Apologetics to the Glory of God

Tag: proof

  • Proof and Persuasion Confusion

    I was pointed to a post by J. Warner Wallace where he seeks to give a distinction between evidence and proof. This is in itself something good to do because who has not heard people scream “SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!” as though if they are shown enough evidence that it is proof [of something].

    The following statement seems to provide the basis of Wallace’s apparent confusion between proof and persuasion. Wallace writes the following:

    While evidence is a matter of objective truth, proof is in the mind of the evaluator, and many of us resist the truth in spite

    …

  • “Can We Prove the Existence of God?” by James Anderson

    http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/04/16/can-we-prove-the-existence-of-god…

  • Van Til’s Argument Part II

    In our last post, we dealt with the claims made over at The Gospel Coalition Blog that Van Til did not make an argument while setting forth his methodology. “Roberto G” made that claim, and we dealt with that sufficiently for the time being. Now, we will deal with Doug Perry’s assertion that Van Til’s “legacy” has “given us the school [of] circular reasoning held by most presuppositionalists”. His sentence is rather garbled, and none too clear, but it seems to be saying that transcendental argumentation is circular, as far as I can tell. Now, even if this isn’t precisely …

  • Van Til’s Argument Part I

    In the comment section of Justin Taylor’s post, we have already seen perhaps the most common claims made by opponents of the covenantal apologetic. By “Roberto G”, we have the claim that Van Til didn’t make an argument; and by Doug Perry, we have the claim that the argument is circular. To head off any claims that I misunderstand what they have to say, let me quote the two gentlemen in question on the specified topics, and then I’ll deal with their comments as a whole in later posts, as I’ve decided to make this a short series, to …