READ MY POSTS

FEATURED POSTS

  1. The Bootstrap Defeater Argument Part 4 (defense of premise 3)
    26 Feb, 2016
    The Bootstrap Defeater Argument Part 4 (defense of premise 3)
    Anything that always existed could not be part of or the same as that which began to exist. This will be both basic and simple, as it is nearly first nature to believe such a statement. After all, something that began to exist had a beginning which means that it is contingent, and something that has always existed is non-contingent. Contingent things and non-contingent things, logically speaking, cannot be the same due to the law of non-contradiction. Also, that which is contingent begins and
  2. The Bootstrap Defeater Argument Part 2 (premise 1 defense)
    11 Feb, 2016
    The Bootstrap Defeater Argument Part 2 (premise 1 defense)
    If anything began to exist, something must have always existed. As one who is not a huge fan of long winded defenses of premises, I will seek to be brief, maybe even too brief for the likes of some of you. Nevertheless, my defense will be adequate and sufficient. OK, so obviously the entire argument, and the truth or falsity of this first premise, relies on the "IF" at the beginning of it. So the question then is, Did anything EVER begin to exist. Now, many would assume here that I must
  3. The Bootstrap Defeater Argument (an original)
    09 Feb, 2016
    The Bootstrap Defeater Argument (an original)
    Over the next several posts on here I will be briefly defending each of the premises of this argument. For now suffice it to say that, well, here is the argument.    If anything began to exist, something must have always existed. That which has always existed necessarily precedes that which began to exist. Anything that always existed could not be part of or the same as that which began to exist. The universe began to exist. The universe is necessarily material in essence. Therefore, something
  4. The Danger of Arguing "Around" Theology and the Gospel (originally posted on 5/23/2015)
    05 Feb, 2016
    The Danger of Arguing "Around" Theology and the Gospel (originally posted on 5/23/2015)
    ​(originally posted on 5/23/2015) I know a lot of apologists, some very prominent and others just getting started in the industry. One of the things that I have noticed is that some of them tend to argue and converse with non-believers in a way that seems to avoid talking about their personal, spiritual beliefs relative to their Christianity in order to make the other person more comfortable and willing to accept their arguments. This, however, is a huge problem. Why? Because this leaves out
  5. Arguing: The Primary Goal of the Apologist? (originally posted on 6/4/2015)
    05 Feb, 2016
    Arguing: The Primary Goal of the Apologist? (originally posted on 6/4/2015)
    ​(originally posted on 6/4/2015) Many apologists today say things like, "I love to argue," or "I love to debate!" Now before I go on I must admit that I too love a good intense conversation. However, the thing I like about these types of conversations is the fact that, at least in theory, the people in the discussion grow closer to the knowledge of the truth by the end of the discussion. I fear that this is not the case though for many apologists. For some, they seem to simply thrive off of the

TAGS