Apologetics to the Glory of God

Search results for: “possibility”

  • An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 38 – Impossibility of science.

    By C.L. Bolt

    The presuppositional, transcendental, and skeptical considerations brought out in this introduction are easily applied to particular manifestations of the non-Christian worldview. They can be similarly applied to tools that are heavily relied upon by these particular manifestations of the non-Christian worldview. For example, science rests upon many of the principles brought forth so far in this series, including especially the senses, induction, and the uniformity of nature. When the nonbeliever desires to use an argument against Christianity from the disciplines of science or history (etc.) the Christian apologist can point out that these disciplines require the Christian …

  • An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 15 – Illustrating necessity by the impossibility of the contrary.

    By C.L. Bolt

    We’ve said some important things concerning the sufficiency of the Christian worldview and the nature of the transcendental. Let’s set aside these previous discussions for now and focus on demonstrating the necessity of the Christian worldview by virtue of the impossibility of the contrary. You will recall our much earlier discussion of the impossibility of the contrary in Part 12.

    In the context of transcendental arguments one need not speak of competing transcendentals (plural) but only of a competing transcendental (singular). If one is to demonstrate that some given condition is necessary then one need only to …

  • Certainty, Possibility, and You

    I was directed today to a post by C. Michael Patton, posted roughly a month ago, entitled “Why I am not Completely Certain that Christianity is True“.

    In the podcast to follow, he describes today as “an age of scientific, enlightenment discovery, and scientific methodology for inquiry, and discovery.” He goes on through the podcast to explicate his view of certainty and possibility. “From a scientific standpoint, many of us look at knowledge, and see it as something very cut and dry, very black and white; it’s either true or not true, and that’s it. 2 + …

  • Point of Contact – Possibility

    [display_podcast]

    In this second installment of our newest podcast – Joshua Whipps, Sean Burkes, Justin McCurry and Nic Heath discuss possibility.

    Note: The audio quality is not the best, unfortunately. We’re working on steps to rectify that.

    …

  • Bahnsen and Bare Possibility

    Historically, when David Hume and Immanuel Kant exposed the invalidity of the theistic proofs, apologists generally balked at returning to revelation as the basis for their certainty of God’s existence. They elected, rather, to maintain status in the the blinded eyes of the “worldly wise” by attempting to prove Christianity’s credibility by means of arguments that hopefully pointed toward the probability of God’s existence and Scripture’s truth. They settled for a mere presumption (plus pragmatic assurance) in favor of a few salvaged items (i.e., “fundamentals”) from the Christian system. Refusing to presuppose the sovereign God revealed in the Bible

    …

  • The Possibility of Middle Knowledge

    I’m going to include the transcript of a discussion I had (along with several others) with a Middle Knowledge proponent that frequents AOMin’s chat channel. The reason I do so is in order to give an example of how the argument I advanced recently functions in an actual discussion.

    The discussion was fairly wide-ranging, but I think demonstrates the ability of a consistent return to the nature of God as the foundation of a reply to the assertions advanced by proponents of MK and other similar philosophical systems, over against the Biblical conception of God’s nature and the modal collapse …

  • Attributal Argument for God’s Ordination of Possibility

    This argument is an attempted formalization of the discussion found in my recent post God is Sovereign over Possibility. It’s intent is to demonstrate that the “all possible worlds” framework that is very commonly used is incompatible with Christian doctrine and the Scriptural revelation of the nature of the Triune God. If you have any possible defeaters, please post them in the comment section. Thanks!…

  • Possibility In Objectivism

    Rule

    “If there is no evidence for a proposition, there is no need to take it seriously.” – Objectivist Dawson Bethrick of www.bahnsenburner.blogspot.com

    This was written recently in the midst of what has proven to be a lengthy dispute between the author and me over topics like induction and presuppositionalism. I felt this statement in particular worthy of commenting upon. One may encounter a similar statement asserted by any number of other people regardless of whether or not they are Objectivists. There are a number of concerns to be had about the statement.

    First, there needs to be a definition …

  • Actual Engagement

    Interestingly enough, a comment made in passing now constitutes “engagement”.

    https://twitter.com/ChoosingHats/status/1291809399917469701

    Now, if this constitutes “engagement” – fine, I’ll buy that. However, it was followed up with this:

    Again, fine. What does this tweet claim, however?

    1) Jesus died (not contested by me).

    2) The wages of sin is *death* (not contested by me)

    3) That death is *not* eternal …

  • My Credo

    Excerpt from Van Til’s essay “My Credo“, found in Jerusalem and Athens: Critical Discussions on the Philosophy and Apologetics of Cornelius Van Til; ed. by E.R. Geehan, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1974 – pgs 18-21 – a Festschrift volume in his honor, on the occasion of Van Til’s 75th birthday, and 40th anniversary as professor of apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary.

    A. My problems with the “traditional method.”

    1. This method compromises God himself by maintaining that his existence is only “possible” albeit “highly probable,” rather than ontologically and “rationally” necessary.

    2. It compromises the counsel of God …