Hello Anthony,
Quote:
|
I looked but did not see this proof. Could you quote the proof and add a link.
|
I am not sure how to provide a link directly to the post. It is found on the previous page. Here is the quote...
Quote:
You (Sean) are missing the key point. You must begin with a priori knowledge to derive any knowledge from Scripture. They key question is this, "Is this a priori knowledge justified apart from Scripture?" Your answer is "no." This means that either the a priori knowledge is not justified at all, or it is justified by Scripture. Let's consider these two possible cases:
Case 1 (the a priori knowledge is not justified)
If this a priori knowledge is not justified, then all derivations based on this unjustified knowledge are unjustified. Since, all derivations of Scripture utilize a priori knowledge, then all derivations of Scripture are unjustified under this scenario. You deny this possibility.
Case 2 (the a priori knowledge is justified by Scripture)
How do we know that a priori knowledge is justified by Scripture? Your answer is that a priori knowledge is derivable from Scripture, and this justifies it as being knowledge. Yet, all derivations of Scripture utilize a priori knowledge. So, the derivation used to justify a priori knowledge must use a priori knowledge. This means you are assuming that which you are trying to prove. It is along the lines of arguing that A is justified because of B, and when asked what justifies B, you respond with A. It is a vicious circle.
Clearly, neither case 1 nor case 2 are desirable options, and as such it refutes your claim that there is no knowledge justified apart from Scripture. Consider the following argument.
1. Prove A: A priori knowledge used in derivations of Scripture is justified apart from Scripture.
2. Assume ~A: A priori knowledge used in derivations of Scripture is not justified apart from Scripture.
3. ~A-->(Case 1 or Case 2)
4. ~(Case 1 or Case 2)
5. ~~A by the logical law of Modus Tollens.
6. A by the Law of Negation.
Q.E.D. |
If this proof is unsound, which premise is false and why?
Quote:
|
I covered this before. You have made a mistake in your understanding of Clark. Your reading is uncharitable. The correction is as trivial as is the processes of deducing A from (A & B & C & D). It's the rule of simplification: If (A & B & C & D) are true, then A is true.
|
First off, in what sense is my reading uncharitable? I understand Clark's axiom to be the universal affirmative statement "The Bible is the Word of God." You understand his statement to be the conjunction of all the propositions of the Bible. My critique does not hinge on either understanding. So, in what sense am I being uncharitable? It may be mistaken, but it is not uncharitable.
Let me remind you why this is even a topic. I claimed that all of the propositions of Scripture were theorems of Clark's system. Sean, who now refers to me as a dishonest liar, asked me to prove this. My argument is simply that the individual propositions of Scripture are derived from the axiom in Clark's system. Clark said so himself when he said that "from the one axiom it follows syllogistically that such and such a sentence in Scripture is true because it is the Word of God." (This is true no matter how one construes the axiom.) By definition, this makes the propositions of the Bible theorems of the system. Do you disgaree with this?
Sincerely,
Brian