1,770 reputation
717
bio website
location
age
visits member for 3 years, 3 months
seen Sep 15 at 0:12

Oct
5
comment How is it that someone who lived thousands of years ago can “represent” me?
This is more a restatement that Adam is a representative, in that we are held accountable for his actions, than an answer as to why it makes sense. As Chelonian points out, the colonization of the Americas by Europeans does not seem to be a great analogy.
Oct
4
comment What is the meaning of “anything” in Matthew 18:19-20?
@Richard - Surely the conditions you list have been met by the loved ones of people imprisoned and later killed by dictators throughout the ages. So this then raises the question: is this an example of the Bible being in error? Or is the interpretation incorrect somewhere? (Or are the conditions essentially impossible to meet, e.g. because God's will is already set, and only if you happened to guess it and pray accordingly will things unfold the way you wished?)
Oct
4
revised Is there an argument that God, as a self-proving entity, is necessary for logic?
edited title
Oct
4
comment Is there an argument that God, as a self-proving entity, is necessary for logic?
@Richard - It's a sentence fragment. I'll make it less fragmentary.
Oct
3
comment Is there an argument that God, as a self-proving entity, is necessary for logic?
@Richard - Why did you change the title? It no longer matches the question or the accepted answer.
Oct
3
accepted Is there an argument that God, as a self-proving entity, is necessary for logic?
Oct
3
comment Is there an argument that God, as a self-proving entity, is necessary for logic?
That was it--it was a TAG argument in the style of Van Til (from the presuppositional apologetics link). The "further reading" may contain the exact argument--still checking it out. Thanks!
Oct
3
revised Is there an argument that God, as a self-proving entity, is necessary for logic?
edited tags
Oct
3
asked Is there an argument that God, as a self-proving entity, is necessary for logic?
Oct
2
awarded  Nice Answer
Oct
1
comment How should a Christian relate to pseudoscience?
@David Stratton - Uncommonly generous! Thanks for being willing to consider other perspectives.
Oct
1
comment How should a Christian relate to pseudoscience?
My comments to David apply here also--it's the evidence from experiments, not the beliefs of scientists, which make something scientific, and while a bit of pseudoscience might be true (almost by accident), the key distinction is that it's not science. Thus, I still feel that your answer starts off being misleading, essentially falling into the pseudoscience trap by focusing on the "science" part rather than the "pseudo" (in this case, "fake") part.
Oct
1
comment How should a Christian relate to pseudoscience?
I don't object to the conclusion--review the evidence. Absolutely--that's great! But the lead-in misleads badly by focusing on the possibility that theories that are well-supported might be wrong (and the implication is that everything would go out the window, which has scarcely ever been the case with well-experimentally-verified theories; at best there's a refinement of understanding). Pseudoscience is not like this at all: according to the chart it is just superstition that paints a facade of being like science.
Oct
1
answered How should a Christian relate to pseudoscience?
Oct
1
comment How should a Christian relate to pseudoscience?
-1 for lumping relatively sound science in with things that have essentially no evidence or are in dramatic contradiction with experiment. If you can find scriptural support for treating matters of near-certainty and superstition equivalently, then I'd change my mind, but I know of no such passage.
Oct
1
comment How do Christians justify their belief and how do they convince others of their belief?
The question is well-posed but out of scope for this format since you are essentially asking for a sizable portion of Christian apologetics to be encapsulated into one question, and there are entire books written on the topic.
Sep
30
comment By what mechanism could the Bible be inerrant?
Good background and perspective! I appreciate the answer, though I think S.M.'s more directly and (apparently) definitively answers the question and thus deserves to be the accepted answer.
Sep
30
accepted By what mechanism could the Bible be inerrant?
Sep
30
comment What is the interpretation of the bow in the cloud after the Flood?
@Mason Wheeler - That's a good objection to "all the waters of the flood were in the air". This answer only requires a thin gauzy layer of clouds, enough to make sunlight somewhat diffuse; I'm not sure that's physically plausible either (how do you maintain the cloud cover without sun striking the land/oceans to evaporate water?) but at least it could avoid the air pressure problem. But this is sounding like extended discussion, so I should stop.
Sep
30
comment How do we resolve the issue with the circular argument that the Bible is the basis for its own authority?
I have heard Biblical support given for the authority and accuracy of the Bible on several occasions (e.g. John 10:35, Matthew 22:29), . This is equivalent logically to saying "the Bible is authoritative because the Bible says so". I have not heard this from people trained in apologetics, at least not as the main part of the argument (it's brought up as a point of consistency, perhaps).