A few weeks back I started digging into Catholicism pretty deep, due to some discussions I was having. Much of what I have been doing is trying to understand just what the Roman Catholic Church teaches, in order to evaluate it. I have tried to be as “objective” as possible, but as I am presently learning about what the RCC teaches based on talking with others and reading web sites, I realize that it is very possible that I may be fed information that is not consistent with what the RCC actually teaches. In my quest for understanding, I was …Read more
The following comment and response may be found on this post.
… Read more
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:
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
Recently I posted a portion of a discussion I had in the Choosing Hats chat room with a (somewhat) regular visitor. This visitor was discussing the Cosmological Argument (well, at least one formulation of it) with me, and I was attempting to demonstrate for them how what they were presenting failed miserably as an argument for the existence of God. This post has generated a few responses – some in the context of comments, some in the context of posts on other sites. For the sake of context, here is a snippet from the conversation where I took the atheist …Read more
Consider the following transcript of a very brief discussion I had today with a brilliant atheist. Please note the atheist’s handle has been changed for privacy purposes.
… Read more
brilliant_atheist: i accepted the cosmological argument
brilliant_atheist: but I deny that it points to something alive
BKing: it is a terrible argument
brilliant_atheist: because the universe needs a cause
brilliant_atheist: because it exists
BKing: so everything that exists requires a cause?
BKing: ever heard of an infinite regress?
In this first episode of our newest podcast – Brian Knapp, Joshua Whipps, and Nic Heath discuss the nature of the laws of logic.Read more
The question has been asked a couple of times now just what is meant by the Presuppositionalist when they claim that unbelievers “borrow from the Christian Worldview”, and so I thought it made sense to address this in its own post at this point.
In the Bahnsen/Stein debate, Bahnsen makes the following comments in his rebuttal to Stein regarding the laws of logic:
… Read more
“As invariant, they don’t fit into what most materialists would tell us about the constantly changing nature of the world. And so, you see, we have a real problem on our hands. Dr. Stein wants to use
The following transcript is an excerpt from “Van Tillian Apologetics, I” by Greg Bahnsen. It can be found for free on iTunes U. The entire series is an excellent resource for those who wish to better understand Presuppositional apologetics as a method.
This particular segment speaks to the reason why the Christian apologist must necessarily reason in a Presuppositional manner:
… Read more
The apologist must presuppose the truth of God’s word from start to finish in his apologetic witness … When we talk about presupposing or if we talk about a presupposition, what we’re referring to is an elementary assumption in
One can grant that Van Til was a philosopher, but they need not grant that he was a competent philosopher. 😉
A few comments later, Pierre-Simon Laplace shared with us his own perspective on Van Til’s Presuppositional approach to apologetics. After sharing this, he then posted a rather interesting follow-up comment (in response to Mitch, as far as I can tell).
“Oh, and Van Til was NOT a Philosopher.”
At first blush, one might see this merely as a knee-jerk …Read more
Recently I have been asked a number of times by a handful of people about whether or not I have “given up on” the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG). Some readers may have heard rumors about my position on TAG and possibly even some rumors concerning me leaving Choosing Hats. I feel as though I need to go ahead and address the hearsay.
It has been my position from the beginning that while presuppositionalism relies heavily upon TAG, TAG need not be the only argument a presuppositionalist employs in his or her apologetic endeavor. There are other …Read more
Recently the “Bahnsen Burner” Dawson Bethrick took a swing at Choosing Hats founder and administrator Brian Knapp’s contribution to The Portable Presuppositionalist as a part of his ongoing attempt to provide an answer to the Problem of Induction from within the confines of the Objectivist worldview. Mr. Bethrick quotes from page 124 of Knapp’s “Induction and the Unbeliever” in The Portable Presuppostionalist where Knapp asks, “Why do you believe nature is uniform, and how is that belief rationally justified?” Bethrick begins to provide an answer early in his post as follows:
… Read more
[N]ature is uniform on its own, independent of