tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post372618301669866948..comments2024-03-29T07:36:41.429-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: Some Thoughts on Presuppositionalism and the Problem of EvilBahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger69125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-25919448482213265632014-05-21T09:08:43.212-04:002014-05-21T09:08:43.212-04:00Hi Johan,
Thanks for your comment and your sugges...Hi Johan,<br /><br />Thanks for your comment and your suggestion.<br /><br />No, I do not have a Facebook account. I have never thought of using one for promoting my blog. I probably wouldn't since I would prefer to keep discussions here on my blog, and I'm not necessarily interested in "increasing traffic" per se. Blogger keeps records of "hits" on my page, and it's plenty as it is. It's enough of a challenge to keep current with everything the way things already are.<br /><br />But thanks for sharing the idea.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-5448521120145938892014-05-21T08:57:22.584-04:002014-05-21T08:57:22.584-04:00Hi Dawson,
just wanted to tell you that I really ...Hi Dawson,<br /><br />just wanted to tell you that I really appreciate you work.<br /><br />Do you have a fb-page for the blog?<br />That might be an idea.<br /><br />best regards, Johan.l_johan_khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15467379458813206767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-11271152904946138032010-11-19T15:06:02.481-05:002010-11-19T15:06:02.481-05:00@Dan
"The purpose of morality is to teach yo...@Dan<br /><br />"The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live."<br /><br />come on man why are you scared to answer Dawson's questions?! ; ]<br /><br />what cosmic force is holding you back? is it predestined that you wont answer? ; ]Rossehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14776245630516727155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-73525668475827526302010-11-19T13:48:16.265-05:002010-11-19T13:48:16.265-05:00Action Jackson(on a diet),
>>lol Dan compar...Action Jackson(on a diet),<br /><br />>>lol Dan compares dawson to a pedophile?!?!?!?!?!?! ooo...I just laughed so hard I gave birth to a virgin<br /><br />I thought someone would like that. I don't want to disapoint after all. <br /><br />I really cracked up to what Yaeger said in one of <a href="http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2009/12/rise-of-atheism-unhappiness.html?showComment=1262059560504#c2027287256558756994" rel="nofollow">my posts</a>.<br /><br />I dubbed it as Yaeger's Law: "As a discussion on morality grows longer, the possibility of someone bringing up pedophilia approaches 1."<br /><br />Oh so true.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-71434533836070800332010-11-19T13:36:10.022-05:002010-11-19T13:36:10.022-05:00Action Jackson (on a diet),
Where I agree with Cr...Action Jackson (on a diet),<br /><br />Where I agree with Craig's response I still like <a href="http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2010/08/sufficient-evidence.html" rel="nofollow">Zacharias'</a> response best to that question.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-30500546734668329842010-11-19T13:35:30.798-05:002010-11-19T13:35:30.798-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-57371545198899985102010-11-19T13:33:40.991-05:002010-11-19T13:33:40.991-05:00lol Dan compares dawson to a pedophile?!?!?!?!?!?!...lol Dan compares dawson to a pedophile?!?!?!?!?!?! ooo...I just laughed so hard I gave birth to a virgin<br /><br />lol sorry dawson u dont have to post this but that attempt at denigration really had me going.Rossehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14776245630516727155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-45228339225140532782010-11-19T13:25:22.759-05:002010-11-19T13:25:22.759-05:00oops lol my user name is retarded b/c its from one...oops lol my user name is retarded b/c its from one of my websites...this is actionjackson864 Ive spoken with dawson before. ; ]Rossehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14776245630516727155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-77865529406953533082010-11-19T13:23:46.890-05:002010-11-19T13:23:46.890-05:00http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwo4Zq-CyFs&NR=...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwo4Zq-CyFs&NR=1<br /><br />William Lane Craig's response to the problem of evil..."god's morally sufficient reason" for evil.Rossehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14776245630516727155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-85162957661966153492010-11-17T19:22:41.459-05:002010-11-17T19:22:41.459-05:00Hi Dan,
Thanks for your latest comment. Unfortuna...Hi Dan,<br /><br />Thanks for your latest comment. Unfortunately I do not have time to post a reply to everything you’ve said as I’m going out of town early AM tomorrow and have to prepare for my travel. But I’ll see if I can get back to you upon my return.<br /><br />In the meantime, I just wanted to address this:<br /><br />Dan wrote: “Also, like its been said before, assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging.”<br /><br />I asked: “How so?”<br /><br />Dan responded: “What do you mean?”<br /><br />What I mean is, precisely what I asked: how does “assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists” beg the question? I was asking for you to explain your comment, to substantiate your claim. Please be as thorough as you can so that I understand your train of thought on this.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-63025841000506767202010-11-17T13:27:54.422-05:002010-11-17T13:27:54.422-05:00Dawson,
I like you, but at times its aggravating....Dawson,<br /><br />I like you, but at times its aggravating. You are smart "enough" to know what is going on and what is at stake here. You get the message and the points but you are one to drag things out and "act" like you are not getting points and keep insisting on clarification of the obvious. As I said in the past arguments, you are unwilling to concede to an explanation of points. Remember your dogmatic position on "judge not, lest ye be judged"? Its what lead me to conclude "for any future points you make I am forced to resolve to the response of "To reason with you against your point is futile." Not because I am unable to, but because you are unwilling to accept any counter argument."<br /><br />Its like you are constantly digging to find a hole.<br /><br />Maybe that is a bad analogy, I certainly don't want you to twist that to mean that I believe a search for God is 'emptiness' or whatever spin you can attribute to my words. One must take a cautious approach with you, after all. <br /><br />>>I was hoping you could give Warren’s position in his own words rather than a paraphrase of your own making.<br /><br />In the process of looking for the exact quotes I came across <a href="http://www.discerningreader.com/book-reviews/the-purpose-driven-life" rel="nofollow">this review</a> that mirrors what I was thinking and believe when I read the book. Yes I did read it, and rejected it.<br /><br />>> Go back and review my blog entry: I did not cite Price anywhere to bolster my points.<br /><br />Go back and review my comment entry: I did not address you about Price. I did reference you as a believer of objectivity, but I was addressing Robert.<br /><br />>>...the formula for salvation which you attribute to Warren bears a striking resemblance to the formula given in Romans 10:9.<br /><br />Quote mining does not benefit anyone, especially you. You, of all people, know to take things contextually. You're better then that, as we both know. Repentance is a large part of understanding God's gift of salvation. Repentance comes BEFORE knowledge of truth, not after: 2 Timothy 2:24-26<br /><br />In your writings, you are quite set in your beliefs. If you have researched and concluded about morality already then there is not much I can do here. My arguments are not intended to be convincing, I am merely commanded to speak the truth, 'convincing' is out of my hands.<br /><br />In discussing things with you I do feel like a dog chasing your rabbit down the hole, read trap, that you have created. I am weary. That being said, I am also curious as to how you address matters.<br /><br />I just don't understand upon what objective moral foundations do you, as an atheist, condemn whatever it is you think God has done wrong? (or whatever the subject is)<br /><br />"<i>If</i> there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true , but rather because of a series of chemical reactions… … Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else." ~Douglas Wilson<br /><br /><b>Also, like its been said before, assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging.</b><br /><br />>>How so?<br /><br />What do you mean?D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-50873316895132746482010-11-16T18:26:23.737-05:002010-11-16T18:26:23.737-05:00Dan: “I understand your point but you missed mine....Dan: “I understand your point but you missed mine. I am not the one referencing Price to prove my point. I merely pointed out that this guy, that you two loved so much, counters your worldview.”<br /><br />Dan, I got your point, which is why I stressed the importance of understanding what Price meant by his statement. Also, I pointed out that I don’t always agree with Price. Simply put, Price is not an Objectivist, nor do his statements speak for Objectivism. Price makes a lot of great points, but he’s not a philosopher, he’s a theologian and NT scholar. You’d have to find much more than a passing comment in a verbal interview to “blow” my worldview out the water. <br /><br />Dan: “Of course Price's worldview clashes with mine, but I am not using him as evidence for my argument, am I?”<br /><br />For that matter, I wasn’t using Price as evidence for mine, either. Go back and review my blog entry: I did not cite Price anywhere to bolster my points. Also, Robert B. introduced Price’s interview because he thought Price “has an interesting opinion” on the POE. Hardly any indication that everything that comes out of Price’s mouth is understood to be infallible wisdom.<br /><br />Dan: “Submission to His Salvation is the single greatest way you can glorify God.”<br /><br />I don’t see where the WSC affirms that “the Gospel” and “salvation” are integral to man’s purpose. You seem to be inserting this meaning into what it does say.<br /><br />Dan: “On around page 58 of his purpose driven life book. He claims all you need to do is accept Jesus into your life and then you are saved.” <br /><br />I was hoping you could give Warren’s position in his own words rather than a paraphrase of your own making. <br /><br />Dan: “Nothing Biblical about that at all.”<br /><br />Actually, the formula for salvation which you attribute to Warren bears a striking resemblance to the formula given in Romans 10:9.<br /><br />Dan: “More accurately is Jesus needs to accept you, not the other way around.”<br /><br />I guess the apostle Paul got it wrong when he was penning Romans 10:9.<br /><br />Dan: “The Bible is true because it first makes the claim that it is true, proves itself internally, AND denial of the truth of the Bible leads to absurdity.”<br /><br />This is unhelpful, for it still demonstrates your willingness to call something “true” when it has no *objective* support. All three tests that you indicate are strictly internal, and one could cite these three tests on behalf of any set of mystical writings. So my original assessment stands.<br /><br />Dan: “I will not engage you on the topic of morality, unless you first justify your ability to reason about morality - which of course you will be unable to do.”<br /><br />A couple questions for you here. First, you seem entirely willing to engage me on other topics, though I have not sought to present some elaborate justification for my ability to reason on those topics to your liking. So why all of a sudden do you advance this hurdle that I need to meet before you answer my three questions on morality?<br /><br />Second, exactly what would I need to do to “justify [my] ability to reason about morality”? I’ve written on the topic of morality numerous times on my blog, and I’ve not seen where you’ve shown that any reasoning I’ve applied to the matter is deficient in any way. I apply morality in my daily life all the time, so that’s evidence right there that I can reason about morality. But I’m guessing you want something in addition to this. But what?<br /><br />Third, in conjunction with the above, could you show me where you have justified *your* ability to reason about morality, so that I can see a model of what such a justification should, in your view, look like? Indeed, I’d think my three questions would be an ideal opportunity for you to demonstrate your ability to reason about morality. <br /><br />Dan: “Also, like its been said before, assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging.”<br /><br />How so? <br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-75496782569343793592010-11-16T16:41:51.660-05:002010-11-16T16:41:51.660-05:00Dawson,
>>So if Price’s statement “blows ev...Dawson,<br /><br />>>So if Price’s statement “blows everyone’s… position… out of the water,” it blows yours out of the water along with everyone else’s, and you’re just in denial about it.<br /><br />I understand your point but you missed mine. I am not the one referencing Price to prove my point. I merely pointed out that this guy, that you two loved so much, counters your worldview. Of course Price's worldview clashes with mine, but I am not using him as evidence for my argument, am I? Price, and you two, are absolutely wrong by the ample of evidence, and knowledge, of our Creator and His Word.<br /><br />>>It states that “man’s chief end [i.e., his purpose] is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.”<br /><br />Yes, I completely agree. We are to preach the Word (Gospel) and glorify God in all things. Submission to His Salvation is the single greatest way you can glorify God. You want to glorify God? Keep the Sabbath Holy. BTW, Jesus is our Sabbath Rest, if you didn't understand that part. (Hebrews 4:9-10, Matthew 11:28-30)<br /><br />>> Where does Warren say this specifically?<br /><br />On around page 58 of his purpose driven life book. He claims all you need to do is accept Jesus into your life and then you are saved. Nothing Biblical about that at all. More accurately is Jesus needs to accept you, not the other way around. Plus, he never mentions repentance even once in his book. He is a false teacher. He needs to do a Bible study (Titus 3:5-6)<br /><br />>>In other words, your entire epistemology is based on the assumption of subjectivism.<br /><br />*sigh. You see, this is why I avoid engaging with you. Your spin is annoying. You're completely wrong, yet again. The Bible is true because it first makes the claim that it is true, proves itself internally, AND denial of the truth of the Bible leads to absurdity. It is also the claim of the Christian that God reveals the truth of His Word to us directly such that we can be certain of it.<br /><br />>>By the way, Dan, I’m still wondering how your worldview would answer the questions I’ve posed to you about morality.<br /><br />I will not engage you on the topic of morality, unless you first justify your ability to reason about morality - which of course you will be unable to do.<br /><br />Also, like its been said before, assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-89619481385658137442010-11-15T19:36:29.047-05:002010-11-15T19:36:29.047-05:00Thanks for the link, Robert. As always, Price make...Thanks for the link, Robert. As always, Price makes some very interesting observations. I agree that the biblical view of man presumes that his life is inherently meaningless, since it teaches that this is man's default condition, that meaning/purpose/value must be injected into man’s life from outside it. This is essentially the very same point I have made in regard to the presupper view of <a href="http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2010/02/uniformity-of-nature.html" rel="nofollow">the uniformity of nature</a>. Since, according to presup, uniformity must be imposed on nature by the Christian god, nature on this view is inherently chaotic, precisely what they say it isn’t when we perform inductive inferences. Without this premise, there’d be no role for the Christian god in the matter to begin with. The presupper relies on the same tired gimmick in both cases.<br /><br /><br />Dan wrote: “I giggled when I heard at around 4:15 of that interview where he says that any valuation ‘must’ be subjective. Kinda blows everyone's (you and Dawson's) position here out of the water.”<br /><br />You grant Dr. Price much power, Dan, able to “blow everyone’s… position… out of the water” with a single statement. But what you ignore is the fact that, if Price is right, then what he says applies across the board, not only to those whom you select. So if Price’s statement “blows <i>everyone’s</i>… position… out of the water,” it blows yours out of the water along with everyone else’s, and you’re just in denial about it.<br /><br />Of course, I don’t agree with everything Dr. Price says, and reserve the right to think with my own mind, thank you. Then again, what do you think Dr. Price means when he says that any evaluation “must be subjective”? Given the context of what he says, he seems to be saying that moral evaluation is internal, essentially that it is a firsthand conscious action, in which case I would completely agree. I don’t get the impression that he means moral evaluation necessarily has no objective basis, which is apparently how you’re interpreting his statement.<br /><br />Dan: “I also noticed that they were talking about Rick Warren and the like. That is certainly not in any realm of Bahnsen and Til. Warren's most popular book speaks of a purpose without ever mentioning the Gospel or Salvation, the actual purpose of life.”<br /><br />That’s an odd statement, Dan. You must reject the Westminster Shorter Catechism then. It states that “man’s chief end [i.e., his purpose] is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.” This says nothing about “the Gospel” or “Salvation.” John Frame endorses what the WSC states as “man’s own chief end” (<i>Apologetics to the Glory of God</i>, p. 185). So to be consistent, you should say that Frame is “certainly not in any realm of Bahnsen and Van Til,” even though Frame was one of Van Til’s own pupils.<br /><br />Dan: “He feels that if you do work that is 'good enough' that you enjoy time with God in Heaven.”<br /><br />Can you support this charge, Dan? Where does Warren say this specifically? I’m not saying he doesn’t, just want to see it in his own words if in fact he does say this.<br /><br />Dan: “Rick Warren is a false teacher that the Bible speaks of.”<br /><br />Dan, anyone who “teaches” Christianity as truth, is a false teacher by definition, for he’s teaching falsehood. So Warren’s right in the same camp as Bahnsen and Van Til.<br /><br />Dan: “The Bible is infallible, not because some pastor says it, but God Himself says it in His Word and then proves it daily and hourly.”<br /><br />You grant much power to the imaginary, Dan. But what’s crucial for everyone to recognize is your assumption that truth conforms to what someone *says* it is, rather than conforming to independently existing facts. In other words, your entire epistemology is based on the assumption of subjectivism.<br /><br />By the way, Dan, I’m still wondering how your worldview would answer the questions I’ve posed to you about morality. That’s because you’ve avoided answering them. But what have you got to lose?<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-23904850370873956822010-11-15T13:27:40.006-05:002010-11-15T13:27:40.006-05:00Bumbalough,
I giggled when I heard at around 4:15...Bumbalough,<br /><br />I giggled when I heard at around 4:15 of that interview where he says that any valuation "must" be subjective. Kinda blows everyone's (you and Dawson's) position here out of the water. Thanks for that. You appear to be your worst enemy. Keep up the great work.<br /><br />I also noticed that they were talking about Rick Warren and the like. That is certainly not in any realm of Bahnsen and Til. Warren's most popular book speaks of a purpose without ever mentioning the Gospel or Salvation, the actual purpose of life. He feels that if you do work that is 'good enough' that you enjoy time with God in Heaven. Rick Warren is a false teacher that the Bible speaks of. (2 Peter 2:1) Your comparisons are hardly fair.<br /><br />The Bible is infallible, not because some pastor says it, but God Himself says it in His Word and then proves it daily and hourly.<br /><br />That link was a very weak argument. In fact it was not an argument at all, they were gripes and complaints.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-37385041950181071782010-11-14T23:20:26.115-05:002010-11-14T23:20:26.115-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-24720892674171695992010-11-14T21:03:21.409-05:002010-11-14T21:03:21.409-05:00Dawson,
I'm eagerly waiting for your next pos...Dawson,<br /><br />I'm eagerly waiting for your next post. <br /><br />Far be it for me to suggest things for your blog, but I would enjoy seeing some "teaser posts," that would let us readers in on what subjects you plan to cover in the near future. <br /><br />One area I would like to see you tackle is the notion of "common grace." One apologist I'm acquainted with loves to invoke this whenever he is questioned about why non-believers are able to enjoy and appreciate all that which is available to our senses (sunsets, beauty, etc.), even though we, as "non-believers" are "totally depraved" and do not deserve such enjoyment. <br /><br />Thanks.<br /><br />YdemocYdemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-69191671820790894952010-11-14T18:09:34.219-05:002010-11-14T18:09:34.219-05:00Ditto all the compliments Dawson. You've got a...Ditto all the compliments Dawson. You've got a knack for clarifying complexity. <br /><br />Robert M. Price in and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbuxQi3XE6c&feature=related" rel="nofollow">interview</a> with D.J. Grothe and starting at 1:42 has an interesting opinion on positions like those of Dr. Greg Bahnsen. <br /><br />Best Wishes and RegardsAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-50258641607561417842010-11-07T21:39:01.820-05:002010-11-07T21:39:01.820-05:00riggs,
Are you saying that presupping has any dep...riggs,<br /><br />Are you saying that presupping has any depths? Unless you are talking dishonest rhetorical depths I would disagree.<br /><br />Anyway, please just carry on.<br /><br />G.E.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-82865062004867728132010-11-07T21:34:15.338-05:002010-11-07T21:34:15.338-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-21072197040260793222010-11-05T16:25:44.840-04:002010-11-05T16:25:44.840-04:00Thought experiment? Is that the new explanation?
...Thought experiment? Is that the new explanation?<br /><br />So, you claim with one breath that it was a 'thought experiment', implying that you knew all along it was wrong but that you were accommodating my position. Then with the next breath you say that you 'admitted' you were wrong, implying that you initially actually thought that you were right. Those are mutually exclusive positions Dan. Stop lying.<br /><br />Plus, the only reason you reversed your position was because I had to explain to you that you were actually saying the complete opposite of what presuppers claim. You never 'compromised [your] position for [my] benefit'.<br /><br />My point, then and now, is that you have NO CLUE of the tenets of the position you claim to support, yet you continue to blab out the same lines. And as long as you continue to do so, I'll continue to link to the evidence that you're parroting lines that you don't even understand.<br /><br />Stick to your ABC evangelising Dan - you're way out of your depth here. Srsly.rhiggshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16246371823456833408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-54072852177287769012010-11-05T16:07:46.683-04:002010-11-05T16:07:46.683-04:00Rhiggs,
I am so sick of you throwing past thought...Rhiggs,<br /><br />I am so sick of you throwing past thought experiments in my face. I obviously have recanted that position long ago but you still bring it up to the point it is abusive. So it disappears into the oblivion of past thought. <br /><br />I admitted I was wrong then. I was merely attempting to persuade instead of preach the Word and that is where I went wrong. I compromised my position for your benefit and it backfired. I recantD. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-70548547538054371172010-11-05T16:02:00.056-04:002010-11-05T16:02:00.056-04:00Dan: “Christianity cannot provide any intellectual...Dan: “Christianity cannot provide any intellectually warranted answers to morality? Wow, that is rich. Good luck with that.”<br /><br />So far it’s proven to be extremely successful. Just look at the foregoing. Simply posing a few very basic questions about morality sends the apologist running. If you think Christianity *can* provide intellectually warranted answers on morality, then again here are the questions:<br /><br />1. What is morality?<br /><br />2. Does man need morality?<br /><br />3. If so, why?<br /><br />But so far you’ve been reluctant to address any of them. <br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-71581654809910357052010-11-05T15:53:46.456-04:002010-11-05T15:53:46.456-04:00It's hard to know which side would benefit mor...It's hard to know which side would benefit more from Dan participating...<br /><br />Actually, wait, <a href="http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2010/06/atheist-excuses.html?showComment=1278473589451#c8301288688970790470" rel="nofollow">it's not</a>. Sign him up!<br /><br />:-Drhiggshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16246371823456833408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-67298934151594165972010-11-05T15:52:35.626-04:002010-11-05T15:52:35.626-04:00Dawson,
>>Dan, you're reaching for any ...Dawson,<br /><br />>>Dan, you're reaching for any excuse not to dialogue on an important issue which you realize, deep down, that Christianity cannot provide any intellectually warranted answers to.<br /><br />You're right, your not trying to coax anyone. *pshaw<br /><br />Christianity cannot provide any intellectually warranted answers to morality? Wow, that is rich. Good luck with that.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.com