Apologetics to the Glory of God

Tag: Objectivism

  • Concerning The Rumors

    Recently I have been asked a number of times by a handful of people about whether or not I have “given up on” the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG). Some readers may have heard rumors about my position on TAG and possibly even some rumors concerning me leaving Choosing Hats. I feel as though I need to go ahead and address the hearsay.

    It has been my position from the beginning that while presuppositionalism relies heavily upon TAG, TAG need not be the only argument a presuppositionalist employs in his or her apologetic endeavor. There are other …

  • “Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Irrefutable Evidence that Christianity is True!”

    In a recent post I wrote:
    One can only hope that Dawson Bethrick’s eyes will be opened to the absolute foolishness of putting forth so much effort in an attempt to refute a worldview that he constantly claims is so silly. If you want evidence that Christianity is true you need not look any further than Dawson Bethrick.
    Today he wrote a new post about the last sentence from the quote above. It is quoted in its entirety below.
    In a recent blog entry, presuppositional apologist Chris Bolt once and for all settles the age-old question about evidence for
    …

  • Knapp’s “Induction and the Unbeliever”

    Recently the “Bahnsen Burner” Dawson Bethrick took a swing at  Choosing Hats founder and administrator Brian Knapp’s contribution to The Portable Presuppositionalist as a part of his ongoing attempt to provide an answer to the Problem of Induction from within the confines of the Objectivist worldview. Mr. Bethrick quotes from page 124 of Knapp’s “Induction and the Unbeliever” in The Portable Presuppostionalist where Knapp asks, “Why do you believe nature is uniform, and how is that belief rationally justified?” Bethrick begins to provide an answer early in his post as follows:

    [N]ature is uniform on its own, independent of

    …

  • David Hume Is Rolling In His Grave

    The “Bahnsen Burner” Dawson Bethrick is busy writing a number of posts concerning the Problem of Induction that I discussed with him some time ago. In his most recent post Mr. Bethrick repeats where he thinks David Hume went wrong on induction thus allegedly setting himself up for a future post on how Objectivism rids itself of the so-called “problem” of induction. Setting aside a number of mistakes in his exegesis of Hume Mr. Bethrick shows that his last thread of hope in the area of induction will not hold the weight he wants to place on it.

    Objectivists constantly …

  • If you have ever wondered…

    If you have ever wondered why a particular gentleman in a particular cult has spent so much of his time and effort over the course of many years attempting to refute what he thinks is a massively flawed approach to apologetics where adherents merely imagine a magical invisible being who created a cartoon universe as an explanation for everything then you are probably not alone.

    However, I do not believe the answer is too difficult. It can take a lot of work to hold the truth down. Thank God that He is able and willing to break the hard hearts …

  • Possibility In Objectivism

    Rule

    “If there is no evidence for a proposition, there is no need to take it seriously.” – Objectivist Dawson Bethrick of www.bahnsenburner.blogspot.com

    This was written recently in the midst of what has proven to be a lengthy dispute between the author and me over topics like induction and presuppositionalism. I felt this statement in particular worthy of commenting upon. One may encounter a similar statement asserted by any number of other people regardless of whether or not they are Objectivists. There are a number of concerns to be had about the statement.

    First, there needs to be a definition …

  • The failure of unbelief with respect to induction illustrated by Mitch LeBlanc.

    Mitch LeBlanc continues to espouse his inconsistencies regarding induction in his most recent post found here – http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/further-thoughts-and-clarifications-on-induction-and-the-christian-god/

    Mitch Admits His Problem

    He writes, “…I simply mean to suggest that one should be as skeptical about the problem of induction as the problem is skeptical of inductive reasoning itself.”
    With this he begs the question. I pointed out that he did so in his previous post and he continues to do so now. The existence of debate regarding a given topic does not entail skepticism. If he is unsure of whether or not there is a Problem of Induction then …

  • With A Wave of His Wand: How Mitch LeBlanc Answers the Problem of Induction

    Introduction

    Mitch LeBlanc wrote an indirect response to me regarding the Problem of Induction wherein he relied heavily upon Michael Martin to deal with the presuppositionalist utilization of the famous problem. He apparently recognizes, to some extent, the alleged challenge set forth. My response to his post may be found here – http://choosinghats.blogspot.com/2009/09/mitch-leblancs-proposed-solution-to.html . He has now written another post here – http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/inductive-reasoning-and-the-christian-god/ wherein he states that I have missed the point of his previous article. He claims that his post is not intended to be a solution to the Problem of Induction and that it is debatable as to …

  • Mitch LeBlanc’s Proposed Solution to the Problem of Induction

    Introduction

    Mitch LeBlanc has written a post concerning induction ( found here – http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/inductive-reasoning-and-the-christian-god/ ) in which he writes that “the uniformity of nature (or rather the principle of the uniformity of nature) states that ‘the future will resemble the past’ and is used in inductive reasoning”. He then attempts to describe the difference between deduction and induction and writes, “…in a deductive argument it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false (provided the argument is valid/sound)”. All Mitch need write in his parenthesis is “provided the argument is valid”. If an argument …