Keith Devens .com

"That ethics are impossible on an atheistic worldview..."

This has been refuted over and over again. There are many possible bases for ethics: Perhaps they are biological (result of evolution), perhaps they are rules that people just come to a consensus on, perhaps it's simply enlightened self-interest (game theory), or perhaps it's merely emotional (empathy and the golden rule.)

"Theism destroys the preconditions that are necessary to do science."

Ridiculous. The only preconditions for science are observation, induction, and deduction.

"Even Russell had to admit that the inductive principle[1], the very basis of scientific inquiry, must be simply assumed from the start."

Assuming the inductive principal has nothing to do with God. It's mere observational common sense. Throughout our entire experience, the inductive principal seems to be true, therefore we may assume it unless it's demonstrated to be false. Theism is actually the opposite of believing in the inductive principal, since a handy definition of the supernatural would be "that which violates the inductive principal (miracles, etc.)"

"That ethics are impossible on an atheistic worldview..."

This has been refuted over and over again. There are many possible bases for ethics: Perhaps they are biological (result of evolution), perhaps they are rules that people just come to a consensus on, perhaps it's simply enlightened self-interest (game theory), or perhaps it's merely emotional (empathy and the golden rule.)

You refute yourself. The very fact that you present multiple incompatible "possible bases for ethics" shows that you have no objective ethical system.

atheism destroys the preconditions that are necessary to do science

Ridiculous. The only preconditions for science are observation, induction, and deduction.

I explained in my post that the inductive principle, which is the foundation upon which scientific inquiry is built, is simply assumed on an atheistic worldview. I didn't make this up - no less a philosopher than Bertrand Russell made this claim - and he was an atheist. I can quote where he says this if you'd like...

Assuming the inductive principal has nothing to do with God.

On the contrary, a God that created and orders the universe gives us a justification for believing in the inductive principle. To say that the inductive principle is based on observation begs the question. Russell makes this argument quite cogently.

Induction: The practice of deriving general principles from particulars

Anonymous, this clearly does not refute Christianity. However, induction is supported by the Christian contention that there are laws of nature instituted by God. If they are laws, their operation must be constant. Hence, induction is guaranteed.

Keith, Hume has been refuted by Coady. Hume's blanket statement that no one has ever observed a dead man come to life is plainly assumed. Hume offers no support for this assertion. Hume has not exhaustively questioned witnesses nor is he privy to the sum of human experience.

Keith, how does presuppositional epistemology deal with the chicken/egg problem of scriptural acceptance? It seems that it always presupposes God's Word, yet God's Word came to us developmentally, one book at a time.