Tag: method
-
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 …
-
Is Paul Baird Ashamed of Atheism?
“Every system of philosophy must tell us whether it thinks true knowledge to be possible. Or if a system of philosophy thinks it impossible for man to have a true knowledge of the whole of reality or even of a part of reality, it must give good reasons for thinking so. From these considerations, it follows that if we develop our reasons for believing that a true knowledge of God and, therefore, also of the world, is possible because actually given in Christ, we have in fact given what goes in philosophy under the name of epistemology. It will then …
-
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
-
Another Round With Paul Baird: Stating and Defending the Requested Rebuttal (4)
Introduction
Fundamentalist atheist Paul Baird asked me to rebut the following proposition PR:
PR – “I have had a revelation from a non-Christian supernatural transcendental entity that I use to ground my worldview.”
First, Paul is merely claiming that PR provides “grounding and certainty.” But how does it do that? Paul refuses to tell us, and so PR fails to constitute any sort of counter to presuppositional apologetics. It is a mere assertion.
Second, argument APR refutes PR as follows:
If atheism is true, then PR is false.
Atheism is true.
Therefore, PR is false.
The argument form is …
-
"Fossils Are Real" – A Fundamentalist Atheist Shuns Knowledge
dios mio: i as just listening to WLC versus keith parsons debate keith parsons blasphemed on the mic several times heh i bet the the audience cringed WLC will debate this blonde english guy.. something Law in a few weeks, i am looking forward to that
Chris: Yes for some reason atheists like to say offensive things as though it helps their case.
dios mio:heh yeah keith parsons was furious…
Chris: And others are afraid to capitalize “God”. i.e. Paul Baird. (Stephen Law btw.)
dios mio:wow.. i cannot imagine myself debating a muslim guy in such an event, and be …
-
A Feminist examines Presup
The post I’m about to respond to came in on my google alerts today. It was so packed with common objections and misconceptions that I decided to answer.
Evidentialism v. Presuppositionalism
I have noticed a worrying trend among some Christians. It is the turn away from evidentialist apologetics toward presuppositionalist apologetics.Let’s start our presuppositional examination right here. From the get-go, presup is a “worrying” trend. Second, the author is apparently unaware of the link between Sola Scriptura and Covenantal apologetics. As I have said quite often on this blog, and in our chat channel, Covenantal apologetics is Sola Scriptura …
-
Another Round With Paul Baird: Stating and Defending the Requested Rebuttal
Introduction
Recently on the Praxis Presup podcast I have been reviewing an exchange that took place between the three Pauls of the Skepticule podcast and Sye TenBruggencate with Eric Hovind.
Paul Jenkins mentioned the review on his blog, and I responded:
https://choosinghats.org/2011/09/fundamentalist-atheism-why-bother/
https://choosinghats.org/2011/09/paul-jenkins-and-damage-control/
By this point Paul Baird had already written on his blog that he was leaving until the New Year.
…I’m also going back to doing what the vast majority of people do with regards to the Christian faith – get on with my life as though it isn’t there and doesn’t matter.
It reminds me of
-
Praxis Presup: Episode 17
Chris continues his review as the three Pauls of Skepticule Record disagree on the nature of logic and Sye TenBruggencate asks them some questions about it.…
-
Paul Jenkins and Damage Control
Paul Jenkins mentions in a recent post that some of his “readers may have endured what has become known as The Fourth Debate, in which the three Pauls of the Skepticule Extra podcast were subjected to the presuppositional apologetic argument of Eric Hovind and Sye Ten Bruggencate.” Note that Paul’s rhetoric begins when his post does with the use of “endured” as though there was something particularly unbearable about Eric and Sye’s performance in their discussion with the three Pauls when in fact the only thing that might be considered unbearable in that discussion was the ignorance, inconsistency, …