Apologetics to the Glory of God

Author: BK

  • Comment Policy Revision

    The staff of CH has decided to open up comments for “debate” once again. Please note that the same rules apply as have applied in the past to the content of comments. Comments will continue to be moderated, which means there will be a variable amount of time before they appear after the post they are tied to. However, debates are no longer restricted to our IRC channel or Skype.

    Of course, our IRC channel is still open, and those who wish to meet up with us in there are welcome to do so!

    BK…

  • The Atheist's Burden of Proof

    I was in a discussion today with an atheist, and the subject turned to the idea of burden of proof. It is a common claim that Christians own a burden of proof to prove that God exists, but that atheists do not own any burden at all.  Here’s my response, that outlines the reason I disagree with this:

    Many (and probably most) atheists will say they have nothing to prove at all, because atheism (a-theism) is merely being without a belief in the existence of any gods. Therefore, the only *positive* explicit assertion they are making is about their belief,

    …

  • A Stop On the Way

    Last week a few of us from CH spent some time visiting The Confessional Outhouse, a blog run by one who calls himself RubeRad. Rube asked for input on his assertion that “Christianity is falsifiable”, after appealing to I Cor. 15:14. Some great discussion ensued, and during the course of that discussion a number of tangents were launched, one of which started with the following statement by a contributor named “Michael Mann”:

    In terms of any logical transcendental argument, they could get no further then generic theism i.e, a powerful Creator and Designer is a necessary presupposition of intelligibility

    …

  • Bahnsen, Van Til, TAG and Deduction

    The past few days have seen a flurry of activity over at Aporetic Christianity on a variety of topics. The most recent has been a discussion as to whether TAG is deductive or not. Up until now I have replied to PM (Paul Manata) through comments, but I feel the need to stretch out a bit here, and so I will reply via a post rather than in comments. I hope PM doesn’t mind the change of venue.

    After reading and responding to PM’s latest post there are two issues that I would like to lay out clearly here.  First, …

  • Reminder and Resource

    Based on some of the comments we have received lately, I feel it is necessary to remind folks that the purpose of this blog is educational, and is not intended as a forum for debate.  While we may make exceptions to this rule from time to time if we feel there is educational benefit to be seen, in general we will not allow comments through which will end up initiating a debate-through-comments.  This is one of the primary reasons we set up a chat channel, which we encourage everyone to take advantage of. We will be more than happy …

  • A Paradigm Shift

    As we enter into a discussion of apologetics, the very first thing we must contend with is the fact that the apologetic methodology set forth in scripture is at odds with the way in which we typically reason. This fact entails that we must prepare ourselves for a paradigm shift in the way we approach the apologetic task, and is therefore by no means a trivial a matter. The Biblical method of apologetics requires that we reason in a way that is quite unfamiliar to the average person, yet is wholly consistent with a Biblical anthropology. In other words, the …

  • Infallibility and the Church

    A few weeks back I started digging into Catholicism pretty deep, due to some discussions I was having.  Much of what I have been doing is trying to understand just what the Roman Catholic Church teaches, in order to evaluate it.  I have tried to be as “objective” as possible, but as I am presently learning about what the RCC teaches based on talking with others and reading web sites, I realize that it is very possible that I may be fed information that is not consistent with what the RCC actually teaches.  In my quest for understanding, I was …

  • Thing 1 and Thing 2

    Recently I posted a portion of a discussion I had in the Choosing Hats chat room with a (somewhat) regular visitor.  This visitor was discussing the Cosmological Argument (well, at least one formulation of it) with me, and I was attempting to demonstrate for them how what they were presenting failed miserably as an argument for the existence of God.  This post has generated a few responses – some in the context of comments, some in the context of posts on other sites.  For the sake of context, here is a snippet from the conversation where I took the atheist …

  • 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?

    …

  • Coffee Bean Discipleship

    Today as I was sitting at my local Starbucks, typing away on an essay, I began to take notice of two guys who had sat down behind me.  It was  somewhere in between the end of one album I was listening to and the beginning of another that I heard someone mention “the Word”.  I paused my iPod and began to listen intently, feeling a bit guilty that I was both listening to someone else’s conversation, and doing so with headphones in my ears as if I was listening to music instead!  What I heard, however, was encouraging.

    It was …