Quote:
Originally Posted by jdlongmire  the key is "seemingly" vs "absolutely" contradictory... |
But it worse than that. In Van Til's view, the "apparently contradictory" is irreconcilable to the "human" mind. To the mind of man, the "apparent" contradiction is just as strong as the "absolute" contradiction since neither is reconcilable as far as we are concerned.
I think this is one point (apparent verse real contradiction) in Van Til's system that should be abandoned.
And one should keep in mind the definition of a contradiction. A contradiction is found where the truth of one proposition makes another proposition false. If A and B are a contradiction, then if A is true, then B is false, or if A is false, then B is true. The implication of this is that when one finds two contradictory propositions, then to believe both are true is irrational - for it is not possible for both to be true. So one can not rationally believe contradictory propositions.
It is also important to note that one can not resolve contradictory propositions by adding additional propositions. If A & B is a contradiction, then no additional propositions can change that. It is not rational to say we can resolve A and B by adding additional propositions.
One must determine that either A or B is true, and the other is false. There is no middle state. You can not say (A & B) is false, but possible (A & B) & C, is true. So whether real or apparent, we can not excuse believing contradictory propositions with the excuse that our knowledge is limited, because no additional knowledge can resolve a contradiction. Rather, additional knowledge will only go towards helping us decided which of the contradictory propositions is true. In the mean time, it is still irrational to believe both A and B are true.