Preconditions of Intelligibility

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by Civbert

Originally posted by SemperFideles

Originally posted by Civbert

Originally posted by SemperFideles
Genesis 1:1

Nope.

Honestly, at this point then, based on the way in which you respond (which is pagan) I am left with two choices regarding your denial of God as necessary for all:

1. Proverbs 26:4
2. Proverbs 26:5

By the way, I'm still waiting on what I demanded long ago in this thread: Provide us with any kind of pattern in the Prophets or the Gospels or the Epistles where apologetics gave away that God is not necessary for all. There is a notable lack of Scripture in your posts. I'd settle for a single example where a Christian character even remotely resembles what you affirm is proper apologetics.

[Edited on 5-25-2006 by SemperFideles]

See the last paragraph in my response to Jeff regarding "all things" - God knows all things, is all powerful, is all loving - but it's a sin to over-generalize these statements to make them mean what God's word does not mean. Else you have no answer for the fool who says, if the Bible says all men have sinned, and Jesus was a man, then Jesus sinned. Are you willing to concede such a point?

As for Scripture usage, if you want to call me a fool, go ahead, but I think you might be more careful in you application of Scripture. It's one thing to try to correct a brother's errors in love, it's another to insult a brother's character using God's Holy Word. The verses you gave were not spoken to the fool, but to someone who is trying to be wise in he's dealing with fools. The proper application then might be if I was seeking you for advise on how to deal with a foolish person, then you would reference those verses. It seems to me that you are using the verse to say you think I'm a fool. Even if you are correct, you have miss-used God's Word.

Let me be clearer in what I am saying:

You are talking as if you are a pagan. Pagans are fools. Ergo, you are talking like a fool in the statements you are making when you say that God is unecessary for logic. If that insults you then I cannot help what you feel about that statement but pagans say what you're saying. They are not Christian statements. They are not statements of belief.

I did not say you were an unbeliever but when somebody is acting like an unbeliever I'm going to call them on it.

You also continue to refuse to provide a single Scriptural example of what you're saying. Very shocking for a Scripturalist in my estimation.

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by SemperFideles
Let me be clearer in what I am saying:

You are talking as if you are a pagan. Pagans are fools. Ergo, you are talking like a fool in the statements you are making when you say that God is unecessary for logic. If that insults you then I cannot help what you feel about that statement but pagans say what you're saying. They are not Christian statements. They are not statements of belief.

I did not say you were an unbeliever but when somebody is acting like an unbeliever I'm going to call them on it.

You also continue to refuse to provide a single Scriptural example of what you're saying. Very shocking for a Scripturalist in my estimation.

See my previous post for a scripture example.

As for my my taking like a pagan, please explain that.

Nothing I said was essentially pagan, so I reject your assertion to the contrary. You can call me all the names you want, if you can't back them up with some good reasons, then you're point has no merit. So please explain yourself.

I admit I have not taken full advantage of Scripture in my arguments, but my points are still correct. And Sean Gerety has used more scripture than any Vantillian, so I guess that proves that Clarkians are right. Right?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

1. I don't know if it's an issue of occassionalism but are you missing my challenge:

Please provide a single example of a prophet or an apostle or Christ, speaking as you have: admitting for one moment that God is unnecessary for reason.

I just want one. If you cannot provide one as a Scripturalist I would think you would have the courage to recant your statement.

2. This is not a school play yard Anthony, I'm not calling you names and I don't care what Sean is saying. I am saying that you talk like a pagan when you deny that God is necessary for anything. You can whine all you want that Sean Gerety uses lots of Scripture (more Scripture than Vantillians in history in fact!) but that says nothing about your statement.

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by SemperFideles
1. I don't know if it's an issue of occassionalism but are you missing my challenge:

Please provide a single example of a prophet or an apostle or Christ, speaking as you have: admitting for one moment that God is unnecessary for reason.

I just want one. If you cannot provide one as a Scripturalist I would think you would have the courage to recant your statement.

2. This is not a school play yard Anthony, I'm not calling you names and I don't care what Sean is saying. I am saying that you talk like a pagan when you deny that God is necessary for anything. You can whine all you want that Sean Gerety uses lots of Scripture (more Scripture than Vantillians in history in fact!) but that says nothing about your statement.

And you keep missing my points. The reason God is not necessary for reason is that God and reason are categorically two separate things. Neither of which has a beginning - so "cause" is also out of the question. And that being the case, AND that we are talking about apologetics with unbelievers - all combine to clearly show the idea that God is necessary for reason is not the case. Please address my arguments so that I can better explain what you don't understand. You keep asking for something that doesn't exist - and the contrary is also not there. There is no point in seeking something you can't have, and since you don't have the a " a single example of a prophet or an apostle or Christ saying God is necessary for reason- the point is mute.

And be clear, it is not that God is unnecessary for us to be able to reason, it is God is unnecessary for logic or reason to exist.

Address my arguments.

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by Paul manata
While we're at it, for those who claim that circular arguments are always fallacies, and thus think that only linear arguments are acceptable, can we see an argument for that?



Oh, btw, your argument had better not be linear

Here's a circular argument for "All A is B".

All A is B
All B is C
All D is Q

therefore

All A is B.

So do you see the fallacy?

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Time to show the Scripturalist the true folly of his position.



The Scripturalist position: Knowledge consists only of Scriptural propositions or propositions validly deduces from Scriptural propositions.

If one does not have the above, one does not have knowledge.


Scriptrualism...

[Edited on 5-26-2006 by Paul manata]

Very good. Close, but not correct.

Scripturalism: All Epistemic Knowledge is God's revelation. Therefore, "all things necessary for His own glory, man´s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture".

I.e. what more do you need to know?

Now do have something better? What do you know? How do you know it?

from WCF 1:6

The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man´s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture

Let me ask you, what is knowledge?

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by Civbert

Originally posted by Paul manata
as another p.s. how do you *know* that logic is an abstract cncept?

Is that deducible from Scriptural propositions? If so, deduce on, G-money.

The only way for a person know what a person said or wrote, is if the law of contradiction is true.

Then the LORD God called to Adam and said to him, "Where are you?" So he said, "I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself."
(Gen 3:9-10 NKJV)

God asked a question of Adam, and Adam understood God and answered.

Adam understood what God said because the words had meaning. But if words do not have meaning, then Adam could have answer "I'd like a pepperoni pizza with mushrooms."

Another way to deduce the law of contradiction from Scripture is by reading the Bible. Read Gen 3:9-10 again. Did you understand it? Then you prove the law of contradiction from Scripture.

So now that we we have proven the law of contradiction is true, how do we know it is an abstract concept? Well can you touch it? Is it an individual? Can you know it? If you answered these correctly, then you know by definition that it is an abstract concept.

I gues the Scripturalist, who bullies the TAGists for them to "lay out the TAG by a deductively valid syllogism" can't play his own game.

I'll make it easy for you.


P1.

P2.

P.3.

so on


_____________

C1: Therefore, logic is an abstract concept.


Also, how do you know you can't touch it? Is that deducible from Scripture? If so, do it.

p.1

p.2

p.3.

...

______

C1: Therefore, logic is not touchable.


Time to show the Scripturalist the true folly of his position.



The Scripturalist position: Knowledge consists only of Scriptural propositions or propositions validly deduces from Scriptrual propositions.

If one does not have the above, one does not have knowledge.


Scriptrualism...

[Edited on 5-26-2006 by Paul manata]

The fact that you've got so many blanks show you're not understanding my arguments. That's okay. Maybe that's my fault. But that does not mean I'm wrong, and you are not addressing my arguments, so what can I say. Tell me what you don't understand - please be specific or I can't help you.



P.S. Sorry if you feel bullied. That happens when you are dealing with your intellectual superiors.

:bigsmile:

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by Paul manata
....

Now, go back aqnd re-read the thread, answer my questions, or just admit that you're using unjustifdied opinion.

Van Til: 1

Clark: 0








poor Clarkian, getting the intellectual beat-down from an intellectual inferior!

I see, if you can't beat 'em, wear them down.

If I won't play your game, you'll claim the win, and you didn't even have to counter my arguments.

Let see. I first said :

P1 "The only way for a person know what a person said or wrote, is if the law of contradiction is true."


Now, at this point you will say - how do you know that from Scripture. Is that it? I've got to expand out all the steps, and break it down into tiny bites. And if I don't, you'll cry foul.

Let me ask you first, do you disagree with the first premise? If you don't, we can go to the next. If you do, tell me why not. If you're more interested in winning, we can play your game your way, but I'm calling a timeout so I can get some work done.

So what's it going to be? Are you going to deal with my arguments, our do I have to chew your food for you?