Category: philosophy
Euthyphro Dilemma
Here is the way it usually is put: Socrates’s problem with the traditional stories about the gods gives rise to what is sometimes called ‘the Euthyphro dilemma’. If we try to define the holy as what is loved by all the gods (and goddesses), we will be faced with the question ‘Is the holy because it is loved by the gods, or do they love it because it is holy?’ (Euthyphro, 10a). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy This was convincing to the Greeks because the pagan gods they believed in were mutable, finite, and immoral entities. This doesn’t apply so easily … Continue reading Euthyphro Dilemma
Idolatry of Politics
We live in an interesting time. The world is still trying to find it answers. The current cultural and political climate has drifted into the religious. The tribalism that requires compromise of principles for loyalties has affected everyone. I recently criticized a former “Christian” that has high influence in the conservative movement. I think the new interest of the American people in politics is a great thing and bring further discussion. The issue is that they see politics as a savior of some kind. They are practicing political idolatry. They have placed their trust with a government to save them. … Continue reading Idolatry of Politics
Hawkeye
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
Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics
The old Sudduth
This is Dr. Michael Sudduth before he went apostate and went hugging trees with Hindus. http://reformedaudio.weebly.com/sudduth.html http://spirited-tech.com/COG/?p=2031 http://spirited-tech.com/COG/2017/09/08/is-timeless-divine-action-coherent/ Continue reading The old Sudduth
Circular Reasoning and Circular Arguments
It is often tossed at Presuppositionalist that they are engaging in Circular reasoning and are begging the question. That all Presuppositionalism proclaims is ” The Bible is true because the Bible is true”. I just wonder if any presuppositionalist has … Continue reading Circular Reasoning and Circular Arguments
Contours of Presuppositionalism
I want to catalog some of the differences that exist for those that hold to presuppositionalism. I wish to discuss things that Presuppositionalist unify and depart on. The reason I am doing this is that after all these years people still ask me the differences between these individuals. This will not be me commenting on which positions are right or wrong, but formatting a map for your studies. First things first, What is a Presuppositionalist? They stand in the Reformed tradition and they must maintain the sort of Christian distinctiveness into their apologetic approach. The differences involve thoughts about TAG, … Continue reading Contours of Presuppositionalism
What does it Mean to Believe?
What does it Mean to Believe? By Dr. Greg Bahnsen Each month the “Cross-Examination” column presents a summary statement of a Reformed and Reconstructionist conviction in theology or ethics, and then offers brief answers to common questions, objections or confusions which people have about that belief. Send issues or questions you would like addressed by Dr. Bahnsen to the editor. Examination Question: What does it mean “to believe” or have “faith”? Some writers make it sound like faith goes beyond assenting to the truth and involves personal trust. Other writers react against that idea and make believing sound … Continue reading What does it Mean to Believe?
Miracles, induction, and retrodiction
Interesting thoughts from Steve Hays about Miracles and reconstructing the past: In the case of miracles, induction hits a wall. When the subsequent course of events is the result of a miracle, inductive inference can’t go further back than the miracle. It can’t reconstruct the past before the miracle occurred, because the post-miraculous state is not a product of the pre-miraculous state. Induction can only take you from the present to as far back in time as the precipitating miracle. It can’t jump over that to the other side, because the chain of events prior to the miracle is a … Continue reading Miracles, induction, and retrodiction
The Council 
You must be logged in to post a comment.