Tag: fallacy
-
Ben Wallis on Van Tilian Presuppositionalism (Updated)
UPDATE: Ben Wallis has edited his post to reflect his take on my concerns. See here – http://benwallis.blogspot.com/2012/02/reasonable-doubtcasters-on-van-tilian.html?showComment=1330427431782#c5897980217578008803
_____________________
I like Ben Wallis, and he takes some really interesting angles in philosophical discussions, but I fear we often talk past one another.
Perhaps I am missing something in Ben’s most recent post, but his comments there appear less than fair. You may read the post in its entirety here – http://benwallis.blogspot.com/2012/02/reasonable-doubtcasters-on-van-tilian.html.
In that post, Wallis praises the recent work of the Reasonable Doubts podcast that pertains to presuppositional apologetics. Essentially, the hosts there appealed to Michael Martin’s TANG, Mitch …
-
Reasonable Doubts About Non-Christian Excuses
The most recent podcasts, and hence comments, at Reasonable Doubts are focused upon presuppositional apologetics. The gentlemen at the aforementioned site are apparently impressed by the comment of one Andrew EC:
…- Andrew EC says:
It seems to me that the fundamental weaknesses of the presuppositionalist position are as follows:
1. There’s no analysis as to what it means to give “an account” of something. Philosophically, something only counts as an explanation if it is what Kant would call an analytic statement; that is, a proposition whose conclusion is not contained within its predicate.
-
Reasonable Doubts About Overload Objections
…Keith says:
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
-
Reasonable Doubts About Atheist Counter-Apologetics
…kantalope says:
You will probably cover this in the next podcast – but the things that occurred to me while listening:
I am no Bible scholar but I don’t recall any big discussion of logic principles in the sermon on the mount or anywhere for that matter. So how come the big logic scholars were Greek and worshipped a whole nother set of gods? Seems like the supposition we should arrive at is that things are comprehensible because of Zeus and the titans and not the Hebrew god.
And the point of the
-
Adventures in Missing the Antithesis
Paul Baird recently addressed what he seems to think is the “philosophy that underpins the Christian Presuppositional Apologetics.” He’s wrong, of course, but let us show him why, shall we? He cites Chris’ citation of an argument tucked away in the appendix of PA:S&D as that supposed “underpinning.” Interestingly, he goes on to ask why “do Presuppositional Apologists not start with this explanation that PA is about establishing the need for a unique self sufficient knower and identifying that self sufficient knower exclusively as the Christian god?” Well, that is readily apparent – because we don’t believe that to be …
-
Paul Baird, Crackers in the Pantry, and Scientism
Now, what I would like to read from Chris is a line of argument where he can PROVE (and by prove I mean to a scientific standard, including the method of falsifiability) that a person has had revelation that could only have originated from the Christian god. If he can do that under lab conditions, then I’ll become a Christian.
– Paul Baird (http://patientandpersistent.blogspot.com/2011/10/once-more-unto-breach.html)
…How should the difference of opinion between the theist and the atheist be rationally resolved? What Dr. Stein has written indicates that he, like many atheists, has not reflected adequately on this question. He