Tag: presuppositionalism
-
Cornelius Van Til, Westboro Baptist Church, and Steve Jobs
I am no Cornelius Van Til, but if Van Til can get away with saying that an atheist is like the little girl he saw slapping her father while sitting on his lap, then I might be able to get away with saying that a non-Christian is like “Westboro Baptist Church” tweeting their characteristic nastiness about Steve Jobs while using an iPhone.
The iPhone would be like the tools of reasoning, logic, and science. Apple users may get the other part of the analogy too quickly.
But I wrote this on a Dell.
See Al Mohler’s post on …
-
Is Paul Baird Ashamed of Atheism?
“Every system of philosophy must tell us whether it thinks true knowledge to be possible. Or if a system of philosophy thinks it impossible for man to have a true knowledge of the whole of reality or even of a part of reality, it must give good reasons for thinking so. From these considerations, it follows that if we develop our reasons for believing that a true knowledge of God and, therefore, also of the world, is possible because actually given in Christ, we have in fact given what goes in philosophy under the name of epistemology. It will then …
-
Another Round With Paul Baird: Stating and Defending the Requested Rebuttal (6)
History
https://choosinghats.org/2011/09/an-argument-for-paul-baird/
https://choosinghats.org/2011/09/helping-paul-baird-recognize-an-argument/
Introduction
…Paul Baird said…
You have to remember that this didn’t used to be a hypothetical for me. I was a card carrying North European Solitary Pagan at one time, and there was some revelatory basis to my worldview so I’m not playing some devils advocate game with CBC here.
That said, the purpose of using the Pagan worldview is that, arguably, and leaving aside characters like Aleister Crowley, it is an indigenous faith of these islands, alongside Druidism and many others. That is to say it predates Christianity and shares none
-
Another Round With Paul Baird: Stating and Defending the Requested Rebuttal (5)
History
https://choosinghats.org/2011/09/an-argument-for-paul-baird/
https://choosinghats.org/2011/09/helping-paul-baird-recognize-an-argument/
Paul’s Problems
The conclusion to my previous post in this series was that Paul offers no new objection to my pointing out that he provides no support for PR, no new objection to APR, no objection to my answer concerning alleged competing transcendentals, and no acceptance or rejection of my debate proposal.
Paul’s Response
In his latest comments Paul references the Choosing Hats Twitter account and a number of posts pertaining to FSC’s (Fristianity Style Counters). Neither of these has anything to do with the line of argumentation I have followed …
-
Sye TenBruggencate and Eric Hovind on "Fundamentally Flawed"
I am about to go cycle and I will be listening to this:
http://www.fundamentally-flawed.com/pods/?p=episode&name=2011-09-30_episode_13.mp3
Enjoy, and thanks Sye!…
-
Fundamentalist Atheism and the Refusal to Answer Simple Questions
The following exchange is from a public atheist group on Facebook. Toward the end of the exchange I imply that I am an atheist; I have been told on numerous occasions that as a Christian I am an atheist because there are all sorts of gods I do not believe in, hence my wording.
Chris Bolt: Hi Suzane,
I am not completely sure how I was able to see this conversation, and I certainly do not have the time to join in and continue a discussion, but I did notice upon skimming the thread that you continue to make a …
-
"The Chris Bolt Comedy Hour"
Paul Baird had the idea of turning my recent interactions with fundamentalist atheists into the Chris Bolt Comedy Hour. I do not know how much I will get in royalties, but given the popularity of movies like Napoleon Dynamite even a small percentage will do.
Paul introduces the first act, featuring a fundamentalist atheist who repeatedly insists, “I know nothing.” (Audience laughter.) He claims that he does not know whether or not a book by Darwin exists, and admits that he does not even know whether or not I exist, but wants to talk to me about the book …
-
Paul Baird, Crackers in the Pantry, and Scientism
Now, what I would like to read from Chris is a line of argument where he can PROVE (and by prove I mean to a scientific standard, including the method of falsifiability) that a person has had revelation that could only have originated from the Christian god. If he can do that under lab conditions, then I’ll become a Christian.
– Paul Baird (http://patientandpersistent.blogspot.com/2011/10/once-more-unto-breach.html)
…How should the difference of opinion between the theist and the atheist be rationally resolved? What Dr. Stein has written indicates that he, like many atheists, has not reflected adequately on this question. He
-
Another Round With Paul Baird: Stating and Defending the Requested Rebuttal (4)
Introduction
Fundamentalist atheist Paul Baird asked me to rebut the following proposition PR:
PR – “I have had a revelation from a non-Christian supernatural transcendental entity that I use to ground my worldview.”
First, Paul is merely claiming that PR provides “grounding and certainty.” But how does it do that? Paul refuses to tell us, and so PR fails to constitute any sort of counter to presuppositional apologetics. It is a mere assertion.
Second, argument APR refutes PR as follows:
If atheism is true, then PR is false.
Atheism is true.
Therefore, PR is false.
The argument form is …
-
Another Round With Paul Baird: Stating and Defending the Requested Rebuttal (3)
You will need to review the posts below in order to follow this post:
https://choosinghats.org/2011/09/another-round-with-paul-baird-stating-and-defending-the-requested-rebuttal/
https://choosinghats.org/2011/09/another-round-with-paul-baird-stating-and-defending-the-requested-rebuttal-2/Paul Baird writes, “I read Chris Bolt’s blog pieces again and I just want to address a few issues.”
Notice that Paul has changed his story from when he was claiming that “there’s nothing new to be said.” This comes as no surprise. Paul frequently makes statements that he goes back on only days later. For example, while he states that “there’s nothing new to be said” as quoted above he then goes on to write an entire new post in response to …