James, Looks like a great book. I could only wish there was a chapter (or an appendix) on a how a loving God could determine one’s sin and subsequent condemnation for it.
https://www.proginosko.com/2024/03/how-could-a-loving-god-send-anyone-to-hell/#comment-2950
In reply to Marshall Wall. I'm thinking of the sort of problems for a naturalistic ev...
https://www.proginosko.com/2023/10/an-epistemological-argument-against-naturalism/#comment-2949
What are the other problems with the evolutionary objection to premise 1?
https://www.proginosko.com/2023/10/an-epistemological-argument-against-naturalism/#comment-2948
In reply to Bálint. Tenable? Well, I'd like to see receipts. It doesn't seem plausib...
https://www.proginosko.com/2023/10/an-epistemological-argument-against-naturalism/#comment-2947
Hi James, I think Premise 3 is the most vulnerable one, because it's tenable to maintain that all necessary truths are analytic, including the examples you give. My understanding is that the leas...
https://www.proginosko.com/2023/10/an-epistemological-argument-against-naturalism/#comment-2946
Did Cornelius Van Til Coin the Term “Transcendental Argument”?
In reply to James. Wikipedia mentions that Seth adopted the surname exte...
In reply to David Byron. Indeed! Victor Reppert mentions Balfour's argum...
In reply to David Byron. It didn't click when I first read your comment ...
It's probably worth noting, too, that Balfour made an evolutionary case against naturalism as early as 1914, arguing in his Gifford Lectures (published as "Theism and Humanism: Being the Gifford ...