Comments on: The Case Against Presuppositionalism: Part III

By: Transcendental Argument for God: Mitchell LeBlanc, Pt. 1

Transcendental Argument for God: Mitchell LeBlanc, Pt. 1 — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 14:37:38 +0000

[...] Mitchell. “The Case Against Presuppositionalism” (13/Oct/09), “Part II” (23/Oct/09), and “Part III” (30/Oct/09). [...]

Yet Another Response to Bolt on Presuppositionalism | Urban Philosophy — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 23:42:47 +0000

[...] Blunder Part II: Continuing to ErrThe Case Against Presuppositionalism: Part IIIThe Case Against [...]

No Place To Stand | Choosing Hats — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 09:23:08 +0000

[...] Therefore my response will be brief and will focus on the last of the three posts found here: http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/the-case-against-presuppositionalism-part-iii/ A few observations concerning the Strawman Fallacy will be followed by an example of an [...]

Bolt’s Blunder: Misunderstanding Apologetics | Urban Philosophy — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 08:05:38 +0000

[...] The Case Against Presuppositionalism: Part IIIThe Case Against Presuppositionalism: Part IIThe Case Against Presuppositionalism [...]

J. K. Jones — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:32:21 +0000

God is unchanging, therefore anything that is necessitated by His nature is unchanging. The laws of logic do not change because God does not change.

Besides, TAG is not an argument per se. It just shows that logic has no ground without God. It does not prove that the laws of logic are consistent.

J. K. Jones — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:32:00 +0000

God is unchanging, therefore anything that is necessitated by His nature is unchanging. The laws of logic do not change because God does not change.

Besides, TAG is not an argument per se. It just shows that logic has no ground without God. It does not prove that the laws of logic are consistent.

Mitchell LeBlanc — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:36:53 +0000

Cheers Chris! I published the wrong post revision, I’d already edited the attribution beforehand. =(

There’s also no need to put ‘your’ in quotations as the attribution is clear. =]

Mitchell LeBlanc — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:36:00 +0000

Cheers Chris! I published the wrong post revision, I’d already edited the attribution beforehand. =(

There’s also no need to put ‘your’ in quotations as the attribution is clear. =]

C.L. Bolt — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:25:28 +0000

It is good to see you doing some homework. Just FYI, I noticed that you credit “your” third argument to Meister, but that is incorrect.

C.L. Bolt — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:25:00 +0000

It is good to see you doing some homework. Just FYI, I noticed that you credit “your” third argument to Meister, but that is incorrect.