Tag: worldview
-
The Arrogance of the “Impossibility of the Contrary”
A lot of people have problems with the “impossibility of the contrary” claim often made as part and parcel of the covenantal or presuppositional apologetic method. A lot of people. And they have problems with it for very different reasons. I will address only two of them here.
The first is exclusivity. To say that anything contrary to some given position is impossible is to make a very bold claim to exclusivity. I am not going to enter into the various senses in which the covenantal apologist might be using the term “impossibility” here. But it will suffice to …
-
Paul Baird On His Informal Discussion With Me
-
Rhology Responds to Reasonable Doubts (part 2)
-
“If the existence of God is so obvious, then why do we debate it?”
Atheists sometimes make the rhetorical point that if the existence of God were so obvious as many Christians hold it to be, then we would not have to hold debates about His existence. We don’t go around having debates about the existence of particular people, or certain types of animals, or various aspects of the world that are immediately present to our sensory experience, so why do we have them about something or someone who is supposed to so obviously exist? Is God just incapable of revealing Himself clearly enough that we might believe in Him the way we believe …
-
“How do you know that for certain?”
A quick qualm…
I’ve noticed a slew of presuppositional apologists on the Internet basing the entirety of their apologetic around the issue of certainty in knowledge.
That has its place. Richard Pratt does something similar here – http://www.amazon.com/Every-Thought-Captive-Defense-Christian/dp/0875523528/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1337572150&sr=8-2
But not all knowledge claims are claims to certainty.
And not all knowledge is certain.
Enough about certainty itself though; that is not the subject of this post.
Rather, when the apologist is engaged with an unbeliever it needs to be pointed out not merely that the unbeliever cannot know anything for certain, but that the unbeliever cannot know anything at …
-
Two Objections to Meticulous Providence
Some people find it strange that God should meticulously provide for His creation in terms of His presence, oversight, and power in every aspect of the creation. Yet Scripture teaches that God is at every moment and in every place both preserving and governing the universe.
Our objections to the providence of God often stem from the fact that – quite unlike God – we are both wicked and finite. We are careless about some aspects of the creation because we are evil, and we neglect others because in our finitude we are incapable of tending to them all …
-
The Problem With Saying “Goddidit”
Covenantal apologists are often mocked in virtue of their alleged recourse to repeatedly claiming “Goddidit” as an answer to all challenges in the apologetic context.
The mockers are mostly wrong, but partially right.
Complaints about “Goddidit” usually stem primarily from the rejection of the frank acceptance of authority inherent to the apologist’s presuppositional program. In this the mockers are wrong.
Meanwhile, complaints which focus not upon the authority involved in “Goddidit” but its content are valid objections, for the Christian worldview consists of much more than a trite, reductionistic, sound byte solution to some problem that faces another worldview.
Just …
-
Why Christians Are Stupid and Atheists Are Not
If you were to buy into atheist propaganda on the Internet you would have no choice but to conclude that Christians are some of the most ignorant, irrational, dishonest, deluded idiots on the planet. In short if you are a Christian, then you are stupid. You can substitute whatever other derogatory term you would like in the place of stupid. The point is that something is seriously wrong with the idiots who believe these nonsensical fairy tales, etc. etc. You have heard it all before. You get the point.
Of course I do not really need the atheists to tell …
-
Why Dr. Jason Lisle of Answers in Genesis Does Not Understand Presuppositional Apologetics
In a recent post I mentioned that, “I have heard a fair amount about a book by a Dr. Lisle but have not had the opportunity to read it” while referring to presuppositionalist strains in Answers in Genesis material. Someone commented here to affirm that, “Dr. Jason Lisle (astrophycisist) does indeed hold to a Van Tillian, ‘presuppositional’ apologetic method.”
Today I read a post by Lisle wherein he addresses a reader’s questions about presuppositional apologetics. Unfortunately I find his answer to be completely out of line with the method. I quote the relevant portion of his post below and then …