This article is right up my alley so thank you. I appreciate how you laid that out and any recommended reading would be appreciated.
One thing I do have issue with is that many Christian apologists accept modern scientific theory like it can't be contested. Science is evolving and there are other theories that may make more sense given the facts. I guess what I am saying is why are Christians using modern theoretical models of science in apologetic defense of God?
I prefer the method of using philosophy and logic such as laid out in your article.
Glad you enjoyed it! Bahnsen's work covers some of this although I don't agree with him on everything. Rebecca McLaughlin's Confronting Christianity as well as Tom Holland's Dominion look at things from more of a historical angle. The Craig Atkins debate fleshes out some of the issues with the presuppositions of scientism towards the end section of the debate where Craig and Atkins are in dialogue. These may be some helpful starting points. However science changes we cannot avoid an extent to which rules of logic, mathematics and the rational intelligibility of the universe are still applicable. I don't find these immaterial assumptions consistent with a non-theistic worldview at all. Appreciate you engaging and sorry for the delay! Keep up the good work.
This article is right up my alley so thank you. I appreciate how you laid that out and any recommended reading would be appreciated.
One thing I do have issue with is that many Christian apologists accept modern scientific theory like it can't be contested. Science is evolving and there are other theories that may make more sense given the facts. I guess what I am saying is why are Christians using modern theoretical models of science in apologetic defense of God?
I prefer the method of using philosophy and logic such as laid out in your article.
Glad you enjoyed it! Bahnsen's work covers some of this although I don't agree with him on everything. Rebecca McLaughlin's Confronting Christianity as well as Tom Holland's Dominion look at things from more of a historical angle. The Craig Atkins debate fleshes out some of the issues with the presuppositions of scientism towards the end section of the debate where Craig and Atkins are in dialogue. These may be some helpful starting points. However science changes we cannot avoid an extent to which rules of logic, mathematics and the rational intelligibility of the universe are still applicable. I don't find these immaterial assumptions consistent with a non-theistic worldview at all. Appreciate you engaging and sorry for the delay! Keep up the good work.
Science is rigor and a rigorous examination of all available evidence has never found a way to support any version of god.
You're presupposing transcendence to disprove transcendence.