Internalism and the Human Condition by Jimmy Stephens The properties of human nature are irreconcilable with internalism. Human nature, at present, has the following properties: finitude, fallibility, and foulness. Finitude refers to the limited nature of the human mind. We … Continue reading Internalism and the Human Condition
I asked Necessitarian if Calvinism is true, then how can we be punished for a nature we didn’t choose and this is his response: 1.) It’s a specious objection since it contradicts the objector’s self-love. That is, because everyone desires and intends to be who they are, they “self-identify,” God’s judgment is perfectly consistent per compatibilism. Thus, anyone who complains about not choosing their nature neglects or belies their own desire to be oneself. It would be like reasoning that it’s unreasonable to expect someone to be perfectly rational – why are you reasoning then? The very act of reasoning … Continue reading Are we culpable?
Necessitarian’s argument: P1. x creates ex nihilo, x is a se. P2. If x is a se, x is God. P3. If x creates ex nihilo, x is God (from P1 & P2). P4. Human agents create ex nihilo (Flowers). P5. Human agents are God (per impossibile).C: Human agents do not create ex nihilo (contra Flowers).P2 is obvious for anyone who holds to classical/orthodox theology. Aseity is traditionally a divine attribute of God qua uncreated. P1 is the controversial premise and I’ll employ a simple argument to its end. P1#. If x creates ex nihilo, x is a self-sufficient cause. … Continue reading Aseity and Humanity
I recently asked Jimmy’s thoughts on a challenge to TAG. That challenge being an OT Jew that only believes in the OT books. How would a presuppositionalist respond? Two problems: 1.) It is impossible to be neutral about the status of the New Testament. Christian Theism, as you know, presents a worldview in which the entire canon is the imperfect but providential derivation of original autographs which were divinely inspired, the whole Christian Bible standing as revelation, and therefore a worldview in which the New Testament is self-authoritative. To say only the Tanakh is revelation means one is either openly … Continue reading Do the Jews play TAG?
Here is Jimmy Stephens response to the same man from my previous post. Here are his thoughts: Your questions seemed like contorted, flowery pseudo-intellectual word games crafted to trip up atheists. And this preface isn’t flowery or lacking charity at all. :rolling_eyes: My epistemological standard is correct because it works. . . What sane and sober person thinks otherwise? What a useless standard. Science and the scientific method is that standard. Categorical error alert! By the very nature of the case, science does not answer or even ask the fundamental questions of epistemology. For example, “How do I know induction … Continue reading ARIF vs Necessitarian
In this discussion, our friend Necessitarian discusses Libertarian Freewill, Molinism, and objections presented by Leighton Flowers. Enjoy the conversation: Part 1 Part 2 : Continue reading Necessitarian discusses Calvinism
This is not a full-blown model of the Trinity, but it will allow a simplistic articulation of the orthodox doctrine. The Trinity is a very complicated debate and I don’t have the brainpower to say anything remarkable about it. The only thing I will attempt is to explain or formulate a decent trinitarian doctrine. We will start with Biblical monotheism and move from there. In Christian theology, we know that only one God exists, Yahweh. This is foundational to a Biblical worldview(Deut 6:4, Psalm 86:10, Isa 40-48, John 1:1-3,17:3, 1Cor 8:4-6, Gal. 4:8-9). This also puts us in a strange … Continue reading A simplistic discussion on the Trinity
Recently an unbelieving buddy of mine, with whom I chat over the net rather frequently, invited me to a thread over on The Thinking Atheist. The topic reads, Challenge to proponents of objective morality, and the OP sets up a trifold “challenge” for proponents of moral realism. Based on the contributing minds over at The Thinking Atheist forums as well as comments following the OP, it remains dubious to me whether anyone has a clear idea what is even meant by “objectivity” under the topic of (meta-) ethics, but nevertheless, my buddy convinced me to throw in two cents as … Continue reading An Example of Apologetic Conversation On Moral Antirealism
I recently got into an exchange with a classical apologist, Spencer Hawkins. So, the credit goes to him. Here’s how it went: “1) Your first move is to shift the burden of proof. You make the claim that ALL non-Christian worldviews are logically impossible,” i)The issue is that to propose a question-begging claim. To say that it is possible doesn’t show it to be possible. From the Christian perspective, my God is the measure of what is and is not possible. You even say later “I can imagine the Christian God not existing without running into a logical contradiction”. This … Continue reading Hawkeye
The Council 
You must be logged in to post a comment.