The debate between Ben Wallis and our own Chris Bolt is complete. You may obtain it here.
Previous post: Does God Exist? Chris Bolt versus Ben Wallis – Thursday August 19, 2010
Next post: A Message For Muslims
by RazorsKiss on August 20, 2010
The debate between Ben Wallis and our own Chris Bolt is complete. You may obtain it here.
Tagged as: apologetic method, atheism, clbolt, David Hume, debate, Induction, logic, morality, philosophy, philosophy of religion, Presuppositional Apologetics, Problem of Induction, religion, revelation, Scripture, TAG, Theology
Previous post: Does God Exist? Chris Bolt versus Ben Wallis – Thursday August 19, 2010
Next post: A Message For Muslims
agnosticism annihilationism apologetic method atheism attributes of God audio bad arguments BK books Church History classical clbolt common objections Cornelius Van Til Covenantal Apologetics David Hume debate ethics evidence evidentialism evolution fallacy gospel Greg Bahnsen Induction Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics Islam logic method morality philosophy philosophy of religion presup Presuppositional Apologetics presuppositionalism Problem of Induction religion revelation science Scripture skepticism TAG Theology traditional worldview
WP Cumulus Flash tag cloud by Roy Tanck requires Flash Player 9 or better.
Get smart with the Thesis WordPress Theme from DIYthemes.
WordPress Admin
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
I listened to the bebate last and enjoyed it. A couple of questions.
When you were discussing Ben’s counter to the problem of induction you said the Hume found that it was unsupported regardless of it’s alleged necessity for inference. Could you expand of this?
What is the best book or article that lists all the attempted seculare response to the problem of induction?
I have read an article by James Anderson covering that topic – do you know of anything better?
Again – a good debate.
Reply
Sorry – The questions in the above posting is directed to Chris Bolt
Reply
According to Hume the fact that people use induction is irrelevant to the question of whether or not induction is epistemically justified.
Hume offers at least two responses to his own problem and refutes them. Russell mostly restates Hume in clearer terms. The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy goes through a number of traditional and non-traditional responses to the Problem of Induction and at the very least will give you a good bibliography from which to work.
Thanks.
Reply
So I squeezed a tube of toothpaste today to get the paste out of the tube. According to Hume, the fact that I do that does not mean that I am rational for taking such action? In other words, I would not be rational for choosing to either squeeze, or not squeeze the tube. Both actions are irrational in terms of *knowing* how to get the paste out?
Reply
Chris,
Nice debate…i was wondering if you would be able to post your opening statement on the site..if not, no worries.
Reply
Chris,
I went back and reviewed several of Russels books (the section related to induction) – The Problems of Philosophy, Outline of Philosophy, Our Knowledge of the External World. Which book are you referring to?
Or if you can remember – what was Hume’s second response (and refutation)?
Thanks
Reply
{ 2 trackbacks }