Search results for: “"transcendental argument"”
-
The Reformed Religion of Revelation and the Wiccan Religion of Choice: Part III
Potential Objections
It appears as though Wicca is by nature incapable of answering the difficult questions asked of it in the most recent post in this series. It might be suggested that some mistakes have been made with regard to something that has been said concerning either Wicca or the questions asked of it. Someone might suggest that mistakes or misunderstandings of Wicca or its implications have come about. For example, it could be that the main source used for this series, Essential Wicca, is unreliable. It might also be that this book alone is simply not …
-
Mr. White, Mr. Grey, and Mr. Black VII
…“But how can anyone know anything about the ‘Beyond’?” asks Mr. Black.
“Well, of course,” replies Mr. Grey, “if you want absolute certainty, such as one gets in geometry, Christianity does not offer it. We offer you only ‘rational probability.’ ‘Christianity,’ as I said in effect a moment ago when I spoke of the death of Christ, ‘is founded on historical facts, which, by their very nature, cannot be demonstrated with geometric certainty. All judgments of historical particulars are at the mercy of the complexity of the time-space universe. . . . If the scientist cannot rise above rational probability -
Answering Seven Reasons: Christ is Head of (the) Mormon Church?
Continuing the series I started with in my prior post, we’re examining the About.com article “Seven Reasons Why Mormons are Christian”, by Rachel Bruner. In our prior post, recall that we examined 1) The remarks of their elder statesmen on this topic, 2) The distinct tendency on the part of the LDS to “redefine” terms in the Christian lexicon, and 3) The necessity for a transcendental argument to settle the question.
In this installment, we will examine the first reason we are given for believing that Mormons are Christian.
1. Christ is Head of (the) Mormon Church
I’ve …
-
Adventures in Missing the Antithesis
Paul Baird recently addressed what he seems to think is the “philosophy that underpins the Christian Presuppositional Apologetics.” He’s wrong, of course, but let us show him why, shall we? He cites Chris’ citation of an argument tucked away in the appendix of PA:S&D as that supposed “underpinning.” Interestingly, he goes on to ask why “do Presuppositional Apologists not start with this explanation that PA is about establishing the need for a unique self sufficient knower and identifying that self sufficient knower exclusively as the Christian god?” Well, that is readily apparent – because we don’t believe that to be …
-
Another Round With Paul Baird: Stating and Defending the Requested Rebuttal (6)
History
https://choosinghats.org/2011/09/an-argument-for-paul-baird/
https://choosinghats.org/2011/09/helping-paul-baird-recognize-an-argument/
Introduction
…Paul Baird said…
You have to remember that this didn’t used to be a hypothetical for me. I was a card carrying North European Solitary Pagan at one time, and there was some revelatory basis to my worldview so I’m not playing some devils advocate game with CBC here.
That said, the purpose of using the Pagan worldview is that, arguably, and leaving aside characters like Aleister Crowley, it is an indigenous faith of these islands, alongside Druidism and many others. That is to say it predates Christianity and shares none
-
Another Round With Paul Baird: Stating and Defending the Requested Rebuttal (5)
History
https://choosinghats.org/2011/09/an-argument-for-paul-baird/
https://choosinghats.org/2011/09/helping-paul-baird-recognize-an-argument/
Paul’s Problems
The conclusion to my previous post in this series was that Paul offers no new objection to my pointing out that he provides no support for PR, no new objection to APR, no objection to my answer concerning alleged competing transcendentals, and no acceptance or rejection of my debate proposal.
Paul’s Response
In his latest comments Paul references the Choosing Hats Twitter account and a number of posts pertaining to FSC’s (Fristianity Style Counters). Neither of these has anything to do with the line of argumentation I have followed …
-
The Unfortunate Case of the Missing Argument
I’m not going to link all of Paul’s posts in this – they’ve been linked ad nauseum from here, already. His blog is Patient and Persistent – I trust our readers are more than capable of finding these comments of his 🙂
There are times when I’m engaged in an exchange with someone and I’m not sure if I’ve understood them correctly. That’s how I felt reading Chris Bolt’s stuff. It turns out that I did understand him correctly.
Note: Paul does not here explain 1) What he understood correctly, or 2) How it is the case that he understood …
-
A Feminist examines Presup
The post I’m about to respond to came in on my google alerts today. It was so packed with common objections and misconceptions that I decided to answer.
Evidentialism v. Presuppositionalism
I have noticed a worrying trend among some Christians. It is the turn away from evidentialist apologetics toward presuppositionalist apologetics.Let’s start our presuppositional examination right here. From the get-go, presup is a “worrying” trend. Second, the author is apparently unaware of the link between Sola Scriptura and Covenantal apologetics. As I have said quite often on this blog, and in our chat channel, Covenantal apologetics is Sola Scriptura …
-
Bye, Bye, BritBaird
It looks as though Paul Baird is “calling it quits” at least until January. Of course, that’s assuming he takes the New Year to be January, and not February. In a debate with Sye TenBruggencate he claimed that a pagan god revealed to him that the New Year actually begins in February.
In his Saturday, 27 August 2011 post titled “and in the end” Paul Baird complains of “the same old tired arguments” between atheists and theists being repeated. In response he has quit posting at a number of online forums including Open University, AAPlus, and Premier Christian Radio.He …
-
Should Presuppositionalists Be Taken Seriously?
While digging through ancient discussions on the Internet concerning presuppositional apologetics I came across what is posted below. It is written by an “ex-Van Tilian” who is a friend of mine, and though I do not endorse what is said in the post (at least not all of it) it may be of some interest, provide a critical look at this method from another perspective, or provide fodder for future posts. Enjoy.
…Allow me to offer a theistic perspective on this issue (of whether presuppositionalists should be taken seriously).
I believe that if they really want to be “taken seriously”