My Books

Hello! If you like the content on this blog, you can check out some of my books here:



The Folly of Unbelief: Philosophical Illustrations of the Futility of Unbelieving Thought (Amazon)

The Folly of Unbelief presents a clear and powerful illustration of the philosophical futility of unbelief. The Bible tells us that only the foolish reject Christ and His revelation. The Folly of Unbelief presents a philosophical illustration of this biblical truth. 

“ If the only item in your apologetic arsenal is the question, "By what standard?", then frankly, you don't have an effective apologetic.

How, then, can we present a biblically faithful, but intellectually serious, apologetic methodology? Daniel Akande, an up-and-coming Van Tilian author, has written the enchiridion for all presuppositional apologists looking to step up their game.

Traversing issues ranging from universals and particulars to mathematical relations to moral and epistemic normativity, Akande deftly vindicates the Christian worldview as the only viable system of thought capable of securing the foundations for rational thought. The author exposes the folly of unbelief in its manifold forms: naturalism, deism, unitarianism, and polytheism—all of which slay reason on the altar of chance and impersonalism.”

Chris Matthews, Author at Lamb's Reign and editor of the Journal of Christian Reconstruction


  I AM, therefore I think: Irrefutable Proof of God’s Existence (FREE)

Comments

  1. randomozzydudeOctober 21, 2021 at 10:43 PM

    Hi Daniel. I've recently watch a couple of recent videos where you've discussed your latest book "The Folly of Unbelief..." I found the interview with Eli Ayala from Revealed Apologetics most interesting and I'd like to purchase a PDF version of your book. I can only find the Kindle version and hoping you can steer me to a website where I can download one? Looking forward to reading your book Daniel. God bless.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Failure of Classical Apologetics

Classical apologetics attempts to rationally defend the Christian faith by employing, in most cases, the traditional proofs for God's existence. Offering proofs such as the cosmological, teleological, ontological and moral are the first in a two-step approach to establishing Christianity. The second being offering arguments from fulfilled  prophecy, miracles, resurrection, etc. Classical apologists aim to first establish that this is a theistic universe and then appeal to the arguments mentioned in the second step to distinguish Christianity from other forms of theism. In my estimation, such an approach to apologetics proves inadequate and unsatisfactory for reasons I will spell out shortly. I will divide these reasons into two categories - theological and philosophical. Theological Since the conclusion of the classical approach is that Christianity is probably true or is the most probable amongst others, the unbeliever is always left with an excuse to reject the existence of Go
Read more

Brute Facts Are Mute Facts: A Van Tilian Transcendental Argument

Recent discussions on the Internet have led me to believe that there is a need to write this post. Here I will be clarifying, formalizing, and defending an argument which I believe is central to Van Til’s thought. To my knowledge, there is no such clarification and formalization of the argument available and so in writing this article, I hope to bring something fresh to the Van Tilian’s arsenal of arguments. Van Til’s Doctrine of Analogy Central to Van Til’s thought is the doctrine of analogy. Van Til made a distinction between reasoning that is univocal and reasoning which is analogical . Greg Bahnsen describes univocal reasoning in this way: “ Univocal” reasoning does not honor the Creator-creature distinction, but assumes that God and man approach knowing in the same way and under essentially the same conditions. It refuses to “think God’s thoughts after Him” (cf. chap. 4.5 above) and asserts its intellectual autonomy. 1 However, for Van Til, human knowledge must be analogical. Tha
Read more

Why Atheists Can’t Know That 2 Apples + 2 Apples = 4 Apples...

The title of this article may be a bit misleading. There are obviously very capable and very knowledgeable mathematicians who are atheists. Such people do not only know that two apples plus two apples equals four apples, they can also provide elaborate proofs of the various mathematical theorems that undergird such a truth. This post is not meant as an attack on the intellect of atheists but rather as an attack on atheism as a philosophical system . A more accurate title would be “ Why Atheists Can’t Know that 2 Apples + 2 Apples = 4 Apples If They Were Being Consistent With Their Philosophical System ”. I know, not very catchy! But what is it about atheism as a philosophical system that precludes knowledge of a truth so basic and fundamental that even children know it? The short answer is that atheism commits one to an autonomous epistemology—an epistemology that rejects the necessity of divine revelation. Believing that two apples plus two apples equals four apples is easy enough. Th
Read more