Apologetics to the Glory of God

Tag: atheism

  • dios_mio and the Proverbs 18.2 principle

    A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion. (Proverbs 18.2)

    An unbeliever who has made appearances in various places on the Internet under the name dios_mio recently left a comment on one of the posts related to RazorsKiss’s debate with a Muslim. Unfortunately it does not appear that dios_mio (DM) has learned very much since my conversation with him several years ago.

    “Scientific miracles of the Quran” is nothing but dishonest kookery. It belongs to the ranks of ideas such as “the aliens built the pyramids”. Having said that, I should also point out

    …

  • A Case Study In Apostasy by ZaoThanatoo (Guest Post)

    I had planned to write a chapter-by-chapter critical review of prominent atheist John Loftus’ book, Why I Am an Atheist; however, upon reading the book I believed that such an analysis was overkill and unnecessary in refuting Loftus’ claims.  Providentially, shortly after I finished reading Loftus’ three books the fellas over at Triablogue released their collaboration, The Infidel Delusion, in response to Loftus, et al.  So I thought my little collection of posts might just be blogospheric white noise in the flurry of responses exchanged.

    So I reworked the bit that I had written in response to Loftus …

  • Mr. White, Mr. Grey, and Mr. Black II

    In the previous post, we saw Cornelius Van Til examining the apologetic method of the Reformed, vs the Evangelical varieties. By Evangelical, he means the Arminian or Roman Catholic schools of theology and/or apologetic. As our friend Dr. White is wont to say, “theology determines apologetic”. We’ll continue this series in this post, the second of the series, and pick up where we left off.

    An excerpt from Defense of The Faith, by Cornelius Van Til – Chap. 12, Sec. 3, pg. 313-315, 4th Ed.

    The Believer Meets the Unbeliever – Part II

    Let us first look briefly at

    …

  • Mr. White, Mr. Grey, and Mr. Black

    An excerpt from Defense of The Faith, by Cornelius Van Til – Chap. 12, Sec. 3, pg. 312-313, 4th Ed.

    The Believer Meets the Unbeliever

    To see clearly what is meant, think of a dentist. You go to him with a “bad tooth”. Does he take care of your tooth in two operations? To be sure, you may have to come back to have him finish the job. But it is one job he is doing. He takes all the decayed matter out before he fills the cavity. Well, Mr. Black is the man with the toothache, and you,

    …

  • Some resources to pass the time…

    Introduction to Presuppositional Apologetics by Ian Clary.

    Debate between Sye TenBrugencatte and Paul Baird on the existence of God.

    Papers by one of my “favorite” apologists Colin D. Smith.

    Panel Discussion at SBTS on Apologetic Method.

    Debate between James White and David Silverman on, “Is the New Testament Evil?” (costs)

    Brilliant!…

  • Concluding Remarks on the Wallis Debate

    Chris,

    I have a few final clarifications for you…

    First of all, I’m not sure what premises you think I’m accepting, but let me assure you that I do NOT agree using induction without epistemic justification is irrational. You object to this assertion by complaining that it is not an argument, and indeed you are correct, it is not. What we decide to call “rational” or “irrational” depends on whatever standards of rationality we are using, and so it suffices for me to point out that my standard does not impose any such requirement for the epistemic justification of induction.

    …

  • Pressing the Point: More on the Wallis debate

    Proof and Persuasion

    An important distinction to be made in apologetics is the one between proof and persuasion. One may offer a perfectly sound argument pertaining to some position that accomplishes everything it promises and yet have a recipient of that argument completely unmoved by it. It does not follow from the fact that an individual(s) is allegedly not accepting of an argument that the argument in question does not constitute a proof. On the other hand someone may be presented with a completely invalid and false argument and still be moved to accept the conclusion of the argument, …

  • Wallis Debate Recap Continued: Theism, Presuppositionalism, and Induction

    Mr. Wallis writes that, “theism is just as ill-equipped as nontheism to answer the epistemic problem of induction.” In this statement is an apparent acknowledgement that non-theism is unable or at any rate “ill-equipped” to “answer the epistemic problem of induction.” We will set aside this concession regarding the problem of induction in a non-theistic worldview and go directly to the objection to justifying induction in the context of the Christian worldview.

    The problem Mr. Wallis has with attempting to justify induction in the Christian worldview does not concern the content of the answer Christian theology provides. Rather Mr. Wallis …

  • Wallis Debate Recap Continued: Induction

    Mr. Wallis claims that, “we simply must use induction, because we have no other means of planning for action in the world.” An interesting claim to be sure, but it is not clear what Mr. Wallis means by this statement or how Mr. Wallis could know that it is true. He nevertheless concludes from this statement that, “no epistemic ‘problem’ of induction need cause us an abundance of concern.” Even more strange is that Wallis offers these statements as constituting an “objection” to the following argument that he quotes from me from our debate:

    “Reasoning invalidly is not reasonable at …

  • Comments on the Wallis Debate Recap: Agnosticism (Updated! Includes response from Wallis)

    Introduction

    Ben Wallis has written a post wherein he briefly points out what he believes are serious problems with “two key arguments” I offered during the course of our debate on the existence of God. There are a number of arguments I used for TAG in the debate and it is not my opinion that Mr. Wallis addressed them all either during the debate or in his brief review. That Mr. Wallis has written some of his thoughts concerning the debate and apparently wants to continue some discussion in the future (both of which are perfectly fine with me) allows …