roger wasson company - cheapersunglasses.com

pound this system is to be taken on a strictly philosophical
level: no personal implications are intended, even if at times I
appear to bite the argument with more than usual invective.
But it is always the argument and not the men that I would thus
"bite": it is to the insufficiency of their approach as a basis for
Christian apologetics that we address ourselves, and by no
means to the grandeur of their persons.
As for the precise methodology of our criticism: the most
feasible procedure will be the consideration of the basic assertions
in the order in which they have been set forth in our positive
formulation.
Detailed Criticism
Concerning the assertion that the basic metaphysical postulate
is insusceptible of proof.---(1) In the first place, the assertion
involves a basic misunderstanding concerning
epistemology. It is granted that any argument starts with something
as given: that such is the case we [[167]] have already attempted
to establish in Part I of the present work. Yet argument
thus starts, not with a basic metaphysical ultimate---say God, or
matter in motion---but with a common basis of rationality and
experience in terms of which the validity of one's metaphysical
assertion is to be justified. Men---if Christian theism be correct---come
to experience with a rational structure of mind
which, when consistently applied to that experience, yields the
conclusion that God exists as theism construes that existence.
On the Christian view experience would be unintelligible if
God did not exist: but it is the fact of God's existence, not the
original knowledge of it, which makes the intelligibility of experience
possible. Unbelievers, after all, do, like Christians,
apprehend their experience as rational: what they fail to do is to
carry through this apprehension to its highest explanation in the