Apologetics to the Glory of God

Tag: Induction

  • Concluding Remarks on the Wallis Debate

    Chris,

    I have a few final clarifications for you…

    First of all, I’m not sure what premises you think I’m accepting, but let me assure you that I do NOT agree using induction without epistemic justification is irrational. You object to this assertion by complaining that it is not an argument, and indeed you are correct, it is not. What we decide to call “rational” or “irrational” depends on whatever standards of rationality we are using, and so it suffices for me to point out that my standard does not impose any such requirement for the epistemic justification of induction.

    …

  • Pressing the Point: More on the Wallis debate

    Proof and Persuasion

    An important distinction to be made in apologetics is the one between proof and persuasion. One may offer a perfectly sound argument pertaining to some position that accomplishes everything it promises and yet have a recipient of that argument completely unmoved by it. It does not follow from the fact that an individual(s) is allegedly not accepting of an argument that the argument in question does not constitute a proof. On the other hand someone may be presented with a completely invalid and false argument and still be moved to accept the conclusion of the argument, …

  • Wallis Debate Recap Continued: Theism, Presuppositionalism, and Induction

    Mr. Wallis writes that, “theism is just as ill-equipped as nontheism to answer the epistemic problem of induction.” In this statement is an apparent acknowledgement that non-theism is unable or at any rate “ill-equipped” to “answer the epistemic problem of induction.” We will set aside this concession regarding the problem of induction in a non-theistic worldview and go directly to the objection to justifying induction in the context of the Christian worldview.

    The problem Mr. Wallis has with attempting to justify induction in the Christian worldview does not concern the content of the answer Christian theology provides. Rather Mr. Wallis …

  • Wallis Debate Recap Continued: Induction

    Mr. Wallis claims that, “we simply must use induction, because we have no other means of planning for action in the world.” An interesting claim to be sure, but it is not clear what Mr. Wallis means by this statement or how Mr. Wallis could know that it is true. He nevertheless concludes from this statement that, “no epistemic ‘problem’ of induction need cause us an abundance of concern.” Even more strange is that Wallis offers these statements as constituting an “objection” to the following argument that he quotes from me from our debate:

    “Reasoning invalidly is not reasonable at …

  • Should we concede anything to our opponents?

    Series on Does God Exist? Dr. Greg Bahnsen versus Dr. Gordon Stein

    Debate Transcript

    Should we argue for “general theism”?

    Should our case be “subjective or personal”?

    Should we concede anything to our opponents?

    Bahnsen’s last introductory remark prior to his main argument for the existence of God involves a concession to Stein’s “area of expertise.” As insignificant as this concession seemingly is it serves as a refutation of the oft-repeated-but-never-cited claim that presuppositional apologists contend that unbelievers cannot know anything. The truth is that if unbelievers were epistemologically consistent they could not know anything, but unbelievers are never epistemologically …

  • Praxis Presup: Episode 3

    Praxis Presup
    Episode 3 – August 28, 2010
    Chris Bolt

    Chris Bolt discusses the new site, the Gospel, and makes a few comments on the recent debate between Ben Wallis and Chris Bolt on the existence of God.

    Praxis Presup 3

    …

  • Debate: Does God Exist?

    The debate between Ben Wallis and our own Chris Bolt is complete. You may obtain it here.…

  • The things you find while not looking for them…

    “NB that choosing hats errantly supposes that by rational Bahnsen means deductive. But anyone with even a modicum of familiarity with Bahnsen and Van Til would know that both of them considered induction rational.” – Mark

    Someone taking shots at me and my understanding of Bahnsen from afar as it were recently made the claim quoted above. I responded to his entire argument here.

    Tonight as I was scanning Bahnsen for something completely unrelated I happened across the context of the passage from Bahnsen that was the focus of the discussion Mark was responding to.

    But we realize even

    …

  • A Response To Mark

    “It is no wonder that the critic has a problem making up his mind about hats and the RazorsKiss does not appear to be razor sharp.”

    – Mark

     

    “They [Mr. Di Giacomo’s posts] are thorough, clear, correct and easily understood. At least if one is willing to wipe the tears away and quit whining.
    Cheers”

    – Mark

     

    “If Then” Statements and Modus Tollens

    Someone named Mark, commenting on Mr. Di Giacomo’s most recent blog post found here writes, “TAG is a very simple if / then. It doesn’t require much of an argument to show that, just the short demonstration …

  • Science Is Guesswork

    A recent visitor to Choosing Hats who goes by the name “noen” made a few comments which imply that he does not believe the material on the site is up to his ‘standards’. For example in response to the post here he wrote, “Not really impressed” and “The argument is without merit”. Of course I doubt that the post was written with the intention of impressing noen, and he merely asserts that “the argument” (it is unclear what argument he is referring to) is “without merit” but never explains why he thinks this way.

    He also commented here to ask, …