Choosing Hats

WE MOVED!!!

2009-10-06T16:39:00.000-07:00

If you happen to have "choosinghats.blogspot.com" saved to your favorites, please change it now to www.choosinghats.com We have moved to a new location and will not be updating this blog anymore. See you at the new site! BK

Comments are now Moderated

2009-10-03T15:44:00.000-07:00

Due to a recent comment left on Choosing Hats, we have unfortunately had to turn comment moderation on. In this case, it was due to profane language. It shouldn't take too much sense to realize that comments with profanity are not welcome on a site of this nature, but since there are some who haven't put two and two together, all comments will be approved before they show up on the site from

Vacation

2009-09-30T20:39:00.000-07:00

Thank you so much for visiting Choosing Hats. If you have not noticed, there have been a large number of new posts recently. The plans are to continue to post at this pace, however we will be taking a (hopefully) short break before we continue to do so.We have some exciting new ideas we would love to share with you, just not yet.Enjoy the recent posts, and stay tuned for more!

"Homophobia" and Homosexuality

2009-09-28T21:12:00.000-07:00

This is a conversation I had via the Internet with a homosexual atheist friend from my old school. He posted something online which listed some emotional examples of hate crimes against homosexuals and declared that homophobia is wrong. I decided to question him about his beliefs.Me: I agree, of course, that the descriptions of how these people were treated is morally and emotionally

The video clip of Dan Barker objecting to his own book being quoted.

2009-09-28T20:07:00.001-07:00

The other day I posted on a Barker vs White debate while it was going on. You may find the post here -http://choosinghats.blogspot.com/2009/09/futility-of-unbelief.htmlDr. White has provided the video clip of the event -Please make sure to visit www.aomin.org as Dr. White has posted a number of times on this rather strange incident.

Answering Pastafarianism

2009-09-28T11:58:00.000-07:00

It must be confessed that the postulation of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has resulted in the creation of some rather humorous material on the Internet and elsewhere. See - http://www.venganza.org/The FSM also has its place in certain philosophical discussions, though I am afraid that the number of such discussions is much lower than what the typical unbeliever apparently supposes. It is

"Does God Exist?" My Opening Statement (2006)

2009-09-27T22:24:00.001-07:00

Opening Statement"Does God Exist?"Central Virginia Community CollegeFebruary 2006Thank you all for coming out for the debate and thanks to Alex and Dr. McGee for being willing to help with this. I’d also like to thank my God, in whom we live and move and have our being. I want to make it clear from the start that the God I am talking about today is the God of the Christian scriptures. That’s

The Problem of Religion (Part 2): Hume and Freud

2009-09-27T18:54:00.000-07:00

David HumeHume is similar to Nietzsche in that he attacks philosophical norms, but what is pertinent to this article is that he likewise attacks religion. Hume finds many philosophical worries with religion. One of these worries is with the inadequacies of supposed proofs such as arguments from experience and miracles, which are at the core of many religions.Hume presents a proof for the

The Problem of Religion (Part 1): Introduction, Descartes, and Nietzsche

2009-09-26T21:32:00.000-07:00

IntroductionFrom within the Non-Christian worldview it may be rather easily seen that the term “religion” is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to define. This is no doubt due to the subjective nature of the term once it is divorced from the Christian worldview. A number of thinkers will be discussed in this series in order to show the great difficulty of even involving oneself with

The Futility of Unbelief

2009-09-26T10:34:00.000-07:00

My wife and I are currently listening to a debate (live) between well known atheist Dan Barker and Christian apologist Dr. James White through www.aomin.org. Dan Barker just finished his opening statement which more or less left us with the old argument that the account of Jesus was borrowed from mythology. This is not why I am writing this post.After Barker's opening statement, Dr. White got up

Nothing is Absolute

2009-09-25T18:30:00.000-07:00

I was checking in on some discussion boards I used to post regularly on and came across the following statement by an atheist in response to a discussion over the Bible: Atheist: All interpretation of the bible is subjective. You don't hold the final word on it. It's all in your own mind and isn't absolute. Nothing is. If this gal had left off the last sentence, she probably wouldn't have

Sacrificing the Gospel on the Altar of Unbiblical Apologetics

2009-09-25T12:19:00.000-07:00

Often so-called objections to the presuppositionalist methodology are downright frightening. Take this article for example -http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240172 written by Caleb Colley. Under the section on presuppositionalism, Caleb writes the following:“While the presuppositionalist is right that worldview is important, the presuppositional approach is in conflict with Paul’s

Confused About Presup

2009-09-24T14:08:00.000-07:00

If one “googles” “presup”, he or she will find the video below at the top of the list. This gentleman argues that presuppositionalists undermine their own position in their insistence that reason and sense experience must “find their ground” in God. His argument consists of assuming that his particular version of atheism is true without giving us any reason for doing so.The author of the video

Providence and Presuppositions

2009-09-23T21:18:00.001-07:00

One of the easiest areas to spot the truth of the claim that presuppositions determine the way people view evidence is in the discussion of the providence of God. Last night a friend of mine told me that his wife left her job.Tonight he told me that his wife had been given a new job out of nowhere!The new job is by far preferable to the old. For this we thank God. Upon sharing about this with

An atheist who gets it...

2009-09-23T21:07:00.000-07:00

Well, some of it anyway. I do wish more Christians understood what is set forth in this video.Greg Bahnsen opened in his debate with Gordon Stein as follows -It is necessary at the outset of our debate to define our terms; that is always the case. And in particular here, I should make it clear what I mean when I use the term "God". I want to specify that I'm arguing particularly in favor of

Pragmatism vs Justification

2009-09-23T10:15:00.000-07:00

I have been following the discussion on Induction between Chris and Mitch with great interest. Even though they are about to wrap things up, I wanted to comment on part of Mitch's most recent response. Mitch writes: It might not be a justification of induction in Bolt’s opinion, but such is the nature of pragmatism. It needs not be a justification, it simply is a warrant for its continued use.

Theologians All

2009-09-22T23:51:00.000-07:00

A rather humorous exchange between Dr. James White and Dan Barker is posted below. Atheism is just as "religious" as any other system we might typically label a "religion". There is no such thing as a person who does not believe in God, but there is such a thing as a person who claims to not believe in God. Such a claim requires a great deal of bad theology.

A Brief Critique of “The Inconsistency of Theism”

2009-09-22T22:33:00.000-07:00

Andrew Moroz desires to convince his readers of the inconsistency of theism through an article entitled “The Inconsistency of Theism” which may be found here - http://www.atheists.org/The_Inconsistency_of_TheismMoroz notes that while there are many conceptions of God, his “focus will be on the Christian God”. Unfortunately he immediately presents John Hick’s description of [John Hick’s] god,

Eight Steps to Popularizing Presuppositional Apologetics

2009-09-21T23:10:00.000-07:00

A presuppositional apologetic is a method of defending the Christian faith. Presuppositional apologetics are based on a recognition of the need to be committed to God and Scripture even when chatting with unbelievers who raise supposed intellectual objections to the faith. The result is that God and His Word are presupposed while arguments and evidence are presented. Other methods of apologetics

Are sunglasses evidence of God?

2009-09-21T21:25:00.000-07:00

“The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.” Psalms 19:1-4 (ESV) The other day I jumped into a conversation about the presuppositional

The failure of unbelief with respect to induction illustrated by Mitch LeBlanc.

2009-09-21T10:40:00.000-07:00

Mitch LeBlanc continues to espouse his inconsistencies regarding induction in his most recent post found here - http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/further-thoughts-and-clarifications-on-induction-and-the-christian-god/Mitch Admits His ProblemHe writes, “…I simply mean to suggest that one should be as skeptical about the problem of induction as the problem is skeptical of inductive reasoning

With A Wave of His Wand: How Mitch LeBlanc Answers the Problem of Induction

2009-09-20T00:47:00.000-07:00

IntroductionMitch LeBlanc wrote an indirect response to me regarding the Problem of Induction wherein he relied heavily upon Michael Martin to deal with the presuppositionalist utilization of the famous problem. He apparently recognizes, to some extent, the alleged challenge set forth. My response to his post may be found here - http://choosinghats.blogspot.com/2009/09/

Mitch LeBlanc's Proposed Solution to the Problem of Induction

2009-09-16T21:01:00.000-07:00

IntroductionMitch LeBlanc has written a post concerning induction ( found here - http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/inductive-reasoning-and-the-christian-god/ ) in which he writes that “the uniformity of nature (or rather the principle of the uniformity of nature) states that ‘the future will resemble the past’ and is used in inductive reasoning”. He then attempts to describe the difference

Logical Fallacies In Presuppositionalism

2009-09-16T17:04:00.000-07:00

“I'll be honest Chris…it amazes me that just like Greg Bahnsen you've done a degree in Philosophy yet can't see through the multitude of logical fallacies present in presuppositionalism. Like all other presuppositionalists you also appear completely unable to demonstrate to any degree of satisfaction how Christ presents you with wisdom, knowledge or certainty despite these bold claims.”Notice the

Helping Dawson Recognize a TA

2009-09-09T17:21:00.000-07:00

This lengthy (well, at least by my standard) reply is in response to comments Dawson Bethrick and I have traded in response to my post “Dawson’s (Mis)Understanding of TAs” found here Dawson wrote: I’m not sure why this is so important to you. As I indicated in my original comment, not only does RK not provide an argument for his god’s existence, he does not – from what I can see – provide any

What's up with the blog?

2009-09-08T15:29:00.001-07:00

Please excuse our constant change of face as I try out different blog templates over the next day or so.

Dawson's (Mis)Understanding of TAs

2009-09-07T16:05:00.000-07:00

This post is in response to a series of back and forth comments between Dawson Bethrick and myself in the post Missing the Basics below:BK wrote: “If you are truly uninitiated enough about Presuppositionalism as a method to think it is exclusively used in arguments for the existence of God, then I suggest you go back and do some more reading on the subject.”  Dawson wrote: I never stated that

Response To Mitch LeBlanc's Odd Ontological Argument

2009-09-04T12:17:00.000-07:00

Mitch LeBlanc has written an alleged defense of his attempt to redefine God and hence defeat the presuppositionalist program. You may find his article here:http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/a-response-to-chris-bolt-on-presuppositionalism-and-gods-honesty/Mitch writes, “I would first like to explain that while the idea of a lying God is logically absurd on a Thomist conception of God, it is

A Brief Introductory Response To Mitch LeBlanc Concerning His Question

2009-09-04T09:44:00.000-07:00

Mitch LeBlanc has written an alleged defense of his attempt to redefine God and hence defeat the presuppositionalist program. You may find his article here:http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/a-response-to-chris-bolt-on-presuppositionalism-and-gods-honesty/During a debate, Mitch asked of Razorskiss, “What if God is deceiving you?”Several times now I have stated that this question is subject to

Dawson Bethrick, The Man Who Builds His House Upon The Sand

2009-09-03T17:34:00.001-07:00

Bethrick's most recent response to my post here - http://choosinghats.blogspot.com/2009/09/all-bethrick-all-time.html is frankly one of the poorest responses I have ever seen him make. Objectivists, as I understand it, have never quite been accepted in the realm of academic philosophy (if you do not believe me, try to research the topic via philosophical sources; most encyclopedias do not even

All Bethrick All The Time

2009-09-02T22:41:00.000-07:00

I asked Mr. Bethrick what “previously validated knowledge” is, since he claims one can know a great deal based upon this, to which he responded, “Previously validated knowledge is knowledge that has already been validated, specifically in the context of new discoveries.” Of course, circular definitions are definitions which are circular. I do not see that Bethrick ever actually defines what he

A bit of a rant.

2009-08-31T14:16:00.000-07:00

We are, essentially, an accident. The universe is a given, we know not its origin or whether or not it even had one though we have made some good guesses concerning the topic. From the mix of things came the first life. We do not know how. All we know is that we are here now as the result of an incredibly long chain of consecutive moments derivative of the contingent particulars of existence.

Missing the Basics

2009-08-31T12:05:00.000-07:00

The Portable Presuppositionalist

2009-08-01T13:32:00.001-07:00

Our friend Jamin Hubner at http://www.realapologetics.org/ has taken great pains to put together a much needed book on the topic of...you guessed it, presuppositional apologetics! The book includes, among other things, a handful of articles written by contributors to this blog. I was shocked at how reasonable the price is as well. http://amzn.com/1439219915 Take a look and order it today!

A Very Brief Response To Bahnsen Burner Concerning Conditions Of Knowledge

2009-07-26T01:01:00.000-07:00

Unfortunately I see the recent response from Dawson Bethrick (available on his blog) as a lengthy discussion of topics rather irrelevant to the points I raised in my post that he is allegedly responding to concerning Conditions of Knowledge. I am at a loss as to why someone familiar with the topic at hand would understand my post as something other than a discussion of problems related

A friendly chat in simple terms.

2009-07-22T20:21:00.000-07:00

Chris: You are an unbeliever?Unbeliever: I'll say for argument sake that I am.Chris: For argument sake?Unbeliever: Yes it’s complicated. lolChris: How so?Unbeliever: I'm confused. Put it that way.Chris: I see. Would you say you believe in God?Unbeliever: I'm open to the possibilities.Chris: So, you attend church every other Sunday?Unbeliever: No. I stopped going to church.Chris:

Conditions of Knowledge

2009-07-21T23:01:00.001-07:00

In order for you to know something, it must be true, you must believe it, and you must have some kind of warrant for it.Believing occurs inside of you, and belief is “about” something. My computer desk cannot be about some other idea. A piece of raw meat cannot be about Hector Berlioz. However a belief can be about Hector Berlioz. “Hector Berlioz wrote thematic music” is a belief about Hector

Do we know anything at all?

2009-07-19T13:53:00.000-07:00

If we are going to be able to think about anything at all, we have to start somewhere. Where do we start then, and why? If we do not know, then can we think anything at all (intelligibly)?There appears to be no universal consent on any fact of existence; facts do not appear to speak for themselves, they must be interpreted, else everyone would agree and as already said they do not.You have made

Snakes and Slaves

2009-07-15T20:59:00.001-07:00