Apologetics to the Glory of God

Tag: empiricism

  • Friendly Discussion with a Former Atheist

    Me: So…wait, are you just examining Christianity?

    Former Atheist: Yes, very much so.

    Me: Ah.

    Former Atheist: I’m examining a lot of stuff actually.…

  • A Biblical Foundation

    Thomists are always trying to add rooms onto houses with bad foundations. Some foundations are cracked. Others are too small.

    As an example, think of the popular idea that people should only hold beliefs that are based upon empirical evidence. (Empirical evidence is evidence we access through the five senses.) This is a foundational idea for many unbelievers. Yet this idea is not itself based upon empirical evidence. So the idea – which we might also call a belief – is inconsistent with itself. The foundation is cracked.

    Moreover, there are many aspects of science and common sense that likewise …

  • We’ve got mail: Are the senses reliable?

    I do not know if this is the right place to ask this question but regardless, I have a question regarding presuppositional apologetics and how the Christian knows what she/he knows. I have been studying apologetics (classic/PA) for a while and I feel as though I have come to somewhat of a roadblock in epistemology. So here’s my question. Does the Vantillian approach to apologetics rely on sensation and if so, how does it account for the reliability of sensation. Usually when I ask this question the answer is “God has made our senses reliable” but I am equally aware

    …

  • Undying Worms and Unquenchable Fire

    It is often asserted that there is a problem (for so-called “traditionalists”) with the use of Mark 9:48 due to it’s relation with Isaiah 66:24. This problem, according to Fudge, is that 1) Jesus quotes it “without amendment” 2) That the body is “already dead” and 3) That the fire “is a consuming, irresistible fire”. He relates “salted with fire” to mean the salting of a field, or of a place in order to make it uninhabitable. He cites Fields for his source, but we aren’t told, by Fudge, why this is supposed to have any connection with the passage …