Christocentric Philosophy

There is something of a meme in Christian apologetics circles, especially those that endorse the Kalam or other cosmological arguments. The meme is “bUt WhO cReaTeD gOd??” It’s a meme that ridicules people who object to cosmological arguments by asking the above question or similar questions. The question “who created God” is really an objection aimed that the causal principles in cosmological arguments. Basically, if everything has a cause (causal principle), then God must also have a cause!  The consensus amongst most apologists is that such an objection is one of the weakest against (modern) cosmological arguments because it fails to realize that the causal principles utilized in such arguments are limited in scope. The Kalam Cosmological Argument, for example, uses a causal principles that only applies to things that began to exist. So when the question is asked “but who created God?” Or “but what caused God?” The answer is immediately given that God does not need a cause becau...

 Hey guys! So this is a short e-book I worked on. I decided to share it with you guys. It’s titled I AM, therefore I think . And it’s totally FREE! All you need to do is sign up and have it delivered by mail. You can get it here:  https://mailchi.mp/c25721df602e/i-am-therefore-i-think

This is a dialogue I had concerning whether the gods of Islam and Neoplatonism can be absolute. Person 1 : Why would probability be unintelligible on Islam or Neoplatonic theism? Daniel : because none of them posits an absolute God. Person 2 : that is straightforwardly false but okay. Daniel : It’s not. Neither the God of Islam nor the god of “Neoplatonic theism” are absolute. Person 2 : please demonstrate that. Daniel : God of Islam is a unity. Therefore, prior to creation there was only one person. Such a God cannot be maximally loving, or good, or personal, because all these things only make sense within the context of interpersonal relations. Hence, the Islamic God *needs* his creation in order to express his attributes. Hence is not self-sufficient or absolute. The Neoplatonic god has not revealed himself. His existence is only known through proofs. This makes such a god logically derivative. A logically derivative god is finite and cannot be absolute. Person 2 : (1) your critique...

  A few weeks ago, in this post , I presented what I call the Transcendental Argument from Conceptual Inadequacy . Discussions surrounding the argument have led me to believe that I left out a crucial step in the defense of a certain premise. In this post, I attempt to remedy this. First of all, let us recall the argument. The argument is as follows: Conceptual Inadequacy renders knowledge of an object impossible. When a subject S experiences a sufficiently foreign object, S’s conceptual framework is necessarily inadequate. Conceptual Inadequacy can only be dispelled through information (acquired directly or indirectly) from the creator of the object. The universe is a sufficiently foreign object. Therefore, either (a) our conceptual framework is inadequate with respect to the universe, or (b) we possess information from the Creator of the universe. If (a), then knowledge of the universe is impossible. If (b), then knowledge of the universe is possible. Therefore, knowledge of the ...

All Presuppositionalists are not created equal. More precisely, all Presuppositionalists are not the same. Being a presuppositionalist can sometimes be frustrating, especially if one spends time doing “Internet apologetics”. As presuppositionalists, our main goal is to engage unbelievers and defend the Christian faith (at least, it should be). However, in some cases, when your interlocutor discovers the fact that you are a presuppositionalist, they lose all interest in engaging in a fruitful dialogue. A few reasons are given for this, ranging from “Presupps cannot be taken seriously because they are ignorant” to “Presupps are not worth talking to because they are dishonest, obnoxious, etc.”  Obviously, these are sweeping generalizations. Not all presuppositionalists are ignorant or obnoxious. There are well-informed and gracious presuppositionalists. However, one cannot ignore the fact that these generalizations have some basis. This may be surprising or not depending on who you as...

Against Autonomy II: A Response to David Pallmann This would be another installment in the little back-and-forth David Pallmann and I are having. He first released this video critiquing Bahnsen and Presuppositional Apologetics.  Then I responded with this article. Now, recently David released another video responding to his critics (including me). The video can be found here . Preliminary Considerations First of all I’d like to commend David. I think his response video was thoughtful and well put. I think a lot of my points in my initial response article were unclear and the details could have been fleshed out better. In any case, I still believe the heart of my points and criticisms are valid and I intend to use this post to flesh them out and respond to David’s criticisms thoroughly. David responded to other critics of his video so I would only interact with the sections devoted to me. That being said, let’s dive right into this. Dilemma for Defenders of Circularity? David’s firs...