Tag: presup
-
Wallis Debate Recap Continued: Induction
Mr. Wallis claims that, “we simply must use induction, because we have no other means of planning for action in the world.” An interesting claim to be sure, but it is not clear what Mr. Wallis means by this statement or how Mr. Wallis could know that it is true. He nevertheless concludes from this statement that, “no epistemic ‘problem’ of induction need cause us an abundance of concern.” Even more strange is that Wallis offers these statements as constituting an “objection” to the following argument that he quotes from me from our debate:
“Reasoning invalidly is not reasonable at …
-
Comments on the Wallis Debate Recap: Agnosticism (Updated! Includes response from Wallis)
Introduction
Ben Wallis has written a post wherein he briefly points out what he believes are serious problems with “two key arguments” I offered during the course of our debate on the existence of God. There are a number of arguments I used for TAG in the debate and it is not my opinion that Mr. Wallis addressed them all either during the debate or in his brief review. That Mr. Wallis has written some of his thoughts concerning the debate and apparently wants to continue some discussion in the future (both of which are perfectly fine with me) allows …
-
Interview With The Reformed Media Review
Jared Oliphint and Jonathan Brack at Reformed Forum recently interviewed me on The Reformed Media Review concerning Van Til’s presuppositionalism, my background, and the Choosing Hats website. Many thanks to Jared, Jonathan, and Reformed Forum for being so kind as to have me on.
-
TAG and Islam
Addressing Islam
Please accept my apology in advance for waxing rhetorical for dogmatic and persuasive flavor. I am also paraphrasing Van Til, Bahnsen, and James Anderson from memory as I do not have the time or desire to hunt down all of the exact quotes and respective references. The topic I am addressing often calls credentials into question so I will go ahead and set my own out on the table. Each day I listen to at least an hour and usually more of lectures on presuppositional apologetics in addition to my reading in that area. I have a B.A. …
-
"The Argument From Consciousness"
Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli make the following argument:
- We experience the universe as intelligible. This intelligibility means that the universe is graspable by intelligence.
- 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.
- Not blind chance.
- 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 …
-
Should we get to the real topic?
Series on Does God Exist? Dr. Greg Bahnsen versus Dr. Gordon Stein
Should we argue for “general theism”?
Should our case be “subjective or personal”?
Should we concede anything to our opponents?
Should we get to the real topic?
The end of Bahnsen’s concession to Stein’s expertise notes that the subject of the debate between Bahnsen and Stein does not directly pertain to the specific area or field of Stein’s expertise. Bahnsen states that, “our subject tonight is really much different, calling for intelligent reflection upon issues which are philosophical or theological in character.” It is important to …
-
Clarification On Self-Deception
In my debate with Ben Wallis I answered the following in response to a series of questions asked of me during the cross-examination period.
“It is correct that I believe that in their heart-of-hearts everyone believes that God exists…I apologize for the poetic language. Belief in God is a first-order belief of everyone; every human…I believe that when you state that you do not believe that God exists that is a claim based upon a second-order belief that you have concerning your first-order belief in the existence of God.”
The phrase “heart-of-hearts” is by no means philosophically precise language nor …
-
Refusing Antithetical Assumptions
We make our gods unknowable entities. The God of the Bible is knowable. Throughout all of Scripture God never presumes Himself to be unknown or unknowable but rather known. The Bible contains no proofs in the strictest sense for the existence of God. The Bible starts out with a declaration that God exists and assumes His existence throughout. The sinful fool knows that God exists but holds the truth down in unrighteousness saying in his heart, “There is no God.” (Romans 1.18ff; Psalm 14.1)
The individual who fashions for himself an unknowable god makes an idol that is wholly irrelevant …
-
Praxis Presup: Episode 4
Praxis Presup
Episode 4 – August 31, 2010
Chris BoltMore discussion concerning debates in general and the recent debate between Ben Wallis and Chris Bolt on the existence of God.