tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post6466711373283958276..comments2024-03-27T09:11:00.450-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: RazorsKiss on the Christian God as the Basis of Knowledge - Part 1: Overview of RK's EpistemologyBahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-15163517439997915082009-08-22T02:04:49.416-04:002009-08-22T02:04:49.416-04:00Okay, MM, I'll be keeping an eye out for it. I...Okay, MM, I'll be keeping an eye out for it. If it can fit in the comments section, go ahead and post it here if you like. If it's too big for a comment post (Blogger now has a size limit), you can e-mail it to me at: sortion@hotmail.com.<br /><br />Thanks in advance! I'm looking forward to it - a great topic for a blog entry.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-84745935615623019332009-08-22T01:08:13.228-04:002009-08-22T01:08:13.228-04:00Dawson,
I'm going to get the argument from a ...Dawson,<br /><br />I'm going to get the argument from a religionist I know and I will get back to you.<br /><br />MMmadmaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14375140131881725965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-11141155235044987952009-08-21T13:37:34.654-04:002009-08-21T13:37:34.654-04:00Hi Jay and Madmax,
Thanks for your comments. Sorr...Hi Jay and Madmax,<br /><br />Thanks for your comments. Sorry for my delay in responding... It's been unpredictably busy for me this week.<br /><br />In regard to question about one having to have "faith in reason," I think you're right, MM - I don't think I've addressed this claim specifically on my blog. I've encountered it myself numerous times in the past - perhaps in a forum which is no longer on the net??? <br /><br />Was there anything else said in tandem with this claim to support it? Any definitions of terms stated, any argument proposed in defense of this conclusion? Without these, the objector essentially concedes the matter to those who do provide definitions. Of course, the detractor at that point could always claim that his position has been misrepresented. Then again, if the opportunity to provide an informed defense of his claim has been forfeited, then he doesn't have much ground to stand on.<br /><br />I've made some notes on the matter, but would prefer to address the claim in the detractor's own words, especially if he does define his terms and/or presents an argument for this claim. Anything more you can add?<br /><br />Let me know, and I'll be happy to address it.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-91997207512534947492009-08-18T16:48:22.325-04:002009-08-18T16:48:22.325-04:00More excellent material Dawson. Your interaction w...More excellent material Dawson. Your interaction with RazorKiss looks to be an interesting one. <br /><br />OT: I'd like to ask if you have dealt with the theistic claim that one must have "faith in reason"? A site search didn't bring up anything which looked on target.madmaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14375140131881725965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-45661900924485355392009-08-18T14:03:42.414-04:002009-08-18T14:03:42.414-04:00Just posting to say I really enjoyed your most rec...Just posting to say I really enjoyed your most recent postings here. I used to be moderately-to-heavily involved in the apologetics/atheology Internet forum scene. But now, Incinerating Presuppositionalism is the only blog on the topic I still check and read.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09604208085934821426noreply@blogger.com