Apologetics to the Glory of God

Tag: bad arguments

  • Answering the Argument from Horrific Suffering 3

    Argument from Horrific Suffering

    Mitch Presents the Argument 

    Chris Responds to the Argument 

    Mitch Responds to Chris

    Chris Responds to Mitch

    Mitch Responds to Chris Again

    In my last response I argued that Mitch did not provide support for (4):

    (4) Necessarily, if God exists, there is horrific suffering only if its prevention would prevent there being finite persons who realize their deepest good.

    Mitch suggests that he has offered the following as justification for accepting (4) as true:

    Looking at an analogous instance, it seems obvious that something has gone wrong when we are saying of the parent that

    …

  • Atheist, if You Are Deluded Then What Would You Expect?

    If you are deluded then the evidence to the contrary, even if it is overwhelming, will not convince you otherwise. Just think of the Mormons. Perhaps you can explain to me why Mormons still believe even though it’s been shown through DNA evidence that Native Americans are not descendants of Semitic peoples: Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church. Come on now. Think about this. Like the Mormons you have come to a position and you now defend that position in a Christian culture despite the evidence just like they do.

    Great line of reasoning there …

  • Answering the Argument from Horrific Suffering 2

    Mitch originally posted an argument in summary fashion from J.L. Schellenberg found here which I answered here  and Mitch subsequently responded to my answer here. There is much to be said about his response, but I will limit this post to focusing upon premise (4) of the argument and where Mitch has made some mistakes.

    (4) Necessarily, if God exists, there is horrific suffering only if its prevention would prevent there being finite persons who realize their deepest good.

    Mitch believes that the “denial of (4) seems quite the denial indeed.” On the contrary, I find the affirmation of …

  • Answering the Argument from Horrific Suffering

    Mitch LeBlanc has summarized an argument from J.L. Schellenberg called the Argument from Horrors. The argument begins by defining “horrific suffering.”

    Horrific Suffering (def.) = that most awe-full form of suffering that gives the victim and/or the perpetrator a prima facie reason to think that his or her life is not worth living.

    Schellenberg’s argument is then stated formally.

    (1) Necessarily, if God exists, finite persons who ever more fully experience the reality of God realize their deepest good.

    (2) Necessarily, if God exists, the prevention of horrific suffering does not prevent there being finite persons who ever more fully

    …

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

    In our last post, we examined the Romanist, “evangelical,” and putatively “Reformed” apologetic methods, as advanced by Jacques Maritain, Dr. Carnell and Charles Pinnock, and Dr. Sproul, and applied them to our discussion. In this section, we address Mr. Black, and begin to examine in greater detail the difference in approach that Mr. White and Mr. Grey have in their apologetic. This section comes from pgs 317-319 of Defense of the Faith.

    So also with Mr. Black. He daily changes the truth of God into a lie. He daily worships and serves the creature more than the Creator. He

    …

  • On Using Logic In Apologetics

    As I have noted before, every once in a while it is necessary to make plain one’s disagreement with even those closest to oneself in terms of thought for the sake of clarity and development of a topic. I have received a number of questions and comments concerning a recent post by Jamin Hubner called Lessons in Logic and Argumentation: Propositional and Symbolic Logic and Their Place in Apologetics. Since there are some points in the post that pertain to future posts I’d like to write on TAG and since the post essentially would lump me together with skeptics …

  • 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

    …

  • 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 + …

  • 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 III

    In our previous post, we saw the beginnings of the typical evidential/classical method, as posed by Dr. Carnell. We will continue our journey through Van Til’s dialogue, on pages 316-317 of Defense of the Faith.

    Of course, Mr. Black will be greatly impressed with such an argument as Mr. Grey has presented to him for the truth of Christianity. In fact, if Christianity is thus shown to be in accord with the moral nature of man, as Mr. Black himself sees that moral nature, then Mr. Black does not need to be converted at all to accept Christianity. He

    …