Did Van Til set Christianity alongside other worldviews?

I was sent a link to some sort of “progressive” podcast, called “Homebrew Christianity”, with a guest named Peter Rollins. Mr. Rollins, supposedly, is a “Christian atheist”, in some existential sense. His self-description, frankly, was rambling, confused a host of categories, and was quite unintelligible. The host(s) were equally confused, rambling, and made a riproaring shambles out of every theological topic they touched. I’m more than happy to link to the podcast so you can see for yourself, being quite confident that the ideas expressed therein are self-refuting. Be that as it may, I was interested primarily because he …

Read more

"The Argument From Consciousness"

Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli make the following argument:

  1. We experience the universe as intelligible. This intelligibility means that the universe is graspable by intelligence.
  2. Either this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence, or both intelligibility and intelligence are the products of blind chance.
  3. Not blind chance.
  4. Therefore this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence. (66)

The argument (which they call “The Argument from Consciousness”) is predicated upon their design argument presented prior to this one in …

Read more

Thoughts of H.W.B. Joseph

In 1931 a late nineteenth and early twentieth century philosopher at Oxford by the name of H.W.B. Joseph published a book called Some Problems in Ethics. The following is quoted from the aforementioned work:

If thought is laryngeal motion, how should any one think more truly than the wind blows? All movements of bodies are equally necessary, but they cannot be discriminated as true and false. It seems as nonsensical to call a movement true as a flavor purple or a sound avaricious. But what is obvious when thought is said to be a certain bodily movement seems equally

Read more

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]

Read more