Category: ChrisBolt
-
Science Is Not That Simple (Part 3)
Chalmers also challenges the idea that facts provide a firm and reliable foundation for scientific knowledge. This argument falls in line with the other arguments.
Further difficulties concerning the reliability of the observational basis of science arise from some of the ways in which judgments about the adequacy of observation statements draw on presupposed knowledge in a way that renders those judgments fallible.1
Chalmers uses the example of Aristotle’s idea that fire is a substance. Fire was observed, and it could be seen rising into the air so that it seemed accurate to say that fire …
-
Lane’s Blog
Happy Birthday to Lane’s Blog (Youtube)!
This excellent resource recently turned 3 years old. Go visit and make sure to tell Lane thanks for all the great work he has done!…
-
Science Is Not That Simple (Part 2)
(For the first part of Science Is Not That Simple click here.)
Chalmers argues against the common idea that facts precede and are separate from theory. Chalmers starts his argument out against this common idea by explaining the ambiguity of the term “fact”.
…It can refer to a statement that expresses the fact and it can also refer to the state of affairs referred to by such a statement. For example, it is a fact that there are mountains and craters on the moon. Here the fact can be taken as referring to the mountains or craters themselves. Alternatively,
-
Panel Discussion at SBTS: “Eden, Avatar, and the Kingdom of Christ: Just What Are We To Do with Popular Culture?”
(The video is not working at the moment. You may follow the link below to view the discussion. Sorry for the inconvenience!)
…
-
Discussion With Nocterro Concerning Three Topics: Opening Statement By C.L. Bolt
Introduction
Internet user Nocterro has requested that we discuss the three topics of the reliability of Scripture, the self-deception of atheists, and the presupposition of God in Nocterro’s reasoning. Scripture is reliable and is the source of my claim that Nocterro believes both ‘God exists’ and ‘Nocterro does not believe that God exists’. Scripture is also the source of my claim that Nocterro presupposes God in order to reason at all. Here I will offer a brief defense of each of these three claims with the recognition that each subject is massive enough to deserve much more detailed discussion than …
-
Should we argue for “general theism”?
In my experience the presuppositionalist program of setting out to defend specifically Christian theism generally produces scoffing rather than interaction. At the beginning of his debate with Gordon Stein, Greg Bahnsen states his position on this matter. He says, “I want to specify that I’m arguing particularly in favor of Christian theism, and for it as a unit or system of thought and not for anything like theism in general, and there are reasons for that.”
There are at least two senses in which Bahnsen explains he will not be arguing for or defending theism in general. Bahnsen …
-
A Fristian Strikes Out
As I was browsing the Internet today I came across the following from a “John Calvin”:
“All right. So all the Fristian needs to do is to say that ‘Fristianity’ is whatever subset of Christian claims the TAGster thinks we need for preconditions of intelligibility, *except that* the Trinity is a Quadrinity.”
How does someone disprove a worldview that has the same propositions as Christianity except for the additional proposition that there is a fourth person in God?
In my view, thinking of the “preconditions of intelligibility” as a “subset of Christian claims” may be a rather substantial error, but …
-
Science Is Not That Simple
Science is often thought of as involving facts that are directly given to unprejudiced observers through their senses, facts that precede and are independent of theory, and facts that provide a firm basis for scientific knowledge. A.F. Chalmers argues against these widely accepted ideas.
It is widely believed that facts concerning the world around us come to us directly through the senses. This would lead us to believe that observing the world around us and recording what is seen or otherwise experienced through the senses is all there is to observation. In this way it is thought, what is seen …
-
Proving the Bible
Jamin Hubner at Real Apologetics has written another very fine article which may be found here.…
-
Is 2+2=4 just ink on paper?
Anna:
There is truth outside of Scripture sure, but most of it can’t be proven. There are only those things which can be scientifically proven. (1) It must be physical (touchable visible), (2) able to be observed, and (3) able to be repeated. If anything does not include these three things then we don’t know whether it is true.
We believe the Bible because it is God’s word-and everything God says is true because God is righteous, although we have no proof that there is a God – we have faith. So archeology is our only proof of the Bible.…