The Matt Slick Fallacy

UseOfReason

  1. 0. Introduction. Matt Slick; evangelical Calvinist, radio presenter, apologist. He has made something of a name for himself by promoting a version of the ‘transcendental argument for the existence of God’. His version is one of the easiest to refute that I have come across. However, in all the debates and online discussions I’ve seen Slick engage in, and to be sure he engages in a lot, I have never seen anyone offer what I consider to be the correct refutation. So I will present it here.

    His argument was given on his radio-show/podcast, on 17th December, 2015, in an episode entitled ‘A Proof of God’. In fact only the last 14 mins of the show are dedicated to this topic, when Slick is prompted by a caller – ‘Hollywood dude’. I will use that version as a foil. Here is the link it on his official ‘CARM’ podcast…

View original post 1,998 more words

Advertisements

The Death of a Soul

Graceful Atheist

On my last day as a Christian I was reading a couple of Greta Christina’s blog posts on why she does not believe in a soul [1] [2]. This proved to be the final presupposition to fall before I admitted to myself I no longer believed.

As I have mentioned before, the hardest part for a believer to overcome is their own subjective experience. There is nothing more subjective than what one experiences as I. Our consciousness screams in our heads “I Am.” The thought that this being called I could have an end is so psychologically frightening that all of our evolved self protection mechanisms come into play to protect us from realizing its inevitable inexorable truth: death comes to us all eventually.

To protect ourselves from the psychological blow that acknowledging one day I will die, we have come up with…

View original post 487 more words

Truth

The Undercover Agnostic

Does Christianity have a right to the claim of absolute truth?  I’ve been mulling this over lately because it seems that most Christian apologists, bloggers, and preachers at some point and up asking their audience what they think truth is or if they believe in truth.  It usually degenerates into a word-salad of further and further diluted ideas until they feel they have a nonbeliever cornered or have found their first level at agreement from which to begin their assault.  I know this works both ways.  However, I find few unbelievers who claim to have absolute truth.

View original post 712 more words