Tag: presup
-
New Article On Transcendental Arguments
By Robert Stern
Stern, Robert, “Transcendental Arguments”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), forthcoming URL = < http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/transcendental-arguments/. …
-
Apologetic Mirror Objection
David Byron recently commented on this post which concerns TAG and Islam. Rather than letting a rather lengthy comment linger on an old post I have decided to post it here in full. Part of being a good apologist is being aware of common objections to one’s methodology and arguments. This leads to further study and a stronger apologetic. It also equips the apologist to be able to at the very least recognize a particular objection in the context of an apologetic encounter. Byron writes out a helpful description of what has elsewhere been labeled the Apologetic Mirror Problem (AMP). …
-
A Question on Induction from Ben Wallis (Updated)
Now that Ben has clarified his answer to the problem of induction as being one largely similar to the one provided by P.F. Strawson, and now that I have pointed out the many problems with that solution in this post, I can move on to quote a question from Ben that was asked in his last comment.
…Suppose we can’t ground induction in deduction. In that case, why should we refrain from taking inductive inferences to be rational? Why is it that you think justification for a position on, say, the force of gravity on earth, cannot consist of
-
Ben Wallis responds to “induction again” (Updated)
Ben Wallis has responded to the post found here.
…Chris,
You offer several quotations from me on induction, and suggest that they are contradictory. But how? What contradiction exactly do you see? Because I confess, I cannot find any. Perhaps you think that having something new to say about induction constitutes a change in view…? I hope that’s not the case. It just means that I’m trying to find more effective ways to communicate the point, and raising other points which might bear on it. After all, there are different problems on the table, here, and they all demand
-
Miscellaneous Links
In response to some questions I have received I should mention that An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics will Lord willing resume sometime after next week. The plans as of right now are for it to consist of 50 Parts total in addition to the Introduction and Conclusion.
In the meantime I thought I would plug a few blogs which may or may not interest you.
Royce Hall writes so as to be understood clearly and breaks some pretty hefty theology and presuppositionalism down so that even those who are not familiar with either can understand them. You may find …
-
Ben Wallis, induction again, and a desperate attack on Christianity
My favorite philosopher, the Scottish skeptic David Hume, did more than just a little damage to traditional religious views in terms of their philosophical justifications. Unfortunately, those who appeal to Hume for solace in their anti-theistic battles often overlook that Hume destroyed much else besides the aforementioned philosophy of religion. Hume was a skeptic through and through, so much so that he was skeptical of his own skepticism. This general consistency with Hume with respect to skepticism came as a result of his rejection of the self-authenticating Christ of Scripture and has driven more than one unbeliever to take desperate …
-
An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 32 – Human dignity.
By C.L. Bolt
Ethics and morality are tied up in an understanding of human dignity, worth, or value. Unbelievers have difficulties making sense of human dignity and hence lose their ability to appeal to morality in the context of debate or everyday life. A consistent non-Christian worldview will posit that humans are not superior in value to any non-human animal. Lest we think that superiority in terms of value is due to the potential and actual higher reasoning capabilities that humans possess we should remember that even some of the lowest animals are better suited to find their way about …
-
An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 31 – Is and ought.
By C.L. Bolt
In terms of ethics and morality, people are obligated to persons, not to impersonal objects. It is problematic to try and get moral principles from impersonal objects. Some have even called this attempt a violation of logic. According to the Christian worldview God is personal, and moral principles are derived from the revelation of His nature to us. In the non-Christian worldview there is no such personal and absolute source of morality to appeal to, but only the impersonal and non-absolute or relative. Forced accounts of ethics in an ultimately impersonal universe run into a serious …
-
An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 29 – Problem of induction.
By C.L. Bolt
By induction we refer to singular and general predictive inferences. When humans think, they do not limit themselves to thinking only about what is immediately apparent to them. In fact, we often go beyond what is currently present to our senses, memories, and reasoning and make inferences; we infer things from what we have experienced in the past or are currently experiencing. For example, if we ate bread on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday and found that it nourished us, then we would at least expect that bread will nourish us on Thursday as well. We may …
-
An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 28 – Unity and diversity.
By C.L. Bolt
The Bible teaches the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity very briefly stated is that there is one God who is three persons and each person is fully God. Although the Bible never uses the term “Trinity” each of the parts of the doctrine are clearly set down for us in Scripture and have been summed up as already mentioned with the label “Trinity” being applied to them. God is ultimately one (there is one God). God is ultimately three (God is three persons). Neither the one-ness nor the three-ness of God is ontologically …