RE: Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.
September 20, 2011 at 3:49 pm
(This post was last modified: September 20, 2011 at 3:50 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
(September 20, 2011 at 3:22 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Evolution isn't a deity or any other being.
Never said it was, it is still treated like it is one though.
Quote: So saying "EvolutionDidIt" is like saying "DoingDidIt".
Not it is actually fallacious personification. Evolution can’t “do” anything.
Quote:There isn't one. I think I've already answered that. We use reason because we choose to. We need no further justification than that.
We are not talking about the use of reason; we are talking about the assumption that the future will resemble the past. In a purely natural world you have no basis to make this assumption, and yet you do anyway. Why?
If you have to assume something to be true that can only be justified by a belief in the God of scripture you are actually proving that the God of scripture exists through negation.
Quote: The "problem of induction" is a manufactured quandary to accompany their contrived definition of an imaginary god in order to create evidence to justify a worldview that eschews reliance on evidence.
Oh really? Do you know who addressed the problem of induction more than anyone? David Hume and Bertrand Russell, were they Christians? Nope both atheists, but they still recognized that it is a problem that has never been solved by the unbeliever.
