It is that time once again to celebrate yet another year of this blog!
Today Incinerating Presuppositionalism turns 19! The better part of two decades is almost complete! And boy, time sure does fly when you’re having fun!
As I do each year rather unceremoniously, I list out all entries posted since the previous anniversary, and this entry will itself be accessible in the blog sidebar.
516. Incinerating Presuppositionalism: Year Eighteen - March 26, 2023
517. - TASC: The Transcendental Argument for Square-Circles – April 1, 2023
518. Bahnsen’s Poof Revisited… Again - May 29, 2023
519. Frank Turek vs. the Laws of Nature - June 25, 2023
520. ”What are the odds…?” - July 30, 2023
521. Do the Senses “Distort”? - August 27, 2023
522. Jason Lisle on Sensory Experience and Epistemology - September 25, 2023
523. Vistor Questions on Jeff Durbin and Formal Debates with Apologists - October 23, 2023
524. Anderson’s Anti-Epistemological Argument Against Naturalism - November 1, 2023
525. Bahnsen’s “tremendous philosophical mistake” - December 27, 2023
526. Answering Objections to my ‘Horse’s Mouth’ Collection - January 3, 2024
527. Concepts and Induction - February 3, 2024
528. Is the Axiom of Existence “Ambiguous”? A Reply to Eli Ayala - March 3, 2024
529. Peikoff on the Invulnerability of the Axioms - March 6, 2024
As always, I want to express my gratitude to anyone who takes the time to read anything I post, and especially to those who take the time to post their own reactions in the comments. I read every comment and when I can, I do try to make time to reply.
I do have a number of entries currently in the draft stage – it will take some time to get them ready to post. The work never stops! In the meantime, if readers encounter new variants of theistic defenses that they’d like to share, you’re welcome to make use of the comments.
With that, we set off on our journey to a major new milestone!
by Dawson Bethrick
"Presuppositionalism" is the name given to a special branch of Christian apologetics. In this blog, I will post my criticisms of presuppositionalism as it is informed and defended by apologists such as Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, Cornelius Van Til, Richard Pratt, and their latter-day followers.
Blog Chronology
▼
Important Stops
▼
Tuesday, March 26, 2024
Wednesday, March 06, 2024
Peikoff on the Invulnerability of the Objectivist Axioms
Since it is inevitable that Christian apologists will, when it is expedient to do so, dispute the truth of the Objectivist axioms, I thought it might be helpful to dedicate a single entry here on Incinerating Presuppositionalism showcasing Leonard Peikoff’s mock dialogue between a defender of the axioms and someone who denies their truth.
Here Peikoff shows how a denial of each of the axioms both exposes the detractor’s own absurdity as well as confirms the inescapability of their truth.
Here Peikoff shows how a denial of each of the axioms both exposes the detractor’s own absurdity as well as confirms the inescapability of their truth.
Sunday, March 03, 2024
Is the Axiom of Existence "Ambiguous"? A Reply to Eli Ayala
I’m often fascinated at the lengths to which Christian apologists will go in order to salvage the wreckage of their worldview when confronted with Objectivism. The amount of energy they pour into creating ways of obfuscating and evading can be staggering. And throughout it all, it is ironic to observe how high they set the bar for non-Christian worldviews on certain topics while ignoring the fact that Christianity itself has no player to send into the arena to compete. A great example of this is when apologists assert that non-Christian worldviews lack the necessary preconditions for knowledge while Christianity itself has no theory of concepts to begin with. Apologists themselves seem oblivious to this enormous shortfall.
We have observed apologists trying to wrestle with the axiom of existence in the past. It’s clear that to the last one, they undoubtedly sense the threat that the Objectivist axioms pose to the Christian worldview, and yet they fail to grasp the power of their truth. What’s most bewildering is their insistence to deny the axioms all the while unaware that their own denials would not be possible if not for the truth of the axioms they deny.