Apologetics to the Glory of God

Choosing Hats

  • Providence and Presuppositions

    One of the easiest areas to spot the truth of the claim that presuppositions determine the way people view evidence is in the discussion of the providence of God.

    Last night a friend of mine told me that his wife left her job.

    Tonight he told me that his wife had been given a new job out of nowhere!

    The new job is by far preferable to the old. For this we thank God. Upon sharing about this with unbelievers, my friend stated that he was “…getting hit up by atheists on why his wife got the job, and that …

  • An atheist who gets it…

    Well, some of it anyway. I do wish more Christians understood what is set forth in this video.

    Greg Bahnsen opened in his debate with Gordon Stein as follows –

    It is necessary at the outset of our debate to define our terms; that is always the case. And in particular here, I should make it clear what I mean when I use the term “God”.

    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 …

  • Pragmatism vs Justification

    I have been following the discussion on Induction between Chris and Mitch with great interest. Even though they are about to wrap things up, I wanted to comment on part of Mitch’s most recent response.

    Mitch writes: It might not be a justification of induction in Bolt’s opinion, but such is the nature of pragmatism. It needs not be a justification, it simply is a warrant for its continued use. There is no error here as Reichenbach is not attempting to contest that induction is justified or unjustified in that statement, simply that we have a reason to continue …

  • Theologians All

    A rather humorous exchange between Dr. James White and Dan Barker is posted below. Atheism is just as “religious” as any other system we might typically label a “religion”. There is no such thing as a person who does not believe in God, but there is such a thing as a person who claims to not believe in God. Such a claim requires a great deal of bad theology.

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTR6y_HkINM&hl=en&fs=1&]…

  • A Brief Critique of “The Inconsistency of Theism”

    Andrew Moroz desires to convince his readers of the inconsistency of theism through an article entitled “The Inconsistency of Theism” which may be found here – http://www.atheists.org/The_Inconsistency_of_Theism

    Moroz notes that while there are many conceptions of God, his “focus will be on the Christian God”. Unfortunately he immediately presents John Hick’s description of [John Hick’s] god, which is not a description of the God of Christian Scripture. Since the Christian worldview is the only true worldview, and since it is the only intelligible way to view the world; it is unassailable. The only way to attempt an attack on the …

  • Eight Steps to Popularizing Presuppositional Apologetics

    A presuppositional apologetic is a method of defending the Christian faith. Presuppositional apologetics are based on a recognition of the need to be committed to God and Scripture even when chatting with unbelievers who raise supposed intellectual objections to the faith. The result is that God and His Word are presupposed while arguments and evidence are presented. Other methods of apologetics start with presenting arguments and evidence before concluding that God exists or that Christianity is true. Presuppositional apologetics start with the existence of God and truth of Christianity before presenting arguments and evidence. Do not misunderstand; presuppostional apologetics do …

  • Are sunglasses evidence of God?

    “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.”
    Psalms 19:1-4 (ESV)

    The other day I jumped into a conversation about the presuppositional approach to hermeneutics. One of the individuals involved in the conversation was talking a bit about the use of evidence and saying that evidences are not always bad.

    Well, I …

  • The failure of unbelief with respect to induction illustrated by Mitch LeBlanc.

    Mitch LeBlanc continues to espouse his inconsistencies regarding induction in his most recent post found here – http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/further-thoughts-and-clarifications-on-induction-and-the-christian-god/

    Mitch Admits His Problem

    He writes, “…I simply mean to suggest that one should be as skeptical about the problem of induction as the problem is skeptical of inductive reasoning itself.”
    With this he begs the question. I pointed out that he did so in his previous post and he continues to do so now. The existence of debate regarding a given topic does not entail skepticism. If he is unsure of whether or not there is a Problem of Induction then …

  • With A Wave of His Wand: How Mitch LeBlanc Answers the Problem of Induction

    Introduction

    Mitch LeBlanc wrote an indirect response to me regarding the Problem of Induction wherein he relied heavily upon Michael Martin to deal with the presuppositionalist utilization of the famous problem. He apparently recognizes, to some extent, the alleged challenge set forth. My response to his post may be found here – http://choosinghats.blogspot.com/2009/09/mitch-leblancs-proposed-solution-to.html . He has now written another post here – http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/inductive-reasoning-and-the-christian-god/ wherein he states that I have missed the point of his previous article. He claims that his post is not intended to be a solution to the Problem of Induction and that it is debatable as to …

  • Mitch LeBlanc’s Proposed Solution to the Problem of Induction

    Introduction

    Mitch LeBlanc has written a post concerning induction ( found here – http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/inductive-reasoning-and-the-christian-god/ ) in which he writes that “the uniformity of nature (or rather the principle of the uniformity of nature) states that ‘the future will resemble the past’ and is used in inductive reasoning”. He then attempts to describe the difference between deduction and induction and writes, “…in a deductive argument it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false (provided the argument is valid/sound)”. All Mitch need write in his parenthesis is “provided the argument is valid”. If an argument …