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 …

Read more

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 …

Read more

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 …

Read more

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 …

Read more

The Argument from Atheistic Activism: “The Achilles’ Heel of Internet Atheism?” Revisited


In a recent post here – – I made the following observation:

It takes somebody really, really … special … to spend hours upon hours blogging, podcasting, and commenting about an imaginary concept of deity with no more intellectual credibility than Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. And yet there are people who do exactly that day after day! Think of all those grown men sitting at their computers wasting their time lashing out at people for believing in God when they could be partying it up before the worms eat them.

Are we really supposed to

Read more

Reasonable Doubts About Overload Objections

Keith says:

February 10, 2012 at 4:15 pm

Great podcast, guys.

One possible approach to presuppositionalism is to make your own, conflicting presupposition using your own invented God.

Imagine how taken aback a presuppositionalist would be in a debate if you said the following:

“I have a confession to make: I am not an atheist. I believe in the god Drusba*. And he inspired me to write down his only gospel. This gospel says that everyone knows deep down inside who Drusba is, and that no understanding of the world is possible without him. Drusba is the giver of

Read more

Choosing Hats Friday Links

Ron DiGiacomo tells Ben Wallis that he knows God –

Paul Manata excoriates Jerry Coyne on Alvin Plantinga –

TurretinFan on the foundation of our religion –

James Anderson has moved his blog here –

Anderson ties his article on logic back to Van Til –

Anderson rebuts Wallis –

There is a 50% off sale at WTS Bookstore –

And a sale on some academic sets at CBD –

Read more

Is the Transcendental Argument a “Magic Bullet”?

Sometimes the term “magic bullet” or “silver bullet” comes up in discussions of Van Tilian apologetic methodology. The term is typically if not always used in a negative sense in reference to transcendental argument. Its use is not limited to any particular attitude toward Van Tilian apologetics. The first time I saw the term used was in John Frame. Paul Manata has used it in critiquing “right wing” Van Tilianism. K. Scott Oliphint has used it to correct misunderstandings of Van Til’s thought. Sometimes atheists use it. Many others do as well. So the use of the phrase in question …

Read more

Providence, Preservation, and the Problem of Induction

God’s providence provides a basis for science: God has made and continues to sustain a universe that acts in predictable ways. If a scientific experiment gives a certain result today, then we can have confidence that (if all the factors are the same) it will give the same result tomorrow and a hundred years from tomorrow. The doctrine of providence also provides a foundation for technology: I can be confident that gasoline will make my car run today just as it did yesterday, not simply because “it has always worked that way,” but because God’s providence sustains a universe in

Read more

Extraordinary Claims (The Atheist’s Burden of Proof Revisited)

Fundamentalist Atheists often claim that Christians are making “extraordinary claims” and therefore Christians are the ones that have “the burden of proof” and they use this to try to disarm the Christian from arguing further or they will use this as some sort of dismissive escaping device when an a challenge to the atheistic position is made. Brian Knapp has already shown that Atheists have a burden of proof but I would like to extend his post a little further.

Often the topic of the burden of proof gets mired down in misunderstanding and sadly in willful ignorance when speaking …

Read more