Apologetics to the Glory of God

Tag: bad arguments

skopein uses "TAG"

Sometimes presuppositionalists are mocked for holding what they do concerning their own view being right and others being wrong. We can expect this in a largely postmodern context. After coming in on a discussion where some atheists were speaking negatively about TAG because of its affirmation of exclusivity and problems with non-Christian positions, I tried to put the point back to the atheist. A few other topics came up during the discussion. This is not the greatest of conversations but maybe someone will find something useful.

skopein: it’s the Transcendental Argument for God.

skopein: here is a good summary of …

July 14, 2011
TAG Does Not Save

There is an objection to TAG out there that goes something like this:

TAG cannot save anyone.

Depending on your context, sometimes it goes like this instead:

Apologetics cannot save anyone.

Of course, this is not much of an objection. It is more so just a slightly annoying comment. Perhaps that is an indication that I need to be frequently reminded of it. Apologetics do not save; the Gospel saves. I do not save; Jesus Christ saves. But then, how many times does it take before I have the categories here straight? Could it be that the person raising this …

July 13, 2011
Consistency: It Burns!

An atheist links to one of our intro posts, with the title; “The Stupid! It Burns! (covenantal edition)”. He quotes one section, and makes only a single comment.

Lots more stupid in the original article.

From a few posts prior, he says:

…embeds a couple of paragraphs of argument in a dozen paragraphs consisting of ***ing and moaning that no one likes him, and gratuitous insults directed at the New Atheists: …

He finally does mention an argument:

So, isn’t that nice. The obvious consistency issue concerning the “gratuitous” insults complained about and then promptly offered himself is …

May 17, 2011
Atheist Thrasymachus Admits He's Unreasonable

Thrasymachus is a contributor to Urban Philosophy known for writing lengthy diatribes concerning his hatred for Christ. His posts generally take a shotgun approach and are so full of bad rhetoric that they discourage even the most Mother’s-basement-confined-E-pologist from taking the time to respond. Still, there are certainly problems to be found in his posts.

Just this morning I began reading a new post from Thrasymachus with the (grammatically incorrect) title “Why Apologetics Sucks.” In the Abstract for the post Thrasymachus states that, “Reasonable people should not take Apologists seriously.” He then proceeds to seriously evaluate apologetics as a …

April 27, 2011
Ben Wallis, induction again, and a desperate attack on Christianity

My favorite philosopher, the Scottish skeptic David Hume, did more than just a little damage to traditional religious views in terms of their philosophical justifications. Unfortunately, those who appeal to Hume for solace in their anti-theistic battles often overlook that Hume destroyed much else besides the aforementioned philosophy of religion. Hume was a skeptic through and through, so much so that he was skeptical of his own skepticism. This general consistency with Hume with respect to skepticism came as a result of his rejection of the self-authenticating Christ of Scripture and has driven more than one unbeliever to take desperate …

February 21, 2011
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 …

January 25, 2011
Dear Eldnar

The following comment and response may be found on this post.

Hi there,

Some would take a leap and state that “this cause is God”, but such a leap is unwarranted.

*GASP* I’ve only heard two people *ever* try to say that the uncaused cause is not God, and you are the second of the two. Here’s what happened to the first person:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCUE10dY3Rc

There is nothing in the premises of the argument that necessarily leads to the conclusion that the cause of the universe is God.

True. But it points to God “beyond reasonable doubt”. A person can
…

January 16, 2011
Mr. White, Mr. Grey, and Mr. Black V

These posts contain lengthy quotations from Defense of the Faith, by Cornelius Van Til – this post will deal with pages 319-323. In the previous post, Van Til dealt with the unbeliever’s state before God, his self-deception, suppression of the truth, and the proper apologetic methodology to use with the unbeliever. Beginning here, he begins to answer the charge that a covenantal apologetic is “circular reasoning”, or has no “point of contact” with the unbeliever.

The one main question to which we are addressing ourselves in this series of articles is whether Christians holding to the Reformed Faith should
…

January 15, 2011
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
…

January 14, 2011
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 …

January 13, 2011