Author: C. L. Bolt
-
Purgatory Debate
Our friend TurretinFan has posted his debate with Roman Catholic Dan Marcum.…
-
Atheist Thrasymachus Admits He's Unreasonable
Thrasymachus is a contributor to Urban Philosophy known for writing lengthy diatribes concerning his hatred for Christ. His posts generally take a shotgun approach and are so full of bad rhetoric that they discourage even the most Mother’s-basement-confined-E-pologist from taking the time to respond. Still, there are certainly problems to be found in his posts.
Just this morning I began reading a new post from Thrasymachus with the (grammatically incorrect) title “Why Apologetics Sucks.” In the Abstract for the post Thrasymachus states that, “Reasonable people should not take Apologists seriously.” He then proceeds to seriously evaluate apologetics as a …
-
Christian Kitsch
…Many Christian bookstores stock — and sell — more kitsch than books. Although such work and those who buy it may certainly be sincere, Christians should try to grow in their tastes as well as in the other areas of their lives. The problem with religious kitsch is that its cuteness and self-gratifying nature can domesticate and thereby distort the Biblical faith. Christianity is not a sickly sweet religion, contrary to the saccharine plaques and greeting cards that clutter up the bookstores. The anemic figurines of Jesus Christ are poor testimonies to His deity and His Lordship. The self-congratulatory moralism
-
Choosing Hats Welcomes Three New Contributors
Choosing Hats is bringing three new contributors onto the blog. We look forward to having them with us and want to officially welcome them to the site.
Resequitur
defectivebit
D.S. Smith
Keep an eye out for new posts from our new members!
Please keep us in prayer as we continue to grow and make changes to Choosing Hats in the hopes of better assisting you, our readers, through the explanation and demonstration of covenantal/presuppositional apologetics in defense of the Christian faith for the glory of God.…
-
Not that again…?
Paul Manata wrote a post on whether or not TAG is a deductive argument here which Brian Knapp responded to here and then Paul wrote more here and here and here.
While I do not plan on jumping into the discussion, the readers may be benefitted by the somewhat lengthy discussion of this topic that I did engage in here and here and here and here and here and here.
My views now are not necessarily what they were then, but there are some points here that should be read in an effort to understand the texts from …
-
Formal Statement of the Transcendental Argument for God
A common objection to TAG is that it has not ever been formally stated. Of course, an argument need not be formally stated to constitute an argument, but it would perhaps be helpful to have the argument so stated. It is worth pointing out that there is not only one way to state TAG, and there have been attempts to state it formally in various ways, whether or not opponents (or proponents) of TAG think that these statements are sufficient or not. All of this aside, one of our readers came across James Anderson’s article on TAG and was inspired …
-
An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 36 – Aesthetics.
By C.L. Bolt
We make qualitative judgments about art and beauty. Some works of art are considered better in some way(s) than other works of art, and some things are considered more beautiful than others. There is a large amount of subjectivity involved in determining whether or not something is beautiful, not to mention a large amount of expertise which is needed to make a better judgment on such issues.
An old cliché claims that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” but few, if any, consider this to be true. Such an account is wholly subjective, meaning that …
-
An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 35 – Normative justification and warrant.
By C.L. Bolt
Something that is widely agreed upon across different views concerning the world is that there is an element of knowledge called “justification” or “warrant.” Broadly conceived, it is that element of knowledge pertaining to the basis, reason, evidence, etc. that we have for believing that something is true. There is also widespread disagreement as to what exactly constitutes justification or warrant, but most do agree that there is something like this necessary for knowledge. If there are those who do not believe that this is an element of knowledge then they have a radically different understanding of …
-
An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 34 – Problem of evil.
By C.L. Bolt
It follows from what has been written regarding morality that a consistent unbeliever is unable to account for evil. Yet the existence of evil is one of the most used objections to the existence of the good and powerful Christian God. The consistent unbeliever is unable to account for the problem of evil when it comes to moral evil, but cannot raise the problem of evil through natural evil either. In this sense evil becomes a real problem for the non-Christian worldview, not the Christian worldview. The non-Christian cannot account for evil within his or her own …
-
An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 33 – Ethics and morality.
By C.L. Bolt
Moral values, rules, laws, principles, standards, etc. cannot be seen, smelt, touched, heard, or tasted. They are not empirically verifiable entities. They are not part of the material or physical realm, or so most would hold. Still, people will believe that morality exists and will believe this even more strongly than they do that other empirically verifiable entities exist. Even those who deny that morality of any kind exists tend to behave in ways that contradict this claim, if they do not outright reject the claim through other claims and assumptions found elsewhere in their thought. Good …