Apologetics to the Glory of God

Tag: evidentialism

  • 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 …

  • The Recent Rise of Covenantal Apologetics (7 of 10)

    Sye TenBruggencate is the man responsible for restoring my confidence in a presuppositional method of apologetics. He is also responsible for introducing the method to countless other Christians who have heard his debates and seen his website.

    The popularity of Sye TenBruggencate seems to have skyrocketed following his appearance on Justin Brierley’s Unbelievable where he debated atheist Paul Baird. But Sye has been around for quite some time. Those in presuppositionalist circles knew him from his unique proofthatgodexists.org website long before it hit the public eye.

    Sye writes:

    I’m 48 years old, single, and live in Ontario, Canada. I was

    …

  • Nature and Scripture on Reformed Forum

    http://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc240/?utm_source=Reformed+Forum+General&utm_campaign=61f945368c-2012_08_Newsletter&utm_medium=email…

  • A Friendly Chat With An Atheist

    Chris:  Are you a believer?

    Atheist:  nope

    an atheist

    Chris:  Ah.

    Well it’s nice to have one of those around every now and then.

    We have to get Christians from somewhere after all. 😀

    So I presume you have heard the Christian Gospel?

    Atheist:  yup

    Go to mass… et cetera 😉

    Chris:  I’m guessing that you’re joking. 🙂

    Atheist:  I am

    Chris:  So why are you an atheist?

    Atheist:  I don’t think that any spirits exist

    be they gods, ghosts or anything else

    Chris:  That’s the definition of your position then.

    Why do you hold it?

    Atheist:  I don’t see …

  • Steve Hays Responds: Wintery Knight On Van Til

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/07/wintery-knight-on-van-til.html…

  • Answering the Evidentialist Objection

    Introduction

    Oversimplification. The unbeliever, and the New Atheist in particular, thrive on it. The situation is no different when it comes to the strong demands for “evidence” in the context of apologetic debate. “Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence” was the plea Bertrand Russell planned to use when he came face to face with God. I suspect it did not go over well.

    Yet the loudest non-Christian voices among us continue to parrot Russell’s silly sentiment. It has even been given a name. The “evidentialist objection.” It is quite frequently captured in the contention that Christians should immediately provide …

  • Dear Atheists: Please Get Better Objections

    Joe is an atheist who takes issue with my asking another commenter about supporting evidence for his claims. When I asked the other visitor, “what’s your evidence that only evidence matters?” Joe responded, “Sir, you may not be stupid, but this phrase is nonsense. YOU use evidence to support everything.”

    Apparently Joe buys into the idea that only evidence matters, that everyone uses evidence to support everything, and even that every claim must be supported with evidence. But if every claim must be supported by evidence, then the claim, “every claim must be supported with evidence” must also be supported …

  • 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 …

  • Why Dr. Jason Lisle of Answers in Genesis Does Not Understand Presuppositional Apologetics

    In a recent post I mentioned that, “I have heard a fair amount about a book by a Dr. Lisle but have not had the opportunity to read it” while referring to presuppositionalist strains in Answers in Genesis material. Someone commented here to affirm that, “Dr. Jason Lisle (astrophycisist) does indeed hold to a Van Tillian, ‘presuppositional’ apologetic method.”

    Today I read a post by Lisle wherein he addresses a reader’s questions about presuppositional apologetics. Unfortunately I find his answer to be completely out of line with the method. I quote the relevant portion of his post below and then …

  • Some thoughts on the upcoming debate

    In my preparations for the debate on Sunday, and in dealing with the quite providential example Paul Copan gave us last week of the importance of the subject, I felt it might be valuable to give a few impressions I’ve had along the way. My opening statement has been written for a week or so now – prior to Dr. Copan’s comments, in fact – and my first thought after reading it was this. I wouldn’t change anything I had to say. First, because Dr. Copan’s comments weren’t anything we hadn’t seen before. Second, because I’m giving a positive presentation …