Incinerating Presuppositionalism: Year Nineteen

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

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.

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.

Concepts and Induction

Years ago I was in correspondence with a Christian apologist who presupposed that Christianity and only Christianity could solve the problem of induction. There were many Christians at one time who actually believed this. Perhaps some still do.

This apologist carefully demonstrated how a number of prominent academic treatments of the matter missed the mark, sometimes by wide margin, when it came to providing a justification for inductive presuppositions. The apologist of course claimed that the existence of a universe-creating deity which actively “ordains and sustains” the “created order” provides the rational justification which secular scholars could only miss due to their chronic “unbelief.”

Answering Objections to my ‘Horse’s Mouth’ Collection

A commenter posting under the name “Jim” recently left reaction to my 2005 entry From the Horse's Mouth: Apologists Shooting Themselves in the Foot, asserting that I’m “being intellectually dishonest” in the “list of quotes” that I present in that entry. Jim called out three quotes and chastised me for my own comments on those quotes.

Given that Jim’s blogger profile indicates that he’s been on Blogger since 2024 and his comment was posted on the morning January 1, 2024, one might surmise that he created his account expressly to post his comment on my blog. I just found that curious.

Below I will consider Jim’s objections in order so that we can see how well they hold up.

Bahnsen’s “tremendous philosophical mistake”

Presuppositionalists love to tout the debate between Greg Bahnsen and Gordon Stein. In apologetic circles, it is commonly believed that Bahnsen got that evil atheist Stein real good, and no atheist thinker can really be capable of crawling back from that public whipping.

Of course, such evaluations are quite superficial and self-serving, and they willingly ignore many striking deficiencies in Bahnsen’s presentation (see for example here, here, here and here).

However, what’s curious is that apologists do not tend to point to Bahnsen’s discussion with George H. Smith, author of Atheism: The Case Against God.

Anderson’s Anti-Epistemological Argument Against Naturalism

Recently Christian apologist James Anderson recently published An Epistemological Argument Against Naturalism. Readers are encouraged to take a look for themselves.

There is much that I could provide in response to what Anderson presents there, but along with some comments about Anderson’s overall approach to the matter, I’m going to confine my present objections to two primary areas. In my estimate, the objections I will present below are sufficient to refute this argument beyond recovery. (Mind you, in doing so, I am not attempting to defend “Naturalism” as a worldview, for no version of Naturalism that I have looked at addresses the fundamental philosophical needs which Objectivism addresses.)

If, after reading through what I have to say here, readers still have further questions on Anderson’s argument, feel free to post a comment. Reader feedback is always welcome.