Apologetics to the Glory of God

Tag: presup

  • Nitpicking With Nocterro

    Recently I posted the audio recording of a debate I had roughly three years ago. A visitor to the site named Nocterro commented in response, “You appear to have used Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism without citing Plantinga.” By this I take him to mean that I do not just “appear” to have used Plantinga’s EAAN without citing Plantinga but that I actually did use Plantinga’s EAAN. In response to this observation I simply responded with a joke:

    What? Plantinga thought of an argument like that too?! You know what they say about great minds. 😉

    Explaining my jest is …

  • Debate: “Does God Exist?” (2007)

    Part I

    Part II

    Audience Q+A

  • Zao Thanatoo’s Final Response To Mitch LeBlanc On TAG

    In a post with the title Zao Thanatoo’s Response To Mitch LeBlanc Regarding TAG I linked to an exchange between Zao Thanatoo and Mitch LeBlanc concerning an article written by LeBlanc on TAG.

    Zao Thanatoo has written his second and final response which may be found here.…

  • Always Ready Study : Parts 1-5

    Always Ready Study: Part I

    Always Ready Study: Part II

    Always Ready Study: Part III

    Always Ready Study: Part IV

    Always Ready Study: Part V

  • Zao Thanatoo’s Response To Mitch LeBlanc Regarding TAG

    Original Article by Mitch LeBlanc

    Brief Response by Zao Thanatoo

    Response to Zao Thanatoo by Mitch LeBlanc

  • Short Break

    In an effort to not undermine my apologetic or contradict what its conclusions entail I will be taking just a short break from posting here. While other contributors may post during this time it is unlikely that they will do so.

    However, I am mostly letting you know about this because I will be periodically posting links to material that many of you have probably never seen before. Some of it will be in media format. So make sure to keep reading and I hope to return in several weeks to complete the many tasks I have left undone!

    Chris

  • 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 …

  • Nature Grace Dualism

    Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.”

    Genesis 1:26 (ESV)

    Even this portion of a verse of Scripture has serious ramifications for apologetic methodology.

    When “image” and “likeness” are taken not to be synonymous but rather to refer to two different concepts a false anthropological dichotomization is created which either extends to or finds inductive support from other doctrines similarly understood. Thus the ‘image’ of God might incorrectly be thought of as being natural to humans while the ‘likeness’ of God is thought of as supernatural so that an instance of a fabricated distinction …

  • My Debate Opponent Converted To Theism!

    Please note that this post is not a part of my current debate with Nocterro.

    Excited? I am not.

    The title of Nocterro’s most recent post at Urban Philosophy is A Conversion. The title is puzzling. In what way has Nocterro experienced a “conversion”? One thing is for certain; he is no Christian. Nocterro has merely changed his position on the matter of the existence of “God”. He now professes to be a theist.

    Not only is “conversion” not being used in a Christian sense here but neither is “God”. One learns quickly that what Nocterro has in view …