RazorsKiss on the Christian God as the Basis of Knowledge

Articles by Dawson Bethrick






In early August 2009, a non-Christian named Mitch LeBlanc brought to my attention a debate he had recently participated in with presuppositionalist apologist Joshua Whipps. LeBlanc is a contributor to UrbanPhilosophy.net, while Whipps publishes under the moniker “RazorsKiss” both on his own blog as well as on the blog Choosing Hats. According to LeBlanc, the debate was originally conducted in a chatroom hosted by LeBlanc’s website. LeBlanc posted a transcript of the debate on his own site (see here), and RazorsKiss did so as well (see here). The latter version, on RazorsKiss’ site, seems to be more complete.


Shortly after LeBlanc directed my attention to his debate with RazorsKiss (“RK”), I made a printout of the debate transcript and began examining RK’s case, beginning with his opening statement, and then moving on to his rebuttal to LeBlanc’s position, the question and answer section, and the follow-up responses.


As I reviewed RK’s statements, I realized that I was looking at a golden opportunity for my blog, Incinerating Presuppositionalism. I immediately began to set down in a series of notes my own reactions to RK’s claims, and the following articles are the result of perusing RK’s statements and culling together various points I had drafted in response to them.


Part 1: Overview of RK’s Epistemology (originally published on August 13, 2009 here): RK asserts that “there is a fundamental problem with the way the entire world thinks about the basis for their own knowledge” and claims that he has “a basis for my knowledge which is utterly higher, and transcendentally greater than I, or any other human being can ever hope to be.” Is that so?


Part 2:  RK’s Axioms (originally published on August 18, 2009 here): RK claims to have “two axiomatic, interrelated foundations” for his epistemology, without which one is presumably incapable of reasoning or accessing the laws of logic. But are RK’s “axioms” truly axioms?


Part 3: RK’s “No Brute Facts” Claim (originally published on August 19, 2009 here): RK made a number of claims about facts. Are these claims factual? Let’s see.


Part 4: RK on Man’s “Warrant” for Using Logic (originally published on August 20, 2009 here): RK raised the issue of having “warrant” for using logic. Is it truly the case that one does not have “warrant” for using logic without believing in the Christian god?


Part 5: Exodus 3:14 (originally published on August 21, 2009 here): In his debate with LeBlanc, RK made reference to Exodus 3:14, which some apologists have cited as a biblical affirmation of the law of identity. Is this true?


Part 6: RK on the Christian’s “Certainty” (originally published on August 24, 2009 here): RK insinuates that certainty is a “privilege” which only Christians can enjoy. But how reliable is the Christian’s claim to certainty, given his presuppositions?


Part 7: Rival Epistemologies (originally published on August 25, 2009 here): A comparison of Christian “epistemology” with rational epistemology.


Part 8: The “Impossibility of the Contrary” (originally published on August 26, 2009 here): This lengthy analysis examines the oft-repeated presuppositionalist claim of “the impossibility of the contrary,” the mantra which apologists often cite as the ultimate proof of the Christian worldview.


Part 9: Supernatural Deception (originally published on August 28, 2009 here): Elaborating on a question which Mitch LeBlanc posed to RazorsKiss, this article examines the claim that the Christian cannot be deceived in his god-belief.




Back to Katholon