jubalsqaud
Puritan Board Freshman
Here is the problem.
Atheism is the assertion that there are no gods.
Atheists use the word "god" to designate entities that have the same properties we have
A atheist understands the argument
P1 if God knows X and I know X then we both know X
P2 God and I know X
C therefore we both know X
to be using the word "know(s)" consistently with the same meaning, that is "justified true belief"
This means the word "know(s)" is univocally used throughout
However:
Van till's usage of anthropomorphic terms are not univocal.
So God "God knows X" should actually be taken as "God quasi-knows X"
But...
"God quasi-knows X" and "God knows X" do not express the same proposition
This leads to the problem of actually finding a difference in what Van Till believes and what atheists believe.
Atheists, if logically consistent with there own claim, are ok with the idea that a non-mind might be given anthropomorphic properties.
"The sea was angry, but the western winds soothed it"
Is fine for a atheist.
Likewise they are fine with "God knows X (analogical)" as long as "God knows X (univocal)" is false
This is because analogical knowledge is not knowledge
With atheism a omni God has the same property of knowledge we have, he just has more justified true beliefs.
For Van Till God doesn't have any justified true beliefs, he has some mystery property also called knowledge.
In fact there cannot be any way to make a univocal omni God to a non-univocal omni God both fit under theism.
This is because a non-univocal omni God is so utterly alien to creation that he can't have its properties.
Univocal omni Gods are entirely creaturely in property set but non-univocal are entirely non-creaturely.
They are not kinds of the same thing, as right triangles and equilateral triangles are.
Rather they are like Bat the mammal vs bat the stick you place baseball with.
If Theism includes univocal omni Gods then theism excludes non-univocal omni Gods.
Conversations between believers in non-univocal omni Gods and atheists play out like this
Person 1 "Im a abatist, I don't believe in mammals of the order chiroptera"
Person 2 "Well your wrong because I hit a homerun at a baseball game with a Louisville Slugger yesterday, which is a bat"
It doesn't matter if person 1 and 2 are using the same word "bat" , those words are don't mean the same thing.
Atheism is the assertion that there are no gods.
Atheists use the word "god" to designate entities that have the same properties we have
A atheist understands the argument
P1 if God knows X and I know X then we both know X
P2 God and I know X
C therefore we both know X
to be using the word "know(s)" consistently with the same meaning, that is "justified true belief"
This means the word "know(s)" is univocally used throughout
However:
Van till's usage of anthropomorphic terms are not univocal.
So God "God knows X" should actually be taken as "God quasi-knows X"
But...
"God quasi-knows X" and "God knows X" do not express the same proposition
This leads to the problem of actually finding a difference in what Van Till believes and what atheists believe.
Atheists, if logically consistent with there own claim, are ok with the idea that a non-mind might be given anthropomorphic properties.
"The sea was angry, but the western winds soothed it"
Is fine for a atheist.
Likewise they are fine with "God knows X (analogical)" as long as "God knows X (univocal)" is false
This is because analogical knowledge is not knowledge
With atheism a omni God has the same property of knowledge we have, he just has more justified true beliefs.
For Van Till God doesn't have any justified true beliefs, he has some mystery property also called knowledge.
In fact there cannot be any way to make a univocal omni God to a non-univocal omni God both fit under theism.
This is because a non-univocal omni God is so utterly alien to creation that he can't have its properties.
Univocal omni Gods are entirely creaturely in property set but non-univocal are entirely non-creaturely.
They are not kinds of the same thing, as right triangles and equilateral triangles are.
Rather they are like Bat the mammal vs bat the stick you place baseball with.
If Theism includes univocal omni Gods then theism excludes non-univocal omni Gods.
Conversations between believers in non-univocal omni Gods and atheists play out like this
Person 1 "Im a abatist, I don't believe in mammals of the order chiroptera"
Person 2 "Well your wrong because I hit a homerun at a baseball game with a Louisville Slugger yesterday, which is a bat"
It doesn't matter if person 1 and 2 are using the same word "bat" , those words are don't mean the same thing.