Apologetics to the Glory of God

Tag: presuppositionalism

  • Concluding Remarks on the Wallis Debate

    Chris,

    I have a few final clarifications for you…

    First of all, I’m not sure what premises you think I’m accepting, but let me assure you that I do NOT agree using induction without epistemic justification is irrational. You object to this assertion by complaining that it is not an argument, and indeed you are correct, it is not. What we decide to call “rational” or “irrational” depends on whatever standards of rationality we are using, and so it suffices for me to point out that my standard does not impose any such requirement for the epistemic justification of induction.

    …

  • Happy Reformation Day From Choosing Hats!

    Introduction

    In April 1518 Martin Luther was called upon by the Augustinian order of Germany to set out and defend his theology at the General Chapter of Heidelberg. While Luther was rather thoroughly surrounded by controversy he would be presenting the theological ideas which had produced this controversy to those who shared much of his Augustinian thinking. The name of the presentation Luther delivered is the Heidelberg Disputation. The Heidelberg Disputation consists of a number of theses divided between philosophical theses and theological theses. The theological theses are explained in much greater detail than are the philosophical theses. Luther actually …

  • Pressing the Point: More on the Wallis debate

    Proof and Persuasion

    An important distinction to be made in apologetics is the one between proof and persuasion. One may offer a perfectly sound argument pertaining to some position that accomplishes everything it promises and yet have a recipient of that argument completely unmoved by it. It does not follow from the fact that an individual(s) is allegedly not accepting of an argument that the argument in question does not constitute a proof. On the other hand someone may be presented with a completely invalid and false argument and still be moved to accept the conclusion of the argument, …

  • Wallis Debate Recap Continued: Theism, Presuppositionalism, and Induction

    Mr. Wallis writes that, “theism is just as ill-equipped as nontheism to answer the epistemic problem of induction.” In this statement is an apparent acknowledgement that non-theism is unable or at any rate “ill-equipped” to “answer the epistemic problem of induction.” We will set aside this concession regarding the problem of induction in a non-theistic worldview and go directly to the objection to justifying induction in the context of the Christian worldview.

    The problem Mr. Wallis has with attempting to justify induction in the Christian worldview does not concern the content of the answer Christian theology provides. Rather Mr. Wallis …

  • 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 …

  • Some thoughts

    Being an apologist is not a path to popularity and popularity does not make an apologist.

    The most intelligent and knowledgeable unbelievers are no less and no more fallibly human than you are.

    We should not be neutral and never can be, but we pretend that this is not so.

    More than the minimal facts are needed for the metanarrative and motivation necessary to make sense of their use in the first place.

    How to inductively prove that 1 Kings 12.29 is the Word of God?

    No worldview goes without logic, science, or morality but logic, science, and morality only …

  • 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.

    Click here to download/listen.…

  • 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:

    1. We experience the universe as intelligible. This intelligibility means that the universe is graspable by intelligence.
    2. 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.
    3. Not blind chance.
    4. 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 …