Revelational Epistemology Revisited
Atheism and the preconditions of intelligibility
Arbitrary reasoning and atheism
Who’s being rational? Atheists or Christians?
Responding to Dhorpatan’s critique of Christian epistemology
Responding to “AbusiveAntitheist” on the transcendental argument
Introduction to Revelational Epistemology (PART 1, PART 2, PART 3)
Answering “WitchHunter93” on “What is your evidence for God?”
MJF APOLOGETICS 
sorry but most of your arguments here have been refuted many times over Mike
Hi Tony-
Thanks for stopping by. Would you mind sharing an example?
like all that stuff about the preconditions of intelligbility, i have seen it refuted many many times before, why even i have refuted a few times before! For example- your proof of the uniformity of nature not only begs the question but also gives no more proof of nature being uniform then someone who just expects to do so!
Tony-
Thanks for providing an example. However, i’m not sure where I begged the question. Can you be more specific? To be honest, it’s been several years since i’ve made those videos and don’t even remember making any arguments related to induction, though I may very well have. But I do hold to induction and don’t think the naturalistic materialist can do so on objective and consistent grounds.
you talked about how the christians have a strong foundation on believing in the uniformity of nature in your vid about preconditions of intelliabiglity. There is a problem it begs the question- as it pushes the problem back on to god!
Tony-
That doesn’t beg the question when the question is actually induction. Positing a foundation for a position isn’t question begging when it’s not the “foundation” that’s begging (i.e. whether God exists). In other words, what’s “begging” if anything is induction. But I don’t see how i’m begging the question with induction.
What i’m proposing is whether naturalism has the proper foundation in which induction holds and can be expected to do so. The problem is, naturalism has no basis for which to *expect* the uniformity of nature whereas the Christian does based on the nature and character of God. But if you want to see how the theist proves God through induction, that’s a bit of a different issue, though it can be done. Right now we’re just asking which worldview can account for induction.
i am saying Mike that your foundation for induction begs the question
Begs what question? That I must prove God in order to posit him as an explanation for induction? That can be done, but that’s not necessarily the purpose of my argument in the first place. The first step is to answer which worldview can *account* for induction, which is a separate matter from answering which argument is true.
no i was not refering to proving god exists, but the fact is, using him to justify induction begs the question, which is an invaild way of justfitying induciton
The problem is, you’re not explaining how it begs the question or why it’s invalid.
then please justify the uniformity of god
Are you suggesting that if God does exist, then you would not expect induction? Remember, at this point we’re only talking about internal consistency.
no i am suggesting that if god exists you cant justify induction
How so?