Is what you believe, what you preach, and what you defend consistent with itself?
Previous post: Stockholm Syndrome And Sympathizing With Sinners
Next post: Apologies to Atheists
by RazorsKiss on March 31, 2013
Is what you believe, what you preach, and what you defend consistent with itself?
Previous post: Stockholm Syndrome And Sympathizing With Sinners
Next post: Apologies to Atheists
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
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
“Folks in the Steve Hays-, Paul Manata-vein; perhaps even James Anderson. I don’t know how much Anderson agrees with as far as, say Hays and Manata are willing to go in terms of discussing say divine simplicity or analogy as as as you can see on Triablogue recently . . .”
Now, not that I could completely follow the point you were trying to make, I have a question: Where have I commented on divine simplicity or analogy?
Steve Hays response:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/04/promissory-presuppositionalism.html?m=1
I’m unsure what he was responding to. What he is speaking about doesn’t seem to have much of a relationship with my comments, or my position. He makes glancing references to what he assumes is my position, but doesn’t reference anything that would demonstrate what my position is. As such, I don’t think he was even “responding” in any meaningful sense of the term. I honestly don’t have the time or the inclination to sort out whatever or whoever he thinks he’s responding to.
Paul: I thought I had read you commenting on the Shannon exchanges. I appear to have been mistaken in that recollection. Incidentally – not everything is a conspiracy. I drive 18-wheelers for a living, and often have stretches where I do not have internet access, and authors here approve the comments on their own posts, unless we give the go-ahead to another contributor. These podcasts are my attempt to contribute to Choosing Hats as I can, since I can do them as I drive. My apologies for the offense I have obviously given you. I’m rather puzzled by the level of response I received, however, given that my reference was rather mild, and for the most part positive.
{ 1 trackback }