jubalsqaud
Puritan Board Freshman
It seems there are only two ways there can be a account of revelation
God reveals to you that there exist a explanation for X but doesnt tell you WHAT the explanation is
or
God reveals to you that there is a explanation of X and also that the explanation for X is Y
If option 1 you know that the laws of logic depend on god but you dont know how.
if 2 you know that the laws of logic depend on god because he told you divine conceptualism is true. (or whatever other answer he gave)
If 1 then the proof is useless apologetically, as its not publicly accessible
if 2 then you should be able prove from the laws of logic that conceptualism is true.
So why even bother with presup?
option 2 is the only useful option and if you have option two you could just prove god exists
God reveals to you that there exist a explanation for X but doesnt tell you WHAT the explanation is
or
God reveals to you that there is a explanation of X and also that the explanation for X is Y
If option 1 you know that the laws of logic depend on god but you dont know how.
if 2 you know that the laws of logic depend on god because he told you divine conceptualism is true. (or whatever other answer he gave)
If 1 then the proof is useless apologetically, as its not publicly accessible
if 2 then you should be able prove from the laws of logic that conceptualism is true.
So why even bother with presup?
option 2 is the only useful option and if you have option two you could just prove god exists