Apologetics to the Glory of God

Tag: method

  • 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, …

  • Is the Qur'an the Word of God – Update

    For those who may not have checked the transcript post I have been adding in additional information garnered from email exchanges – especially, additional questions and answers from the shortened debate. Keep checking back as more information is added, and I’ll attempt to keep you updated.…

  • Some thoughts

    Being an apologist is not a path to popularity and popularity does not make an apologist.

    The most intelligent and knowledgeable unbelievers are no less and no more fallibly human than you are.

    We should not be neutral and never can be, but we pretend that this is not so.

    More than the minimal facts are needed for the metanarrative and motivation necessary to make sense of their use in the first place.

    How to inductively prove that 1 Kings 12.29 is the Word of God?

    No worldview goes without logic, science, or morality but logic, science, and morality only …

  • Praxis Presup: Episode 4

    Praxis Presup
    Episode 4 – August 31, 2010
    Chris Bolt

    More discussion concerning debates in general and the recent debate between Ben Wallis and Chris Bolt on the existence of God.

    Praxis Presup 4

    …

  • 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 …

  • Nature Grace Dualism (Part 2)

    Nature Grace Dualism Part 1

    Nature Grace Dualism Part 2

    The presence of nature grace dualism throughout Roman Catholicism has resulted in a host of worries. Goldsworthy quotes Vittorio Subilia’s observation that Roman Catholicism is marked by “a phenomenon of complexio oppositorum.”  The claim is an historical one supported by the evidence of Roman Catholic syncretism. While Gnosticism and mystery religions are cited as examples of non-Christian systems of thought that have at times been adopted by Roman Catholicism and blended in with Christian categories the non-Christian systems of thought stemming directly from philosophy are perhaps more interesting to …

  • WCF, LBC, and TAG

    A friend pointed me toward this post by Brandon Adams. From what I can tell Brandon is influenced a good bit by Gordon H. Clark and argues in his post that Van Tillian presuppositionalism and specifically TAG is inconsistent with the WCF and LBC. While I am not one to excitedly engage in the Van Til versus Clark debate there are a few areas where I believe Brandon is simply mistaken about Van Til and Bahnsen’s method. One of the reasons I do not tend to engage in arguments against Clarkianism is that I am rather unfamiliar with the position. …

  • Should our case be “subjective or personal”?

    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”?

    Having presented his reasons for arguing for Christian theism as a unit or system of thought Bahnsen moves on to discuss what the debate is about. Bahnsen transitions from the aforementioned topic he addresses at the very beginning of his first opening statement through placing a slightly different emphasis upon the systematic nature of Christian theism. Bahnsen is arguing for Christian theism as a unit or system of thought so that the debate …

  • 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]…