Stress-testing the
mind of Christ

Where a recovering ex-atheist rams the Bible into other worldviews to see what breaks (note: Scripture cannot be broken)


presentations
God is a necessary precondition for reason: a general invitation to debate

Some time ago, I entered into a debate with “JC” on the moot that “God is a necessary precondition for reason”. This debate stalled following my opening statement, due to JC not posting any response. All the attempts of myself and others to contact him failed. I would still like to properly debate this moot, […]

Some time ago, I entered into a debate with “JC” on the moot that “God is a necessary precondition for reason”. This debate stalled following my opening statement, due to JC not posting any response. All the attempts of myself and others to contact him failed.

I would still like to properly debate this moot, so as to prove the power and rationality of the Christian position against the impotent foolishness of secular thought, to the glory of God and the salvation of his elect. I therefore would like to issue a general invitation to anyone willing to take up this debate in the place of JC. The original conditions stand, though I am open to negotiation if good reasons are offered to change them.

If you, or anyone you know is willing to publicly defend the view that God is not a necessary precondition for reason, please post a comment below, or email me.

Update, January 31, 2008

Steve Zara has kindly agreed to take up the debate in JC’s place. Steve has advised me that he will get back to me within a few days as to how he’d like to proceed, so expect another update then.

6 comments

  1. Turretinfan

    I’d really enjoy observing such a debate. It’s classical Bahnsenism.

    -Turretinfan

  2. Dominic Bnonn Tennant

    Thanks for the encouragement, TF. Ironically, I have read very little Bahnsen—only about half of Always Ready. I’m basing my argument primarily around my own formulation of presuppositional apologetics, which is largely influenced by Vincent Cheung; and in this case integrating the general principles of the various arguments from reason, which I initially gleaned from Victor Reppert.

    As I said in the preliminary remarks for this debate, I actually have my doubts that the approach I’ve chosen will be able to positively prove all that I have set out to prove—so it will be interesting to see how far I can push it. Steve, who will be debating me, is quite a lot more familiar with this area of philosophy than JC was, so I am expecting to be particularly challenged. In one sense, I am glad for that, since it will ensure a more rigorous standard of debate; however, I hope that it won’t elevate the discussion too far above the normal lay apologetic that I try to keep as my focus.

    Regards,
    Bnonn

  3. Anonymous

    How’s this debate plan going? Any news from Steve?

  4. Dominic Bnonn Tennant

    According to a blog entry Steve posted today, his reply is almost complete and should be up in a day or two.

    Regards,
    Bnonn

  5. steve

    Indeed. My opening statement will up up this coming weekend.

  6. steve

    My statement is posted at:
    http://zarbi.livejournal.com/

  I don’t post ill-considered articles and I don’t sponsor ill-considered comments. Take a moment to review what you’ve written…