… Read more
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.
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, …Read more
Episode 3 – August 28, 2010
Chris Bolt discusses the new site, the Gospel, and makes a few comments on the recent debate between Ben Wallis and Chris Bolt on the existence of God.Read more
The debate between Ben Wallis and our own Chris Bolt is complete. You may obtain it here.…Read more
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 …Read more
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 …Read more
Non-Christians can and do engage in activities using logic, science, and morality. Christians do as well. Presuppositionalists claim that these two groups can do so only because the world is what God says it is.
The argument advanced for this claim begins with one of the accepted activities mentioned above (logic, science, or morality) and illustrates how this activity is possible if the world is what God says it is. Then the accepted activity is shown to be inconsistent with what anyone else other than God says the world is.
While it might be said that the non-Christian cannot and …Read more
“If there is no evidence for a proposition, there is no need to take it seriously.” – Objectivist Dawson Bethrick of www.bahnsenburner.blogspot.com
This was written recently in the midst of what has proven to be a lengthy dispute between the author and me over topics like induction and presuppositionalism. I felt this statement in particular worthy of commenting upon. One may encounter a similar statement asserted by any number of other people regardless of whether or not they are Objectivists. There are a number of concerns to be had about the statement.
First, there needs to be a definition …Read more
As presuppositionalists we take the whole of the Christian worldview and set it against those positions which are opposed to it. Claims must be understood within the contexts of the views from which they originate. For the Christian this means, among other things, that he or she should be familiar with Scripture. Our apologetic is based upon our theology, not the other way around. An example of the necessity of familiarity with Scripture for the apologetic endeavor may be seen in instances where an unbeliever makes the argument that the Christian has no reason for thinking that future experiences will …Read more