Tag: logic
-
Debate: Does God Exist?
The debate between Ben Wallis and our own Chris Bolt is complete. You may obtain it here.…
-
An Argument For Agreus
One might deny that laws of logic exist, but not without presupposing the laws of logic (i.e. the law of non-contradiction). Since the affirmation of a proposition implies the falsehood of its contradictory, the denial of the laws of logic is self-refuting.
The possibility of rational inference presupposes the laws of logic (i.e. identity; non-contradiction), but the laws of logic entail that nonphysical, nonspatial, nontemporal reality of some sort be accepted. The laws of logic are not physical laws as is evidenced by the fact that they are applicable to possible worlds in which there are no physical objects. [1]…
-
Borrowing from the Christian Worldview
The question has been asked a couple of times now just what is meant by the Presuppositionalist when they claim that unbelievers “borrow from the Christian Worldview”, and so I thought it made sense to address this in its own post at this point.
In the Bahnsen/Stein debate, Bahnsen makes the following comments in his rebuttal to Stein regarding the laws of logic:
…“As invariant, they don’t fit into what most materialists would tell us about the constantly changing nature of the world. And so, you see, we have a real problem on our hands. Dr. Stein wants to use
-
Apologetics and the Arminian
The purpose of this post is to address a response to the above presentation, wherein presuppositional apologetics seems to be misunderstood by the author. The author’s response can be found here, but I will address most of the post, if not all, in the following article.
James White recently argued for presuppositional apologetics and against evidential apologetics. (link) He starts out with an analysis of Colossians 1:16-18, and Colossians 2:2-9, which focus on the Lordship of Christ. James White points out that the gospel is a radical claim, which unbelievers reject.
If you watched the above video (or heard …
-
A Hypothetical Apologetic?
…In taking Scripture as an absolute presupposition and standard for thought, the Christian apologist ought to maintain that there are no possibilities outside of what God is and decrees to be. It is never possible for God to be other than the type of being He is portrayed to be in His self-revelation. Because he does not presuppose the certain truth of the Bible at the very start of his apologetic (de facto and in principium) Clark (a self-professed Calvinist) is willing to reduce the whole system of Christian truth revealed by God therein to a possible accident
-
Comprehensive Apologetics
…Since neutrality is unattainable for either the unbeliever or believer, and since they have conflicting ultimate standards for judging claims to knowledge, the task of apologetics will ultimately be carried on at a presuppositional level. Contrasting worldviews are being debated. Each worldview has its presuppositions about reality, knowledge, and ethics; these mutually influence and support each other. There are no facts or uses of reason which are available outside of the interpretive system of basic commitments or assumptions which appeals to them; the presuppositions used by Christian and non-Christian determine what they will accept as factual and reasonable, and their
-
Bahnsen and Bare Possibility
…Historically, when David Hume and Immanuel Kant exposed the invalidity of the theistic proofs, apologists generally balked at returning to revelation as the basis for their certainty of God’s existence. They elected, rather, to maintain status in the the blinded eyes of the “worldly wise” by attempting to prove Christianity’s credibility by means of arguments that hopefully pointed toward the probability of God’s existence and Scripture’s truth. They settled for a mere presumption (plus pragmatic assurance) in favor of a few salvaged items (i.e., “fundamentals”) from the Christian system. Refusing to presuppose the sovereign God revealed in the Bible
-
Glenn Beck – Mormon Historian?
I was listening to Glenn Beck’s show yesterday morning, and heard this discussion:
(Note: This may be a first, me linking to Media Matters – but they have the relevant clip – for some reason, it won’t let me post the video directly. If you’d prefer not to visit, my blog has it embedded.)
Here’s a transcript:
22:40: Glenn: “…the Dead Sea Scrolls, you know what they are? Stu, do you know what the Dead Sea Scrolls are?
Stu: Well, of course I do…
Glenn: Now, c’mon, most people don’t.
Stu: Well, I heard of them, I don’t really … -
Initial Comments on the Reiter Article
Adam Omelianchuk has done everyone a great service by summarizing David Reiter’s recent article on the Transcendental Argument for God (TAG) which recently appeared in Philosophia Christi. I left a comment there with my initial response to the article. (I was working from memory and do not have a copy of the article in front of me even now so I cannot get very specific.)
__________________
I have read the article in question and it appears to me as though a traditional argument form is being assumed in the case of TAG in order to argue that it is …
-
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