# I see a tree outside my window -



## C. Matthew McMahon

Question (s):

Dealing with some Clarkian issues - 

I see a tree outside my window. 

How do I know its there? 

How do I know i am not self decieved that its there and that trees really exist?

How does my knowledge first rest in the reality that I am actually thinking God's thoughts after Him, and he is not dependent, in my mind, on my knowledge of the same thing?

I could be an empiricists and go and touch the tree, and I may think it exists, but then, how do I prove it does in reality and that I am still not self decieved?

I could presuppose that trees exist because God created them, but then again, how do I know I am looking at a tree, and that the tree really is a tree, and therefore exists?

How do all of you deal with that idea?

Clark says that trees exist because God created them because it says so in the Word of God. If its not in the Word, then we have no ground for truth. Only God provides us with the truth we are to believe.

But I am typing on a computer. Computers are not in the Word of God. Do Clarkians simply toss that in the bag of "God's Word says industry exists and men make things and computers are things?" 

Trees and computers - is there a difference.

(Be simple but helpful.)


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

I don't know how Clark would answer those, but are you asking for that?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Clark would say (about the tree) that its in the Word - God made trees, so trees are true and real.

What about computers? or "me" for that matter? God made men, I'm a man, but I am not in the Scriptures.

I'm trying to think about whether I believe the tree is real because I believe it or becaue God "believes" it (says its there).


----------



## JohnV

Matt:

You are referring to the notion that the Bible is our epistemological link, and nothing more, are you not? It is supposed to be our link to God Himself, but some Clarkians have made it nothing more than our propositional beginning point for all knowledge. Is that your point?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

How can I know trees are there unless God said He made trees?


----------



## Arch2k

Matt,

I don't have time to go into all of the details (as it is late on the Sabbath) but I think that it boils down to the question "What is knowledge?"

Is it my best guess?

Is it what I "think" is true?

Is it infallable truth?

Clarkians use the latter definition to define knowledge. Using that definition, let me ask you...

Do you infallably know that there is a tree outside your window? Do your eyes ever deceive you? Then is there a chance you could be wrong?

If God revealed the fact that a tree was outside your window, would you be more assured it was the truth?

It is my opinion that we can only be 100% sure about things that God has revealed to us.


----------



## Magma2

> Dealing with some Clarkian issues -
> 
> I see a tree outside my window.
> 
> How do I know its there?
> 
> How do I know i am not self decieved that its there and that trees really exist?





> Clark would say (about the tree) that its in the Word - God made trees, so trees are true and real.




Clark would, like any good philosopher, differentiate between metaphysics and epistemology. As to the question as to how Clark would answer the question; Do you know a tree is outside your window? he answered that in response to an objection raised by Dr. Krabbendam during the Q&A portion of Clark´s debate with David Hoover. I think Dr. McMahon you will be surprised how he answers this particular objection. The complete debate can be downloaded for free at http://www.trinitylectures.org/MP3_downloads.php under Collection 12: Miscellaneous Lectures (3 lectures). The entire debate is excellent and highly recommended since he addresses many of the objections of those on the apologetic boards, Ron in particular.

[Edited on 3-20-2006 by Magma2]

[Edited on 3-20-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## Ron

> Do you infallably know that there is a tree outside your window? Do your eyes ever deceive you? Then is there a chance you could be wrong?



"I am sometimes wrong, therefore, I can never know..." is simply fallacious. The reason being, when I believe things that are false I do not have warrant of the maximal kind. Whereas when I know things I do. Accordingly, I can know things and even know that I know. The confirmation is altogether different between when I known and when I merely believe without knowing. Persuading someone else that I know is of course another matter. 

Ron


----------



## Ron

Those who are decieved in what they believe they know they see do not have warrant for what they believe they know they see. When one truly knows a tree is outside his window, he has warrant for such belief, which is not an inductive inference. 

As for the Clarkians on this site, they don't even believe they _know_ they exist. However, a necessary precondition for their believing that they cannot know they exist is their actual existence!

If I am convicted of sin, then I exist
I am convicted of sin
Therefore, I exist

Of course, some on this site deny the validity of modus ponens! Moreover, some will assert that God's revelation to man in conscience in conjunction with general and special revelation is past finding out as being true.

Ron


----------



## Magma2

> Those who are decieved in what they believe they know they see do not have warrant for what they believe they know they see. When one truly knows a tree is outside his window, he has warrant for such belief, which is not an inductive inference.



How does one know there is "œtruly" a tree outside his window? I´m glad we can cross out induction, but since you seem to lean more toward rationalism in some of your other posts, how do you propose overcoming Renee´s omnipotent demon? Intuition? 



> As for the Clarkians on this site, they don't even believe they know they exist. However, a necessary precondition for their believing that they cannot know they exist is their actual existence!



This must be your trump card because you keep on repeating it. You must really believe if you repeat nonsense often enough no one will notice your complete lack of argument. 


Clark never denied he exists, but unlike you he didn´t confuse the trivial with the profound. However, I guess being steeped in Van Tilian epistemology where surrendering to biblical antimonies is the height of piety and petitio principii can replace serious apologetics, I can see why you´re confused. Clark wrote:



> At first it may seem strange that knowledge of what God is more important than knowledge that God is. His essence or nature being more important than his existence may seem unusual. Existentialists insist that existence precedes essence. Nevertheless, competent Christians disagree for two reasons. First, we have seen that pantheists identify god with the universe. What is god? "”the universe. The mere fact that they use the name god for the universe and thus assert that god "exists" is of no help to Christianity.
> 
> The second reason for not being much interested in the existence of God is somewhat similar to the first. The idea existence is an idea without content. Stars exist"”but this tells us nothing about the stars; mathematics exists"”but this teaches us no mathematics; hallucinations also exist. The point is that a predicate, such as existence, that can be attached to everything indiscriminately tells us nothing about anything. A word, to mean something, must also not mean something. For example, if I say that some cats are black, the sentence has meaning only because some cats are white. If the adjective were attached to every possible subject"”so all cats were black, all stars were black, and all politicians were black, as well as all the numbers in arithmetic, and God too"”then the word black would have no meaning. It would not distinguish anything from something else. Since everything exists, exists is devoid of information. That is why the Catechism asks, What is God? Not, Does God exist?
> 
> Now, most of the contemporary authors are extremely vague as to what sort of God they are talking about; and because the term is so vague, the concept is useless. Can these authors use their god to support a belief in life after death? No ethical norms can be deduced from their god. Most pointedly, their god does not speak to man. He is no better than "the silence of eternity" without even being "interpreted by love." Atheism is more realistic, more honest. If we are to combat the latter, we need a different method.



What we need is the Scripturalism of Gordon Clark. Case in point:



> If I am convicted of sin, then I exist
> I am convicted of sin
> Therefore, I exist
> 
> Of course, some on this site deny the validity of modus ponens! Moreover, some will assert that God's revelation to man in conscience in conjunction with general and special revelation is past finding out as being true.



You must be arguing against phantoms in your own mind Ron or is it that omnipotent demon again?  No one has denied the validity of modus ponens Ron. OTOH some of us don´t think merely asserting the very thing you need to prove is a credible way to do Christian apologetics, much less epistemology.


----------



## Arch2k

I think relevant to this thread is a definition of "tree." I for one agree with Clark that I cannot define it. 

If someone would like to share a definition they can justify, I would like to know it.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Question (s):
> 
> Dealing with some Clarkian issues -
> 
> I see a tree outside my window.
> 
> How do I know its there?
> 
> How do I know i am not self deceived that its there and that trees really exist?
> 
> ...



Thanks for starting this interesting thread. As a Clarkian, my position is - you _don't_ know. In fact, you don't know you are typing on a computer either. Aside from "I think therefore I am", you don't know you exist either. (A better justification might be "I hear God, therefore I am").

However, I don't see this as a problem. All it means to me is that knowledge is primarily the realm of spiritual matters: intellectual concerns about sin, God, love, obedience, fear, justification, atonement, salvation, damnation. I want knowledge about _these_ kinds of things. Propositions about trees, dogs, and butterflies - these can stay under the classification of "beliefs" and no harm is done.

Practically speaking, it's only a matter of testing and categorizing thoughts (propositions) between things we label "knowledge", and things we label "beliefs". So if you want to say you are warranted in believing there's a tree outside you window because you can see it, I don't think Clark would object. 

But if you want to say you have epistemic knowledge (justified true belief) of the existence of a tree outside your window, then you need to either defend empiricism (and it's consequences) or show how you can justify that knowledge from Scripture. Maybe it can be done.

I don't think Clark would object to you just saying you "know" there is tree outside your window because Clark would assume you were using "know" in a colloquial sense as in, "I certainly believe there is a tree outside my window because I've seen it (and maybe touched it) and I saw the squirrels in it", etc. 

Certainty is usually all we mean when we say we "know" something, but philosophically, certainty is not sufficient to justify calling a proposition knowledge. In fact, certainty can certainly deceive us if that is part of the standard we use. 

So my response to the objections given against Clark that, with his epistemology, one can not know if he is reading a book or seeing a tree - I say "so what?" Do you believe you are reading a book? Yes? Good. I believe it too. And do you believe there's a tree outside your window? Then I believe it too. 

And do you believe you are saved, then I believe it too. Are you _certain_ you are saved? I say AMEN! and hallelujah! We can still praise God for giving us certainty of our salvation. 

There is nothing wrong with believing "there is a tree outside your window", or "your dog's name is Ralph", or "I like Jackie Chan movies". Just because I can't give an epistemic justification for that belief, has no spiritual consequences. It's not like we have to stop taking airline flights because we don't "know" philosophically the plane won't crash. And we can know we sin, even if you can not justify the "existence" of the doughnut we snatched that wasn't ours. 

Scripture even tells us we can not know the future. 


> Come now, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, spend a year there, buy and sell, and make a profit"; whereas you do not know what will happen tomorrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away. Instead you ought to say, "If the Lord wills, we shall live and do this or that." But now you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil. Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.
> (Jam 4:13-17 NKJV)


So we don't know the sun will rise tomorrow, it is spiritual knowledge, according to James, is what we should be concerned with knowing. That knowledge has "real" consequence.




[Edited on 3-20-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Ron

Sean,

First off, when I refer to "Clarkians" I am not referring to Clark! I've asked you several times now whether you know you exist and you continue to reply with you believe you exist. Your last post would seem to imply that you do know you exist. How can this be if your existence is not a proposition from Scripture. 

Ron


----------



## Ron

> How does one know there is "œtruly" a tree outside his window?



This question is rather confused. To ask "how" is to inquire into the workings of the mind and how it relates to the brain. You probably want to ask _whether_ one can know he sees a tree and whether this knowledge can be justified. Sean, you're simply in over your head. 

Ron


----------



## JohnV

So this is not about the tree, then.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> Those who are decieved in what they believe they know they see do not have warrant for what they believe they know they see.


Translation: if you're wrong, you can't be right.



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> When one truly knows a tree is outside his window, he has warrant for such belief, which is not an inductive inference.


Translation: when you're right, you're right. Or I know what I know.



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> How does one know there is "œtruly" a tree outside his window? I´m glad we can cross out induction, but since you seem to lean more toward rationalism in some of your other posts, how do you propose overcoming Renee´s omnipotent demon? Intuition?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This question is rather confused. To ask "how" is to inquire into the workings of the mind and how it relates to the brain. You probably want to ask _whether_ one can know he sees a tree and whether this knowledge can be justified. Sean, you're simply in over your head.
> 
> Ron
Click to expand...


Sean, 

Your question has confused Ron. It showed that statements like "those who are deceived in what they believe they know they see do not have warrant for what they believe they know they see" and "when one truly knows a tree is outside his window, he has warrant for such belief" are indicative of someone in over his head. 

Ron didn't realize that asking "how" one knows is "the question" of philosophy - and it means how is one justified in saying he "knows" there truly is a tree.

It's often a good bet when someone tries to dismiss your question or argument with "you're in over your head", then that that person is himself "in over his head". Else why resort to such dubious "observations" if not to attempt to distract from the fact that he skirted the question - how does one "truly" know something?


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> I think relevant to this thread is a definition of "tree." I for one agree with Clark that I cannot define it.
> 
> If someone would like to share a definition they can justify, I would like to know it.



Definitions themselves are an interesting subject. We go around acting like there are always exact definitions for some things. But when it comes to enumerable classes of things, physical things, especially organic objects, then definitions are not right or wrong necessarily, but good or bad.

I agree, we can't "justify" a definition of tree, as if there is a perfect definition for "tree". But one particular definition might be as good as another for whatever purpose it serves - and that purpose may be nothing more than conveying the thought of "treeness" so I know well enough what is being said when someone says "I think there is a tree outside my window." Notice, we have been discussing what is means to know a tree exists, and no one has asked "what is a tree". We all know (almost innately) what tree means for the sake of this discussion.

But what I find interesting about the idea of definitions, is that it's more important to know what our definitions are, then to have the exact right definitions. You can even make up new terms just from combining "known" ideas. 

For the Scripturalist, this means he can use a term or definition that is not found explicitly in Scripture, as long as that definition does not contradict, or imply a contradiction of Scriptural propositions. One can know Euclidean geometry even if the axioms of Euclidean geometry are not found in Scripture.

[Edited on 3-20-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Magma2

> First off, when I refer to "Clarkians" I am not referring to Clark! I've asked you several times now whether you know you exist and you continue to reply with you believe you exist. Your last post would seem to imply that you do know you exist. How can this be if your existence is not a proposition from Scripture.



And I´ve answered your asinine question which you think is probing and profound each and every time by citing and quoting Clark! Imagine that. OTOH you´re continued retort would make a rationalist blush, that unless one can account for his own existence he can´t know anything, which of course doesn´t follow. 

Deal with Clark. If you want to discuss Descartes start a different thread. For what it's worth Descartes conceded his critic´s point that his so-called "œproof" of his existence was not a proof at all. Maybe we could examine some of his critics arguments if you like. However, as to your point, since proofs of God´s existence have entailed any number of fallacies and have all failed (I include your defense of TAG along with the rest), I don´t see why I would have any better time demonstrating my own existence to you or anyone else, much less demonstrating the existence of other minds or trees for that matter. Besides, I think your question irrelevant and I see you don´t accept Clark´s point that questions of existence are as trivial as they are pointless, but I can also see you have not offered anything in their place.




> How does one know there is "œtruly" a tree outside his window?
> 
> This question is rather confused. To ask "how" is to inquire into the workings of the mind and how it relates to the brain.




Maybe part of your problem is that in addition to your overt rationalism you´re a materialist too. My question has nothing to do with "œthe workings of the mind and how it relates to the brain," but rather how do you know. Again, if you want to discus the function of the pineal gland maybe include it in your Descartes thread? 

Dr. McMahon offered how he thought Dr. Clark would have answered the question; "I see a tree outside my window. How do I know its there?" However, given what Clark argues in his debate with Hoover and in direct response to Krabbendam, I think Dr. McMahon is wrong. You said; "œWhen one truly knows a tree is outside his window, he has warrant for such belief . . . ." Well, I want to know how you "truly" know there is a tree outside your window? Now if that confuses you, perhaps you should just remove yourself from this thread entirely? 



> You probably want to ask whether one can know he sees a tree and whether this knowledge can be justified. Sean, you're simply in over your head.



 You´re too funny Ron. Every time you cannot answer a direct question you accuse your opponent of being too dumb to understand you - of being "in over their head." There are many ways to call your brother an idiot and I think you've exhausted quite a few of them. I've asked you to respond and give an account for your own assertion. I can see that was too much for you.


----------



## JohnV

No, this is definitely not about the tree.


----------



## Arch2k

John...can you define a tree?


----------



## Ron

> And I´ve answered your asinine question...



Seany boy, it sounds like your getting a little miffed. Is it because you don't believe you can know you exist? Poor, poor Sean. He's not a proposition in Scripture.... I think you've been hanging around with that genius, John Robbins too long.

Ron


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> 
> 
> And I´ve answered your asinine question...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seany boy, it sounds like your getting a little miffed. Is it because you don't believe you can know you exist? Poor, poor Sean. He's not a proposition in Scripture.... I think you've been hanging around with that genius, John Robbins too long.
> 
> Ron
Click to expand...


Ron...everything exists, the question is "What is it?"

"Exist" is a meaningless word, as it can be applied to all predicates, so why use it?

If you're asking if I can "know" that I am a man, then under the Clarkian system, no. But I can believe that I am such, and this is good enough for me.


----------



## JohnV

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> John...can you define a tree?



That thing outside Matt's window. That's all you need to know.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> ...
> Clark says that trees exist because God created them because it says so in the Word of God. If its not in the Word, then we have no ground for truth. Only God provides us with the truth we are to believe.
> 
> But I am typing on a computer. Computers are not in the Word of God. Do Clarkians simply toss that in the bag of "God's Word says industry exists and men make things and computers are things?"
> 
> Trees and computers - is there a difference.
> 
> (Be simple but helpful.)



Simple?? That's no fun! 

I think it's easier to deal with universals that particulars using Clark's epistemology (or any epistemology now that I think about it). If it exists, it is either created, or made up of the materials of creation. Computer is simply a combination of silicon and metals and other natural and man-made chemicals (like plastic and rubber) combined into ways where the created predictable electro-chemical responses allow is to make massive calculations and all sorts of cool stuff. 

Computers are not found in the "Word" of God, but the natural material world is found in God's Word. Computers are just an logical extension of the created material and the world. Define computer in terms of form and function and we can know what a computer is. 

I guess it's like defining tree. But the definition of computer might be easier do, and easier to agree on. After that then we can say what is also true about computers.

Harder is to say that we can know of a particular computer. How do we justify knowing a computer exists. But that's a problem for all kinds of epistemology - universals and particulars. But this I can say for sure - I don't know what computer means just from looking at the things. If all I had was the physical senses - I'd never come up with a rational definition of computer, much less know if I was looking at one.


----------



## Ron

> And I´ve answered your asinine question which you think is probing and profound each and every time by citing and quoting Clark!



Guys like you enjoy hiding behind dead men. Nonetheless, you stated: "œAs for knowing I´m saved, I had a former assistant pastor at my church tell me I wasn´t because I argued that mere belief alone in the gospel is what saves a man." 

Ron Asked: Are you a man, Sean?

Sean says: I think so.

Ron Asked: Do you have saving faith, Sean?

Sean replies: I think so again.



> Sean states: I know the propositions of Scripture are true for I can account them per my axiom.



So "œaccounting" for something according to an axiom makes it true. I see now. All truth is subjective and you don´t know whether you're having this discussion.

One thing we can be grateful for. Clarkians are seen within the church as obscure skeptics. Their numbers will never grow for the gates of hell will not prevail.

Ron


----------



## MurrayA

"That thing outside Matt's window. That's all you need to know."

Is there a "thing" there at all? Perhaps the Cartesian demon is deceiving me?

Honestly, these philosophical games transport me back to the philosophy tutorials of my undergraduate days. I find them frustrating, tiresome, and fruitless. Of course there's a tree out there, just as the philosophy tutor went off to enjoy his "imaginary" lunch after the tutorial was over! This is because we all have the same sensory organs to perceive the same things in much the same way. If you like:

All things bright and beautiful;
All creatures great and small;
All things wise and wonderful:
The Lord God made them all.

And then:
He gave us eyes to see them,
And lips that we might tell
How great is God Almighty
Who hath made all things well.

Get real!! (I suppose that comment makes me a McCosh "Common sense realist". Oh well...)


----------



## Ron

> I´m sure you´re in agreement with CVT, Frame, Bahnsen and the rest of the bloviating irrationalists who think the Scriptures are all apparently contradictory and ultimately hostile to systemization.



Produce a quote from Bahnsen where he states that Scripture is apparently contradictory. 

Stick to what you know Sean. Well, that might be too tall an order since you don't think you know anything.

Ron


----------



## Ron

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> 
> 
> And I´ve answered your asinine question...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seany boy, it sounds like your getting a little miffed. Is it because you don't believe you can know you exist? Poor, poor Sean. He's not a proposition in Scripture.... I think you've been hanging around with that genius, John Robbins too long.
> 
> Ron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ron...everything exists, the question is "What is it?"
> 
> "Exist" is a meaningless word, as it can be applied to all predicates, so why use it?
Click to expand...


Do you believe that men on mars exist as material beings or just conceptual beings? If only the latter, then the former do not exist, yet you said that everything exist. 



> If you're asking if I can "know" that I am a man, then under the Clarkian system, no. But I can believe that I am such, and this is good enough for me.



First off, you said that everything exists. If this were true, then you must exist as a man, as well as exist as not a man. If everything exists, then contradictions exist in harmony. Actually, your creed is that not everything exists as it is believed to exist. 

In the final analyses, you say you don't know that you're a man but you believe you are. Do you know that you believe you are a man, or can't you know that you are believing what you say you are believing. 

It's a dead end, man.

Ron


----------



## Magma2

> Seany boy, it sounds like your getting a little miffed. Is it because you don't believe you can know you exist? Poor, poor Sean. He's not a proposition in Scripture.... I think you've been hanging around with that genius, John Robbins too long.



Seany boy? Do I call you Ronnie now? Regardless, I´ve already told you that I don´t believe I can know I exist because you haven´t told me how I can know this? You just avoid my questions. Frankly, you haven´t even told me why this is even a relevant question? OTOH I've told you why it isn't (well, at least Clark has). In addition, while it is certainly true "œSeany boy" or even "œRonnie" is nowhere found in Scripture, or as far as I can tell deducible from Scripture, I take it from your remarks that you think you can account for certain truths quite apart from Scripture. Before I ask for a demonstration, will this be in the form of merely assuming the propositions you need to demonstrate again or will you try and provide something more substantive this time?

As for Dr. Robbins, all I can guess is you must have a very unnatural fixation with the man to keep bringing him up out of context. Must be envy or jealousy. I can´t tell which? 



> Guys like you enjoy hiding behind dead men. Nonetheless, you stated: "œAs for knowing I´m saved, I had a former assistant pastor at my church tell me I wasn´t because I argued that mere belief alone in the gospel is what saves a man."
> 
> Ron Asked: Are you a man, Sean?
> 
> Sean says: I think so.
> 
> Ron Asked: Do you have saving faith, Sean?
> 
> Sean replies: I think so again.
> 
> Quote:
> Sean states: I know the propositions of Scripture are true for I can account them per my axiom.
> 
> So "œaccounting" for something according to an axiom makes it true. I see now. All truth is subjective and you don´t know whether you're having this discussion.




You whine that when you refer to "Clarkians" you are not referring to Clark. So when I quote Clark at length in direct response to your question concerning existence, demonstrating the emptiness of your repeated attacks, you accuse me of "œhiding behind dead men." There is no pleasing some people.

Also, accounting for something according to an axiom doesn´t make anything true. There are many axioms which are false and demonstrably so. Maybe you should take a course in the history of philosophy or comparative religions? OTOH, accounting for something according to the axiom of Scripture *does* make it true for God´s word is true. As the Psalmist said; "œThy word is true from the beginning." Similarly, there are also arguably many things which I cannot account for which just might be true. Just because you can´t seem to differentiate between different noetic states doesn´t mean that I can´t or even that I shouldn´t. in my opinion that dead man Clark was correct when he said knowledge, if we´re going to call it that, must be accounted for. He accomplished this task even if foolish men confuse the truths knowable in accordance with Scripture with skepticism. OTOH, all I´ve gotten from you is asserting the very things which you need to prove. You beg the question and then pretend you´ve said something important. Given your track record, who can blame me for sticking with dead men?



> One thing we can be grateful for. Clarkians are seen within the church as obscure skeptics. Their numbers will never grow for the gates of hell will not prevail.



LOL  See what I mean.


----------



## mgeoffriau

I am appeared to treely.


----------



## fivepointcalvinist

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> 
> Clark says that trees exist because God created them because it says so in the Word of God. If its not in the Word, then we have no ground for truth. Only God provides us with the truth we are to believe.



isnt this engaging in circular reasoning which may be label irrational by the philosopher?


----------



## Ron

Sean states:


> I already told you that I don´t believe I can know I exist...



Yet earlier, when asked if he knows he exists, Sean hedged:


> Clark never denied he exists, but unlike you he didn´t confuse the trivial with the profound.



Sean finally states in no uncertain terms the truth of the matter, that he is willing to assert that he believes he doesn't know he exists. The reason this is germane is because Sean denies being a skeptic, yet he claims that he cannot know he exists. The problem is that Sean's knowledge of anything presupposes that it is true he exists. Accordingly, if Sean doesn't know he exists, then Sean can't know that it is true he exists; and if Sean doesn't know that it is true he exists, then Sean can't know anything. 



> As for Dr. Robbins, all I can guess is you must have a very unnatural fixation with the man to keep bringing him up out of context.



I keep bringing him up? Is this like your inaccurate statement about Bahnsen and apparent contradiction?

Sean, you have convinced yourself that you don't know anything. When you know that it's true you exist, get back to me. 

Your problems have salvific implications.

Ron


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Gentlemen, the tit for tat is very unseemly. I think you guys need to give it a rest.

That said, let me say this like a Marine - this Clarkian stuff just doesn't work for me. I think MurrayA frankly said it the best about this discussion.

Here is my problem: 
1. Nobody in the real world talks like this about knowing. 
2. The Scriptures don't talk that way about knowing.

I have to hand it to you that you have a convincing way of presenting a philosophical basis to cast skepticism on the use of terms. You can tie the issue of knowledge up into a tight Aristotlean knot that is nigh impossible to untie but, in the end, it just does not resonate with the Scriptures. We just don't see men and women in the Scriptures hemming and hawing over whether or not they "know" the Red Sea is there. "Well I think the Egyptian Army is on my heals but I don't KNOW it infallibly."

Maybe it's just that we're in Apologetic and Philosophical threads when Clarkians talk like this. I've never had a fellow Church member who is one. Provided they don't qualify everything they say about knowledge to everyone they meet then I guess it would be OK. My biggest issue is that it would REALLY confuse the vast majority of Christians. I can really see a Clarkian zealot causing more harm than good with people who can't distinguish between the types of knowledge we're talking about.

My point here is not to be pejorative or even to dumb down the conversation. I just really think that, even if we can form such arguments, we always need to consider how it resonates with the way the Scriptures describe such things. I also think it is not inconsequential how the average Joe can synthesize the idea that we don't have "real knowledge."


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

You just don't know, Rich!


----------



## Ron

> You can tie the issue of knowledge up into a tight Aristotlean knot that is nigh impossible to untie but, in the end, it just does not resonate with the Scriptures.



Rich,

Have you really seen this? 

Ron


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> 
> Clark says that trees exist because God created them because it says so in the Word of God. If its not in the Word, then we have no ground for truth. Only God provides us with the truth we are to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> isnt this engaging in circular reasoning which may be label irrational by the philosopher?
Click to expand...


What's the conclusion, and what are the premises. Is the conclusion also the premise.

P1: God provides us grounds for truth in his Word.
P2: God's Word says God created trees.
_P3: What ever God says he created exist._

C3: Trees exist.

Since "Trees exist" is not a premise, then the argument is not circular.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Gentlemen, the tit for tat is very unseemly. I think you guys need to give it a rest.
> 
> That said, let me say this like a Marine - this Clarkian stuff just doesn't work for me. I think MurrayA frankly said it the best about this discussion.
> 
> Here is my problem:
> 1. Nobody in the real world talks like this about knowing.
> 2. The Scriptures don't talk that way about knowing.
> 
> I have to hand it to you that you have a convincing way of presenting a philosophical basis to cast skepticism on the use of terms. You can tie the issue of knowledge up into a tight Aristotlean knot that is nigh impossible to untie but, in the end, it just does not resonate with the Scriptures. We just don't see men and women in the Scriptures hemming and hawing over whether or not they "know" the Red Sea is there. "Well I think the Egyptian Army is on my heals but I don't KNOW it infallibly."
> 
> Maybe it's just that we're in Apologetic and Philosophical threads when Clarkians talk like this. I've never had a fellow Church member who is one. Provided they don't qualify everything they say about knowledge to everyone they meet then I guess it would be OK. My biggest issue is that it would REALLY confuse the vast majority of Christians. I can really see a Clarkian zealot causing more harm than good with people who can't distinguish between the types of knowledge we're talking about.
> 
> My point here is not to be pejorative or even to dumb down the conversation. I just really think that, even if we can form such arguments, we always need to consider how it resonates with the way the Scriptures describe such things. I also think it is not inconsequential how the average Joe can synthesize the idea that we don't have "real knowledge."



You make some good points worth keeping in mind. And when you see the "experts" make convoluted arguments that can be translated to understandable terms - employing specialized language, then what good are they? Maybe amongst the academia, these things make a difference, but with the brothers and sisters in church, we have to be able to make these things understandable. Not that this thread has anyone I'd call an "expert" in philosophy.

Yet although some of us Clarkians really do a hatchet job with things, that's not always the case. If you've read any Clark, you'll see what I mean. I'm not saying he's "easy", but he is very precise and clear even if you need to give it some effort. Same with Aristotle. Christians need not be preached down too. They can lean the difference between epistemology and empiricism. We can all learn enough so we are not intimidated by the "academic" types and others who would tell us we are "in over our heads".

I'm no expert, and by taking part in some of these debates, I might be muddying the waters. I try to keep things clear, but I also forget that not everyone knows what terms like "ontological" mean. Still, it's worth learning these things if only to take back the ground that the academic have stolen from Christians who have fallen for the lie that religion is antithetical to reason. 

I can't say much for Vantillians, but no doubt that contribute their fair share of confusion - Van Til was nothing if not confusing.  And his apologetics method is the de facto being taught in many seminaries. I think Ron is more Vantillian than Clarkian - although I can't say for sure - that would explain a lot. And the TAG argument tries to pull a fast one on people, especially Christians, which only adds to the confusing and makes Christians look foolish.

But that being said. I know that the tit-for-tat is irritating. But I just can't help but confront people who present themselves as "experts" or one of the "intelligentsia" but then present clearly fallacious arguments. And when I confront them, they will try to dance around it. That's what a post-graduate education is good for, playing games with words and semantics to avoid dealing with sound reasoning. 

The more I study philosophy and logic, the more I realize the "experts" are often sophists who try to wow people with their expertise and credentials. Well don't fall for it. If they can't explain things clearly or try to brush you off, then doubt them even more. Because the better you learn their language, the more you will see that they are making the same basic mistakes in reasoning as your average Joe will know. They are just better at hiding it with complexity and $2 words. Believe me, it's not as complex as they try to make it sound.


----------



## Magma2

> Yet earlier, when asked if he knows he exists, Sean hedged:
> Quote:
> Clark never denied he exists, but unlike you he didn´t confuse the trivial with the profound.



Ronnie, please try and follow. I apologize if this is all new to you, so I´ll slow down a bit to help you. I´ve hedged on nothing and I explained quite clearly in a way that I thought you would easily understand. Seeing you still don´t get it, I promise won´t take your abilities for granted this time. Now follow carefully: The reason Clark never denied he exists is because the word exists can be predicated on everything, hence the word exists is meaningless. "œThe point is that a predicate, such as existence, that can be attached to everything indiscriminately tells us nothing about anything. A word, to mean something, must also not mean something . . . Since everything exists, exists is devoid of information. That is why the Catechism asks, What is God? Not, Does God exist?" Maybe we should ask; what is Ronnie? Would you like me to take the first stab at an answer?  




> Sean finally states in no uncertain terms the truth of the matter, that he is willing to assert that he believes he doesn't know he exists. The reason this is germane is because Sean denies being a skeptic, yet he claims that he cannot know he exists. The problem is that Sean's knowledge of anything presupposes that it is true he exists.



The real problem is your poor command of the English language, not to mention you´re complete inability to differentiate between different noetic states. You falsely accuse me of pyrrhonism, even though I affirm that one can indeed arrive at final truths and I´ve explained in sufficient detail, at least for these boards, precisely how this is possible. For a more detailed explanation (perhaps for those who want more than Van Tilian irrationalism and question begging) see Clark´s  Christian Philosophy. Consequently, to repeatedly claim that my unwillingness to play your games makes me a skeptic is to operate from a noetic state I would call ignorance. You must be in bliss. 



> Quote:
> As for Dr. Robbins, all I can guess is you must have a very unnatural fixation with the man to keep bringing him up out of context.
> 
> I keep bringing him up? Is this like your inaccurate statement about Bahnsen and apparent contradiction?



I think it useful from time to time to point out the incoherence and pure poison of VT´s view of Scripture if only for perspective when discussing Clark. BTW, if you want a citation please see Bahnsen´s volume Van Til´s Apologetic.



> Your problems have salvific implications.



Is this another example of because you assert something it must be true?


----------



## Magma2

> Gentlemen, the tit for tat is very unseemly. I think you guys need to give it a rest.
> 
> That said, let me say this like a Marine - this Clarkian stuff just doesn't work for me. I think MurrayA frankly said it the best about this discussion.
> 
> Here is my problem:
> 1. Nobody in the real world talks like this about knowing.
> 2. The Scriptures don't talk that way about knowing.



1. Many people talk this way about knowing in the real world as the question "œhow do you know" is the first question that must be addressed if anyone is going to engage in philosophy. If you can´t explain how you know you can´t really say you know anything. Now, is every Christian required to have a coherent biblical epistemology and be able to explain how knowledge is possible in exacting detail? I don´t think that´s necessary at all. However, I think most Christians would agree that because the bible tells them so should be sufficient and that is the apologetic fruit of Clark´s epistemology. OTOH, Peter commands us to "œsanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence . . . (1 Pet 3:15)." I would like to think forums like this allows brothers to hammer out our answers -- and our differences -- so that we all can better give an account for the hope that is in us. 

2. The Scriptures say a great deal about knowing and how we can know. For starters consider Isa 8:20; "œTo the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." I think this sums up the Scripturalism of Gordon Clark in a nutshell. As for "œsaying it like a Marine," maybe it would be better to first act like one and read Clark for yourself particularly the volume on Christian Philosophy I´ve linked to above. For what it's worth if you´re at all familiar with the works of Francis Schaeffer I think you will be very much at ease with Clark. 



> Maybe it's just that we're in Apologetic and Philosophical threads when Clarkians talk like this. I've never had a fellow Church member who is one. Provided they don't qualify everything they say about knowledge to everyone they meet then I guess it would be OK. My biggest issue is that it would REALLY confuse the vast majority of Christians. I can really see a Clarkian zealot causing more harm than good with people who can't distinguish between the types of knowledge we're talking about.



This is an apologetics discussion section of these boards so a certain amount precision would seem to be necessary. However, to my mind real harm and long term damage has been done to the Church by Van Til and his followers. Just to give you one salient example, John Frame writes; "œthe doctrine of justification by faith incorporates the paradox of divine sovereignty. The doctrine of justification by faith "“ when fully explained in its relations to the rest of Scriptural truth "“ is just as paradoxical as divine sovereignty." Note carefully, the doctrine of justification is just as paradoxical and contradictory as any other Biblical doctrine in the Vantilian anti-system. Also, note how it is that we come to a paradoxical view of justification. Paradoxes arise precisely when we attempt to explain a doctrine in relation "œto rest of Scriptural truth." For the Vantilian, the doctrine of justification is as resistant to logical harmonization as are all other Biblical doctrines. This is the connection between Van Til´s doctrine of revelation and the current heresies over justification and other doctrines that have emerged in Presbyterian churches. So you might think these discussions harmful, in my opinion you don´t know the half of it.



> My point here is not to be pejorative or even to dumb down the conversation. I just really think that, even if we can form such arguments, we always need to consider how it resonates with the way the Scriptures describe such things. I also think it is not inconsequential how the average Joe can synthesize the idea that we don't have "real knowledge."



The following is taken from John Robbins piece; An Introduction to Gordon H. Clark -PART 1 (http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=192):



> If I was to summarize Clark´s philosophy of Scripturalism, I would say something like this:
> 
> 1. Epistemology: Propositional Revelation
> 
> 2. Soteriology: Faith Alone
> 
> 3. Metaphysics: Theism
> 
> 4. Ethics: Divine Law
> 
> 5. Politics: Constitutional Republic
> 
> Translating those ideas into more familiar language, we might say:
> 
> 1. Epistemology: The Bible tells me so.
> 
> 2. Soteriology: Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.
> 
> 3. Metaphysics: In him we live and move and have our being.
> 
> 4. Ethics: We ought to obey God rather than men.
> 
> 5. Politics: Proclaim liberty throughout the land.



I´m sure these are all things the most average of Joes can understand and appreciate.


----------



## Arch2k

Good points Sean.

OK...back to the tree...

The answer to the question original stated can be summerized by the "Clarkian" system as follows:

A presuppositionalist can no more "know" that the tree is outside than anyone else. Clark has demonstrated that 

1) Empiricism cannot furnish us with truth

2) Rationalism cannot furnish us with truth

&

3) The Bible DOES furnish us with truth

but unfortunately, the Bible does not tell us in fact if or if not there is a tree outside my window.

It seems the only way for one to "know" that the tree is outside is to embrace the logical conclusion of their first principle, which in the first two cases leads to utter contradiction and skepticism, while the latter is silent on the issue of the tree.


----------



## Ron

Sean,

Obviously you don't see the difference between pink men on mars actually existing as physical beings and them existing as abstract entities. Accordingly, you think that Clark's never denying he existed seems to answer something germane to this discussion. First off, your whole reasoning process is equivocal, for you offered your remark about Clark in the context of actually existing as a person, not a mere idea. Even if Clark affirmed he existed in some regard, has he addressed the question of whether he physically existed as a soul before God? Moreover, having never denied something does not imply affirming that something! Accordingly, even if you were to "know" that Clark never denied something, which is rather a difficult thing to know even for a non-skeptic(!), this doesn't mean he affirmed that he existed, let alone physically existed. You don't think you know whether you exist as a physical person let alone a non-physical idea (yet your half-baked answers would seem to deny the latter, though it doesn't square with your views of truth), or whether you've trusted in the Lord for your salvation. Clarkians are rather cultish for reasons such as these!



> BTW, if you want a citation please see Bahnsen´s volume Van Til´s Apologetic.



I've read it several times Sean. Point me to where Bahnsen affirms apparent contradiction in the Scriptures. I missed that one. You're quite the master of avoiding the issue and not knowing who you are following or opposing.

Ron


----------



## Civbert

Pink men on mars don't exist?? Sure they do! I defy anyone to define anything that doesn't exist. Unless your definition is a contradiction, then whatever you define exists, even if only in your imagination. There's much more to existence than the physical.


----------



## Ron

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> Pink men on mars don't exist?? Sure they do! I defy anyone to define anything that doesn't exist. Unless your definition is a contradiction, then whatever you define exists, even if only in your imagination. There's much more to existence than the physical.



Classic Civbert. You don't read well, nor do you process well. I bet when you were a lad you often lost points for carelessness.


----------



## Ron

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> Pink men on mars don't exist?? Sure they do! I defy anyone to define anything that doesn't exist. Unless your definition is a contradiction, then whatever you define exists, even if only in your imagination. There's much more to existence than the physical.



Obviously you don't see the difference between pink men on mars actually existing as physical beings *and them existing as abstract entities.*


----------



## Ron

With that said, how do you prove and know that you exist in any form since you say you can't derive this from Scripture?


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> Pink men on mars don't exist?? Sure they do! I defy anyone to define anything that doesn't exist. Unless your definition is a contradiction, then whatever you define exists, even if only in your imagination. There's much more to existence than the physical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you don't see the difference between pink men on mars actually existing as physical beings *and them existing as abstract entities.*
Click to expand...


How do you know the difference? How do you know what "physical" entails? Is there something about "physical" and "abstract" that makes one more real than the other? If you want to dance with pink men on mars, how does you epistemology deal with that?


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> Pink men on mars don't exist?? Sure they do! I defy anyone to define anything that doesn't exist. Unless your definition is a contradiction, then whatever you define exists, even if only in your imagination. There's much more to existence than the physical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you don't see the difference between pink men on mars actually existing as physical beings *and them existing as abstract entities.*
Click to expand...


This is exactly the point that is trying to be made. The term "exist" applies to both abstract entities and pink men.

A more appropriate question would be "What ARE pink men on mars?" 

Two answers are then possible, they are either: 

1) the fanciful delusions of men with too much time on their hands
or
2) intelligent rational beings created in the image of God with an obsession with wearing pink clothing.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> This is exactly the point that is trying to be made. The term "exist" applies to both abstract entities and pink men.
> 
> A more appropriate question would be "What ARE pink men on mars?"
> 
> Two answers are then possible, they are either:
> 
> 1) the fanciful delusions of men with too much time on their hands
> or
> 2) intelligent rational beings created in the image of God with an obsession with wearing pink clothing.



:bigsmile: :bigsmile:


----------



## fivepointcalvinist

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> 
> Clark says that trees exist because God created them because it says so in the Word of God. If its not in the Word, then we have no ground for truth. Only God provides us with the truth we are to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> isnt this engaging in circular reasoning which may be label irrational by the philosopher?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the conclusion, and what are the premises. Is the conclusion also the premise.
> 
> P1: God provides us grounds for truth in his Word.
> P2: God's Word says God created trees.
> _P3: What ever God says he created exist._
> 
> C3: Trees exist.
> 
> Since "Trees exist" is not a premise, then the argument is not circular.
Click to expand...


whoa my friend, i think your logic in this example is a bit off. the argument is circular because it requires a precommitment to belief in God to prove itself. It is basically like this:

p1 - God exists
p2 - the bible is the Word of God and it says God created trees
therefore God exists and He created trees because the bible says so

to say that the tree exists because God created it is begging the question because we must presuppose God exists and rely on that presupposition as the basis for the truth of the argument; it does not give us information about the tree itself. Now I certainly agree God made trees, and i do not deny that i myself will engage in some amount of circular reasoning (we all do, even bahnsen will admit to that), but i believe we are able to know things not only because I presuppose the existence of God but also the fact that a tree is made of matter, and the matter that determines the composition of a tree remains constant. for example, trees will never grow wings and fly because that would be inconsistent with the intrinsic nature of the matter that composes the tree. so i know a tree exists because sensory perception (given by God of course) has allowed me to observe, perceive and interpret information based on immutable properties of matter contained within what we commonly call a tree


----------



## Magma2

> I've read it several times Sean. Point me to where Bahnsen affirms apparent contradiction in the Scriptures. I missed that one. You're quite the master of avoiding the issue and not knowing who you are following or opposing.



You might check the index Ron. I looked it up last night. See for yourself. Bahnsen is in complete agreement with the irrationalism and hostility to the harmony of Scripture as was his mentor. 

Do you know of anywhere he critiques Van Til's assertion that all of Scripture is apparently contradictory, that truth is analogous, and that there is no univocal point of contact between God's thoughts and man's thoughts? I admit I've never read anything by him that was critical of Van Til in this area, but then the focus of much of his writings seemed to lay elsewhere, specifically in furthering Theonomy. 

As for the rest of your remarks


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> 
> Clark says that trees exist because God created them because it says so in the Word of God. If its not in the Word, then we have no ground for truth. Only God provides us with the truth we are to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> isnt this engaging in circular reasoning which may be label irrational by the philosopher?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the conclusion, and what are the premises. Is the conclusion also the premise.
> 
> P1: God provides us grounds for truth in his Word.
> P2: God's Word says God created trees.
> _P3: What ever God says he created exist._
> 
> C3: Trees exist.
> 
> Since "Trees exist" is not a premise, then the argument is not circular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> whoa my friend, i think your logic in this example is a bit off. the argument is circular because it requires a precommitment to belief in God to prove itself. It is basically like this:
> 
> p1 - God exists
> p2 - the bible is the Word of God and it says God created trees
> therefore God exists and He created trees because the bible says so
> 
> to say that the tree exists because God created it is begging the question because we must presuppose God exists and rely on that presupposition as the basis for the truth of the argument; it does not give us information about the tree itself. Now I certainly agree God made trees, and i do not deny that i myself will engage in some amount of circular reasoning (we all do, even bahnsen will admit to that), but i believe we are able to know things not only because I presuppose the existence of God but also the fact that a tree is made of matter, and the matter that determines the composition of a tree remains constant. for example, trees will never grow wings and fly because that would be inconsistent with the intrinsic nature of the matter that composes the tree. so i know a tree exists because sensory perception (given by God of course) has allowed me to observe, perceive and interpret information based on immutable properties of matter contained within what we commonly call a tree
Click to expand...


Of course I'm presupposing God exists!! But I'm not trying to prove God exists. I'm not proving God exist, I'm proving trees exist. And more specifically, I'm presupposing that Scripture is God's Word. That is my axiom. Anything that follows from my axiom is done in a linear non-circular fashion.

Circular reasoning - ONLY ONLY ONLY is the case if the thing you are trying to show in your conclusion is being assumed with your premises. I'm NOT trying to prove God exists. 

The argument is NOT circular. Notice the _conclusion_ is NOT "God exists". No circle. Nada. Nope. Just a straight deduction based on the presupposition of Scripture.


----------



## Ron

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> I've read it several times Sean. Point me to where Bahnsen affirms apparent contradiction in the Scriptures. I missed that one. You're quite the master of avoiding the issue and not knowing who you are following or opposing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might check the index Ron. I looked it up last night. See for yourself. Bahnsen is in complete agreement with the irrationalism and hostility to the harmony of Scripture as was his mentor.
Click to expand...


Show me the quote.



> Do you know of anywhere he critiques Van Til's assertion that all of Scripture is apparently contradictory, that truth is analogous, and that there is no univocal point of contact between God's thoughts and man's thoughts? I admit I've never read anything by him that was critical of Van Til in this area, but then the focus of much of his writings seemed to lay elsewhere, specifically in furthering Theonomy.


 
If anything, he tried to make Van Til sound as if he did not teach analogical knowledge. 

Ron


----------



## Ron

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> Pink men on mars don't exist?? Sure they do! I defy anyone to define anything that doesn't exist. Unless your definition is a contradiction, then whatever you define exists, even if only in your imagination. There's much more to existence than the physical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you don't see the difference between pink men on mars actually existing as physical beings *and them existing as abstract entities.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know the difference? How do you know what "physical" entails? Is there something about "physical" and "abstract" that makes one more real than the other? If you want to dance with pink men on mars, how does you epistemology deal with that?
Click to expand...


First you misread me in your carelessness; I point it out to you and you're off to another matter...

Knowing the difference and believing one is more real than the other are two utterly different matters. 

One reason I can know that I exist as one who is physical is because Christ became incarnate to save physical people, of which I'm one. There are other reasons too but this fact points more to your gnostic tendencies on denying any possible way of distinguishing matter from non-matter.

Again, Civbert, you say you believe that you don't know you exist, whether as a physical person or a mere abstract entity. If you don't exist as a person, then you cannot know your axiom. If you say your axiom is true or believe it to be true, then you must exist to say so. 

You do exist. You exist as a walking contradiction.

Ron


----------



## Ron

> _Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> 
> Clark says that trees exist because God created them because it says so in the Word of God. If its not in the Word, then we have no ground for truth. Only God provides us with the truth we are to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> isnt this engaging in circular reasoning which may be label irrational by the philosopher?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the conclusion, and what are the premises. Is the conclusion also the premise.
> 
> P1: God provides us grounds for truth in his Word.
> P2: God's Word says God created trees.
> _P3: What ever God says he created exist._
> 
> C3: Trees exist.
> 
> Since "Trees exist" is not a premise, then the argument is not circular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> whoa my friend, i think your logic in this example is a bit off. the argument is circular because it requires a precommitment to belief in God to prove itself. It is basically like this:
> 
> p1 - God exists
> p2 - the bible is the Word of God and it says God created trees
> therefore God exists and He created trees because the bible says so
> 
> to say that the tree exists because God created it is begging the question because we must presuppose God exists and rely on that presupposition as the basis for the truth of the argument; it does not give us information about the tree itself. Now I certainly agree God made trees, and i do not deny that i myself will engage in some amount of circular reasoning (we all do, even bahnsen will admit to that), but i believe we are able to know things not only because I presuppose the existence of God but also the fact that a tree is made of matter, and the matter that determines the composition of a tree remains constant. for example, trees will never grow wings and fly because that would be inconsistent with the intrinsic nature of the matter that composes the tree. so i know a tree exists because sensory perception (given by God of course) has allowed me to observe, perceive and interpret information based on immutable properties of matter contained within what we commonly call a tree
Click to expand...


The trees that exist today are not the trees from creation. Moreover, Civbert doesn't even know there was a creation. Civbert doesn't even know whether he exists or whether he his dreaming.


----------



## Ron

> I'm no expert, and by taking part in some of these debates, I might be muddying the waters.



Amen, Civbert. Amen!


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> Clark has demonstrated that
> 
> 1) Empiricism cannot furnish us with truth
> 
> 2) Rationalism cannot furnish us with truth
> 
> &
> 
> 3) The Bible DOES furnish us with truth



Is this seriously what Clark taught?

If so, then he was full of baloney. I really hope that the above list is just not a good description of what Clark believed and taught. If it IS a good description, then I have to wonder why people would believe him?

If the Bible is the only source of truth, then virtually nobody between Adam and Moses had any chance of learning any truth. Nobody could say "the Bible told me so" because the Bible didn't even EXIST yet.

In fact, Scripture itself says that truth can be gained outside of Scripture. For example, Romans 1 says that certain attributes of God are "clearly seen, being understood from what has been made" (v. 20). Any person who simply looks at creation can know the fact of God's eternal power and divine nature. In fact, it is this very knowledge that renders unregenerate men "without excuse"! And none of this knowledge comes from Scripture . . . it is all natural revelation.

If nobody can know anything without finding it in the Bible, then nobody can know about God's eternal power or divine nature without first reading the Bible. But if they don't know about His eternal power and divine nature, then they DO have an excuse!

If you want to render fallen man "without excuse" (Rom. 1:20), then you must accept the fact that knowledge can be had through God's revelation in nature . . . not through Scriptural revelation alone.



If the list quoted at the top of this post accurately depicts Clarkianism, then ironically, Clarkianism is self-defeating, due to Romans 1:20 alone. 



But again, maybe the list quoted above does not accurately depict Clark's thought. I hope he wasn't so obviously careless.
Would anyone care to elaborate for me, please?


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> Pink men on mars don't exist?? Sure they do! I defy anyone to define anything that doesn't exist. Unless your definition is a contradiction, then whatever you define exists, even if only in your imagination. There's much more to existence than the physical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you don't see the difference between pink men on mars actually existing as physical beings *and them existing as abstract entities.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know the difference? How do you know what "physical" entails? Is there something about "physical" and "abstract" that makes one more real than the other? If you want to dance with pink men on mars, how does you epistemology deal with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First you misread me in your carelessness; I point it out to you and you're off to another matter...
> 
> Knowing the difference and believing one is more real than the other are two utterly different matters.
> 
> One reason I can know that I exist as one who is physical is because Christ became incarnate to save physical people, of which I'm one. There are other reasons too but this fact points more to your gnostic tendencies on denying any possible way of distinguishing matter from non-matter.
> 
> Again, Civbert, you say you believe that you don't know you exist, whether as a physical person or a mere abstract entity. If you don't exist as a person, then you cannot know your axiom. If you say your axiom is true or believe it to be true, then you must exist to say so.
> 
> You do exist. You exist as a walking contradiction.
> 
> Ron
Click to expand...


Sorry Ron. I don't recall where the Scipture says Jesus died for "physical" people. I thought he died to save souls. And I think my soul (although non-physical and therefore abstract) is real.

What is "person"? What is "physical"? Merely an assertion?


----------



## Ron

Joseph,

God's revelation, both general and special, is the only source of knowledge. Our only hope of justifying knowledge is through special revelation alone, for what can we appeal to in general revelation? From special revelation we can deduce sound conclusions. 

I'll take it one step further. I can reason beyond Scripture, yet by Scripture, to conclude things not contained in Scripture.

Those convicted of sin exist in the flesh
I'm convicted of sin
I exist in the flesh

I can know not only that Jesus came in the flesh but that I too exist bodily.

Ron


----------



## Ron

> Sorry Ron. I don't recall where the Scipture says Jesus died for "physical" people. I thought he died to save souls. And I think my soul (although non-physical and therefore abstract) is real.



We believe in the resurrection of the body around here, Civbert. We're Christians, not gnostics.

Ron


----------



## Ron

> If nobody can know anything without finding it in the Bible, then nobody can know about God's eternal power or divine nature without first reading the Bible. But if they don't know about His eternal power and divine nature, then they DO have an excuse!



Good thoughts. The truth is, people know God through general revelation, so your point is well taken, all men are without excuse. This does not mean that they can utter an intelligible case for knowledge apart from Scripture. Again, what is man's ultimate authority apart from Scripture, some sort of conceptual necessity for God?

Ron


----------



## JohnV

> _Originally posted by MurrayA_
> "That thing outside Matt's window. That's all you need to know."
> 
> Is there a "thing" there at all? Perhaps the Cartesian demon is deceiving me?
> 
> Honestly, these philosophical games transport me back to the philosophy tutorials of my undergraduate days. I find them frustrating, tiresome, and fruitless. Of course there's a tree out there, just as the philosophy tutor went off to enjoy his "imaginary" lunch after the tutorial was over! This is because we all have the same sensory organs to perceive the same things in much the same way. If you like:
> 
> All things bright and beautiful;
> All creatures great and small;
> All things wise and wonderful:
> The Lord God made them all.
> 
> And then:
> He gave us eyes to see them,
> And lips that we might tell
> How great is God Almighty
> Who hath made all things well.
> 
> Get real!! (I suppose that comment makes me a McCosh "Common sense realist". Oh well...)



Dr. Murray:

Have you ever seen the movie "Finding Forrester"? In that movie the major character, Jamal, asks the leading support character, Forrester, about the soup, why it is getting a skim on the top. Jamal's mother's soup doesn't do that. Forrester answers him that Jamal's mother couldn't afford to put milk in the soup, so this was outside Jamal's experience. Then Jamal asks Forrester a personal question, a question whose answer will not provide any significant information helpful to Jamal. Forrester responds that that question is not a soup question. From then on, in the movie, there is references to "soup questions". 

The question about the tree is not a "soup question". The answer to the question lies in the question itself, not in some outside information. What could possibly be added to the what is already in the question that could provide information, if the reference is that thing outside the window, which the questioner identifies as a tree? This is not a soup question, and so is a question of the category of which the answer lies in the question itself. 

I agree, a fruitless pursuit. Give me a soup question any day.

[Edited on 3-21-2006 by JohnV]


----------



## Magma2

> Show me the quote.




Look it up yourself.



> Do you know of anywhere he critiques Van Til's assertion that all of Scripture is apparently contradictory, that truth is analogous, and that there is no univocal point of contact between God's thoughts and man's thoughts? I admit I've never read anything by him that was critical of Van Til in this area, but then the focus of much of his writings seemed to lay elsewhere, specifically in furthering Theonomy.
> 
> If anything, he tried to make Van Til sound as if he did not teach analogical knowledge.




That may be true. Many of VT's followers have had to work overtime trying to make VT sound like he didn't really mean what he said.

[Edited on 3-21-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## Ron

Sean,

You say it's there in the index. Well, produce it. 

Ron


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> Clark has demonstrated that
> 
> 1) Empiricism cannot furnish us with truth
> 
> 2) Rationalism cannot furnish us with truth
> 
> &
> 
> 3) The Bible DOES furnish us with truth
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> But again, maybe the list quoted above does not accurately depict Clark's thought. I hope he wasn't so obviously careless.
> Would anyone care to elaborate for me, please?
Click to expand...


Sure, here it is:

Clark has demonstrated that 

1) Empiricism cannot furnish us with truth

2) Rationalism cannot furnish us with truth

&

3) The Bible DOES furnish us with truth


Now where does it say that the Bible is the ONLY source of truth? 

More specifically, the Scripturalist epistemology says that the Scriptures are God truth revealed to man. Therefore Scripture gives us a means of justifying knowledge by using it as a foundation. God's verbal revelation. 

From Eve's empirical observation "that apple sure looks tasty", man has been trying to avoid God's revelation and find knowledge by our own efforts. Empiricism says that we can have knowledge entirely from our senses, and rationalism say it's entirely through reason. Both are dead from metaphysical and empirical causes. They are DOA. So we are left with some sort of Dogmatism to justify knowledge - ergo - Scripture. 

I wouldn't put all my eggs in a one verse basket. You might misunderstand the verse. And since empiricism and rationalism has not means of justifying knowledge, what is the alternative?

There is more to truth than the Bible and what we can deduce from it. But knowledge is the truths we can justify being true. So what can you justify knowing from looking at mountains and trees? Nada! And yet men still "know" God exists. The justification of that knowledge can only be made through Scripture. Scripture tells us God has made it known to men. Not that men figure it out for themselves. Man alone can't seem to reason his way out of a paper bag. 


(P.S. I skipped a few other epistemologies, I don't count mysticism, and the others are just blends of empiricism and rationalism, or just non-sense.)


----------



## Ron

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Ron. I don't recall where the Scipture says Jesus died for "physical" people. I thought he died to save souls. And I think my soul (although non-physical and therefore abstract) is real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We believe in the resurrection of the body around here, Civbert. We're Christians, not gnostics.
> 
> Ron
Click to expand...


So Civbert,

Did Jesus die to save our souls but not our bodies?

Watch the double talk folks. 

Ron


----------



## fivepointcalvinist

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> 
> Clark says that trees exist because God created them because it says so in the Word of God. If its not in the Word, then we have no ground for truth. Only God provides us with the truth we are to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> isnt this engaging in circular reasoning which may be label irrational by the philosopher?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the conclusion, and what are the premises. Is the conclusion also the premise.
> 
> P1: God provides us grounds for truth in his Word.
> P2: God's Word says God created trees.
> _P3: What ever God says he created exist._
> 
> C3: Trees exist.
> 
> Since "Trees exist" is not a premise, then the argument is not circular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> whoa my friend, i think your logic in this example is a bit off. the argument is circular because it requires a precommitment to belief in God to prove itself. It is basically like this:
> 
> p1 - God exists
> p2 - the bible is the Word of God and it says God created trees
> therefore God exists and He created trees because the bible says so
> 
> to say that the tree exists because God created it is begging the question because we must presuppose God exists and rely on that presupposition as the basis for the truth of the argument; it does not give us information about the tree itself. Now I certainly agree God made trees, and i do not deny that i myself will engage in some amount of circular reasoning (we all do, even bahnsen will admit to that), but i believe we are able to know things not only because I presuppose the existence of God but also the fact that a tree is made of matter, and the matter that determines the composition of a tree remains constant. for example, trees will never grow wings and fly because that would be inconsistent with the intrinsic nature of the matter that composes the tree. so i know a tree exists because sensory perception (given by God of course) has allowed me to observe, perceive and interpret information based on immutable properties of matter contained within what we commonly call a tree
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I'm presupposing God exists!! But I'm not trying to prove God exists. I'm not proving God exist, I'm proving trees exist. And more specifically, I'm presupposing that Scripture is God's Word. That is my axiom. Anything that follows from my axiom is done in a linear non-circular fashion.
> 
> Circular reasoning - ONLY ONLY ONLY is the case if the thing you are trying to show in your conclusion is being assumed with your premises. I'm NOT trying to prove God exists.
> 
> The argument is NOT circular. Notice the _conclusion_ is NOT "God exists". No circle. Nada. Nope. Just a straight deduction based on the presupposition of Scripture.
Click to expand...


youre missing the point. you must rely on a presupposition to prove the premise makes it circular because the premise only exists because of the presupposition and uses itself to prove the argument. your argument is founded on the fact that we know trees exist because God made them, but you must first prove that the conception you rely on (that God exists) is in fact true, otherwise HOW can a tree be come into existence? for example, how can i prove a car exists unless i first prove the means and ability to make the car? (i.e. proving Ford Motor Co. exists first) then and only then can you prove the latter premise that we know trees exist because God says they do. also how can you presuppose that Scripture is Gods Word without first presupposing God? Again you must prove God exists before you can attribute characteristics to Him. the first argument you must show to be true is the foundation by which all of your other arguments rely, namely God exists.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> Joseph,
> 
> God's revelation, both general and special, is the only source of knowledge. Our only hope of justifying knowledge is through special revelation alone, for what can we appeal to in general revelation? From special revelation we can deduce sound conclusions.
> 
> I'll take it one step further. I can reason beyond Scripture, yet by Scripture, to conclude things not contained in Scripture.
> 
> Those convicted of sin exist in the flesh
> I'm convicted of sin
> I exist in the flesh
> 
> I can know not only that Jesus came in the flesh but that I too exist bodily.
> 
> Ron




Ron, 

Thank you for the response. Please help me understand further.

You said, "From special revelation we can deduce sound conclusions".

Are you implying that sound conclusions cannot be deduced from general revelation? 

In other words, are you saying that God's eternal power and divine nature are not sound conclusions which can be deduced from general revelation alone?

Thank you for your input. I'm trying to better understand your position . . . I'm not seeking a heated debate (not that you implied otherwise . . . I've just seen a lot of heat thrown around on this thread).

Your brother in Christ,
Joseph

[Edited on 3-21-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Magma2

> You say it's there in the index. Well, produce it.
> 
> Ron



Oh brother. I'm sorry your book doesn't have an index. Buy a new copy and then look up the word "c-o-n-t-r-a-d-i-c-t-i-o-n" and below that you'll find an entry for "apparent contradiction." 

You've now called all of your opponents stupid in one way or another, are you now calling me a liar?


----------



## Ron

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> You say it's there in the index. Well, produce it.
> 
> Ron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh brother. I'm sorry your book doesn't have an index. Buy a new copy and then look up the word "c-o-n-t-r-a-d-i-c-t-i-o-n" and below that you'll find an entry for "apparent contradiction."
> 
> You've now called all of your opponents stupid in one way or another, are you now calling me a liar?
Click to expand...


Oh, Bahnsen speaks a lot about apparent contradiction. I want to know where he says that the Scriptures contain them. Why aren't you willing to back up this claim with a page number and a paragraph number? Here's your chance. Quote Bahnsen and show how he affirmed apparent contradictions.

Ron


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Ron. I don't recall where the Scipture says Jesus died for "physical" people. I thought he died to save souls. And I think my soul (although non-physical and therefore abstract) is real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We believe in the resurrection of the body around here, Civbert. We're Christians, not gnostics.
> 
> Ron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Civbert,
> 
> Did Jesus die to save our souls but not our bodies?
> 
> Watch the double talk folks.
> 
> Ron
Click to expand...


You seem to conflate souls and bodies. Was Jesus Jesus before he gained a body? And what of the Holy Spirit? Is the Holy Spirit not a person too? What makes you a person? Did Jesus die to save your body or your soul? They are not the same thing. The body will be resurrected, but until that time, will YOU will be with Christ or not? Clearly the body and the soul are two different things. 

Watch the side-stepping folks.


----------



## Ron

> You said, "From special revelation we can deduce sound conclusions".
> 
> Are you implying that sound conclusions cannot be deduced from general revelation?



Joseph,

All premises based soley on nature are inductive inferences and therefore may not be asserted as true premises. It might be helpful to try to justify a true premise apart from Scripture. 



> In other words, are you saying that God's eternal power and divine nature are not sound conclusions which can be deduced from general revelation alone?



God's attributes cannot be deduced from nature but they are known through nature. In other words, the unbeliever knows he's under God's wrath because the unbeliever is justified in his belief of this truth. However, how could he deduce it? What would be the source of his true premises? If he can't deduce it, how can he justify it? Nonetheless, he does know it.



> Thank you for your input. I'm trying to better understand your position . . . I'm not seeking a heated debate (not that you implied otherwise . . . I've just seen a lot of heat thrown around on this thread).



I appreciate your sincerity.

Blessings,

Ron


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> God's attributes cannot be deduced from nature but they are known through nature. In other words, the unbeliever knows he's under God's wrath because the unbeliever is justified in his belief of this truth. However, how could he deduce it? What would be the source of his true premises? If he can't deduce it, how can he justify it? Nonetheless, he does know it.



Ron, 

You rightly say that God's attributes are "known through nature". 

Yet, I have seen some on this thread say that we cannot truly "know" (i.e. "have knowledge") of anything unless we get it from Scripture.

So, please help me understand what is different about the "knowledge" a person has about God's attributes from Scripture, versus the "knowledge" a person has about God's attributes merely from general revelation.

In other words, would Clark say that *both* persons have true "knowledge" of God's attributes?

If not, why not?

If so, then how is it that a person acquired true knowledge through his senses (by looking at creation), without ever reading the Bible?


Thank you for your patience,
Joseph


----------



## Saiph

If there is a bible on your desk, how do you know it exists ? And how do you know it is God's word ?

This thread is the most inane epistemological foolishness I have ever heard. Scripturalism cuts its own throat. Do you still look both ways for cars that may or may not exist before crossing the street ?


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> If there is a bible on your desk, how do you know it exists ? And how do you know it is God's word ?






Great point, Mark! That is worth quoting. I'm going to have to remember it. 


Also, humans went thousands of years without even *having* a Bible. It didn't even EXIST until the time of Moses (Job notwithstanding). So would a Clarkian suggest that nobody knew anything from the time of Adam until the time of Moses?


----------



## Ron

*Civbert States:* I don't recall where the Scipture says Jesus died for "physical" people. I thought he died to save souls. And I think my soul (although non-physical and therefore abstract) is real.

*Ron Replies:* We believe in the resurrection of the body around here, Civbert. We're Christians, not gnostics"¦ Did Jesus die to save our souls but not our bodies?

*Civbert replies:* You seem to conflate souls and bodies. Was Jesus Jesus before he gained a body? 

*Ron States:* Notice how Civbert brings in an irrelevant point. The Second Person of the Trinity prior to the incarnation had no body. He took on a *body* in order to save men, who are not merely spiritual beings but also bodily creatures! Your position is heretical, for it denies that Jesus came to save man, which includes body and soul. 



> Did Jesus die to save your body or your soul?



That´s a false dilemma Civbert. He came to save men, who are made up of body and soul. 



> They are not the same thing. The body will be resurrected, but until that time, will YOU will be with Christ or not? Clearly the body and the soul are two different things.



It is fallacious to argue that since we´ll be absent from the body yet present with the Lord that our bodies are not redeemed by Christ´s finished work. Your position is that Jesus only redeemed our souls, whereas my position is that Jesus redeemed men, both body and soul. This does not mean that a person's body and soul cannot be separated. Nonetheless, the body is redeemed. 

You have stated that Jesus does not save bodies but only souls. This denies the *redemption* of the body. 

Ron


----------



## Saiph

Thank you for another obviously good point Joseph.


----------



## Ron

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> If there is a bible on your desk, how do you know it exists ? And how do you know it is God's word ?
> 
> This thread is the most inane epistemological foolishness I have ever heard. Scripturalism cuts its own throat. Do you still look both ways for cars that may or may not exist before crossing the street ?



I'm with you, brother. 

Ron


----------



## Ron

> Yet, I have seen some on this thread say that we cannot truly "know" (i.e. "have knowledge") of anything unless we get it from Scripture.



I would never say that. I know that I'm sitting on a couch. An atheist can know the same sorts of things. The _justification_ of knowledge requires special revelation.



> So, please help me understand what is different about the "knowledge" a person has about God's attributes from Scripture, versus the "knowledge" a person has about God's attributes merely from general revelation.



With respect to those attributes that are revealed in nature and conscience, there's no difference in the knowledge in that it is justified belief in the truth. The difference has to do with the ability to offer a justification. Again, how would an atheist or theist justify God's attributes apart from special revelation? 



> In other words, would Clark say that *both* persons have true "knowledge" of God's attributes?



Ron

[Edited on 3-21-2006 by Ron]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> Of course I'm presupposing God exists!! But I'm not trying to prove God exists. I'm not proving God exist, I'm proving trees exist. And more specifically, I'm presupposing that Scripture is God's Word. That is my axiom. Anything that follows from my axiom is done in a linear non-circular fashion.
> 
> Circular reasoning - ONLY ONLY ONLY is the case if the thing you are trying to show in your conclusion is being assumed with your premises. I'm NOT trying to prove God exists.
> 
> The argument is NOT circular. Notice the _conclusion_ is NOT "God exists". No circle. Nada. Nope. Just a straight deduction based on the presupposition of Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youre missing the point. you must rely on a presupposition to prove the premise makes it circular because the premise only exists because of the presupposition and uses itself to prove the argument.
Click to expand...

Huh? The presuppositions uses itself? The presupposition is not a conclusion, it is a premise. 



> _Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist_
> 
> your argument is founded on the fact that we know trees exist because God made them, but you must first prove that the conception you rely on (that God exists) is in fact true, otherwise HOW can a tree be come into existence?



But the question was not "how do we know God exists". No one asked if God exists. The _fact_ is not "trees exist", the _question_ was how do we _know_ "trees exist". I'm not assuming trees, I am assuming Scripture.

And the answer is: we know based on a priori truths. The foundation is the starting point, not the conclusion. You are looking at some interesting issues, but you are mistaken in thinking that holding to presuppositions makes an argument circular. That is contrary to the meaning of "circular" - which is to arrive at a conclusion by assume it as a premise. That's why circular arguments are fallacious - they go in a circle.



> _Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist_
> 
> for example, how can i prove a car exists unless i first prove the means and ability to make the car? (i.e. proving Ford Motor Co. exists first) then and only then can you prove the latter premise that we know trees exist because God says they do. also how can you presuppose that Scripture is Gods Word without first presupposing God?



Sure, I'm assuming God exists ontologically, but my epistemological assumption is Scripture because that gives meaning to the term "God". Logically, I don't start with "God exists" because I can not deduce anything from that statement. The statement "X is" has no meaning: X is what? God is what? God exists just means "God is". That is a metaphysical statement of fact. Very profound in proper context - but by itself it is meaningless. But all that aside, that still does not make the argument for trees circular. 




> _Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist_
> 
> Again you must prove God exists before you can attribute characteristics to Him. the first argument you must show to be true is the foundation by which all of your other arguments rely, namely God exists.



Nope. "God exists" has no meaning. Only by predicating what the word "God" means do we give it meaning. And since a man-made definition of God defeats the idea of "god-ness", we get our definition _of_ God _from_ God. Any attempt to prove God exists _would_ be circular. But we can know who God is through revelation. That's why the epistemological starting point is Scripture - not the meaningless "existence".

AND again,  since the question was about "trees" and not God, then circularity is not involved. 





[Edited on 3-21-2006 by Civbert]

[Edited on 3-21-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Ron

Civbert,

I think Matthew's point, but I'm not sure, is that in order to prove X, one must first prove the necessary preconditions for the proof of X. What he might be getting at in the end, but again I'm not sure, is that _by_ proving X, one proves the necessary preconditions for X. 

ron


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> If there is a bible on your desk, how do you know it exists ? And how do you know it is God's word ?
> 
> This thread is the most inane epistemological foolishness I have ever heard. Scripturalism cuts its own throat. Do you still look both ways for cars that may or may not exist before crossing the street ?



What does "exist" mean? 

I look both ways when I cross the street because cars are big heavy things that move fast and hurt a lot when they run in to you.  But I don't say I look both ways because "cars exist". Mickey Mouse exists, but he doesn't hurt when he runs into you. If the only thing the exists are things with physical attributes, then God does not exist because God is not a physical being.

If you going to ask the question, you need to know what "exists" means. You are making many assumptions when you ask "how do you know it exists". What does exist mean? What does "know" mean? 

The whole idea of "existence" is not so simple. Or maybe you worldview amounts to existentialism? Do you hold to "it is what it is?" or "why ask why?"

What's really inane is to assert any X exists. That's meaningless. Existence if a philosophical black whole that philosophers have fallen into by asking stupid questions like do trees exist. Are you going to follow them in? It's dark in there.


----------



## Magma2

> If there is a bible on your desk, how do you know it exists ?



How do you know there is a bible on your desk? Unlike his self-styled critics like Ron, Clark was not satisfied with just begging the question. How about you? Why don´t you provide an account for a bible on your desk. Also, if your theory begins with sensation, please define sensation and demonstrate that people have them before you attempt to share you theory of images and all that is entailed per your empirical assumptions. Actually, why don´t you read Hume before answering.



> And how do you know it is God's word ?



This was already addressed on another thread, but how did Abraham know God was commanding him to sacrifice his son and not Satan? Answer this question correctly and you´ll have your answer.



> This thread is the most inane epistemological foolishness I have ever heard. Scripturalism cuts its own throat.



Why, because you say so?



> Do you still look both ways for cars that may or may not exist before crossing the street ?



And how does this question address the question how knowledge is possible? Is it you assume what you need to demonstrate and your work is done?

[Edited on 3-21-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## fivepointcalvinist

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> Civbert,
> 
> I think Matthew's point, but I'm not sure, is that in order to prove X, one must first prove the necessary preconditions for the proof of X. What he might be getting at in the end, but again I'm not sure, is that _by_ proving X, one proves the necessary preconditions for X.
> 
> ron


----------



## Saiph

> If the only thing the exists are things with physical attributes, then God does not exist because God is not a physical being.



Jesus is God.
Jesus has physical attributes.
God has physical attributes.

You just denied the Trinity.

[Edited on 3-21-2006 by Saiph]


----------



## Saiph

Sean, knowledge is possible because we are aware of ourself and our surroundings. And since we use language to correlate the empyrical with the rational, knowledge is not only possible, is is necessary. We are conscious knowers.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Also, humans went thousands of years without even *having* a Bible. It didn't even EXIST until the time of Moses (Job notwithstanding). So would a Clarkian suggest that nobody knew anything from the time of Adam until the time of Moses?



I'd say men could not justify knowing anything without Scripture. All men know some things, but they have no way of separating their knowledge from beliefs without a epistemological process that works. Without Scripture, they could only guess that what they believed was true. What else could they do?

Metaphysically, God speaking is where knowledge comes from. God speaks things into existence. And God speaks to men directly and through the Scripture. But unless you are claiming to be an existentialist or a mystic, you can not justify anything you believe is knowledge without a written revelation from God. God gives men some knowledge directly - but they can not justify it for themselves - they are epistemologically bankrupt.


----------



## Ron

> _Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Ron_
> Civbert,
> 
> I think Matthew's point, but I'm not sure, is that in order to prove X, one must first prove the necessary preconditions for the proof of X. What he might be getting at in the end, but again I'm not sure, is that _by_ proving X, one proves the necessary preconditions for X.
> 
> ron
Click to expand...


Well, if that was your point, then I'm delighted. :bigsmile:

Ron


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> 
> If the only thing the exists are things with physical attributes, then God does not exist because God is not a physical being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus is God.
> Jesus has physical attributes.
> God has physical attributes.
> 
> You just denied the Trinity.
> 
> [Edited on 3-21-2006 by Saiph]
Click to expand...


I think you should withdraw that statement unless you would like to take that up with my Pastor. You have just accused me of being an apostate. That's a serious charge and should not be made lightly.

God is three persons. The person of Jesus has a body. God the Father does not, the Holy Spirit does not. Are you denying the person-hood of God? Are you saying that Jesus was speaking to himself when God spoke and said "this is my Son".



> When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
> _(Mat 3:16-17 NKJV)_


 
The implication of Mat 3:16-17 is

Jesus is not the Father.
Jesus is not the Holy Spirit.
The Father is not the Holy Spirit.

Jesus, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit are not the same person. The Scripture shows three separate persons with unique attributes. Jesus was not taking to himself, and he did not just fly down from heaven like a dove. 

Now, if you'd like to deal with the separation of the soul and body when "we" are in heaven with Christ prior to the resurrection, that might be helpful. My point is, we are not our bodies. Physicality is not an defining predication of person or "existence".


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> 
> If the only thing the exists are things with physical attributes, then God does not exist because God is not a physical being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus is God.
> Jesus has physical attributes.
> God has physical attributes.
> 
> You just denied the Trinity.
Click to expand...


Jesus is not God, he is the God-Man.

You have denied the hypostatic union.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Sean, knowledge is possible because we are aware of ourself and our surroundings. And since we use language to correlate the empyrical with the rational, knowledge is not only possible, is is necessary. We are conscious knowers.



"I think therefore I am". 

And from that you can justify what? Language is not only unnecessary given your correlation of "empirical with the rational," it is impossible.


----------



## fivepointcalvinist

my friend Civbert, i will make my proposition a little more lucid for you, and ron, you did a good job of bringing me to this post. my ultimate point in which i hoped you would understand, was that for you to prove anything at all on the premise that we know because God says so or the scripture says so or Jesus says so is that the underlying premise "GOD EXISTS..." must first be proven. Also, i think you contradicted yourself when you said:

"Circular reasoning - ONLY ONLY ONLY is the case if the thing you are trying to show in your conclusion is being assumed with your premises. I'm NOT trying to prove God exists. "

"The argument is NOT circular. Notice the conclusion is NOT "God exists". No circle. Nada. Nope. Just a straight deduction based on the presupposition of Scripture. "

But then you said:

"The presupposition is not a conclusion, it is a premise"

Okay, we establish the presupposition as a premise, but the conclusion is *"Clark says that trees exist because God created them because it says so in the Word of God".* Does the conclusion not contain the premise that God exists? Okay so now, how do you prove that God exists, since the explanation that trees exists is *because* God created them? You say you are not trying to prove God exists, but proving He exists, is a necessary precondition to proving that the tree exists. Once you establish that, you can make the claim as to how you know the tree exists.


----------



## fivepointcalvinist

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Ron_
> Civbert,
> 
> I think Matthew's point, but I'm not sure, is that in order to prove X, one must first prove the necessary preconditions for the proof of X. What he might be getting at in the end, but again I'm not sure, is that _by_ proving X, one proves the necessary preconditions for X.
> 
> ron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if that was your point, then I'm delighted. :bigsmile:
> 
> Ron
Click to expand...


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist_
> ...
> 
> Okay, we establish the presupposition as a premise, but the conclusion is *"Clark says that trees exist because God created them because it says so in the Word of God".* Does the conclusion not contain the premise that God exists?


No it does not. The conclusion is "we can know trees exist". The premises is "God word says so". Unsaid is "we can justify knowing propositions by deducing them from Scripture.

What you quoted was a very compact and compound set of statements with a single conclusion and several premises (including an assumed premises). It is an enthymeme.

There are implied premises. But the conclusion is only "we can know trees exist."

And in propositional form the conclusion is:

_(All persons)_ are _(persons-who-can-know-trees-exist)_



And I can go through the painful process of giving you all the premises in propositional form to show how exactly the inference to the conclusion is made - but please don't make me! 



> _Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist_
> 
> Okay so now, how do you prove that God exists, since the explanation that trees exists is *because* God created them?



Ok... I don't. 




> _Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist_
> 
> You say you are not trying to prove God exists, but proving He exists, is a necessary precondition to proving that the tree exists. Once you establish that, you can make the claim as to how you know the tree exists.



Nope. Again, all I need to do is presuppose the Scriptures are true. You are asking me to give you a circular argument. Not gonna do it. 

You are under the mistaken assumption that to give a sound argument, you must prove each premises is true prior to giving the argument. You don't. That leads to an infinite regression (you'll never get there) OR a circular fallacy (bad logic). A sound argument needs to have true premises and valid form. But if you don't accept my premises, I have not proven anything to you. I may have correct form - but if you don't agree with my premises, it doesn't matter. You can't say I'm wrong unless you can show the contrary of one of my premises using a priori premises we both agree too. But if I presume my conclusion, you can just toss out my argument all together. If my premise demands justification - then that justification must not be circular. 

But "God exists" is not a logically necessary premise for the conclusion. Scripture is true, is a necessary premise. That the truth of Scripture assumes the truth of the God _ as revealed in Scripture_ is logically irrelevant to the argument. Break down the argument and you will not find the premise "God exists". 

I'm afraid you have fallen for the TAG fallacy. That way leads to darkness. Don't go there! 

[Edited on 3-22-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Saiph

Jeff, Jesus is God. Stand before Him and deny it. He is also the God-man. He is also Man.

All three terms can be used of him remember Thomas . .my Lord and my God.


----------



## Saiph

> God is three persons. The person of Jesus has a body. God the Father does not, the Holy Spirit does not. Are you denying the person-hood of God? Are you saying that Jesus was speaking to himself when God spoke and said "this is my Son".



Notice, I did not say the father or Spirit had a body did I . . .. 

God can be used of Christ. Can it not ?


----------



## Saiph

> And from that you can justify what? Language is not only unnecessary given your correlation of "empirical with the rational," it is impossible.



For instance, I deduce and know, within reason that you are a real person posting on this board, and that by your name you are a man and not a woman. Am I wrong ? I do not need special revealation to have justifiable knowledge of those facts. They are true from my perception until proven otherwise.


----------



## Magma2

> Oh, Bahnsen speaks a lot about apparent contradiction. I want to know where he says that the Scriptures contain them. Why aren't you willing to back up this claim with a page number and a paragraph number? Here's your chance. Quote Bahnsen and show how he affirmed apparent contradictions.



To accommodate your sloth . . . 



> Van Til produced valuable studies in the area of Christian theology (e.g., on equal ultimacy in the Trinity [God being numerical 1 and 3 in the same sense - SG], absolute predestination, God´s incomprehensibility, nature and revelation, *theological paradox* and a nonintellecutalist view of man) . . . . 15



Then in a footnote to the above Bahnsen cites a number of VT´s works including Frame´s "œThe Problem of Theological Paradox" which is one of the most brazen attacks on the Biblical doctrine of Scripture written by any of VT´s disciples. For those interested, Anthony just posted a link to an audio lecture by Clark where he offers a devastating critique of both Frame and VT in light of this piece. Bahnsen, on the other hand, cites this piece favorably in support of his praise of VT.

After citing an example of divine foreordination and human freedom, Bahnsen writes:


> In this and *many other cases, human knowledge may have a paradoxical cast to it, then; we affirm as truths things that may appear to be contradictory.* 233-234




Then again in a corresponding footnote Bahnsen writes also quote VT:



> "All the truths of the Christian religion have of necessity [read carefully Ronnie] the appearance of being contradictory . . . We do not fear to accept that which has the appearance of being contradictory. We know that what appears to be so to us is not really so" . . . We cling to God´s revelation, "œknowing that that which appears contradictory to man because of his finitude, is not really contradictory to God."



In defense of VT´s attack on the coherence of Scripture Bahnsen appeals to the unbiblical and proverbial "œmystery" as we are to bow in submission to the apparently contradictory "œtruths of the Christian religion." 

Pure poison.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Jeff, Jesus is God. Stand before Him and deny it. He is also the God-man. He is also Man.
> 
> All three terms can be used of him remember Thomas . .my Lord and my God.



Mark, you argument hinged on a seperation of the natures of Christ, which was my point. To say that Christ is God is not the whole truth, for He is also man. He is the God-Man. Therefore to seperate one of the natures from the other as you did was wrong, for they cannot be seperated in the hypostatic union.

God does not have a body, men do. Jesus was the God-man, and therefore had a body.


----------



## Magma2

> Sean, knowledge is possible because we are aware of ourself and our surroundings. And since we use language to correlate the empyrical with the rational, knowledge is not only possible, is is necessary. We are conscious knowers.



You must be a graduate from Ron´s petitio principii school of sophist epistemology.  You say knowledge is possible because we are aware of ourselves and our surroundings. Does that include dreams and hallucinations? If not, why not? And, how do you know you´re not dreaming now? 

As for the rest, assertions are not the proper replacement for arguments.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> 
> And from that you can justify what? Language is not only unnecessary given your correlation of "empirical with the rational," it is impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For instance, I deduce and know, within reason that you are a real person posting on this board, and that by your name you are a man and not a woman. Am I wrong ? I do not need special revealation to have justifiable knowledge of those facts. They are true from my perception until proven otherwise.
Click to expand...


No you can not deduce or prove either from what you know or can reason soundly. 

It maybe reasonable to "believe" I am a man (I don't know any Anthony's who are girls), and I am not a computer (a computer probably wouldn't make so many typing errors). But you can not say all Anthony's are guys. And computers can be programmed to make mistakes. 

And innocent until proven guilty only works for civil cases (and in this country). 

To deduce I am a man you'd have to know for a fact that "no Anthony is a girl". To prove I am not a computer, you'd have to know that "no computer can fool Saiph" or something to that effect. Since these are not "knowable" - and since they make really bad axioms, then I wouldn't say you can prove either is the case. 

But loosley speaking - it's not "wrong" to believe either. The premises are not obviously wrong. But beleiving and knowing are not the same thing. I'd even go so far as to say I believe them too.  But I can't prove them to you.

I guess what you are arguing for is what I'd call a "reasonable" belief, not a "justified true belief".


----------



## Saiph

> Mark, you argument hinged on a seperation of the natures of Christ, which was my point. To say that Christ is God is not the whole truth, for He is also man. He is the God-Man. Therefore to seperate one of the natures from the other as you did was wrong, for they cannot be seperated in the hypostatic union.
> 
> God does not have a body, men do. Jesus was the God-man, and therefore had a body.



No it is not. I never said that Christ being God is the whole truth, but to say God has physical attributes is not untruth either, it is partial truth. I would rather admit the partial, instead of risking a denial of the Trinity and incarnation. It does not deny the hypostatic union to assert that any more than Christ calling God Father would hypothetically do so in your paradigm.


----------



## Saiph

Anthony, no, what I am arguing for is justified true belief. 

Explain, how one can even hold to a presupposition, without utilizing the empyrical data or reason.

Can a deaf, mute, blind, leper that cannot smell and is also mentally handicapped know anything ?

You had to learn to read with your eyes, and correlate word objects in your mind to what you already understood from previous empyrical data of the world to even come to a knowledge of what the Bible communicates about propositional truths. Are we all agnostic until we understand the Bible ?
If so, then who really understands it ? Since many of us within the reformed camp on this board disagree as regarding its meaning, not to mention the rest of Christendom.

We learn, and know from the outside in, by analogy.


----------



## Ron

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> 
> If the only thing the exists are things with physical attributes, then God does not exist because God is not a physical being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus is God.
> Jesus has physical attributes.
> God has physical attributes.
> 
> You just denied the Trinity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus is not God, he is the God-Man.
> 
> You have denied the hypostatic union.
Click to expand...



Jesus is very God of very God. He didn't deny the hypostatic union. He simply equivocated over persons, as Civbert noted.

Ron


----------



## Ron

> Van Til produced valuable studies in the area of Christian theology (e.g., on equal ultimacy in the Trinity [God being numerical 1 and 3 in the same sense - SG], absolute predestination, God´s incomprehensibility, nature and revelation, *theological paradox* and a nonintellecutalist view of man) . . . . 15



Sean,

One may affirm apparent contradiction in the true sense, that things might appear contradictory but after further reflection it can be ascertained that no law of logic is being violated. Mysteries are often like that. They might appear contradictory on the surface but after further study one finds no contradiction. 



> After citing an example of divine foreordination and human freedom, Bahnsen writes: In this and *many other cases, human knowledge may have a paradoxical cast to it, then; we affirm as truths things that may appear to be contradictory.* 233-234



Sean, do you really think this makes your case? Things "œmay" have a paradoxical cast to it is not to suggest that after further reflection Bahnsen did not embrace those "œapparent" contradictions as simply mysteries that he understood violated *no law of non-contradiction.* Van Til on the other hand said that God is one person and three persons, which is not merely an apparent contradiction that relieves itself on further reflection "“ it´s a true contradiction. Now where did Bahnsen affirm anything like that? That´s my point in separating Bahnsen from Van Til and even Frame. Bahnsen was too charitable to Van Til in my estimation. For instance, in the footnote for that exact quote you referenced Bahnsen writes: "œVan Til went out of his way to make it clear that he was actually talking only about the _appearance_ of contradiction to man "“ not that there is actually any logical contradiction." This is Bahnsen at his worst, no doubt. For Van Til argued that we must violate logic, which Bahnsen did not affirm. Bahnsen tried to interpret Van Til in a way that defied Van Til´s actual thought. 

Ron


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Anthony, no, what I am arguing for is justified true belief.
> 
> Explain, how one can even hold to a presupposition, without utilizing the empyrical data or reason.
> 
> Can a deaf, mute, blind, leper that cannot smell and is also mentally handicapped know anything ?


Not empirically. Yet Scripture says he knows God's "invisible" characteristics. He didn't lean that from looking at trees and mountains. He doesn't know that from sensory stimuli. Yet Scripture does not give him any excuse - why? - because God himself makes it "known" to him. He does not reason it or see God's "invisible" attributes. Yet he is still condemned by his knowledge of God.



> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> You had to learn to read with your eyes, and correlate word objects in your mind to what you already understood from previous empyrical data of the world to even come to a knowledge of what the Bible communicates about propositional truths. Are we all agnostic until we understand the Bible ?


No. But you don't learn to read from seeing words. You must know what the words mean before you can read them. Ergo, reading is not an empirical process, it is rational. But then the question is, how do you lean what the words mean. If you say verbal, you have the same problem. You can't know what the "spoken" words mean if you are both deaf and blind, yet the blind deaf and dumb can still know. And they know things without empiricism or pure reason. Even infants know things. They are born with "innate" knowledge. 



> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> If so, then who really understands it ? Since many of us within the reformed camp on this board disagree as regarding its meaning, not to mention the rest of Christendom.
> 
> We learn, and know from the outside in, by analogy.


Or inside out according to Scripture. 

But I'm was not taking about how we learn. I'm talking about how we "know" which is to tell what things we believe that are "knowledge" from those things that are just "believed". And you can't do that empirically or using only reason. You need some foundation to justify what you believe is knowledge. You need axioms to justify knowing anything. 

Now if Scripture (revelation) is the justifier of knowledge, then the knowledge that infants and the mentally handicap is easily justified - Scripture says they know. The question then is, does a person have to personally go through the process of justifying what he knows in order to know it. I don't think so. I think knowledge is innate, and we learn is by realizing what we know innately. But to justify it personally for ourselves, we need to know Scripture. Thus, one can have knowledge and not know it is knowledge. Sort of confusing, but there you are. Call me an externalist if you must, but I don't think knowledge requires immediate awareness for it to be justified true belief. 

If that doesn't leave you scratching you head, well, maybe you read it too fast.

[Edited on 3-22-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Ron

> Mark, you argument hinged on a seperation of the natures of Christ, which was my point. To say that Christ is God is not the whole truth, for He is also man. He is the God-Man. Therefore to seperate one of the natures from the other as you did was wrong, for they cannot be seperated in the hypostatic union.
> 
> God does not have a body, men do. Jesus was the God-man, and therefore had a body.



Jeff, you're being as equivocal as Saiph. When you say "God" does not have a body, you are not speaking of Jesus who is God. Your speaking of the Father or the Trinity of persons, ignoring the incarnate Christ. You´re arguing that Jesus was not God, which is to deny the deity of Christ, something you don't want to do I would think. 

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, *The mighty God"¦*

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and *the Word was God*"¦And the Word was made flesh"¦" 

Ron

[Edited on 3-22-2006 by Ron]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> ...One may affirm apparent contradiction in the true sense, that things might appear contradictory but after further reflection it can be ascertained that no law of logic is being violated. Mysteries are often like that. They might appear contradictory on the surface but after further study one finds no contradiction.



Here's the problem, and it's just what Van Til said. He said we "must believe contradictions". I kid you not. He said it in the New Evangelism lecture on Philosophy (go to Sermon Audio and hear for yourself). And you said "one may affirm apparent contradiction " and that's pretty much in agreement with Van Til. But I think this is just plain stupid. I'll tell you why. If you believe two things are contradictions (which is all affirming entails) then you can NOT BELIEVE BOTH propositions are true. You just said they are "apparently" contradictory - which means you believe proposition A is is a contradiction of proposition B. If it is apparently a contradiction, you by definition believe one is false and the other is true. Else, you would not believe there is an "apparent" contradiction. 

Let me say it again again but with "contrary" and not contradictory. In order to conclude that proposition A is contrary to proposition B, you must believe that both proposition can not be true at the same time - you must believe at least one is false. Ergo - you can not believe contrary statements. To claim otherwise is irrational. 

Now, I believe Van Til did not mean we should reject what we know can not be true, that two "apparently' contrary or contradictory proposition are both true - unless he believed that Christianity was irrational. Since Van Til did not believe Christianity was irrational, then he was just wrong in asserting that we "_must believe contradictions_". But he certainly lead may people into a confused state of mind by making that statement. I will give him the benefit of the doubt on this, and say he wasn't as stupid as his statement implied. But please don't make the same irrational mistake that Van Til "apparently" made with that piece of _really bad logic_.


BTW: Proposition are contrary if they can not both be true, but may both be false. If propositions are contradictory, then one must be true and the other must be false. The interesting thing about finding contradictory statements - is the determination that one if false, proves the other must be true.

P.S. my earlier use of contrary and contradictory was not precise as my definitions. I fixed that.

[Edited on 3-22-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Saiph

I actually did not equivocate. Correct me if I am wrong Ron.

The meaning of "God" in my syllogism is the same for my major premise and conclusion:

Jesus is God (2nd Person of Trinity).
Jesus has physical attributes.
God (2nd Person of Trinity) has physical attributes.

Did I redefine God ?


----------



## Ron

Civbert,

I will join and Sean in arguing against Van Til on this matter. 

Ron


----------



## Ron

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> I actually did not equivocate. Correct me if I am wrong Ron.
> 
> The meaning of "God" in my syllogism is the same for my major premise and conclusion:
> 
> Jesus is God (2nd Person of Trinity).
> Jesus has physical attributes.
> God (2nd Person of Trinity) has physical attributes.
> 
> Did I redefine God ?



That's fine, but then you're point loses it's punch does it not? What was your original point?

The reason I took issue with you and said you equivocated is because you said that the Trinity was denied and the person you were arguing with was not referring to the Second Person in his use of God. Your opponent was the first to speak and define "God," which by the context was not the Second Person but rather the essence of God who is Spirit.

"There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions..."

Ron

[Edited on 3-22-2006 by Ron]


----------



## Saiph

Anthony. 



> No. But you don't learn to read from seeing words. You must know what the words mean before you can read them. Ergo, reading is not an empirical process, it is rational. But then the question is, how do you lean what the words mean. If you say verbal, you have the same problem. You can't know what the "spoken" words mean if you are both deaf and blind, yet the blind deaf and dumb can still know. And they know things without empiricism or pure reason. Even infants know things. They are born with "innate" knowledge.



Reading is both empyrical and rational. I am teaching my 7 year old to read right now. You are asserting absurd statements. And, the scripture you refer to can either mean propositional truth, or existential relational truth. (perhaps both/and) The person we describe may have a personal awareness of the numinous without words or thought to describe that. So, that still answers your question, and does not limit the empyrical or rational aspects of the justifiability of knowledge.

Your artificial distinction between how we learn and how we know is completely goofy. If I see an object with my eye, and my brain forms a mental image of that object, and I previously have no word (or phonetic thought image reference) for it, I will create a thought-word reference for that object in memory so my mind can relate ideas to that object and be able to correlate other mental object to that one to create intelligibility regarding reality as I perceive it.

Your wholesale embrasure of Hume and Kant is untenable when we begin speaking of the real life you live and walk around in every day. Skeptics still must esteem the doubters within themselves enough to function in the time space continuum we call the world . . .


----------



## Saiph

Ron, you are right, God in essence does not have a body, but God as Trinity, cannot be divided ontologically either, and I speak of God the second person as having "physical attributes", have I denied the trinity if I say the gestalt of the three persons indeed has a body ?

Maybe my syllogism was a tautology.

It comes to the same point if we use the phrase "mother of God". Christ had a mother, but God, did not have an origin. God was not born, as in generated.

However, Unto us a child is born . . everlasting father, etc . . 


[Edited on 3-22-2006 by Saiph]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> I actually did not equivocate. Correct me if I am wrong Ron.
> 
> The meaning of "God" in my syllogism is the same for my major premise and conclusion:
> 
> Jesus is God (2nd Person of Trinity).
> Jesus has physical attributes.
> God (2nd Person of Trinity) has physical attributes.
> 
> Did I redefine God ?



You used God to mean the God-Head. That is the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all one "God". But that is not the same as saying God the Father has physical attributes. The God-Head is not the person of God the Father. There are three persons, and only one has physically attributes - Jesus. Are you saying that God the father is not a separate person from Jesus and the Holy Spirit?

And recall, you said I was denying the Trinity. To do so, you'd need have to show that there is only one person that is God, and Jesus was talking to himself and sitting on himself in a form like a dove in Matthew. 

By saying Jesus is God and God has physical attributes, then you are not using the definition of the God the Trinity, you are speaking of only one person of the Trinity. Thus you seemed to be equivocating. Since you now have clarified your terms with modifies, you have rescued your argument and seem to now agreed with mine.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Anthony.
> 
> ...Your artificial distinction between how we learn and how we know is completely goofy. .



Just when I was starting to like you, you had to get technical.


----------



## Saiph

God is one (ontically)
God is three (personally)

God has a body personally, but not ontically.

How is that ?


----------



## Ron

redeemed


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Anthony.
> 
> .... Your wholesale embrasure of Hume and Kant is untenable when we begin speaking of the real life you live and walk around in every day. Skeptics still must esteem the doubters within themselves enough to function in the time space continuum we call the world . . .



Time space continuum? I like the sound of that. 

Not sure what "embrasure" means. What is "real life" and how doe we get "the Doctrine of the Trinity" or "Limited Atonement" form "real life". This seems to be quite and enthymeme and I'm not seeing the connection. By the way, is "real life" another word for "exists". I'm not trying to be "smart" with you. I just want to understand what you're trying to say.


----------



## Saiph

An embrasure is an openng that is wider on the inside than the outside . . . (you have bought into the agnostic lies of Hume and are sitting inside looking out through an opening that looks very broad and all-encompassing from that vantage point.)

We live in a symbolically triune universe. Natures symmetry is saturated in threeness. . . .

I am using real as opposed to 'actual', or the sum of your perceptions.



[Edited on 3-22-2006 by Saiph]


----------



## Saiph

God knows the world, and has communicated it to us by a. forming us as knowers after His image, wherin we perceive and analyze our environment and ourselves and b. communicating knowledge not revealed by nature through language in holy Scripture.

A. is not any less true, or less justifyably knowable than b.




[Edited on 3-22-2006 by Saiph]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> An embrasure is an openng that is wider on the inside than the outside . . . (you have bought into the agnostic lies of Hume and are sitting inside looking out through an opening that looks very broad and all-encompassing from that vantage point.)
> 
> We live in a symbolically triune universe. Natures symmetry is saturated in threeness. . . .
> 
> I am using real as opposed to 'actual', or the sum of your perceptions.
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 3-22-2006 by Saiph]



Thanks, I looked up "embrasure" and thought it must have been I misspelling - I found a similar definitions but it didn't seem to work. I was looking in Encarta which is a little light on definitions so ... 

I'm still unsure what the "Hume's lies" is you are referring too, but read up on him and see what I can figure out. Maybe I can come up with the more intelligible reply, but since I'm not sure. I won't give the "male answer syndrome" attempt.  

The rest sound very deeply metaphysical and so there's not much to say to it. I hope it's not a neo-orthodox worldview your working from. That makes rational argument rather difficult since it's blends forms of mystical empiricism with religous terminology. It's like trying to grab an greesed eel with a stick.


----------



## Magma2

> One may affirm apparent contradiction in the true sense, that things might appear contradictory but after further reflection it can be ascertained that no law of logic is being violated. Mysteries are often like that. They might appear contradictory on the surface but after further study one finds no contradiction.



Your excusing Van Til´s idea the contradictory nature of Scripture is impressive. I could perhaps sympathize with your embarrassment over his overt attack on the doctrine of Scripture, but sticking your head in the sand is hardly admirable. 

Further your ignorance of history, even recent history, is shameful. Van Til and his disciples have, to this day, viciously attack anyone who would dare harmonize so-called paradoxes of Scripture which they have deemed impervious to "œhuman reason." While the prime example of these attacks were leveled against Clark for attempting to harmonize one of these Van Tilian "œapparent contradictions," spend some time observing Van Tilians debate the contradictions entailed in the so-called "œWell Meant Offer." So if you have any evidence you´d like to put forward where Bahnsen distanced himself from Van Til´s errant and paradoxical view of Scripture and analogous view of truth please provide some citations now. 




> Quote:
> After citing an example of divine foreordination and human freedom, Bahnsen writes: In this and many other cases, human knowledge may have a paradoxical cast to it, then; we affirm as truths things that may appear to be contradictory. 233-234
> 
> 
> Sean, do you really think this makes your case? Things "œmay" have a paradoxical cast to it is not to suggest that after further reflection Bahnsen did not embrace those "œapparent" contradictions as simply mysteries that he understood violated no law of non-contradiction.




LOL  Bahnsen; "œwe affirm as truths things that may appear to be contradictory . . . ." You might, but I don´t. If truths appear contradictory then arguably one of these "œtruths" is not true at all for we know that one side of any contradiction must be, not may be, false. Since we´re talking about God´s Word I also would suspect that the problem lies with me and that I need to seek the Lord with all the more diligence in order to resolve these apparent contradictions in my own mind. OTOH, if the contradiction must stand as Van Tilians assert, then I think I would be justified in concluding the bible is false. Of course I would be attacked as a "rationalist" by Van Tilians for even suggesting such a thing. For them, piety is measured by the degree one is willing to commit intellectual suicide in the name of Christ. If I were a Van Tilian like Bahnsen, I would bow my head in pious submissionn to nonsense and affirm contradictory propositions. After all, this is what Bahnsen says we should do for it is the heart of the Van Tilian Creator/creature distinction. 

Regardless, Bahnsen NOWHERE distances himself from what Van Til actually taught in that book or in anything I have read or heard from him. Instead of facing this sad fact you try and excuse him. 




> Van Til on the other hand said that God is one person and three persons, which is not merely an apparent contradiction that relieves itself on further reflection "“ it´s a true contradiction. Now where did Bahnsen affirm anything like that?




What do you mean he didn´t affirm anything like that? "œVan Til produced valuable studies in the area of Christian theology (e.g., on equal ultimacy in the Trinity . . . )." Now, I´ve read Bahnsen´s book, I´ve listened to tapes by him, I´ve read a number of his published articles, but nowhere have I ever read his repudiation of Van Til´s doctrine of Scripture, the Trinity, biblical paradox, analogy . . . anything! So please show me where he rejects statements from VT like; "œOur knowledge is analogical and therefore must be paradoxical" and "œall teaching of Scripture is apparently contradictory." Instead, it seems to me, he affirms this hallmark of Van Tilianism when he asserts "œwe affirm as truths things that may appear to be contradictory . . . ." He everywhere seems to be in complete agreement with VT when he said; "œWhile we shun as poison the idea of the really contradictory, we embrace with passion the idea of the apparently contradictory." Bahnsen shared his mentor´s passion.



> That´s my point in separating Bahnsen from Van Til and even Frame. Bahnsen was too charitable to Van Til in my estimation.



We agree, then why all the disagreement? Given what you´ve said concerning VT´s unorthodox and contradictory doctrine of the Trinity, I have no idea why you´re being so charitable to Bahnsen who did NOTHING to combat these crippling errors in Van Til´s though. Instead, like the Van Tilian pit bull he was, he attacked Clark and Scripturalists as a "œrationalist" and anyone openly critical of his master. 



> For instance, in the footnote for that exact quote you referenced Bahnsen writes: "œVan Til went out of his way to make it clear that he was actually talking only about the appearance of contradiction to man "“ not that there is actually any logical contradiction."



Van Tilians have been making this lame excuse for years. However, my problem is; What is the difference between the "œreally contradictory" and the "œapparently contradictory"? and, Is there any method by which we can tell one class of contradictions from the other? If there is no such method, what are the meaning and purpose of asserting that all Scripture is "œapparently contradictory"? Does not such an assertion encourage laziness in Bible study, commend ignorance, and elevate clerics and academics, especially those of the Vantilian stripe, into a new priestly class who alone can peer into the Biblical stew of apparent contradictions, antinomies, tensions, analogies, and insoluble paradoxes and demand assent to their contradictory view of truth on the basis of nothing more than their own authority?



> This is Bahnsen at his worst, no doubt. For Van Til argued that we must violate logic, which Bahnsen did not affirm. Bahnsen tried to interpret Van Til in a way that defied Van Til´s actual thought.



This is an extremely charitable reading of Bahnsen, but where is the proof? Where did he defy Van Til on any of these points? Where is Bahnsen´s critique of Van Til´s doctrine of Scripture? Where is his critique of VT´s doctrine of the Trinity? Where is anything that supports your interpretation of Bahnsen? He always appeared to me to be a thorough going and devoted Vantilian. Admittedly his application and focus was quite a bit different from that of Frame, but, as I´ve pointed out, instead of distancing himself from Frame´s piece, "œVan Til the Theologian,"he commends it to his readers. I´m sorry Ron. While your remarks here give me a new appreciation for you, they have done nothing to alter my assessment of Bahnsen.


----------



## Magma2

> Explain, how one can even hold to a presupposition, without utilizing the empyrical data or reason.
> 
> Can a deaf, mute, blind, leper that cannot smell and is also mentally handicapped know anything?



Along with the other question I´ve raised which I´m still waiting for you to answer, please explain how one can come to a knowledge of, say, justification by belief alone, from black ink marks on a page? If you want to include your blind friends you can use bumps stamped on a page if you prefer? As for your leper friend, how you can arrive at the knowledge of anything from smell is even more of a mystery to me, but we can work on that.  

In any case, propositions are the meanings of declarative sentences and the Scriptures contain thousands of propositions. These, however, are not made from ink and paper. Per the Scriptures these are God´s thoughts and as such are "œspiritually discerned." That's because God is immaterial and is not found in black ink on a white page. If He were then everyone who reads his bible should come to the truth of God. Yet, I´ve been talking to Catholics almost daily now who read their bibles but are clueless concerning the truth of God and His great salvation in Jesus Christ. It seems in spite of these black marks their minds are mired in superstition and error which I fear is to the damnation of their souls. Maybe you can explain how they can deduce the truths of Scripture from ink marks for their benefit if not my own?


----------



## Ron

> Your excusing Van Til´s idea the contradictory nature of Scripture is impressive.



Sean,

I don't believe that I am excusing Van Til in the least. I'm simply pointing out that by Bahnsen reinterpreting Van Til he did not affirm VT in this regard.




> So if you have any evidence you´d like to put forward where Bahnsen distanced himself from Van Til´s errant and paradoxical view of Scripture and analogous view of truth please provide some citations now.



Are you resting your case on a fallacious argument from silence? "Produce where Bahnsen disagreed with VT or else we must assume that he agreed with VT." I've addressed this point already, though I needed not because it's fallacious. In any case, Bahnsen distanced himself from what VT actually stated by reinterpreting VT to say something that he never said consistently. Consequently, Bahnsen would not have distanced himself from VT for Bahnsen reinterpreted VT. By the way, VT makes many statements that are very Clarkian in this regard, which indicates VT confusion over this matter. Bahnsen highlighted those statements in fact, making them out to be the de-facto position of VT. Accordingly, given Bahnsen's revisions of VT, you shouldn't expect to find any disagreement from Bahnsen in his lectures or writings.



> Now, I´ve read Bahnsen´s book, I´ve listened to tapes by him, I´ve read a number of his published articles, but nowhere have I ever read his repudiation of Van Til´s doctrine of Scripture, the Trinity, biblical paradox, analogy . . . anything!



Again, you´re arguing from silence. Must you repudiate everything you disagree with from Robbins in order not to be found guilty of agreeing with him on those matters?



> We agree, then why all the disagreement? Given what you´ve said concerning VT´s unorthodox and contradictory doctrine of the Trinity, I have no idea why you´re being so charitable to Bahnsen"¦



I´m not being charitable to Bahnsen. I´ve plainly stated that he did not affirm what VT consistently taught. I, also, noted that Bahnsen did not represent VT´s views accurately in my estimation. What more would you like me to do, Sean? I´ve tried to be truthful with respect to these men, no more no less. 

Ron


----------



## Saiph

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> Explain, how one can even hold to a presupposition, without utilizing the empyrical data or reason.
> 
> Can a deaf, mute, blind, leper that cannot smell and is also mentally handicapped know anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Along with the other question I´ve raised which I´m still waiting for you to answer, please explain how one can come to a knowledge of, say, justification by belief alone, from black ink marks on a page? If you want to include your blind friends you can use bumps stamped on a page if you prefer? As for your leper friend, how you can arrive at the knowledge of anything from smell is even more of a mystery to me, but we can work on that.
> 
> In any case, propositions are the meanings of declarative sentences and the Scriptures contain thousands of propositions. These, however, are not made from ink and paper. Per the Scriptures these are God´s thoughts and as such are "œspiritually discerned." That's because God is immaterial and is not found in black ink on a white page. If He were then everyone who reads his bible should come to the truth of God. Yet, I´ve been talking to Catholics almost daily now who read their bibles but are clueless concerning the truth of God and His great salvation in Jesus Christ. It seems in spite of these black marks their minds are mired in superstition and error which I fear is to the damnation of their souls. Maybe you can explain how they can deduce the truths of Scripture from ink marks for their benefit if not my own?
Click to expand...


Maybe this thread is a phantom of my mind. I am not going to argue with phantoms. Since nothing you have said is directly stated in scripture, I guess I do not have to believe any of it.

And, in your postmodern take on the bible, since the ink marks do not correlate to real words with real meanings that I can rationally and empyrically look up in a dictionary, then the bible need not be the only word of God. I suppose I could read Melville, and if God wants to talk to me through Moby Dick then He will. The ink marks are irrelevant then, it is only the mind of God directly speaking to my mind that matters . . . not reading the words of scripture on a page and God's spirit illuminating their spiritual reality.

Dream on . . .


----------



## Magma2

> Are you resting your case on a fallacious argument from silence?




I´ve provided quotes and evidence. You remain blind. Your hero worship borders on idiolatry Ron. 



> you shouldn't expect to find any disagreement from Bahnsen in his lectures or writings.



Of course not he was a Van Tilian like Frame and the rest. 




> Quote:
> Now, I´ve read Bahnsen´s book, I´ve listened to tapes by him, I´ve read a number of his published articles, but nowhere have I ever read his repudiation of Van Til´s doctrine of Scripture, the Trinity, biblical paradox, analogy . . . anything!
> 
> Again, you´re arguing from silence. Must you repudiate everything you disagree with from Robbins in order not to be found guilty of agreeing with him on those matters?



Bahnsen affirms and praises VT´s view of the Trinity, is in agreement with Frame on paradox, appeals to the anti-biblical "œmystery" in light of VT doctrine of apparent contradictions in Christian doctrine yet you say this is an argument from silence! Score so far; Sean 1, Ron 0.



> What more would you like me to do, Sean? I´ve tried to be truthful with respect to these men, no more no less.



I would like you to face the truth about your hero Bahnsen. I see now that was too much to ask.


----------



## Magma2

> Maybe this thread is a phantom of my mind.



It might be, how would you know? You think your assertions should suffice, but I see you´re not even interested in taking the first step into tackling the problems of epistemology so I guess you will remain untouched in your empirical stupor. 



> Since nothing you have said is directly stated in scripture, I guess I do not have to believe any of it.



You´re wrong Mark. 1 Cor 2:14; "œBut the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." Also you might consider Rom 8:5-8:

For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.




> And, in your postmodern take on the bible, since the ink marks do not correlate to real words with real meanings that I can rationally and empyrically look up in a dictionary, then the bible need not be the only word of God. I suppose I could read Melville, and if God wants to talk to me through Moby Dick then He will. The ink marks are irrelevant then, it is only the mind of God directly speaking to my mind that matters . . . not reading the words of scripture on a page and God's spirit illuminating their spiritual reality.



You´re right, ink mark are irrelevant and they are arbitrary. For example, I can stare for hours at the Chinese portion of the menu at my local Chinese restaurant and I guarantee that they´ll provide no occasion whatsoever in helping me decide what to order. The rest of your sentence is actually quite good.  



> Dream on . . .



Wake up.


----------



## Ron

God's speed, Sean.

Ron


----------



## Myshkin

Sean and Anthony-

Did the Apostles, etc. really see Christ in the flesh? Or was he just an idea planted in their heads by God's grace that allowed them to see his human form?

Suppose scripture is the only base of knowledge as you assert. Were the people reading the gospel of John while Christ was on earth, and therefore they could deduce that Christ was physically standing in front of them? Or regardless of what they thought of who he was, is it possible that they still saw him in the flesh?

Induction/empirical method does not need to be reduced to pure empiricism, as Clark did. Of course pure empricism is wrong. But this does not mean that one should swing the other way and declare absolute idealism as true. I wish you guys could see, when reduced to its logical conclusions, where this stuff takes you. I don't want to to debate it, I just am concerned that you guys don't see it. I truly do care, even though I don't know you. I have been down the path and paid dearly for it. I feel I would be neglecting my duty to love my brothers if I did not show concern for where they are heading. This may be a stumbling block, or it may cause you to have contempt for me. Either way, I am just trying to help.


----------



## JohnV

Alan:

You raise a good point. I too was wondering about that, and Moses and the burning bush, etc. But most of all I'm wodering where Christ is now? He said He would never leave us, and I personally can witness that He spoke the truth, and that His Spirit daily illumines not only my mind, but my heart. In other words, God acts into epistemology just as He acts into history. 

For those of you who know your church history, does this not ring a bell with you?


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> Sean and Anthony-
> 
> Did the Apostles, etc. really see Christ in the flesh? Or was he just an idea planted in their heads by God's grace that allowed them to see his human form?


Yes they saw him. But they didn't know he was the Messiah until he *revealed* that to them. The "seeing" Christ in the flesh didn't lead them to any positive knowledge. Clark's theory of knowledge is not restricted to the Bible - it's restricted to *revelation*. The epistemology at heart is that knowledge is *revelation*. What God thinks is knowledge. And God's written revelation is part of God's thoughts. We have it in a written form so that we can determine what things we believe are true because they are found in Scripture - or if they are merely things we believe without any rational foundation. 



> _Originally posted by RAS_
> 
> Suppose scripture is the only base of knowledge as you assert. Were the people reading the gospel of John while Christ was on earth, and therefore they could deduce that Christ was physically standing in front of them? Or regardless of what they thought of who he was, is it possible that they still saw him in the flesh?



Does it matter? They only knew "who" his was because he *told* them - not because they *saw* him. And they had the Old Testament - the same Scriptures used by Christ as prove of his teachings. Mose's had revelation directly from God. Eve had revelation from God, but believed her eyes instead. Noah believed God against all the empirical evidence at hand. He took God's word for knowledge, and not what his eyes and reason told him. 

Do you think the Scriptures were based on the observations of men, or are they "God breathed" as Scripture claims. The Apostles and other writers of God's Words were not simply writing their memories - they were writing what God intended them to write. Each word is God's word, each thought is His thought. And with this foundation for truth, we can justify the truth of our beliefs, to see if they are God's thoughts our just man's opinions.

So the question is irrelevant. What they knew were those things *revealed* to them that they believed. And this was against much of what they saw or could have reasoned from sensations.



> _Originally posted by RAS_
> 
> Induction/empirical method does not need to be reduced to pure empiricism, as Clark did. Of course pure empiricism is wrong. But this does not mean that one should swing the other way and declare absolute idealism as true. I wish you guys could see, when reduced to its logical conclusions, where this stuff takes you.



Clark did no wrong in showing the fallacy of empiricism. And he did not reject induction as a tool for understanding. He just made sure that it was clear the induction has it limits. Clark used induction when he wrote his commentaries. Clearly he did not reject induction. He rejected empiricism and rationalism. If you blend the two, you still have not solved the issues of knowledge. The problem with both rationalism and empiricism is their first principles are insufficient to produce any rational system of thought. They provide no rational foundation. And Clark solved that with the axiom of Scripture.



> I don't want to to debate it, I just am concerned that you guys don't see it.


Too late! You've already given arguments in response to the thread, like it our not - you're debating! 



> _Originally posted by RAS_
> 
> I truly do care, even though I don't know you. I have been down the path and paid dearly for it. I feel I would be neglecting my duty to love my brothers if I did not show concern for where they are heading. This may be a stumbling block, or it may cause you to have contempt for me. Either way, I am just trying to help.



I appreciate your concern. But I don't think the problem is with my understanding. I think there are people who have given many bad arguments against Clark's Scripturalism because they simply don't understand it. They either extend it beyond what Clark intended, or they have a pre-commitment to Vantillianism, or some other reason. The path that Scripturalism takes is fine. It doesn't give people what they want all the time, but that doesn't really matter. What matter's is how well if does at helping us justify true beliefs. It keeps our beliefs from being irrational, and it accounts for our experiences. And it does so without making the errors in thinking that are frequent among Christians.

Ironically, if *only* Christianity provided the "preconditions of intelligibility" - why are some many Christian so irrational? It certainly fails the induction and empirical tests. Why are so many un-believers much more rational in their thinking? "Borrowed capital" seems to be the answer. Apparently they borrowed it and still haven't returned it. 

I'd recommend you read God and Logic by Clark. He does a much better job explaining how his epistemology works.

[Edited on 3-22-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> ... He said He would never leave us, and I personally can witness that He spoke the truth, and that His Spirit daily illumines not only my mind, but my heart. In other words, God acts into epistemology just as He acts into history.
> 
> For those of you who know your church history, does this not ring a bell with you?



Heart and mind are the same thing in Scripture. Both terms are used for emphasis. Like "flesh and bone", or "sprit and soul". The heart being the center of emotion and "unspeakable" knowledge is a modern, but I think it might have come from the Greeks. It's certainly not a Biblical dichotomy.

[Edited on 3-23-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Magma2

> Did the Apostles, etc. really see Christ in the flesh? Or was he just an idea planted in their heads by God's grace that allowed them to see his human form?



Define "œsee" ? That is not a facetious question, but a very serious one. 



> Suppose scripture is the only base of knowledge as you assert. Were the people reading the gospel of John while Christ was on earth, and therefore they could deduce that Christ was physically standing in front of them? Or regardless of what they thought of who he was, is it possible that they still saw him in the flesh?



I didn´t realize the gospel of John was written while Christ was on earth? But in answer to your many questions I would refer you to Mat. 16:13ff. I can´t find a corresponding passage in John´s Gospel. Sorry.



> Induction/empirical method does not need to be reduced to pure empiricism, as Clark did. Of course pure empricism is wrong. But this does not mean that one should swing the other way and declare absolute idealism as true.



You´re confusing two separate issues, but I think you´re on the right track. The problem with induction (a complete induction excepted) is that its conclusions are always false. The problems entailed in empiricism are much deeper and consequently much worse. 



> I wish you guys could see, when reduced to its logical conclusions, where this stuff takes you.



Why don´t you show me were "œthis stuff" will take me? As far as I can see it takes me to a rejection of fallacious arguments and question begging, which you evidently accept without argument, and positing the Scriptures alone as the sole source of knowledge in its place. 



> I don't want to to debate it, I just am concerned that you guys don't see it. I truly do care, even though I don't know you. I have been down the path and paid dearly for it. I feel I would be neglecting my duty to love my brothers if I did not show concern for where they are heading. This may be a stumbling block, or it may cause you to have contempt for me. Either way, I am just trying to help.



While I think you´re being a bit melodramatic and more than a little sanctimonious, I think it would be more helpful if you would demonstrate your concern and begin by defining what you mean by "œsee" above.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Myshkin

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> While I think you´re being a bit melodramatic and more than a little sanctimonious...



Wow. Sean, I am sorry you feel this way and presume these qualities about my concern. When someone shared the gospel with you for the first time, would you say they were being melodramatic and sanctimonious? I guess you can not see my genuineness because God has not revealed it to you yet, eh? Why do you insult those who seek to help, even if you disagree with the content?

I think this is a perfect example of how this system of thought not only messes with the christian faith, it messes with how one treats other people. Since you do not know everything about me, you, according to your system, know nothing about me, but apparently what I have said to you God has revealed to you as insincere. No hard feelings though. I will not return in kind. God bless you.

As to JohnV's question. It does resemble some history, and that's why I brought it up. I am thinking of docetism/gnosticism.


----------



## Myshkin

Anthony-

Thanks for your response. I'll try to respond briefly in a more conversational tone, and not one as if we are standing behind opposing podiums.



> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> Yes they saw him. But they didn't know he was the Messiah until he *revealed* that to them. The "seeing" Christ in the flesh didn't lead them to any positive knowledge. Clark's theory of knowledge is not restricted to the Bible - it's restricted to *revelation*. The epistemology at heart is that knowledge is *revelation*. What God thinks is knowledge. And God's written revelation is part of God's thoughts. We have it in a written form so that we can determine what things we believe are true because they are found in Scripture - or if they are merely things we believe without any rational foundation.



Honestly, how is this any different from pantheism? Of course scripture is fully rational, and of course God has revealed himself through it. But how is what your stating as the method of how this knowledge is transimitted to the subject (humans) any different from pantheism?

Also, if they did see him physically and not just spiritually (you did agree they saw him), then you are admitting that some knowledge comes in through the senses. It seems that you and Sean disagree that he was seen.

But regardless of what they believed about him as revelation as the savior and lord, etc., if they did not actually see a human being in front of them, (again, regardless of the significance of his humanity), and only saw an image as projected through a recollection of previous knowledge, then this is gnostic docetism. Either Christ was truly in human form or he was just an image of thought. Which do you say he was?



> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> Do you think the Scriptures were based on the observations of men, or are they "God breathed" as Scripture claims.



Both. It is a false dillema you have posed. God in his wisdom used his creation and the things in it in the lives of men and their experiences when He breathed his scripture through them. Truth is not based on man's creation or observance, but God did use his truth, that men subjectively observed. The orthodox position on the inspiration of scripture is the verbal/plenary position. If one thinks that there are no human elements in the composition of scripture than they are promoting the mechanical/dictation theory.



> _Originally posted by RAS_
> I wish you guys could see, when reduced to its logical conclusions, where this stuff takes you.



When I said this, I am referring to what I fleshed out more above regarding pantheism, and theory of inspiration. Gnosticism is where this stuff leads. This does not mean you are a gnostic. I am just hoping you think about this before you get that far. You are probably concerned that I am a materialist. I will tell you I side with the classical/evidential side and I am aware that to some presupps (Clarkian or Van Tillian) this disqualifies me altogether. If you think this is so, so be it. But that does not mean your position is therefore necessarily true.




> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> I'd recommend you read God and Logic by Clark. He does a much better job explaining how his epistemology works.



I have read it. I have read most of his books. I have read those who are sympathetic to him. I have read those who have modified him. I have read those who disagree with him. 

As a side note, why is this not an appeal to authority fallacy? (It isn't one of course), I just found it funny that you accused me of that earlier for doing the same thing you have just done.



> _Originally posted by RAS_
> 
> I truly do care, even though I don't know you. I have been down the path and paid dearly for it. I feel I would be neglecting my duty to love my brothers if I did not show concern for where they are heading. This may be a stumbling block, or it may cause you to have contempt for me. Either way, I am just trying to help.




Again, I do mean this with all sincerety. I hope that your trying to convince me of your position is of the same attitude and not one of trying to win a debate and win a debate only.

-Allan


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> While I think you´re being a bit melodramatic and more than a little sanctimonious...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is a perfect example of how this system of thought not only messes with the christian faith, it messes with how one treats other people. Since you do not know everything about me, you, according to your system, know nothing about me, but apparently what I have said to you God has revealed to you as insincere. No hard feelings though. I will not return in kind. God bless you.
Click to expand...


How nice Sean or I am to you has nothing to do Scripturalism. God didn't tell him you were being insincere - and nothing in Scripturalism would warrant that claim. His comment was likely a result of personal experience (i.e. it was merely his opinion). I think you're way outside the bounds of what Scripturalism entails. 

And this shouldn't be about personalities. If you want to examine personalties, Martin Luther could be a real jerk - are you going to say that was due to his doctrine? And Pope John Paul was a sweet-heart. And what about Gandhi. I'm sure he's led more people to hell then most, all the while looking like a lovely guy. I doubt Jesus was the doe-eyed hippie flower-child that he is portrayed as by popular films and images. 

So I think you're stretching here quite a bit - and ignoring Sean's other comments. I'm sure that little bit upset you, but the rest was the meat of the argument - you've only snatched at a parenthetical comment by Sean.


----------



## Magma2

> Wow. Sean, I am sorry you feel this way and presume these qualities about my concern. When someone shared the gospel with you for the first time, would you say they were being melodramatic and sanctimonious? I guess you can not see my genuineness because God has not revealed it to you yet, eh? Why do you insult those who seek to help, even if you disagree with the content?



I don´t see as your comments are any help at all. Just more of the same. And, yes, I think your remarks which imply that the Scripturalism of Gordon Clark is some kind of heretical or gnostic cult is melodramatic, sanctimonious and without warrant. Case in point below:




> I think this is a perfect example of how this system of thought not only messes with the christian faith, it messes with how one treats other people. Since you do not know everything about me, you, according to your system, know nothing about me, but apparently what I have said to you God has revealed to you as insincere. No hard feelings though. I will not return in kind. God bless you.
> 
> As to JohnV's question. It does resemble some history, and that's why I brought it up. I am thinking of docetism/gnosticism.



Not only are you ignorant of Gordon Clark, which is a very sad state for any man who considers him edcuated, thoughtful and Reformed, but I can see you´re also ignorant of both Docetism and Gnosticism or you wouldn´t be so foolish to compare these heresies with Scripturalism. I guess looking foolish is not among your many concerns.


----------



## Myshkin

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> How nice Sean or I am to you has nothing to do Scripturalism. God didn't tell him you were being insincere - and nothing in Scripturalism would warrant that claim. His comment was likely a result of personal experience (i.e. it was merely his opinion). I think you're way outside the bounds of what Scripturalism entails.
> 
> And this shouldn't be about personalities. If you want to examine personalties, Martin Luther could be a real jerk - are you going to say that was due to his doctrine? And Pope John Paul was a sweet-heart. And what about Gandhi. I'm sure he's led more people to hell then most, all the while looking like a lovely guy. I doubt Jesus was the doe-eyed hippie flower-child that he is portrayed as by popular films and images.
> 
> So I think you're stretching here quite a bit - and ignoring Sean's other comments. I'm sure that little bit upset you, but the rest was the meat of the argument - you've only snatched at a parenthetical comment by Sean.



Anthony-

Thank you for your response. It is obvious to me now that this discussion will not progress with any civility. I am not hurt by anything that was said, I thought I made that clear. I am trying to interact with your position, I do not intend to be drawn into this back and forth kind of stuff. I will bow out now before I join in sin and so the moderators and viewers can assess for themselves who is who and what is going on here. God bless.


----------



## Myshkin

Sean-

Thanks for the response.

I am bowing out in the interest of wisdom. God bless you as you seek to be conformed to his grace.


----------



## Scott Bushey

I have been watching this thread. The inuendo being flung around is disgraceful coming from one whom Christ died for. I have openly warned everyone about these types of things; it will not be tolerated. If you guys cannot talk civily, your priviledges will be removed; last warning.

This is done; because you can't play nice.


----------

