Quote:
Originally posted by SemperFideles
....
By the way, you guys confirmed what I thought: You will not, a priori accept any Paradox.
So, from that standard, you rule out that God has withheld information and every place where an apparent contradiction occurs it is up to man's reason to fix the premises until the paradox is resolved.
I'll stick with being perceived as lazy. Much less dangerous...
[Edited on 5-24-2006 by SemperFideles]
|
Read my comments on logic and contradictions in my first post. Clark and Van Til both rule out real contradictions, so an apparent contradiction is apparently not Scripture. Scripture does not contain any contradictions. And since additional premises can not correct contradictions, then limited knowledge is not the problem. The problem is incorrect understand of Scripture to start with.
You don't like changing the premises. Good, I don't either. But if some premises I hold lead to a contradiction by correct reasoning, then I know one thing, that one of the premises must be false. Additional premises can not make all of them true. Additional premises can only help me know which premise is false.
Now if I can not determine which premise is the false one, I still know that one of them must be false - because (as Van Til and Clark seem to agree) Scripture is not outside the realm of the law of non-contradiction. We can not get past that fact. Something is wrong, and no new information can make those premises all true. If X and Y contradict - all the information in the world will not make them non-contradictory. The only question is which one is false and which is true. And if and when we determine which is false - to embrace both X and Y is irrational - and God's Word if fully rational. We don't embrace non-scriptural proposition.