, as Mr. Black himself sees that moral nature, then Mr. Black does not need to be converted at all to accept Christianity. He

  • Vantillians are Retarded

    Consider the following transcript of a very brief discussion I had today with a brilliant atheist.  Please note the atheist’s handle has been changed for privacy purposes.

    brilliant_atheist: i accepted the cosmological argument

    BKing: why?

    brilliant_atheist: but I deny that it points to something alive

    BKing: it is a terrible argument

    brilliant_atheist: because the universe needs a cause

    BKing: why?

    brilliant_atheist: because it exists

    BKing: so everything that exists requires a cause?

    brilliant_atheist: yes

    BKing: um

    BKing: dude

    BKing: ever heard of an infinite regress?

    brilliant_atheist: yeah?