# Van Til-Clark debate settled - once and for all!



## crhoades (Sep 28, 2006)

We now have a  smiley but no Clark...


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 28, 2006)

I knew this would come up eventually!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 28, 2006)




----------



## Arch2k (Sep 28, 2006)

My image is bigger than yours


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> My image is bigger than yours



You win.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 28, 2006)

sigh...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 29, 2006)

How about if I make a Clark icon of this:





[Edited on 9-29-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Civbert (Sep 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> How about if I make a Clark icon of this:
> 
> 
> ...



Clark II, mini-Clark, Clark-redux, Return of Clark.

I wish. 

Maybe neo-Clark? 

Not the Anti-Clark. That would be: (insert image of Paul Manata - I can't find it.)


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 29, 2006)

How illogical.


----------



## crhoades (Sep 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> How illogical.



It's not illogical. It's _paradoxical_


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



Just to play this out like a Clarkian..."How do you KNOW it is paradoxical and not illogical?"


----------



## Civbert (Sep 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by crhoades_
> ...



I will demonstrate is with a my indomitable vanparadigmtransparadoxicalneologicaltilian argument.



[Edited on 9-29-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 29, 2006)

Just so you Clark guys don't feel left out, I have this uploaded to the smilies directory but haven't associated a text alias to it:





The link to it is: "http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/images/smilies/clark.gif"

[Edited on 9-30-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> That would be: (insert image of Paul Manata - I can't find it.)


You mean a Manata smiley?


----------



## Ivan (Sep 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Civbert_
> ...



Now that's scary!


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 29, 2006)




----------



## turmeric (Sep 29, 2006)

I am *so* NOT posting *any* pictures of me! Be warned, fellow posters, if it can happen to Manata no one's safe!!!

[Edited on 9-29-2006 by turmeric]

[Edited on 9-29-2006 by turmeric]


----------



## Jon (Dec 23, 2006)

crhoades said:


> We now have a  smiley but no Clark...


No Clark? What a shame.

_Soli Deo Gloria_

Jon


----------



## JohnV (Dec 23, 2006)

Jon said:


> No Clark? What a shame.
> 
> _Soli Deo Gloria_
> 
> Jon


Wait a manata minute. Wasn't it Van Till and Clark that mapped out the country? No wait, my mistake that was C. S. Lewis, not Van Till. It was Lewis and Clark, now I remember. It was Colombo who discovered it, right? He could figure anything out on the least of clues. Anyways, it just ain't right not to have their images in our icon section. 

Hold it. That sounds like we've returned to the old Roman Catholic Church. Maybe even the Eastern Orthodox. We threw out the icons long ago, didn't we? 

Do these things transubstantiate our identities? Or do they consbustantiate our identities? 

I mean, if Clark goes, then they all have to go. Organs too. May as well, my touchpad just now started to go haywire. I think somebody spilled coffee on it. If keyboards have to go, then so do touchpads. And we might as well throw out those IBM compatible mousepads too, if anyone still has them. 

I'd better stop before these things add up to ninety-five, and get nailed up on some church doors.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 23, 2006)

Actually, you should check before assuming...

It was made available 9/29, the day after the VT one. sheesh.


----------



## turmeric (Dec 24, 2006)

Actually, John, the answer is, and always has been, 42.


----------



## Pilgrim (Dec 24, 2006)

Paul manata said:


> Actually, that's a smiley of bigfoot, and I challenge any Clarkian to show me how he knows otherwise!
> 
> So, there's still no Clark emoticon!


----------



## turmeric (Dec 24, 2006)




----------



## Magma2 (Dec 24, 2006)

Paul manata said:


> Actually, that's a smiley of bigfoot, and I challenge any Clarkian to show me how he knows otherwise!
> 
> So, there's still no Clark emoticon!



Paul, that is a vicious lie. I have empirical proof of Bigfoot. I took this while on a business trip in California this summer.


----------



## turmeric (Dec 25, 2006)

It proves one thing - evolution is a crock!!


----------



## Magma2 (Dec 25, 2006)

Paul manata said:


> Sean,
> 
> C'mon, who are you kidding? Everyone knows you cropped my head on to your body.



I admit the serious lack of hair on top is a bit of a mystery, but it still doesn't answer the epistemological question you avoid like Bigfoot and Kodaks. As for everyone, which is perhaps your best argument, they all might be wrong. Besides, I have more hair.


----------



## turmeric (Dec 26, 2006)

I was going to help out with the verse that says "All men are liars" when I remembered the rest of the verse; "*I said in my heart* all men are liars."


----------



## Magma2 (Dec 26, 2006)

Paul manata said:


> Sean, I'll answer any question you have for me. I'll bend over backwards to answer. etc Before I do, though, I request that you show me how you know that I avoid any epistemological question(s).
> 
> Now, if that's just your unjustified opinion, then I'll be kind and allow you to continue opining here on the PB.



You'll allow me? Who are you? I thought you're head looked a little inflated above, but I had no idea that you had such power to "allow" me to stay on these boards. I must have missed your name listed as an owner? 



> Especially since it's Christmas time. On the other hand, if you do know it, please deduce said proposition from Scripture.



Since Christmas is a popish day observed and kept without warrant per the Scriptures, I guess this explains both your authoritarian posturing and the source of your epistemology. Maybe next time I'll add a funny hat to your picture.  Until then, I can tell by your game play that "The Philosopher" plays a bigger role in your epistemology than does the Scripture. So, let me ask you to first define what you mean by "know" above or should I just refer to Aristotle, or, would your man Aquinas suffice? My guess is you won't define how you intend to use the word since along with ad populum and other fallacies, the equivocation game is another one of your stock arguments. See what I mean by Bigfoots and Kodaks. They seem to avoid each other like the plague. Kinda like you and biblical epistemology.


----------



## gwine (Dec 26, 2006)

turmeric said:


> I was going to help out with the verse that says "All men are liars" when I remembered the rest of the verse; "*I said in my heart* all men are liars."



But we at least know that Cretans are.


> Titus 1
> 12 One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons."
> 13 This testimony is true.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 26, 2006)

Liars ever, men of Crete;
Nasty brutes that love to eat.


----------



## Magma2 (Dec 27, 2006)

> 1. Yes, allow you to opine without coming down on you and putting you in the awkward position of having to actually justify all your mere unjustified opinions. That is, opine away without me continually pointing at that you're yet again, simply offerin g unjustified opinions.



Again, either it’s a high horse or just that big head pictured above, but what you fail to note is that without some sort of account I have no reason to think that all your bloviating and pontificating is anything more than your own opinions and neither does anyone else. The trouble with you Paul is that you constantly avoid the issue. Frankly, you run from it. I guess you are scared of epistemology after all, even more the Bible’s answer. You never face the question of how do you know squarely, you merely ridicule those who have and when confronted react like some petulant schoolboy.  



> 2. My remark about Christmas was a joke (but unfortunately roboticClarkians can't have a sense of humor, it's too subjective for them... how boring- anyway...), but I do indeed celebrate it. Anyway, call me Popish, or what you will.



I get it, you can dish it out, but taking it . . . . Well, my apologies, but it is a popish holy day and anything but Christian. Please don’t let that get in the way of your celebration. 



> Anyway, I'm offering a reductio ad absudum (and I've told you this too many times to count) of *your* view. So, when I ask *you* how *you* know I'm asking that according to *your* theory of knowledge. And, according to *your* theory of knowledge, you don't know any of those things I ask you to tell us how you know.



I’m quite aware of what constitutes knowledge and what is opinion and also why the axiom of Christianity, the Scriptures, has a monopoly on truth (more specifically, the truth which can be known). History fails where Scripture succeeds. archaeology fails where Scripture succeeds. Science fails where Scripture succeeds. Non-Christian philosophy fails where Scripture succeeds. That’s because in Christ “are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” and not just some of those treasures as Van Tilians, so-called “Reformed” Epistemologists and so many others just assume. You think because you assert something it is true and you have knowledge. As the preacher said, “this too is vanity.” You need to consider what makes the man of God complete or perfect according to 2 Tim 4:16,17 and then tell me what other sources of knowledge he needs and even where they might be found. I'm confident you won't do that either. Don't let the bible get in your way Paul. I noticed too I was “spot on” and you failed to define how you wanted me to understand your use of the word “know.” I see your game is again exposed. 



> I'm fine to leave it at that. Call me names, call me afraid, whatever. If that's what helps you sleep at night. If you must know, though, I don't discuss things with 99% of the Clarkians out there. I'd actually rather pay someone to kick me in the groin really hard. Much more enjoyable and profitable.



Yet, you keep having to toss in your soiled two-cents every time Clark’s name is mentioned. 

Maybe next time, keep your change to yourself. Or, better yet, instead of talking, read Clark and by God's grace may your mind be opened. That certainly beats a kick in the crotch.


----------



## Magma2 (Dec 27, 2006)

> For your next post feel free to show how you know any of the things you just said.



I’ll be happy to oblige after you define knowledge.



> Now, even if I did tell you what my theory of knowledge was, big deal, you couldn't know that I said it was what you thought it was.



You assume too much. I have a pretty good handle on Van Til self-refuting and anti-Christian epistemology which reduces the truth of Scripture to a morass of incoherent paradoxes and provides the breeding ground for charlatans and frauds now corrupting P&R churches. Do you have something new to offer?



> I said that I was using the word 'know' in the sense *you*use it. Didn't you read what I wrote?



Which is? I haven’t defined knowledge and I have no idea how you intend to use it since you have equivocated on this word in the past. 

Scriptures use the word know in many different senses, maybe one of these verses will help you:

(Gen 4:1) And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

(Isa 1:3a) The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib . . . .

(2 Tim 3:7) . . . always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

(Gen 29:5) And he said to them, "Do you know Laban the son of Nahor?" And they said, "We know him."

(John 8:32) “. . . and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

(1 Tim 2:3,4) This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.


If I were to guess, I would think you intend knowledge, at least in the epistemic sense, to be understood per the verse in Isaiah above. But since you haven’t told me, I don’t want to follow your lead and just assume. However, if you want to discuss knowledge in the sense used in John 8 and 1 & 2 Tim cited above, perhaps we can talk and it might even be productive. However, if you just want to keep playing your games, perhaps I will take your advice and "run along." 



> And, based on that definition, all you're doing here is offering your opinion. You don't know any of the things you opine here.



Based on what definition? You haven’t provided one. If you have, I admit I must have missed it. As for opinion, it seems that’s all you’re offering as well, so I guess we’re even. Maybe you classify the verses above and the ones I’ve previously cited as opinion too? Since you will not face the problem squarely, much less honestly, who knows or can even opine? However, from dealing with you thus far, my opinion is that you’re less than an honest opponent which explains your endless evasions. 



> Who said I said it was a "Christian" holiday, Sean? I won't let it get in the way of my celebration, just like you don't let birthday's get you down. Anyway, maybe you'll get a crown from Jesus for being more holy than the rest of us. Way to major on the minors.



I thought I was minoring in the minors. Sorry you’re so sensitive. 



> Oh, and one more thing, how do you *know* that it's a popish holiday? Can you deduce said proposition from Scripture? Didn't think so.



Again, it depends on which sense you’re using the word “to know.” I’ve played this game with you before and even if you can fool others by your endless equivocations, that doesn’t mean that I have to play the fool as well. Sorry to disappoint, but if you can find warrant in Scripture for keeping the day, let’s see your argument. As for me, I'm torn.



> Sean, I answer you in detail every time.



Really? Where are those posts? Where have you even defined knowledge? As far as I can tell you can’t even answer a simple question. 



> How would you know otherwise?



I don’t and you won’t tell me how I might. Clark, unlike you, wasn’t happy with just begging the question. You evidently are quite content in doing just that.



> See, I'm trying to be a tough minded Calrkian. A better one than you.



That would require that you actually read Clark and grasp what he says. From what I can tell you are perhaps incapable of both. Besides, Clark has dealt with critics far more capable and honest than you who weren’t afraid to face the problem of epistemology squarely. You should listen to the Clark/Hoover debate (http://www.trinitylectures.org/MP3/The_Clark-Hoover_Debate.mp3) if you want to see an example of an honest opponent. While David Hoover got his clock cleaned, he at least faced the issues squarely and honestly. 



> Run along...



I suppose I should. I don’t KNOW of a better way to shake off those extra Christmas pounds I’ve gained.  Besides, you’ve done nothing so far except evade and avoid the central question, so no sense just spinning my wheels. I guess I’ll just have to wait for someone who is willing to take the problems of epistemology seriously and stop posturing. You're so called "reducio" can only work if you can provide a better answer in place of the one you ridicule and mock. From what I can tell, your argument, if one can call it that, is nothing more than pretense.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 27, 2006)

Since Paul's a friend of mine, and I don't need people hassling me about favoritism, I'm closing this thread with Sean's "last word."

 &  , R.I.P.

Happy smileys to all, and to all a 'goodnight'.


----------

