Friday, May 18, 2007

Did Dobson betray the prolife cause?

Recently, a Christian blogger whom I greatly respect accused Dr. Dobson of having betrayed the prolife movement for saying that he (Dobson) would never vote for Giuliani. Without going into all the pros and cons of this dispute, I'd simply note that Mark Levin and others have posted some useful material on the conservative movement generally and Rudy in particular:


  1. I don't always agree with Richard Land (SEE HERE), but I think he was right when he said that Giuliani is such much more elequent when defending abortion than are any of the Democratic candidates and is therefore more dangerous to the pro-life movement than is Hillary.

  2. Sorry my question is not directly related to this post.

    But I just dont understand how you presuppositionalist people think that just because we all have to presuppose god to have a coherent worldview somehow makes God real.

  3. Mike:

    Because if that's the case, then that's about as good of a philosophical argument that's ever been given for anything, ever. If that doesn't prove God's existence, then nothing is provable.

  4. Presuppoers say that we all need to presupose God to have a coherent worldview. I just point out that they just assume that a coherent worldview somehow necessarily corresponds to reality.

    Just granting what presuppers claim, that we all have to presuppose God to have a consistent or coherent worldview, doesnt make God real. What makes God real is that if he really exists, not that we have to include him to have a consistent worldview.

    My point is, in short, that TAG assumes coherentism. But what makes coherentism true?

  5. Mike,

    Are you arguing for the correspondence theory of truth? Where is the argument?

    Where is your non-arbitrary epistemic warrant for your own position? Can you provide one?

  6. I am not arguing for anything. I am just saying that presuppers are proving God only by assuming coherentism. You say that God exists because we have to include him in our worldview to have a coherent worldview.

    I am just pointing out the fact that that doesn't make God real, unless you say that what is real is what is rational. If you say that then you should present us with additional arguments for coherentism.

  7. Mike,

    If you don't think "coherentism" is real, then why do you live as though it is? Live out the implications of irrationality and then come back and talk to us....but then why would you want to have rational conversation anyway?

  8. Mike,

    ...and you're right, you aren't "arguing for anything". You're just making statements against presupposing the existence of God. And you've got the cart before the horse. Rationality exists because God does. What you have to explain then is how you could live in a rational world when no God exists. Though attempts have been made to do this, they end up to be self-refuting. That is inescapable. The real problem is the self-deception of the sinner when he is faced with such truth....