Category: Objections and Misconceptions
-
Van Til taught that nonbelievers cannot know anything
A common objection or typical misrepresentation of what Van Til taught in respect to presuppositional apologetics is that nonbelievers cannot or do not know anything. This usually stems from a misunderstanding of how the Christian view of epistemology works in practice and in principle regarding the nonbeliever as espoused by people who adhere to presuppositionalism. But first, let us allow Dr. Van Til speak for himself on this point as this objection will often be raised in the form “I heard Van Til wrote that nonbelievers don’t know anything.”
…Still further, it is when we presuppose with Calvin that all
-
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 …
-
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, …
-
Knowledge, Attenuated VanTillianism, and a False Dilemma
Yesterday, I did some commenting on a post by Paul Manata entitled “Do All Men Know that God Exists?“.
In this post, he offers a couple possible responses he would consider Van Tillians to potentially offer, tells us he’s an “attenuated” Van Tillian (which is unsurprising, at best); we interacted in the comments for a bit, (complete with his typical ad hominem) and he returns today with a bit of screed, venting about Van Tillians. His problem, apparently, seems to be my “certainty”. Far be it from me to point out that he acts anything but uncertain, but …
-
But you have to start with yourself! (Updated)
Today on the Dividing Line Dr. White took a call on presuppositionalism concerning R.C. Sproul’s objection that we cannot escape from ourselves and hence must start with ourselves in epistemology. Dr. White did not have any problem pointing out the fundamental reason that Sproul is wrong (and inconsistent) by appealing to the theological argument that we are epistemologically tied to God as it were by virtue of our having been created in the image of God. John Calvin notes this right away in his Institutes. Make sure to listen to Dr. White’s answer provided at the link above as …
-
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 …
-
Apologetic Mirror Objection
David Byron recently commented on this post which concerns TAG and Islam. Rather than letting a rather lengthy comment linger on an old post I have decided to post it here in full. Part of being a good apologist is being aware of common objections to one’s methodology and arguments. This leads to further study and a stronger apologetic. It also equips the apologist to be able to at the very least recognize a particular objection in the context of an apologetic encounter. Byron writes out a helpful description of what has elsewhere been labeled the Apologetic Mirror Problem (AMP). …
-
ZaoThanatoo Answers the Argument from Horrific Suffering 2 (Guest Post)
The Argument from Horrific Suffering for the Non-Existence of God
The Argument from Horrific Suffering for the Non-Existence of God (Mitch) / Answering the Argument from Horrific Suffering (Chris) / Bolt and Horrific Suffering (Mitch) / Answering the Argument from Horrific Suffering 2 (Chris) / Bolt and Horrific Suffering II (Mitch) / Answering the Argument from Horrific Suffering 3 (Chris) / Bolt and Horrific Suffering III (Mitch) / Answering the Argument from Horrific Suffering 4 (Chris) / ZaoThanatoo Answers (ZaoThanatoo) / Bolt and Horrific Suffering IV (Mitch)
I will provide a brief rebuttal to Mitch’s response and grant him the …
-
Answering the Argument from Horrific Suffering 4
Argument from Horrific Suffering
The exchange has taken place as follows: The Argument from Horrific Suffering for the Non-Existence of God (Mitch) / Answering the Argument from Horrific Suffering (Chris) / Bolt and Horrific Suffering (Mitch) / Answering the Argument from Horrific Suffering 2 (Chris) / Bolt and Horrific Suffering II (Mitch) / Answering the Argument from Horrific Suffering 3 (Chris) / Bolt and Horrific Suffering III (Mitch) / …Answers the Argument from Horrific Suffering (ZaoThanatoo).
Mitch notes that I am still challenging premise (4) of the following argument:
…Horrific Suffering (def.) = that most awe-full form of suffering that
-
ZaoThanatoo Answers the Argument from Horrific Suffering (Guest Post)
Argument from Horrific Suffering
The Argument from Horrific Suffering for the Non-Existence of God (Mitch) / Answering the Argument from Horrific Suffering (Chris) / Bolt and Horrific Suffering (Mitch) / Answering the Argument from Horrific Suffering 2 (Chris) / Bolt and Horrific Suffering II (Mitch) / Answering the Argument from Horrific Suffering 3 (Chris) / Bolt and Horrific Suffering III (Mitch).
Chris Bolt and Mitch Leblanc have been carrying on a discussion surrounding J. L. Schellenberg’s Antitheistic Argument from Horrors. The full exchange (to date) is linked here. As I’m occasionally wont, I’d like to throw my hat …