Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli make the following argument:
- We experience the universe as intelligible. This intelligibility means that the universe is graspable by intelligence.
- Either this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence, or both intelligibility and intelligence are the products of blind chance.
- Not blind chance.
- Therefore this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence. (66)
The argument (which they call “The Argument from Consciousness”) is predicated upon their design argument presented prior to this one in …
Nick Norelli recently wrote:
“I think the thing is that plenty of presuppositionalists debate (look at James White who debates like every other day) and I’m sure they employ their method, but I think it lends itself to certain subjects better than others. For example, when I reviewed Gary Demar’s book on Bahnsen’s apologetic I noted how devastating I think PA is against atheism but I struggle to see it as being as strong against other forms of theism which can make the same claims (i.e., they all have their gods and their scriptures to appeal to).”
Historically, when David Hume and Immanuel Kant exposed the invalidity of the theistic proofs, apologists generally balked at returning to revelation as the basis for their certainty of God’s existence. They elected, rather, to maintain status in the the blinded eyes of the “worldly wise” by attempting to prove Christianity’s credibility by means of arguments that hopefully pointed toward the probability of God’s existence and Scripture’s truth. They settled for a mere presumption (plus pragmatic assurance) in favor of a few salvaged items (i.e., “fundamentals”) from the Christian system. Refusing to presuppose the sovereign God revealed in the Bible
In a recent post Mitch LeBlanc accuses me of blundering and misunderstanding apologetics. I consider these extremely strong claims coming from someone who argues as inconsistently regarding apologetics as Mitch does.
Mitch LeBlanc has been writing comments on my posts regarding apologetic methodology in which he attempts to actually defend the method even though as far as I know he claims to be an atheist and rejects the traditional arguments for the existence of God. Mitch often ranges well beyond the scope of a topic in responding to it; that this is the case may be seen in his presentation …