# Vincent Cheung



## Me Died Blue (Nov 9, 2004)

I've been hearing his name tossed around lately, and was wondering if anyone here has read any of his works or has an opinion to offer as to his work or theology. His site is at http://www.rmiweb.org/.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Nov 9, 2004)

the webmaster of monergism likes him alot.


----------



## JWJ (Nov 10, 2004)

Yes I have most of his works. He is solid and leans heavy on Clark. Though his epistemology is kind of a mixture of Clark and Van Til.

Jim


----------



## Reformed1 (Nov 10, 2004)

in my opinion, he's a great teacher. As bladestunner said, John Hendryx from Monergism.com has been promoting him a lot lately. I read a GREAT debate between Cheung and an atheist. I believe you can find it on his website.


----------



## Reformed1 (Nov 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> I think there are problems with denying that one can know anything form sense perception.
> 
> I think he does have some good things to say, though.



Perhaps I read it wrong, but I think he was arguing against the atheist's belief that sense perception is the ultimate way of knowing truth. I didn't think he was denying that we can know anything through sense perception. I could be mistaken though. It's been a while since I've read a lot of Cheung's work. I was greatly impressed with his exposition of the Sermon on the Mount.

[Edited on 11/04/2004 by Reformed1]


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> soooo.....???
> 
> Do you think this is problematic?



98.275% (from 97%)


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 10, 2004)

One thing that makes me unable to understand how anyone could hold that belief of Clark's is that the nerves in the brain are sensory, and thus by making the decision to think specific things and change thought processes in their minds, are they not thus relying on their senses in order to even think, and thus relying on their senses to decuce with logic and attain knowledge?


----------



## Reformed1 (Nov 11, 2004)

Ok Paul, I'll grant you that. I actually never read that work. I read his debate with the atheist and I don't remember him making that specific point abundantly clear. I felt he was denying that sense perception could be our ultimate way of knowing truth. It was that debate I was referring to. I've also read some expositions that I was impressed by, but I've never read his apologetic work.

So I'll grant you that you were right. And yes, I do find that problematic. I'm going to go back and read his works now and understand them more. I don't see how he can deny that we can know ANYTHING through sense perception. Surely, we can even know certain things about God through sense perception (Romans 1). Odd....


----------



## Reformed1 (Nov 11, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> "Surely, we can even know certain things about God through sense perception (Romans 1). Odd.... "
> 
> Remember, he says that those observations remind us of what we *already* know. So, the observations are good for "reminding" but not "learning."
> ...



Great, thanks! I'm actually about to buy Bahnsen's seminary level course on apologetics. It has 30 of his lectures that he went through teaching on apologetics. I'm really looking forward to it. I don't have Bahnsen's work on Van Til's apologetic, but do plan on buying it. *sigh* so many books, so little time!


----------



## crhoades (Nov 11, 2004)

You can rent the VHS tapes for $5/piece through CMFNOW.com JIK you want to see the Dr. in action. I've rented the first 5 (10 lectures) and have enjoyed them.


----------



## Reformed1 (Nov 11, 2004)

Yeah, I had a brother at church recommend it to me. We were debating eschatology (I'm post he's pre) and somehow the conversation evolved into apologetics. He told me that that course literally changed his life. He's trying to get a paper he wrote on apologetics published in a local Christian paper here. He said that he relies heavily on Bahnsen's material.


----------



## RickyReformed (Nov 11, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Vincient Cheung:
> 
> "However, although it is *impossible* to gain any knowledge by emperical means, man's observation of nature can remind him about what he already knows about God." (Ultimate Questions, p.16, emphasis mine). (p.s. sounds like Plato's doctrine of recolection kindof, doesn't it.)
> ...




Having read Cheung's "Ultimate Questions", I believe his point is that it's not the senses _themselves_ that transmit knowledge, but rather 'the divine logos' provides the knowledge during the act of observation. Which is why two people in a desert can look at the same object - and one concludes it's a lake, while the other concludes it's a mirage.

At least that's what I got out of it; someone else may have read this same book (object?) and come up with another conclusion. 

In his books, Cheung gives reasons why he believes knowledge cannot be gained empirically - I would recommend that people read his works in order to understand what Cheung says about this. As I understand him, Cheung - contra Clark - does believe that knowledge can be obtained outside of the Bible and "good and necessary consequences" (ie and anything deducible from the Bible.) His point is that all knowledge comes from God. I believe this schema necessarily requires a symmetric view of predestination and reprobation. That is to say, all information that the elect knows and leads him to Christ is provided immediately (ie not mediated, in this case, by the senses) by God. Likewise, all information that leads the reprobate to damnation also is decreed immediately (and not merely 'allowed') by God.

Ricky


----------



## RickyReformed (Nov 11, 2004)

Here's a quote to support some of what I said above:

From Vincent Cheung's "Ultimate Questions", pg. 15:


> "The observation of nature, although hampered by the inherent limitations of empiricism, reminds man of his knowledge of God. Empirical investigations cannot teach man what he does not already know, but only the divine logos may add information to the mind, in addition to the innate knowledge he possesses. The created order, therefore, does not add information to the mind of man concerning God, but stimulates him to recall what God has already placed into his mind, or to intuit what the logos immediately conveys to him on the occasions of the acts of observation."


----------



## RickyReformed (Nov 12, 2004)

I do not claim to speak for Vincent Cheung, but if I was thinking his thoughts after him, I would say that Scripture, in the verse you quoted, is using accomodation to describe what happens "on the occasions of the acts of observation". Here are some scriptural examples of accomodation and "seeing":

Gen 18.21
"I [the LORD] will go down now and *see* whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will *know*."

I do not from this Scripture conclude that the LORD uses senses to obtain knowledge.

Isa 44.18
They do not know nor understand; 
For He has shut their *eyes*, so that they cannot *see*, 
And their *hearts*, so that they cannot *understand*.

Likewise, I do not assume that the Scriptures confirm that understanding (knowledge) is obtained through the heart. Or that the organ used for visual perception was sealed shut on the people whom the LORD hardened.


Matt 5.8
Blessed are the pure in heart, 
For they shall see God.

The Shorter Catechism A4 states, "God is Spirit", etc. Also, angel's see (I Tim 3.16) but they do not have sense organs, do they?

There are more biblical examples of this, but I hope this is sufficient to establish that the Bible has used accomodation to describe the act of seeing.

[Edited on 12-11-2004 by RickyReformed]


----------



## RickyReformed (Nov 12, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> also, I'd be interested in seeing if a third man argument would work against this since the TMA is one of the most devestating argument against Plato's theory of knowledge (recolection) which seems to be, with some modifications, similar to Cheung's




I'm not familiar with this Paul. Can you explain further? Thanks!


----------



## RickyReformed (Nov 12, 2004)

This section from "Ultimate Questions" by Vincent Cheung explains his metaphysics and epistemology in a nutshell:

*Colossians 1:16 says, "For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him." The thrust is that "by him all things were created"; the rest of the verse gives emphasis to the fact that nothing at all has been made apart from his act of creation. So far this repeats what we have read from John. The next verse informs us that, not only did he create all that exists, but even now he sustains the creation by his power: "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together" (v. 17). The Epistle to the Hebrews echoes this teaching, saying; through the Son God "made the universe" (1:2), and that he is "sustaining all things by his powerful word" (v. 3).

Biblical metaphysics is therefore as follows. The metaphysical starting point is the triune God. By agency of the Son -  logos, Reason, Wisdom, or Word - the Godhead created the universe, which includes both the "visible and invisible" (Colossians 1:16), the spiritual and the material realms. Nothing exists that God had not created; he made everything that exists.

The Christian view of reality, however, does not ascribe to God only the act creation; but even now he sustains and facilitates all the operations of the universe he had created.

In fact, he not only makes the continual existence of creation possible, but he is the cause of all that occurs - Just as nothing could - have come into being apart from him, nothing can happen in creation apart from his will and power: "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father" (Matthew 10:29).

This solves the mind-body problem, which questions how an immaterial mind can manipulate a physical body. How can the incorporeal contact the physical? But if God facilitates all mental and physical operations, his omnipotence makes this possible. In other words, without divine absolute sovereignty, it is impossible for a person to even roll his eyeballs at this doctrine. God knows and wills our thoughts, and at the moment the thought occurs, he also causes the corresponding physical motion. Man has no power of existence or causation within himself.

Such a view of metaphysics produces a necessary implication for epistemology. If it is God who facilitates all operations in the universe, it follows that all operations relating to thought and knowledge are also in his power. If the continual existence and operation of the created order depends on him, and man is not autonomous in this respect, then all knowledge acquisitions and intellectual activities also depend on him, and man is also not autonomous in this area. Just as man cannot exist or function without God, man can know nothing without him.

Thus, Christian epistemology is consistent with Christian metaphysics. When empiricism is rejected as a necessary consequence of Christian theology, and a revelational epistemology based on scriptural infallibility is affirmed, empiricists often challenge, "Don't you have to read your Bible?" They of course defend the reliability of sensation, and the more extreme claim that knowledge comes solely from the senses, whereas the present writer insists that no knowledge at all comes from sensation.

Their question misses the point. If knowledge cannot come from sensation at all, then the question itself does not rescue sensation. Christian epistemology - consistent with its metaphysics - affirms that, for any knowledge to be possible, it must be immediately - that is, without mediation - granted to the mind by God. Thus, at the moment that one sees the words of the Bible the divine logos communicates what is written to the mind, so we do read the Bible, but knowledge never comes from sensation.

*



Edited to add the last two paragraphs. Ricky

[Edited on 12-11-2004 by RickyReformed]


----------



## BobVigneault (Nov 12, 2004)

Paul said,


> TextThe purpose for our sense faculties are for gaining knowledge about the earth so that we may subdue it for God's glory.



That is true Paul but you are leaving out a few steps and so does scripture assume that the missing premises are understood. The senses are only a means for gathering input, impulses, raw data. But our senses cannot assign meaning. Meaning is assigned by scripture, the Bible names things or we may deduce meaning by good and necessary consequence. 

Assigning meaning or gaining knowledge takes place in the "mind, soul, heart and strength".

The animals have the same tools for acquiring impulses but they lack understanding, the function of the mind (or soul).

The natural man has only a muted or truncated ability to understand, the believe has a continually reforming ability.

So Vincent is right, so is Clark and so is Van Til depending on which part of the elephant (presuppositional epistemology) he is describing.

That's my  and it's so wonderful to have you back Paul.
God bless you!


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 15, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> But Ricky and Max,
> 
> your critiques are only against one view of sense perception. I don't have the view that facts bear their own meaning. I would tend more towards Quine's "web" program. But nonetheless, you use your senses to obtain knowledge. Tell me, how would you know how many ants were in your backyard? Did you know this previously? Maybe in the mormon doctrine of the pre-existent soul (j/k!).



Did you fully read Rick's quotation for Vincent's Ultimate Questions book?

Vincent's claim is not that all knowledge is pre-existant. It is that knowledge does not come from the senses.

CT


----------



## RickyReformed (Nov 15, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Furthermore, I would like to see the Biblical support for saying that when we see something... God conveys what it is that we are looking at. What about conflicting observation? Did God convey that to them? ....
> [Edited on 11-15-2004 by Paul manata]



Paul, I love you as a dear brother in the Lord - truly! But I think you missed Vincent's Biblical support in his selection that I quoted above. I'll repost the relevant section:



> Colossians 1:16 says, "For by him *all things* [**Wouldn't this include thoughts and 'sensations' too? -RR**] were *created*: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him." The thrust is that "by him all things were created"; the rest of the verse gives emphasis to the fact that nothing at all has been made apart from his act of creation. So far this repeats what we have read from John. The next verse informs us that, not only did he create all that exists, but even now he *sustains* the creation by his power: "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together" (v. 17). The Epistle to the Hebrews echoes this teaching, saying; through the Son God "made the universe" (1:2), and that he is "sustaining *all things* by his powerful word" (v. 3).
> ...
> Such a view of metaphysics produces a _necessary_ implication for epistemology. If it is God who facilitates all operations in the universe, it follows that all operations relating to thought and knowledge are also in his power. If the continual existence and operation of the created order depends on him, and man is not autonomous in this respect, then all knowledge acquisitions and intellectual activities *also* depend on him, and man is also not autonomous in this area. Just as man cannot exist or function without God, man can know nothing without him.



[Edited on 16-11-2004 by RickyReformed]


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 15, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Regardless of that I am disagreeing that we can't know things by sensation.



Fair enough.



> I don't hold to the empericists view that Cheung is critiquing. But since, in some cases, our senses are required to obtain knowledge (e.g., how many ants are in my back yard) then I would say that in those cases senses are a necessary feature of gaining knowledge.



I still dont see how sense are required for those things. (if God can grant info that was not pre-existant)



> But, in some cases, our knowledge is preexistant: Cheung: "The observation of nature, although hampered by the inherent limitations of empiricism, reminds man of his knowledge of God. Empirical investigations cannot teach man what he does not already know, but only the divine logos may add information to the mind, in addition to the innate knowledge he possesses. "



I agree.



> Furthermore, I would like to see the Biblical support for saying that when we see something (how do you know we "see" the words of the Bible anyway?) God conveys what it is that we are looking at. What about conflicting observation? Did God convey that to them? What about conflicting views of apologetics? If Cheung *knows* his position is true then God must have revealed it to him. How does he know this? ...



It basically comes down to a scriptural fight, for there is no contradiction in vincent's position.

It also comes down to how independent we are from God. If God is in complete control of every molecule, then yes he did convey the conflicting observations. If he is not in such control, then maybe he did not. The same goes with conflicting views of apologetics.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 15, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> Ct,
> 
> ...



Well if God conveys stuff that is not pre-existant then there is still new revelation. And on what basis do you belief that this is not regular normal operation.



> But, you don;t see how senses are required for knowledge, so, tell me, please, how do you KNOW how many ants are in your back yard?



God grants that info.



> "It also comes down to how independent we are from God. If God is in complete control of every molecule, then yes he did convey the conflicting observations."
> 
> 
> I think we are equivocating. Of course God *controls* all things by the word of his power, but(!) this is not the same as saying that God convey's contradictory information. Furthermore, the observations are not dependant on the molecules! The molecules are the same, regardless. It is the way man brain interprets the colection of molecules which results in hallucination. Lastly, if God is in control of EVERYTHING, and convey's EVERYTHING to people then, what about this: John "sees" a bee on a rose. "Tim" doesn't see it. John believes that his observation was true. Tim believes the converse. So, God conveyed A and ~A???



How is that an equivocation? Are you saying that God convey the same thing to everyone and we autonomously muck it up?

Not all molecules are the same, if they were, then there would be no periodic table. Also are you saying that the brain and its interpretation are completely separate from the physical world? Then how do you defend knowledge from physical senses?

Lastly, God conveying A and ~A would not be a contradiction because he would be conveying A to one person and ~A to another person. But to be frank, how would you explain the differing observations? Man autonomously did it independent from God?

CT

[Edited on 16-11-2004 by ChristianTrader]


----------



## RickyReformed (Nov 16, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Ricky,
> 
> Sorry, brother, but you just proved *too much!* If God convey's **ALL** things then he conveys "John's" belief that Norman Shepherd is correct and also "Tim's" belief that he is not correect!



<Sigh>

Paul, if you'll remember from my first post:




> His point is that all knowledge comes from God. I believe this schema necessarily requires a symmetric view of predestination and reprobation. That is to say, all information that the elect knows and leads him to Christ is provided immediately (ie not mediated, in this case, by the senses) by God. Likewise, all information that leads the reprobate to damnation also is decreed immediately (and not merely 'allowed') by God.



Now, understand, I am not saying that one is a reprobate and the other one is not, but that the thoughts that were illuminated in their respective minds by the logos were the also a part of the "all things" that "work together for those who love God and are called according to His purpose." 




> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> So, God conveyed A and ~A?





> 1Ki 22:22
> And the LORD said to him, 'By what means?' And he said, 'I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' And he said, 'You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.'



Did these prophets autonomously declare non-A (when in fact A was to occur) or did the LORD decree that they say these things? Remember, the LORD declared "and you shall succeed..." ; was it because He foresaw it? Or because He decreed it?



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> God is not the author of confusion.





> Mat 13:34-35
> All these things Jesus said to the crowds in parables; indeed, he said nothing to them without a parable.
> This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet: "I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter what has been hidden since the foundation of the world."



and



> Mar 4:33-34
> With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it.
> He did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.



Because we are confused does not mean the LORD is confused; His plan stands firm and from the "foundation of the world." Notice that the crowds were not given all the information that they needed to interpret the parables. Was Jesus the author of confusion because he did not give the crowds all the information they needed in order to know the truth contained in the parables - information that He gave to His disciples? What about John and Tim? Because He has not illuminated one or both of them now, can we conclude that He will never reveal that knowledge that "has been hidden since the foundation of the world"? 





> I think we are equivocating. Of course God *controls* all things by the word of his power, but(!) this is not the same as saying that God convey's contradictory information. Furthermore, the observations are not dependant on the molecules! The molecules are the same, regardless. It is the way man brain interprets the colection of molecules which results in hallucination.



Paul, you say God controls "all things" even the rogue molecules, but not the rogue "interpretations" of rogue "photons"? (You say observations are not dependant on molecules, but, in your view, aren't the photons reflected by these molecules interpreted by man's brain? Are they not also "things" contained in the universe of discourse "all things"? Your not being consistent, dear brother!





[Edited on 16-11-2004 by RickyReformed]


----------



## RickyReformed (Nov 16, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> p.s. Ricky,
> 
> I do not think you addressed my verse adaquitly, at all. I do not buy your interpretation and I've never heard that interpretation applied to men seeing fig trees. I would still need that verse refuted for as it stands, the Lord of Glory has told us that "when you SEE the fig tree you KNOW that summer is near."



Paul, I do not think _you_ addressed **my** verses adequately at all. I too don't buy your interpretation of my verses and have never heard your interpretation applied to God seeing and knowing things. I would still need my verses refuted, for as it stands the LORD and the heavenly angels do not use senses to obtain knowledge when they **see** physical objects.



Seriously, aren't you assuming what we're trying to prove? Namely that the "seeing causes the knowing" (as you stated in an earlier post.) How is your argument different in form than this one: "Come on, Paul, the rooster crowing _causes_ the sunrise."?


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 16, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> "Well if God conveys stuff that is not pre-existant then there is still new revelation. And on what basis do you belief that this is not regular normal operation."
> 
> The reformed arguments from cessation. You can consult various works on ths.



So, the information that I believe comes from something other than the sense is contradicted by the reformed arguments from cessation, but if that same info comes by the senses then the arguments from cessation have no effect?



> "God grants that info."
> 
> Assertion, show the argument .



Are asking me to prove that there is not a piece of information somewhere that is not granted to us by God? Or that there is no autonomous information? If so, I will spend some more time on this tomorrow.



> "How is that an equivocation? Are you saying that God convey the same thing to everyone and we autonomously muck it up?"
> 
> I'm denying the thesis of God conveying. Help me: explain what it means that God conveys knowledge.



If you dont know what it means then how can you deny it? Or are you denying it just to be safe

I mean that God facilitates all actions within the universe. One action is the action of knowledge acquisition. One could not gain one small piece of knowledge without the action of God.



> "Not all molecules are the same, if they were, then there would be no periodic table. Also are you saying that the brain and its interpretation are completely separate from the physical world? Then how do you defend knowledge from physical senses?"
> 
> What do you mean "completely seperate?" My brain is seperate from what I observe. All is not one, CT. So, explain?



I never said that all is one. My position also does not assume such. But if knowledge is gained by the physical senses, then you are going to have to link the physical senses to the thought processes. I dont see how you can avoid such. Are you attempting to avoid such?



> I defend knowledge from the physical senses (and note well, all you're doing is critiquing an autonomous version of sense perception and not one that is made intelligible by a worldview) with these, for starters: God gives us our sense organs (Ex. 4:11; Ps. 94:9; Prov. 20:12) and assures us by his word that it is a means of knowledge (Matt. 5:16; 6:26ff; 9:36; 15:10; Luck 1:2; 24:36-43; John 20:27; Rom 1.20; 10:14-17; 2 Peter 1:16-18, I John 4:14).



First what do you mean by knowledge? Justified beliefs or something else? Also I am critiquing all knowledge acquisition that falls into the affirming the consequent fallacy.

I know that God has given us every organ that we have.

Ill go through your verses concerning the senses being reliable for gaining knowledge later tomorrow.

CT


----------



## BobVigneault (Nov 16, 2004)

Paul said,


> Text I defend knowledge from the physical senses (and note well, all you're doing is critiquing an autonomous version of sense perception and not one that is made intelligible by a worldview) with these, for starters: God gives us our sense organs and assures us by his word that it is a means of knowledge



I agree with what you're saying Paul, I just think your progression is misleading. I know you would also say, "I defend knowledge by the Word of God". In the beginning was the sense organ? No, in the beginning was the Word and God gives us tools to discover the Word- senses and understanding. We are blurring the distinction between source and tools. It's the Word that names things, defines meaning, establishes purpose.

Here's an analogy.
Where does water come from? Pipes? Well, yes in a way. Water comes from pipes but in truth, the pipes are simply a channel, a tool for transporting the water. The water comes from the well.


----------



## JWJ (Nov 16, 2004)

Pardon me for budding in, but I need some clarification as to the issue at hand. From what I read no person here is claiming that through sense perception alone one obtains knowledge. In other words no one is claiming a strict or full blown empirical epistemology. Rather the issue at hand is how does sense perception play a role in obtaining knowledge? 

Jim


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 16, 2004)

Paul,
Thanks for the replies. I will get to them later tonight. I have two questions in the meantime. Are you a realist or anti-realist, and do you believe in active or passive reprobation.

CT


----------



## BobVigneault (Nov 16, 2004)

I used to have a beautiful golden retriever. I took him down to the lake and it was full of ducks. He took off after them and at times it looked like he might catch one. 

Shortly I realized that the ducks were trying to lure my dog out into the deep water where he would drown. I barely got him back in time.

Bottom line - I've been trying to follow you guys but you are headed for the deep water. I'm gonna stay on shore and enjoy your discourse.



[Edited on 16-11-2004 by maxdetail]


----------



## RickyReformed (Nov 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> (1) Fallasy of False analogy. God obviously has no eyes and those verses are pure anthropormorphisms. Man does have eyes and Jesus was pointing to real fig trees and talking about thier real eyes. So, I have never heard anyone interpret the verse I gave the way you did... NEVER. I have heard your interpretation of the others, many times.
> 
> (2) Sorry, unclear. The seeing qua seeing does not. But, the whole faculty of man, which God created with eyes and ears in order to learn and know things about his environment does use his senses to aquire knowledge but this cannot be seperated from his rationality (i.e., seeing a tree and comming toi a conclusion also involves a chain of reasoning.)





1) So unless you've heard my interpretation of this verse before, it cannot be correct, right? Furthermore, you have not shown HOW the eyes can obtain knowledge. AT BEST, we can conclude from this verse knowing occurs on the occasion of seeing. Again, your argument that this verse _necessarily_ means what you say is: if A, then B; B, therefore A. "Knowledge is obtained by the senses because the disciples saw the fig tree with their eyes; the disciples saw the fig tree with their eyes, therefore knowledge is obtained by the senses."

2) Paul said "seeing a tree and coming to a conclusion also involves a chain of reasoning". Can you _non-fallaciously_ construct the argument that you used reach this "conclusion"? Can you show me what this "chain of reasoning" is? You assert that there is one; can you logically show us how each "link" leads us down this "chain" of reasoning?

(Yes, I saw your syllogism but if you're establishing your 2nd premise from the verse you quoted you are assuming what needs to be proved, ie you're begging the question.)



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> define knowledge.


Knowledge is specific information about something. But before we go too far - Paul how did you learn what the word "knowledge" means?


> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> explain how you know how many books you have.


At the moment that I see my books the divine logos communicates all the knowledge that He wants my mind to comprehend, so the knowledge of how many books I have does not come from sensation, but from the logos. 

But if knowledge comes through the senses, how can I teach my 5 year old what a fig tree is? If I point to a fig tree and say 'fig tree', how does she know 'fig tree' is not the act of pointing? Furthermore, assume she retains the knowledge of a fig tree by my pointing to one, how will she be able to recognize any other fig tree, since the fig tree she saw has x amount of branches, x amount of leaves, x amount of figs, each organized in a distinctive pattern? Will she be able to recognize this very same fig tree in the winter when all the leaves fall off? But it doesn't 'match' the original image of the fig tree I pointed to, the image which she supposedly obtained through her senses. How then will she be able to recognize any other fig tree unless they look exactly like the image she acquired through her senses? 


> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> explain what this means: "thoughts that were illuminated in their respective minds by the logos"


See my explanation of how I know how many books I have.


> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> is decree different than conveying?


By 'conveying', I mean 'decreeing' or 'causing'


> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> missed my point about John and Tim. I said that God told one a LIE and the other a TRUTH. Does God lie, Ricky?


So because God caused one to believe a lie, He told someone a lie? How does this follow? So a person can believe a lie autonomously? How does one believe a lie apart from God causing it anyway? Free will? Spontaneous generation? Uncaused effect?


> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Your interpretation of 1 Kings denies secondary causality. You confuse permitting with doing. Finally, the lying spirit IS NOT GOD and I asked if GOD HIMSELF can lie... "for we know that it is impossible for God to lie."



When did I say the lying spirit was God? How does this follow from what I said? You seem to confuse "permitting" with "decreeing". So God's decrees are passive?

Please note the following scripture passages:

Proverbs 16:4. The LORD works out **everything** for his own ends Â­even the wicked for a day of disaster.

Proverbs 16:9. In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD **determines** his steps.

Proverbs 20:24. A man's steps are directed by the LORD. **How** then can **anyone** understand his own way?

Proverbs 21:1. **The king's heart** is in the hand of the LORD; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases.

Job 14:5. Man's days are **determined**; you have **decreed** the number of his months and have set limits he **cannot** exceed.

Daniel 4:35. All the peoples of the earth are regarded as nothing. He does **as he pleases** with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. **No one** can hold back his hand or say to him: "What have you done?"

[Edited on 17-11-2004 by RickyReformed]


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You have not answered the question, when Rick or I asked it. Where did this false info come from?

Did the human with the bad understanding, autonomously muck it up after being sent the good info?

Did God cause our senses to break at a certain moment? Did God use some other primary cause to mess with our senses?

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> CT wrote:
> 
> 
> ...



All arguments here will break down to showing the opponent is either going beyond scripture or contradicting scripture. So the game is to show

I will say that Cheungs position is true (at least this is my position today) because it is philsophically cogent and biblically cogent. 



> > Are asking me to prove that there is not a piece of information somewhere that is not granted to us by God? Or that there is no autonomous information? If so, I will spend some more time on this tomorrow.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I asked you how you know how many ants are in your back yard. You said "God grants that info." I'm asking you to take me through the chain of reasoning. I want to see the steps worked out.



I dont think that I can. I think it would be going into to mere speculation to attempt to tell you. However if you wish to do the honors, I would be happy to listen.



> > If you dont know what it means then how can you deny it? Or are you denying it just to be safe
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes people have different definitions. As I understand it I disagree because then you would make God a teller of lies.



It really depends on how you want to define a lie. God explicitly made Pharoah to believe that it was in his best interest to not let Israel go. Would you call that God lying to Pharoah?



> > I mean that God facilitates all actions within the universe. One action is the action of knowledge acquisition. One could not gain one small piece of knowledge without the action of God.
> 
> 
> 
> I could just put sense perception in there then. I do not believe that knowledge by experience is autonomous and until you stop lumping me in with the empericists then we will never get anywhere. Also, this is different then god conveying ALL info. The above is more specific and only deals with knowledge.



Cool add sense perception in there. Now you have to deal with God facilitating one person's sense to say that there are 500 ants and another person's sense to say that there are 510.

And when you stop dodging like those who believe in automony of man, I will stop lumping you with them.

Lastly, explain how this is different?



> > I never said that all is one. My position also does not assume such.
> 
> 
> 
> I know the rationalists don't have a "sense" of humor, but that's called a joke.



Ha and Double Ha



> > But if knowledge is gained by the physical senses, then you are going to have to link the physical senses to the thought processes. I dont see how you can avoid such. Are you attempting to avoid such?
> 
> 
> 
> As I said above the whole man is involved. So, yes, there are aspects of rationality involved in knowledge by sensation. But in some cases our senses are used in the knowledge aquisition process. My knowledge of ants in the backyard would not have been obtained without senseing the particular ants. More is involoved but the senses are in there.



Okay, give me the train of reasoning. 



> > First what do you mean by knowledge? Justified beliefs or something else?
> 
> 
> 
> Justified, true, belief that is warranted.



Okay, we will see how this meshes with your last statment.



> > Also I am critiquing all knowledge acquisition that falls into the affirming the consequent fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Basically??? Can you give me a percentage on basically? 90%? 95%? You must have had a situation when you thought something was true by senses but then found it out to be false later on due to some new sensations. Do you know when you are in the 10% or 5% error? When someone points it out to you and you gain a new sensation that contradicts the old one?

So something that you think is justified true belief that is warranted (your def for knowledge), can be shown to be false at a later point?

CT


----------



## RickyReformed (Nov 17, 2004)

Briefly, since I have to go to bed; I'll get to the rest tomorrow.



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 1) So unless you've heard my interpretation of this verse before, it cannot be correct, right?





> No, you need to give me an interpretation that isn't fallacious. To argue, "well when the Bible speaks of *God*, a being with *no* eyes, and says 'see' that's what the verse talking about *man* *with* eyes means as well. I guess when I ask what does a verse mean about birds flying you'll say: "there's a verse that says God gathers us in his wings like a mother hen." Ricky, stop with the little games of trying to trap me... not gonna work.



So when I quoted Isa 44.18
*They do not know nor understand;
For He has shut their *eyes*, so that they cannot *see*,
And their *hearts*, so that they cannot *understand*.*
that doesn't count??? Fallacy of the false analogy right? I suppose the Lord sewed their eyes shut then? Or are these "being with no eyes" also? Come on, Paul, are you saying that the Bible speaks in contradictions? Either the senses 'convey' (or 'transmit', as you define it) knowledge or they don't. Or just sometimes, and if so, do you know which times they do, as opposed to when they do not? What 'causes' them to sometimes transmit knowledge and not at other times? 




> Knowledge is specific information about something? How specific? Something? Three headed dwarfs? You can know about three headed dwarfs, Ricky? What kind of information? I had a phone book once. It gave me the information for my friend Pete. The information was specific. But is was the wrong number. But since I had specific information I therefore *knew* Petes number?!?!!



You mean I can't know what the number "3", the word "heads", and the word "dwarves" mean?




> _Originally posted by RickyReformed_
> At the moment that I see my books the divine logos communicates all the knowledge that He wants my mind to comprehend, so the knowledge of how many books I have does not come from sensation, but from the logos.





> I see, complain about me asserting an then you just assert. Prove it, Ricky.



Syllogism time!!!
P1 All things are created (Col 1:16) and sustained (Heb 1.3) by God. 
P2 All knowledge is a thing
C1 Therefore all knowledge is created and sustained by God.







> Are you a hyper-calvinist? Sounds like it? ... I may need to e-mail John Robbins so he can put you on his heresy watch list.



Abusive ad hominem.



> I'm saying that if you say this is a universal claim for everyone: "divine logos communicates all the knowledge that He wants my mind to comprehend" then God communicated lies! ... God says X and ~X are both true.



Your equivocating on my use of "communicated"; all I am saying is God causes everything, even your false beliefs. You use communicated as "telling". There is a world of difference between saying "God caused Bill to believe X and John to believe Non-X" and saying "God says X and non-X" Doesn't God cause Joe Christian to believe the gospel and Penny Pagan to not believe the gospel? Again, is Penny's belief that the gospel is false determined by her own free will? By spontaneous generation? By _________?



> How do you know that you "see" books, Ricky?
> 
> You said the logos tells you what he wants your mind to comprehend? So, lets say you looked at your book shelf and told me that you had a total of 35 books. I asked you if you *know* that. You say, "yes." Now, little did you know but there was a book that fell behind your book shelf and so you really had 36 books. ..."



Now, you didn't ask, "How many books to you _own_?" now did you? If you had, I was prepared to respond, "You mean how can I know inductively? Suppose I count all the books in my house and conclude that I have 50 books. But unbeknownst to me my daughter hid one under the bed. Or my wife left one in the car..." Tell me Paul, can we know anything for certain using induction?


----------



## BobVigneault (Nov 17, 2004)

Ouch, foul!
That WAS an abusive ad hominem Paul. You didn't need that for your argument. Stay calm, stay focused.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 17, 2004)

Paul,
We are just having a intense discussion. How in the world can you justify calling in Robbins? You know that was low and uncalled for.

My comment was just a response to your claim that I was not understanding your argumentation. I believe I do understand and just disagree.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 18, 2004)

Paul, 
As an aside, I have no problem with induction. I believe that the Bible justifies it as Bahnsen shown in various places. However, I dont see how the you can say that induction can give you knowledge. Induction could only give justified true belief that is warranted if you were infinite and had all knowledge. However if you had all that, you wouldn't need induction.

I think that induction however does allow us to take dominion over all creation. It also allows us to do many useful things. But get to the truth??? I have not seen how we can use induction to do that.

By the way, I am an anti-realist who also believes in active reprobation (God does not just pass over the unregenerate, he is active in their rejecting Him and the truth of scripture).

I also do not intentionally lump everyone together. I have just not seen a reason to unlump you from certain others.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> "Induction could only give justified true belief that is warranted if you were infinite and had all knowledge. "
> 
> Or, if the one who had all knowledge told you that you could count on the uniformity of nature. A TA proves very *general* claims, so, I wouldn't have to know *every* aspect of nature, thus avoiding both your problems.



But counting on the uniformity of nature still does not really help you (if I define help as being able to derive truth). A I said, I have no problem saying that you can get some useful things by doing "science" however truth?? You have not justified such.

You keep attempting to lump me in with people who dont accept TA's I do accept them. I am not Brian 

I am at least a partial van-tillian. 

As I said in the previous post, I see no reason to say that we cannot take dominion over creation and still say that an non infinite being cannot derive truth from induction.



> "By the way, I am an anti-realist"
> 
> Of course you are.



You probably new the minute that I entered this thread. Just as I knew the opposite about you.



> "who also believes in active reprobation (God does not just pass over the unregenerate, he is active in their rejecting Him and the truth of scripture)."
> 
> "And *THEY* exchanged the truth for the lie." You need to do justice to both, CT.



One question, so what is your way of doing justice to both?

Next, I have no problem with that quote. Since we both believe in the bondage of the will, I dont know how you can think that quote negatively effects my position. For a while, their will wanted to keep the truth and reject the lie, later it wanted the lie and to reject the truth. That is my "definition of active reprobation". If there is another one going around, could you show me how I differ.

I just dont see how that can be considered passive reprobation.



> "I have just not seen a reason to unlump you from certain others."
> 
> I gave you reasons. You didn't address them. So, I can't help it if you just dogmaticaly assert.



I have attempted to address everything that you have thrown at me. If I missed something, it was unintentional. Try again and I will attempt to be more through.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 18, 2004)

More comments on the problems with induction and not being infinite. For example, lets say that you observe that water goes down the bath tube train in clockwise direction. You study this 100k times. Therefore it is true by induction that water goes down the drain in a clockwise direction. But then you go to other hemisphere's and you now see that the water goes down in the counterclockwise direction. Does this disprove induction or did you just not have enough different observations to successfully train your model to predict what will happen in various situations?

Then there is the knowing how many books that I own problem. You say to yourself that I will count how many books are on my bookshelf and that is how many that I own. But then someone hides a book, one takes one and does not tell you, one book falls off the shelf and behind the couch. So the number you count is not the number of books that you own. Would you say that you have such knowledge of the books that you own and then that knowledge was turned into false knowledge when new knowledge came along (your friend returned the book that he borrowed).

This is a basic affirming the consequent problem. If I own fifty books, then I will count fifty books on my bookshelf. I count 50 books on my books shelf therefore I own 50 books.

This occurs because we are finite, and even if our senses were always razor sharp, we would still fall into these issues.

CT


----------



## RickyReformed (Nov 19, 2004)

> "Man, I'm getting ganged up on by the clarkians."



Only if you redefine what "clarkian" means.



> "Ricky knows how I feel about Robbins and his heresy watch. Ricky should have known I was joking, based on numerous conversations"



I was objecting more to being called a 'hyper-calvinist', as if somewhere in this conversation (or anywhere else for that matter) I had denied the Free Offer, Common Grace, etc. How many people who are reading this thread are going to walk away thinking I'm a hyper-calvinist?
Using emoticons could have helped distinguish your joking from name-calling.



> "I know after the many schooling in the apologetics thread you left and read some logic text book and are very excited to use your new found skills."



You say that like it's a bad thing.  <<<(see how the emoticon helps lighten the mood?  )



> "And *THEY* exchanged the truth for the lie."



Of course THEY exchanged the truth for a lie. Our question is what CAUSED them to exchange the truth for a lie? Is it not the same Creator who creates and sustains them? CT's position and mine has never entailed some sort of Christian pantheism, which is *implied* in your understanding of our position. You don't accept this position when it comes to election; I know you don't buy the Arminian caricature of calvinism which say that because the elect are caused to believe by God, God does the believing for them. Doesn't the same distinction hold true for the reprobate?

[Edited on 20-11-2004 by RickyReformed]


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> *Hey I feel left out*
> 
> Well, now I will address you, CT. Most of my criticisms of CT can be found above. But we will focus on a couple of new arguments CT uses.
> ...



By the way, thanks for not leaving me out 

Lets now get down to business.

I never said that you have to be omniscient to be certain about some things. I said that you have to be omniscient to be certain about some things when one is using induction. Those are two different ballparks. Being certain using deductive reasoning is perfectly cool.



> For example God promised Noah that as long as the earth remains seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, will remain.



A good biblical proposition from which much can be deduced. One such thing is the uniformity of nature. I have no problem with this biblical justification.



> So, I know that when I walk into the next freezer it will be cold.



Not quite. The question is if it is possible for the freezer not to be cold and the uniformity of nature still hold? I would say, yes it is possible. For example, perhaps a power surge could cause the freezer to over heat and therefore break, making the freezer not cold. Or maybe even the power surge does something to the electronice that turns the cold into warm. The best we can say is that we have never seen any condition under which we entered a freezer and it was not cold. Now this does not mean that I tip toe into the freezer afraid that it could be a 1000 degrees inside.



> Your only argument would be that the earth may not remain tomorrow. From that I will show you the absurdity of saying that the second coming could happen tomorrow.



I dont think the second coming will be tomorrow. I am also a Bahsonian post mil. But I would love to see the absurdity (I hope it will include exegesis, for one could attempt to logically show something to be untrue, but if the exegesis fails, you really have not closed the deal).



> I know that the next time I squeeze a full tube of toothpaste the past will come out. I know that when you read this post you will understand the words that have meant what I intend them to mean up until you read it in the future from now. All your responses, furthermore, will assume induction. I'll show you if you'd like. So, if induction cannot give you knowledge then you had better not respond since you'd be assuming it.



First to assume the uniformity of nature does not assume induction. That is deductively known from scripture.

Also in case you have, misread me very badly, I will say that I have no problem with induction. I have a problem when it is used to go beyond its capabilities. I have also said that I believe that God has told us to take dominion over all creation. He has also made the earth so that is possible. If words were just changing, then communication would basically fall apart, negatively effecting the dominion mandate. Therefore I assume that (eventhough I have not sampled the whole range of nature's uniformity, I can safely assume that certain things wont occur.) If it turns out that I am wrong about words changing quickly under certain conditions, then I can rest assured that the dominion mandate is still in effect and civilization wont fail because of it.



> CT thinks that I can't appeal to natures uniformity as I did above:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree with you on the uniformity of nature. How many times do I have to tell you this???? This response does not hurt my position. The best you can say by induction is that "I have not seen X or Y occur, therefore I dont expect X or Y to occur in the future.



> Now CT asks about future observation dis-confirming previous observation. He talks about all swans are white until the finding of a black swan (borrowed from Karl Popper's famous analogy). he wants to know if I knew (justified true belief that is warranted) that all swans were white? Well, of course not. It wouldn't have been true.



Okay Ill put the question a different way. Did you think that you had justified true belief that all swans were white, before the first black swan was found? If yes, then why is the next inductively derived info different? If no, then what caused you not to believe that you had a justified true belief? 



> But here we find the same sort of fallacies that the empirical skeptic uses. CT argues that there was a (or many) case/s of previously held beliefs being falsified and therefore, all such cases are falsified! hasty generalization. Furthermore, one can say the same with deduction. With a little imagination I can always say about the first universal premise (but how do you know all S are P?)?



Hasty generalization? My point is, that since using induction to get to truth in the past, has failed, then why do you assume that today is different than the past, and no you can get truth?

I would say we can only say that all S are P if the Bible says that all S are P? I think I am missing your point. You would have to refute the worldview derived from my first principle in order to get anywhere.



> I've been asking these guys how many books they own. Here's CTs answer:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



First off, you should be careful about attacking my position with an argument that attacks your position at the same time.

In your view, God is actively maintaining our senses through his normal providence. So when people count different things, God must be opposing himself because he is the one that is maintaining one person's sense in one way and maintaining another person's senses in a different way. It sure gets all confusing. 

Next, concerning the realiability of the senses. The only way that you can tell that your senses have failed is if some later sense contradicts the earlier sense (and you assume the uniformity of nature) and come to some conclusion that either your earlier sense failed or your later sense was the wrong one.

What if you had been drinking a bit too much but didnt really realize it at the time (or that someone had drugged you). You go to count how many books are on your shelf. You miss an entire row. So you count 55, while there are 80 books. You know the 80 figure because you went back to count a couple days later. You then chalk up the contradiction to you have had too much to drink, or somehow you get a blood test to find out that you had been drugged. So you go back through you thoughts and delete the info during the suspecious period.

Then even when your senses are razor sharp, you could just be too far away to count your books. Lets say that you somehow had to count a few feet away (instead of by hand). You think your good to go, but you recount up close and find out that you missed two books. 

So the ultimate question is how do you know that you have caught all the times when your senses were unreliable?



> CT asks:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually in the words of Lee Corso: "Not so fast". You still have some splaining to do. Can you tell the difference between that which is true and that which is not true but has yet to be refuted (but will be in two weeks)?

Since, I am suspicious of that which is not inferred or deduced from scripture, I dont think you could put the knowing of two contradictory things on me.



> > Basically??? Can you give me a percentage on basically? 90%? 95%? You must have had a situation when you thought something was true by senses but then found it out to be false later on due to some new sensations. Do you know when you are in the 10% or 5% error? When someone points it out to you and you gain a new sensation that contradicts the old one?
> 
> 
> 
> Basic reliability is an epistemological term. Something is still reliable if it works under normal conditions. So, even though your car may start every other day except when it's 20 below, this does not mean your care is not reliable. So, God designed are cognitive faculties to operate in a normal environment. There are of course factors which decrease reliability (you may consult Plantinga'a Warrant trilogy for an extended discussion).



Here you know what all the conditions of failure are, but in real life it is not so simple. If you car had never been in 20 below temps before, you would assume that it is reliable there, until shown otherwise. Would you say that you have justified true belief that your car works all the time, until it fails at 20 below?

Plantinga seems to be a very interesting person. I will have to look into him at some point.



> Lastly, why would anyone want an epistemological theory that leads to this conclusion?
> 
> CT writes when asked to give an account for how he knows how many ants are in his backyard using his "God tells me theory"
> 
> ...



Which gives justified true belief to what the proper number are until it is shown that it does not?

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> *Yes but you just can't know anything from observation*
> 
> ...



It seems that you want to critique RR's position without attempt to salvage your own. If induction can get you truth, how can you tell when you actually have this truth and not just something that will be shown to be wrong tomorrow?

On this side of the coin, I do not have to say that the new observation that refuted the old observation, is the truth and the old one was false. (The old one could have been accurate and the new one could be the mistake). All I need to say is that I believe this new observation is more useful to me than the older observation. If new (different) observations come, then I can change this all around.

I dont see how these objections can really hurt an anti-realist. Now if I was a realist, I think I would be in serious pain right now.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 21, 2004)

Paul, you stated that something can be called justified true belief, but then it could be shown to be false at some later point. Then what good is it? All it ends up meaning is that "according to what I have seen thus far, X is the answer". How does that not kill itself at the altar of skepticism? 

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> CT writes:
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, for it would entail a formal fallacy.



> > Being certain using deductive reasoning is perfectly cool.
> 
> 
> 
> Deductive arguments are only true if their premises are true. How do you know that the premises are true, for certain?



Certain things are true by necessity.



> > A good biblical proposition from which much can be deduced. One such thing is the uniformity of nature. I have no problem with this biblical justification.
> 
> 
> 
> Good.



Agreement. Yahoo. :bigsmile:



> > Not quite. The question is if it is possible for the freezer not to be cold and the uniformity of nature still hold? I would say, yes it is possible. For example, perhaps a power surge could cause the freezer to over heat and therefore break, making the freezer not cold. Or maybe even the power surge does something to the electronice that turns the cold into warm. The best we can say is that we have never seen any condition under which we entered a freezer and it was not cold. Now this does not mean that I tip toe into the freezer afraid that it could be a 1000 degrees inside.
> 
> 
> 
> This just shows your ignorance about inductive arguments. The argument is that, all things being equal, I will know. So, the next freezer that I walk into, where the conditions are normal, then it will be cold... based on the uniformity of nature which you agreed to above.



How exactly do you know the normal conditions under which you observations hold, until you have found a condition under which they do not hold? You could have been on the edge for various days and then you just went over that edge.

But you are correct that if everything is like it was the previous day where you went into the freezer, then it will be cold just like the previous day.



> CT, you can't critique an inductive argument by saying maybe the power would surge and then it wouldn't be cold. That's not even the argument. I suggest some study before you respond. Now, remeber what I said I was going to do to you? Well, how do you know that when you have a power surge that affects something that runs on power? Because it had in the past? Stop using inductive arguments to argue against induction, CT.



Have you ever heard of a thing called a hypothetical example that is used to internally critique? The argument is this: You have used induction to come to certain expectations for when you walk into freezers. You are not infinite so you could not say that you examined freezers under all the possible conditions. But what is that you say: "uniformity of nature". Okay cool. So what??? Nature can be uniform and you still could have not observed black swans.

Back to freezers: Remember I do not hate induction and I accept the uniformity of nature. I have a problem with using induction to find truth. 

I do not know that power surges cause freezers to not be cold, until I have observed such a case. But that is the whole kicker. You cannot say that there will not be such a case, unless you can prove from the Bible that there will not be such a case.



> > I dont think the second coming will be tomorrow. I am also a Bahsonian post mil. But I would love to see the absurdity (I hope it will include exegesis, for one could attempt to logically show something to be untrue, but if the exegesis fails, you really have not closed the deal).
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to since you are familar with all the arguments. You know the exegesis. If you don't think they lead to the conclusiion then you are a postmill against your better knowledge! Now, you know that there will be many YEARS of a golden age. You know that children who die at 100 will be considered cursed. You know the gospel must be preached to the nations. You know that the law will become a light to the nations and the socio/political foundation will be God's revealed law. You know that if Jesus came back tomorrow the millenniunm would already be over and that satan would be loosed to deceive the nations and the final apostacy and battle will take place. You know that all the enemies will be put under Christ's feet, the last one being death. And you know all this won;t happen withing, roughly, 15 hours



Okay.



> Also, remeber what I said above, even if Jesus did come back that is a factor this is "not all things being equal." And, CT, why do you expect good exegesis? Is it because good exegesis in the past has convinced you of the truth of a position but why did you *act like* it would in the future?



I accept the uniformity of nature. I also understand the not all things being equal caveat. Therefore I act like something is true, until I no longer find it useful to say that it is true (this is not a statement about my view of scripture, it is how I view everything else).



> > First to assume the uniformity of nature does not assume induction. That is deductively known from scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know that what you deductively deduce from Scritpure today will hold tomorrow? Stop using induction.



Uniformity of nature? God word says that it does not change? Logic also does not change for God does not change?



> > Also in case you have, misread me very badly, I will say that I have no problem with induction. I have a problem when it is used to go beyond its capabilities. I have also said that I believe that God has told us to take dominion over all creation. He has also made the earth so that is possible. If words were just changing, then communication would basically fall apart, negatively effecting the dominion mandate. Therefore I assume that (eventhough I have not sampled the whole range of nature's uniformity, I can safely assume that certain things wont occur.) If it turns out that I am wrong about words changing quickly under certain conditions, then I can rest assured that the dominion mandate is still in effect and civilization wont fail because of it.
> 
> 
> 
> You still miss the point. This is basically what Stein said to Bahnsen. "Boy, if it changes won't that be a doosey!" But do we really act like this? CT, you don't even understand. So, as Bahnsen said to Stein: "Im not saying that, I'm asking: why do procede upon the EXPECTATION that they will hold tomorrow? Basically you have totally avoided my question.



I proceed with an expectation that things will be like tomorrow because the Bible says that God will keep things going in a regular manner. I am getting confused.



> > I agree with you on the uniformity of nature. How many times do I have to tell you this???? This response does not hurt my position. The best you can say by induction is that "I have not seen X or Y occur, therefore I dont expect X or Y to occur in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> So, the best CT can say is that he has not seen my argument succede so he doesn't expect it to in this conversation? Sorry, I'm not bothers by this, CT. You need bigger guns then saying, I've never seen an argument for induction so I don't expect to in this conversation. Wait/ Isn't this an inductive argument employed to argue against my using induction? Ct, stop with the inductive arguments.




Be my guest, use induction. I certainly do. I argue against being able to say that you have found the truth. Due to affirming the consequent. A formal fallacy.



> > Did you think that you had justified true belief that all swans were white, before the first black swan was found? If yes, then why is the next inductively derived info different?
> 
> 
> 
> Because not all questions, or types of things argued for are the same, CT. I *thought* I had justified true belief (if I indeed would in this illustration). But, this is not the same thing as, say, knowing that nature is uniform so I know that the next time I open my Bible to Genesis 1 it will read: In the begginning." CT, do you not KNOW this?



Yes, I do know this because of the arguments that I used above. 

So if you accept the swan example, why are you not an inductive skeptic?



> > Hasty generalization? My point is, that since using induction to get to truth in the past, has failed, then why do you assume that today is different than the past, and no you can get truth?
> 
> 
> 
> Assumes it has failed in ALL cases, if your argument hasn't then it is hasty. Uses induction to argue against induction. Don't you see this????



How do you know that you have the truth and not just think that you have the truth?

Let's say that by induction, you have something exactly correct. How would you differentiate between that and something that you have seriously wrong but is consistent with the observations that you have made thus far?

Also if it has failed once. Why do you assume that the next time that it will not fail, instead of saying that "it might fail and it might not. I do not have to be correct about this"?



> > I would say we can only say that all S are P if the Bible says that all S are P?
> 
> 
> 
> CT, can you know that you are saved?



Yes.



> Can you know that all dogs are canines?



If I define them in such a fashion.



> Can you know that all women have a Y chromosone (or whatwever they have)?



Men have X and Y. Women have Two X's. No I cannot know that, unless I define that to be the case. "If you dont have two X's you are not a woman".



> Can you know that all men who fall 1 million feet to the ground with a nuclear bomb attached to them so that it exploded on impact, will die?



It is possible to survive. I would not look for them to so do, but if someone was to show me tape and the person walking away. I would say WOW. (I probably would have to examine the tape to see if it was doctored as well)



> CT, can you know that all the times we can say all S are P is when the Bible says all S are P? Now, you see the absurdity of your position. Why don't you follow some peopel with credentials instead of jumping on the latest bandwagon of some guy who worked and atheist who is a chump and is one of the dumbest atheists I have ever talked to.



Derek is dumb, Ill give you that. The rest we will have to fight over. I thought that most of this stuff had a gordon clark backing to it. He is not just some guy of the street. Next, I have no problem saying a lot of things. However those things without Biblical backing, I can accept being shown to be in error.



> > In your view, God is actively maintaining our senses through his normal providence. So when people count different things, God must be opposing himself because he is the one that is maintaining one person's sense in one way and maintaining another person's senses in a different way. It sure gets all confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> Not even close. There is a difference between what I said and saying that God TELLS!!!! or CONVEYS people all the information they have. Also, I hold to secondary causality (as does 98% of reformed theology). I would say that the fall and man's sinful nature are why he reasons poorly. I would read reformed systematics texts on what it means that man is free.



But in this situation we are not talking about reasoning errors. This is an issue of "I saw 50" and "I saw 55". So there is some information that we have that God did not convey or tell? I do not see how you can avoid saying that at the end of the day "God gets to us what he wants us to have". God does not say to himself. "Shucks if they did not have that pesky sin nature, I could have got this correct information to them" 



> > Next, concerning the realiability of the senses. The only way that you can tell that your senses have failed is if some later sense contradicts the earlier sense (and you assume the uniformity of nature) and come to some conclusion that either your earlier sense failed or your later sense was the wrong one.
> 
> 
> 
> So?



So its possible that you senses could have failed but you did not know it?



> > What if you had been drinking a bit too much but didnt really realize it at the time (or that someone had drugged you). You go to count how many books are on your shelf. You miss an entire row. So you count 55, while there are 80 books. You know the 80 figure because you went back to count a couple days later. You then chalk up the contradiction to you have had too much to drink, or somehow you get a blood test to find out that you had been drugged. So you go back through you thoughts and delete the info during the suspecious period.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope everyone notices that CT REFUSES to tell me how he knows how many books he has on his shelf. Also, note my diiscussion of proper functioning cognative faculties.



I thought we went through this in the past few posts. What else do you want from me?



> > Then even when your senses are razor sharp, you could just be too far away to count your books. Lets say that you somehow had to count a few feet away (instead of by hand). You think your good to go, but you recount up close and find out that you missed two books.
> 
> 
> 
> Argues that since SOMETIMES my senses deceive me, therefore, they ALWAYS do. Ct, still waiting for you to argue for the conclusion in a non fallacious way.



Nope, I do not argue that always the sense deceive you. My point was that how would you know that they have deceived you or not?

I am a skeptic. As such I do not have to show you that you are wrong or correct here. I have to show that you cannot justify your conclusion. You can be right on, even if you use faulty reasoning. But what confidence can you place in your conclusion if you reasoning is faulty?



> > So the ultimate question is how do you know that you have caught all the times when your senses were unreliable?
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't? Who has ever said this??? CT, if you don't start critiquing my position I'll just let you chant you underdeveloped and naive epistemoloy to the air.



I have killed your position already. Why dont you see this.



> > Can you tell the difference between that which is true and that which is not true but has yet to be refuted (but will be in two weeks)?
> 
> 
> 
> In some instances. Transcendental truths are true but an inductive or deductive argument may later turn out to be false. But this doesn't matter! We would still say, "I thought I knew." You asked if justified true belief can be non-knowledge if the proposition happens to be false. To which the answer is, YES. That fully answers your question.



So justified true belief can turn out to be false. So that would make you an inductive skeptic as well?



> > Since, I am suspicious of that which is not inferred or deduced from scripture, I dont think you could put the knowing of two contradictory things on me.
> 
> 
> 
> Well above I deduced and inferred that Scripture says our senses are reliable! Also, how do you KNOW that what your eyes report back to you fromt the pages of scripture are the way it REALLY is?



Senses can be reliable. A good night sleep, no alcohol, no drugs, no extra stress etc. But things derived from observations would still have to deal with affirming the consequent. So those derived views could blow up at some future point, even with the uniformity of nature.

Because the Christian worldview is trancendentally necessary. If what I know isnt the way that it is, then knowledge is impossible.



> > If you car had never been in 20 below temps before, you would assume that it is reliable there, until shown otherwise. Would you say that you have justified true belief that your car works all the time, until it fails at 20 below?
> 
> 
> 
> Yaaaawwwwnnn. I wouldn't say I had that. The point, though, CT, is that ******IF IT DIDN"T****** that wouldn't make uit, therefore unreliable. So, just because my senses may deceive me when I am drunk does not mean that they are unreliable when I am not. Again, this gets into proper functioning cognative faculties. The way god made us. This is His environment. His world. I was created in a way that my senses are normally reliable etc etc etc.



No problem saying that what I see normally is "a car, a tv, etc." The problems occur at the margins (drunk or not). Do we know when we have reached the margin or not?



> > Which gives justified true belief to what the proper number are until it is shown that it does not?
> 
> 
> 
> Now is that what I said? If something was false then it couldn't ever be JTRUEB, now could it? But I told you the process of how I would know. I want you to tell me the process. Does you epistemology reduce to this sort of absurdity?



The process is that you count now and say that the number is X. Then you go about your business. If you somehow have a reason to recount at a later point and it does not mesh, then you attempt to determine which count was accurate.



> > It seems that you want to critique RR's position without attempt to salvage your own. If induction can get you truth, how can you tell when you actually have this truth and not just something that will be shown to be wrong tomorrow?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, RR's position has been totally devistated since I showed that he couldn't know anything since his theory of knowledge defeates itself. Secondly, because nature is uniform, CT? I didn't say that I could know ALL things by induction, did I. I gave examples above of SOME things I can know. But, what if I were to say that a magik fairy told me? Why would you assume that this isn't the case since you have never observed one, AND the Bible doesn't say that there aren't??? Silly epistemology.



I would assume it because I have not seen a magik fairy and Nature being uniform does not salvage the swans example.



> > On this side of the coin, I do not have to say that the new observation that refuted the old observation, is the truth and the old one was false. (The old one could have been accurate and the new one could be the mistake). All I need to say is that I believe this new observation is more useful to me than the older observation. If new (different) observations come, then I can change this all around.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a pragmatic justification and pragmatic justifications suffer from (1) you would have to know the future to say it was useful, and all the factors involved. (2) useful always breaks down on analysis and resorts to subjectivism and skepticism. Anyway, read Pragmatism, Predjudice, and Presuppotionalism by Bahnsen for a thurough trouncing of these types of justifictaions.



I have read the article. Its good stuff. The counter claims do not affect me because I am not attempting to derive truth from these observations. I could be wrong about what is useful and what is not. I might think that handling radio-active material is useful to long life.

I also do not have a problem with skepticism for I am just being pragmatic, not saying that I have the truth.



> > I do not have to say that the new observation that refuted the old observation, is the truth and the old one was false.
> 
> 
> 
> If one doesn't have to say that sense perceptions could be false, or mistaken, then how can you argue that they are ever false? How could you ever KNOW that they are FALSE? That's the question, CT. If you can't KNOW that they are false then your arguments crumble. So, show how you KNOW this and I'll show you how you would have to asume the reliability of your senses to know it



Actually what I said was not to say that the senses are not reliable. It was to say that given them being reliable, you can still never get to justified truth status. The only way that you could say that you have the truth, is if the Bible said something like: "When you see purple with polka dots, then Jesus is coming in five days". In this case, you do not have to worry about affirming the consequent, because an infinite God has told you that you do not have to worry about alternate explanation of the purple with pink polka dots.

CT

[Edited on 22-11-2004 by ChristianTrader]


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> ...



That is exactly what I am asking, how does one tell the difference? 



> The good it is is that I have necessary and sufficient conditions for granting that one does know something. The definition is highly general. I'm saying that *if* someone claims to know something then it had better be: believed, true, believed with a proper account of justification.



Okay, cool. So at some point in the past, someone believe that all swans are white was "Believed, true, believed with a proper account of justification". But later on it turned out to be false. How do you know if you have a swan situation versus something that will not be later shown to be false?



> But CT, unless you tell me your definition of knowledge I can ignore your posts since, for all I know, you don;t know anythhing that you're saying. I'm gonna show that it is *your* position that can't avoid skepticism. I would recommend not going to the dictionary like our friend did



I'll accept yours. I dont need to re-invent the wheel.



> Now, you have missed the point of all my arguments. I've been giving a presuppositional defense of these things. So, you're still stuck in critiquing me along autonomous man lines. You really need to get over this hump if you're gowing to grow. I've supported my position from the bible and given three accounts now of my view of the senses being used for the aquisition of knowledge.



Nope, I have not used autonomous man lines. 

About the three accounts, it must have been in the rick part of the super post from yesterday. I will relook.



> Oh, yeah, you seem to imply that saying that: according to what I have seen thus far, X is the answer kills itself at the alter of skepticism. First, you need a definition of knowledge where epistemic questions are even going to be made intelligible.



I accept the one you gave above.



> Second, maybe this killed itself at the alter of skepticism in the past but maybe in this convo it won't.



Well, if you can justify believing that we will be infinite in the future, then perhaps. Show me, the scriptural argument and we can play ball.



> So, stop using induction to justify your arguments. Skepticism doubts our claim to justification. Since this is doubted they say we can't have knowledge. But since I have no clue about what you mean by knowledge then this seems incoherent. Maybe there is no such thing as knowledge and therefore, skepticism doesn't matter. CT, I know it's fun trying to play the fun philosopher and just critique other people positions but you are going to need to start to develope your own. I doubt that you explanation will measure up to the rigerous demands of an epistemological theory.



Perhaps it will measure up or it wont. We will have to see. Secondly everyone is a skeptic about something. The question is if we can avoid complete skeptism (which is a self contradiction).



> Lastly, you ask: "Then what good is it? All it ends up meaning is that "according to what I have seen thus far, X is the answer". How does that not kill itself at the altar of skepticism" Uh, CT, did you deduce or infer *this* claim from Scripture? If not, then you don't know it and so you, again, refute yourself.



It is a formal fallacy. When you reason fallaciously, then how can you justify not being a skeptic about your conclusion?

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> ...also, CT, can you explain this for me?
> 
> The cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus, when you come, bring, and the books, especially the parchments. II Timothy 4:13
> ...



Well an imperitive presupposes a proposition that can either be true or false. Since this statement is in scripture, what it presupposes is true. One proposition is that Paul left his cloak in Troas. Therefore that statement is true.



> Second, this implies the reliability of memory. How do you know memory is reliable, CT? At least as many of the same types of arguments you use against sense perception can be used against memory. So, how did Paul know he left his cloak in Troas? Did God reveal this to Paul If so, how do you know this? Is *that* in Scripture?



There are two questions here: 1) Was it possible for Paul to have thought that he left his cloak at Troas but he left his cloak in Jerusalem? Yes. As in was Paul's memory infallible (at least in an everyday sense)? No.

2) Did Paul leave his cloak at Troas? Yes. The inspiration of scripture testifies to its accuracy in everything.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> sorry, the more I keep think about this the more silly ti becomes. CT wrote:
> 
> 
> ...



I would say that we can only say that all S are P and be infallible correct if the Bible says so.

Adam and Noah could never reach that level unless God spoke to them directly (like scripture directly speaks to us today).



> What about this
> 
> 10 He waited seven more days and again sent out the dove from the ark. 11 When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then *Noah knew* that the water had receded from the earth. 12 He waited seven more days and sent the dove out again, but this time it did not return to him.
> 
> Wait wait wait wait, wait a minute! Nohah didnt' KNOW that when birds bring back leaves that means the water had receded! That's, that's, well, that's induction!



Actually no problem because he knew that God had covered everything with water. Therefore, he deduced that something not covered with water, mean that the water had receded.



> Genesis 37
> 13 and Israel said to Joseph, "As *you know*, your brothers are grazing the flocks near Shechem. Come, I am going to send you to them."
> "Very well," he replied.
> 
> How did he know this? Oh yeah, the divine logis communicated it to him. But how did Israel know that Joeseph knew? Oh yeaaahh, I keep forgetting, the divine logos comminicated *that* to him also. But could they infer or deduce it from scripture???



No, so it is possible that such occurances can be shown to be false. In this case, we know it is true, for the scriptures included the information.



> C'mon, guys. Thi is just an underveloped and naive view of epistemology.



I dont think so, but we have plenty of time to discuss.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Ct,
> 
> Sorry, I've used the Bible to argue from my position. Until you deal with them i take God's word over you.



That is the way that it is supposed to be.



> I've already shown how I can avoid the affirming the consequent fallacy.
> 
> (1) If my senses are reliable i can gain knowledge by them.
> (2) My senses are reliable (God's word)
> (3) Therefore I can gain knowledge by them



I truly think that we are operating on different terms for knowledge.

Can you say that it is impossible for me to be wrong about some inductive claim? Are there some inductive claims that you cannot say such about? How do you differentiate between the two.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> QUOTE: So justified true belief can turn out to be false. So that would make you an inductive skeptic as well? UNQUOTE
> ...



I do not disagree. I have not even stated disagreement with that statement. (Edit: I did not mean to express disagreement with the statement, I think/thought that you statements were leading me in the direction of what I wrote)

How do you know that you are not wrong when you say that I have JTB that X is the case?

Or put another way, What does it take to go from "I think I have justified true belief, to saying that I have justified true belief"

Also could you give me an example of each?

If you can answer this one thing. I do not think we will have any more disagreement.

CT

[Edited on 22-11-2004 by ChristianTrader]

[Edited on 22-11-2004 by ChristianTrader]


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > I truly think that we are operating on different terms for knowledge.
> ...



My view of knowledge would be that I am absolutely philosophically certain that I have justified true belief.



> > Or put another way, What does it take to go from "I think I have justified true belief, to saying that I have justified true belief"
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But since we are fallen, is it not possible that you will call something transcendental when it is not? (For example the Bible does not say that one is without excuse for every single doctrine). Some of Paul's writing are also hard and people can distort them.

Also is it possible to think that something conforms to the mind of God and you actually be wrong?



> This is all very abstract. We would have to get to the specifics. You'd probably be surprised at what I claim to know and not know.
> 
> Now, of course in ALL cases that I really do have justified true belief I will also think I do. So you're really asking how I know that I do have justified true belief. You would have to give me a specific probelm. Of course I would say that I had justified true belief because I believe X, X is true, and X is justified. So, take the freezer.



The issue is can you get to the truth (and be justified in calling it the truth), without being able to derive it from the Bible.

Lets use the swan problem. You have never seen a black swan. No one you have ever talked to has ever seen a black swan. Would you say that you have justified true belief that all swans are white or would you say that you think you have it, but a black swan could be found at some point in the future?



> I believe that it will be cold.
> My justification for this is that, all things being equal, since God promised nature to be uniform I can know that places under 32 degrees will be freezing.



I agree with that statement. The issue is the "all things being equal part". I agree that if your observation tomorrow is the exact same condition for the observation that you have today, then it will give you the same result. The issue is can you predict infallible that tomorrow will have the exact same conditions as today (or a condition that you have seen in the past)?

If not then is not your knowledge all for not in this "new"? Are not you left with saying: "All freezers that operate under the conditions that I have observed are cold? If you have a freezer that is operating under conditions that I have not seen, I can tell you nothing. "

Could you ever say that "I have not seen other conditions besides my 50k observations of freezers, but no matter what the conditions are the freezer will be cold". Next, how close to your observed condition is good enough to say that your results will still hold in a different situation?

Also is it not possible that a variable that you thought was unimportant and did not take account of was important and made you give a bad prediction, because it had changed while others had stayed the same?

But are we truly dealing with induction as it is usually done? It goes from the specific case to the general case.



> This is true because it conforms to the mind of God in that He knows all the factors and principles operating and He knows, based on His promise, that it will always be freezing under 32 degrees.



I have no problem with saying that water will always freeze under 32 F; unless some other condition (either seen before or not) is added to the game.

Is it possible that you can say how water will react to a condition that you have yet to see?

There is also the problem that your equipment to measure the conditions are not sensitive enough to really tell you the conditions within a small enough margin of error (to determine which case you are dealing with)



> You are trying to be general and specific at the same time. I admit that there are certain inductions that I draw which I wouldn't say I *know.* Examples would be: All ball pythons I have seen are under eight feet. I may conclude that the next one will be but I wouldn't say that I know this.



Okay, so is it possible that you call something strong when it is actually weak? Or are you infallible in this game?



> > Can you say that it is impossible for me to be wrong about some inductive claim? Are there some inductive claims that you cannot say such about? How do you differentiate between the two.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is most definately impossible. Yes. Depends on how close it is to a "law of nature" (i.e., cold/heat, harvest time, sun and moon, etc). Remember, TAs are very general. All we are doing now is getting into specific instances and I have no prblem on this level saying that there are stronger and weaker inductive claims.



The problem is knowing what the law of nature is and how it works in a situation that I have yet to see? Do you have any idea, how many scientific "laws" have gone by the wayside over the centuries? And those which are still here in some form are continually ongoing tweaks. (Or are you using the term "law" differently than scientists use it)

If you believe that we cannot use the uniformity of nature to be sure about situations where the conditions are such that we have not previously observed them, then I dont think we are that far apart.

Eventually we will have to be able to talk about why scientific theories go out of fashion so quickly?

CT

[Edited on 22-11-2004 by ChristianTrader]


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> I see you're totaly avoiding all the Scripture references. is your view that important that you will even hold i the face of contradicting the bible???



Yep. Most definitely.



> > The issue is can you get to the truth (and be justified in calling it the truth), without being able to derive it from the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> Show me how you derive you being saved (which you said you know) from the bible while being philosophically certain of it, and answering these questions that you asked



The Bible gives qualifications for knowing that one is saved. I have done those qualifications. however, I guess it is still possible that I could be one of those who are in for a season though. The Bible does not really tell us what a person looks like if they are only going to be "one of us" for a season as opposed to permanently.

So I have to say that I cannot be philosophically certain about that. Or at least, I dont know how. (The only out is if somehow my knowing that I am saved is a precondition for intelligibility; at least that is the only way I can see it happening)



> 1. But since we are fallen, is it not possible that you will call something transcendental when it is not? (For example the Bible does not say that one is without excuse for every single doctrine). Some of Paul's writing are also hard and people can distort them.
> 
> 
> 2. Also is it possible to think that something conforms to the mind of God and you actually be wrong?
> ...



I was just wrong, or at least think I am wrong, right now.



> Tell me, *if* your definition is true then show me the steps you take to show that Joseph had absolute philosophical certainity that his brothers were back at camp.



My definition? But I would not know how to do that. Are you saying that it is philosophically certain that the Brothers were still at camp or that (they could not have snuck off someplace). Or something else, I am not following.



> Tell me, *if* you definition is true then how did people derive *from the Bible* that summer is near from the leaves on fig trees while being philosophically certain?



If the Bible did not say that people know the summer is near then could people be philosophically certain that it was not some rare event occuring?

They could not. Because the Bible also justifies the uniformity of nature and the like. Without that justification we dont have the philosophical certainty?

We can say that the Bible says that we can know the summer by the fig true, then the fig tree will look a certain way when summer is near, and it will look that same way each time before the summer and only before the summer (not any time in the middle of the winter)



> Tell me, *if* your story is true then tell me how you know that one has to be philosophically certain, all the while only knowing what he knows because its deduced from the bible, by deducing *THIS CLAIM* from the Bible. CT, I HAVE ASKED YOU TO DO THIS 4 TIMES NOW!!!! iF INDEED YOUR THEORY IS TRUE THEN YOU CAN DEDUCE IT FROM THE BIBLE. IF YOU CAN'T THEN YOU HAVE REFUTED YOURSELF. KINDOF LIKE THE EMPIRICISST WHO SAY THAT ALL KNOWLEDGE IS GAINED BY THE SENSES BUT *THAT* KNOWLEDGE ISN'T. This is very important for you to do. I want to see the exegesis and scripture citations where it says that "for one to know anything they must deduce it from the Bible." If you can't do this then you have been silenced.



The best that I could do is say that the Bible justifies us knowing certain things with philosophical certainty, but is silent about other things. (The Maple tree will look a certain way only when summer is approaching). To say more than the scripture would be unwarranted.



> > But since we are fallen, is it not possible that you will call something transcendental when it is not? (For example the Bible does not say that one is without excuse for every single doctrine). Some of Paul's writing are also hard and people can distort them.
> 
> 
> 
> Put your money where your mouth is. Give me an example and I will tell you wether I know it and then if I do I will show it. I'm not saying that I know everything.



Current death penalty offenses.



> > Lets use the swan problem. You have never seen a black swan. No one you have ever talked to has ever seen a black swan. Would you say that you have justified true belief that all swans are white or would you say that you think you have it, but a black swan could be found at some point in the future?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Fair enough.



> > I agree with that statement. The issue is the "all things being equal part". I agree that if your observation tomorrow is the exact same condition for the observation that you have today, then it will give you the same result. The issue is can you predict infallible that tomorrow will have the exact same conditions as today (or a condition that you have seen in the past)?
> 
> 
> 
> No, God can though. And based on His word that nature is uniform I can predict that what freezes at 32 degrees yesterday will tomorrow (if the freezer is working). We are talking about freezing conditions here, not Joe Smith walked by yesterday and that must also be the same.



I see the point here. If you keep it general enough, you can say that you have certainty, but if you go just a bit specific, then you can error. I really have no problem there. So science is basically hit or miss because it has to go more specific.



> > If not then is not your knowledge all for not in this "new"? Are not you left with saying: "All freezers that operate under the conditions that I have observed are cold? If you have a freezer that is operating under conditions that I have not seen, I can tell you nothing. "
> 
> 
> 
> Things freeze at a certain temperature. Well, they have in the past but how do you know they will in the future? Because Nature is uniform. But how do you know nature is uniform? Maybe it was in the past but how do you know it will be in the future? Because God has promised to keep nature orderly, and based on His covenantal promise the next working freezer that I go into will have frozen stuff in it. But you don't know that since you don't know the future and all the conditions. Well, God does and since He does He has assured me that nature operates in a law like way. If the next freezer could freeze at 60 degrees and one at 150 and one at -250 then nature would not be uniform and God would be a liar.



I actually have no disagreements here as well.



> > Could you ever say that "I have not seen other conditions besides my 50k observations of freezers, but no matter what the conditions are the freezer will be cold". Next, how close to your observed condition is good enough to say that your results will still hold in a different situation?
> 
> 
> 
> That the freezer is working. If a freezer is blowing air which makes everything inside the freezer (that freezes at 32 degrees) that temperature then those things will freeze.



Good stuff.



> > Also is it not possible that a variable that you thought was unimportant and did not take account of was important and made you give a bad prediction, because it had changed while others had stayed the same?
> 
> 
> 
> example?



This query is no longer applicable because you have shown that your predictions about the future only hold for the general situation (water freezing).



> > I have no problem with saying that water will always freeze under 32 F; unless some other condition (either seen before or not) is added to the game.
> 
> 
> 
> Good.



Agreement again.



> > Is it possible that you can say how water will react to a condition that you have yet to see?
> 
> 
> 
> Like what? Something that changes the temperature? Then it wouldn't be "all things being equal."



Yeah, and induction is about making claims about stuff that you have yet to see based on stuff you have seen in the past. I am assuming that you would not say; "I went through a checklist of 50 things and therefore I am philosophically certain that when I walk into the freezer, it will be working".



> So, if I walk in a freezer and the stuff inside isn't frozen then I will look around and see, maybe, the pluf is undone, there's a hole in the side, and I will conclude that the stuff inside didn't freeze due to whatever happened.



Fair enough, like everyone else.



> Or, are you talking about green monkey men comming inside and whenever green monkey men go iside freezers things don't freeze at 32 but 45? Again, God said that heat and cold will REMAIN THE SAME. So, thinking God's thoughts after Him I know that GOD KNOWS all the possible conditions and if it was willy-nilly He wouldn't promise it.



Nope, If I believe in the uniformity of nature, then I reject the chaos excuse. I do and I do. However could you not replace green monkey men with some sort of additive, which makes water (or the inside of a freezer) freeze at a different temp (45 instead of 32)? That would not be an example of willy-nilly.



> > Okay, so is it possible that you call something strong when it is actually weak? Or are you infallible in this game?
> 
> 
> 
> No, by the very definition of inductive arguments. The future observation would make it weak, or not as strong. If I hadn't had that yet I would always call it strong. The strong and weak have nothing to do with truth. So, put that into my ball python example.



Fair enough.



> > Eventually we will have to be able to talk about why scientific theories go out of fashion so quickly?
> 
> 
> 
> I think Thomas Kuhn tells us. You should put down the Clark and read some other people.



Actually I have never read a word of clark.

I have heard a lot about Kuhn's Scientific Revolutions book. From what I have read, it seems that revolutions would go quicker if scientists held what they thought was correct, with a less tight grip. Instead of trying to make what they think be the right thing.

Lastly, I would love to know how Joseph could have philosophical certainty that his brothers had not run off (had been captured by bandits etc.)

CT

[Edited on 22-11-2004 by ChristianTrader]

[Edited on 22-11-2004 by ChristianTrader]

[Edited on 22-11-2004 by ChristianTrader]

[Edited on 22-11-2004 by ChristianTrader]

[Edited on 22-11-2004 by ChristianTrader]


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 22, 2004)

OH MY GOODNESS!!!

One has to believe that one can come to absolute certainty for any biblical doctrine or one would have to challenge the perspecuity of scripture.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> ...



That's what I told Brian. But it is not ANY doctrine because that doctrine doesn;t mean ANY dosctrine.
[/quote]

Which doctrines are included?



> > Lastly, I would love to know how Joseph could have philosophical certainty that his brothers had not run off (had been captured by bandits etc.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


[/quote]

QED. I have to cry uncle here. The scriptures win again.

Now that I know I can derive knowledge from observations. How do I not make mistakes concerning observations. Let's use the red mailbox red barn example. We can correct mistakes with further (closer) observations. But when can we say with philosophical certainty that it is a red barn and not a mailbox? I have to accept that we can say it at some point. But when?

This is not a challenge, just a question that will assist me in further developing my ideas.

CT

[Edited on 22-11-2004 by ChristianTrader]


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 22, 2004)

One Last Question about Joseph and how to apply that to my life.

If you went to some sheep herdering country someplace in the world. And you found a father, and many sons that were in the same situation as Joseph and His Father;

And You asked the father or the son if they were 100% certain that the others brothers were still in the field (or wherever the last place they were seen). Would they say yes, it is impossible for them to have either snuck off or been captured by raiders?

I want that kind of certainty but do not know how to get it, if I assume that I have made various mistakes in the past (that I have corrected).

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 23, 2004)

Since we are talking about books :bigsmile:

An interesting work is this one: http://snipurl.com/atwb

A Theonomic, Van-Tillian defense of Anti-Realism. The only problem is that finding a copy is like finding hen teeth. It was recommended on the All Bahnsen board.

One question. Do you know much about Sudduth and his book on Natural Theology coming out?

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> ...



The Book is dedicated to Bahnsen ("The Wayne Gretzky of good and necessary consequence") 

The Book quotes Bahnsen favorable from his Foundations of Christian Scholarship article and his Van Til Apologetics book.
As well as favorable quotes of Van Til and references to his system.



> I do know about Michael. Actually, I am engaged in a conversation which him right now! He is a reformed epistemologist and I have problems with that (though I wouldn't be thrilled about locking horns with Sudduth over it ). (You can see a brief engagement with a reformed epistemologist in the philosophy thread. Actually one of the best discussion I've had on this board.) Anyway, he used to be a full on Clarkian. He was in with Robbins and all those guys. He knows the system inside and out and has come to lothe it.



Sudduth is the same way (I don't know if he now loathe's Clark or not, but he was all about Clark in the past. He won an Trinity Foundation essay contest)



> Regarding your question: Of course I do not agree with natural theology but will be interested in reading his thoughts. I know that he is very sharp and will present a good case. I agree with Van Til that one can't get from nature to natures God, especially by means of a discursive reasoning process.
> 
> [Edited on 11-23-2004 by Paul manata]



Cool. He does seem to be a pretty sharp person from some cursory reading.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 23, 2004)

Paul,
Is there a another link to his Clark paper? I would really like to read it.

Edit: Nevermind, the internet wayback machine, came to my rescue.

CT

[Edited on 23-11-2004 by ChristianTrader]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 23, 2004)

Wow - I had no idea this thread would become what it has when I created it. Normally I would split it since it has become something other than it was begun as, but that's not really doable since the "transition" was gradual and overlapping. The precision with which you guys are discussing this is impressive.


----------



## JWJ (Nov 23, 2004)

Well I guess the first step on the road to recovery is to admit you have a problem. Therefore, I confess that I am a Clarkoholic. During the past six months of reading Paul's posts, and especially this post, have shown me the errors of this "substance" abuse (I think Clark defines "substance" as definition: D).

Paul, maybe you can put together a Clarkoholic recovery program that lists various books and papers to help us Clarkians make a full recovery. I am afraid that if I do not start a recovery program that I will relapse.

Thanks much

Jim


----------



## BobVigneault (Nov 23, 2004)

Right JWJ,
my favorite part of the thread was when Paul expressed that the "clarkians' were ganging up on HIM! When it was obvious that Paul was ganging up on us.

It was a great thread. Jim, we should get some Lakefront beer and read more about this Van Til fellow. Whoever he is. Didn't he say something about something?

And Paul, you are truly graced with a marvelous clarity of thought. I take great comfort in knowing (by observation and the Word) that you contend for and defend the faith so well.

Blessings


----------



## JWJ (Nov 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by maxdetail_
> Right JWJ,
> It was a great thread. Jim, we should get some Lakefront beer and read more about this Van Til fellow. Whoever he is. Didn't he say something about something?
> Blessings



Reading Van Til will require more than just a few lakefront beers. I think I will have to also pull out some of my best cigars. 

Jim


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 23, 2004)

Clarkaholics Anonymous!


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 23, 2004)

Paul,
I went back to the subduing science book, to re-read some stuff. I now realize why you asked me whether or not, the authors were truly Van-Tillian.

In the endnotes, the authors talk about the Christians who have gone into print with anti-realists views. They only found two: Gordon Clark and John Byl. They then say, that they appreciate their dedication to scripture, but that they have to disagree in significant ways with their approach.

So I guess, you assumed that they must be closet clarkians instead of true vantillians.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> ...



But is this not a cop out? You used the "know" that Joseph had to mean that he was absolutely philosophically certain that his brothers were out with the herd. That means that by the law of non contradiction, he would have to have the same philosophical certainty that the negation (the brothers did not sneak off, or be captured by bandits, etc) was false.

There are only a few ways to save yourself. 

1)You have to say that yes Joseph had philosophical certainty about his brothers, and if I was in the same situation I can have the same certainty as well.

2) Joseph had philosophical certainty but that was a special case and we do not have the same certainty today in such a situation.

3)Joseph had philosophical certainty about a weaker claim (The brothers are out there unless something caused them to leave; they did not just vanish off the face of the earth)

4)And anything I cannot think of currently.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 23, 2004)

Paul,
Can have you read this article? http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa044.htm

It looks like an anti-realist article that turns realist on the last page.

Also, what do you think the is the content of special revelation with respect to general revelation? Are the same or different?

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> yes because Van Til was a realist and believed in emperical knowledge. You can find his writtings in Bahnsen's book on him, in the section "emperical knowledge."



Just to make sure we are on the same page, I am advocating theoretical or scientific anti-realism. We can say that we see a 50 foot tree, but we cannot say with certainty, why the tree grew to be 50 feet vs. 45 feet etc. Here is where affirming the consequent becomes unbearable.

You cannot prove that E=mc^2.

Things like this.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> ...



My view of special is that it includes everything that general does and in a clear fashion.

The issue is if there is actual realism in science to account for. I would say no. And to claim that there is, does nothing but make it harder to overthrow less useful theories.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> ...



Yes. The best we can do with (the E=mc^2 example) is say that using this theory gives us useful predictions. Tomorrow we may develop a theory that is more useful.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> ...



I wrote kind of unclearly, I meant that it includes everything that general does plus more. And on top of that it is more clear.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> ...



On what cases would you say that a scientific theory is true and why would you say that it is.

Then there is the question of even if a theory could fit all the observations we throw at it, there is no reason to believe only one theory can do such.



> In science, aren't we studying God's world and how He made it? Did God not give us the ability to understand and, therefore, have greater dominion over the earth.



First are you saying that in order to have dominion we have to actually understand why various things act in certain ways? That is definitely not the case. For example, we can say that when we give our plants more water, they grow up to be big and beautiful (very big simplication), but we dont have to understand why giving more water does that.



> Has science found NO truths? Is it not true that qunine relieves Malaria?



Would you call that science? And again I am defending scientific or theoretical anti-realism. In you example, there is no theory involved or necessary. It is just gained by simple observation (I have the symptoms of Malaria, I take quinine, I no longer have those symptoms). A scientific anti-realist would say that you could not develop a theory of why and prove it to be true.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 23, 2004)

Also the theory that fits the facts better than a previous theory, may actually be farther away from reality than the previous theory. Of course we do not care, we just want to go for useful (or at least what we think is useful). We might actually end up with another Fen Phen. If we do, then we alter our theory and do something else.

Lastly, Kuhn of scientific revolutions fame, was an anti-realist.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> well I guess you need to define science, then.



Science would be the theories behind why we see the various observations that we see. Why is this bridge stronger than that bridge.

CT


----------



## RickyReformed (Nov 23, 2004)

Where do you guys find all this time? I'm still working on my response to Paul's last post to me. I'll post it after Thanksgiving, once I get a chance to work on it some more.



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Has science found NO truths? Is it not true that qunine [sic] relieves Malaria?



In the mean time, I'm curious about this quote. Can you say that all persons with Malaria will be relieved by medicine X? As a person who works in the medical environment, I can tell you that not every person with say a staph infection will respond to a given antibiotic (for example, Vancomycin). Also some people react differently to the same medicine; and the same medicine will not respond the same way in the same person (for instance, when you develop a tolerance.)

Here's an example of science's ability to determine causation:

*How science can be useful though false is illustrated in a delightful textbook on inductive logic. Milk fever, the illustration goes, until late in the nineteenth century, was a disease frequently fatal to cows. A veterinarian proposed the theory that it was caused by bacteria in the cows´ udders. The cure therefore was to disinfect the cow, which the veterinarian proceeded to do by injecting Lugol solution into each teat. The mortality under this treatment fell from a previous ninety percent to thirty. Does not this success full treatment prove that the bacteria were killed and that Lugol cured the disease? Unfortunately another veterinarian was caught without the Lugol solution one day, and he injected plain boiled water. The cow recovered. Had water killed the bacteria? What is worse, it was found later that air could be pumped into the cows´ udders with equally beneficial results. The original science was wrong, but it cured the cows nonetheless.

A closer examination of the logic of verification should be made. In the example above, the first veterinarian probably argued: If bacteria cause milk fever, Lugol solution will cure; the disinfectant does cure it; therefore I have verified the hypothesis that bacteria cause milk fever. This argument, as would be explained in a course of deductive logic, is a fallacy. Its invalidity may perhaps be more clearly seen in an artificial example: If a student doggedly works through Plato´s Republic in Greek, he will know the Greek language; this student knows Greek; therefore he has read Plato´s Republic. This is the fallacy of asserting the consequent, and it is invalid whenever used. But it is precisely this fallacy that is used in every case of scientific verification. If the law of gravitation is true, a freely falling body will have a constant acceleration, and the eclipse will begin at 2:58:03p.m.; but freely falling bodies do have a constant acceleration and the eclipse did begin at 2:58:03 p.m.; therefore the law of gravitation is true. Or, if the periodic table of atomic weights is true, a new element of such and such a weight must exist; this new element has now been discovered; therefore the period table is verified. And, if I eat roast turkey and plum pudding, I lose my appetite; I have lost my appetite; therefore, we had roast turkey for dinner. All these arguments are equally invalid. But sometimes there is an adverse reaction if it is claimed that verification never proves the truth of a scientific law. Is it worse to "attack" science, or to "murder" logic?
*


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 23, 2004)

Bingo, Rick.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 23, 2004)

If you do not like anti-realism then why do you talk so highly about Kuhn and his book?

The only way to defend realism is to say that utility = truth. This is exactly what Bahnsen brutalized in his article on pragmaticism.

As an aside, Scripture does affirm that we can justify things by observation. It says that by three or more witnesses, one is justified in executing someone in a death penalty crime. If observations were not able to justify things, then we could not say such things. But to take the next step and say that I can justify a theory behind why something happens is to go warrant.

If you wish to keep your pearls and stay a theoretical realist, then be my guest.

CT


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> Also, I'm taking Sudduth's advice. I'm gonna stop talking to Scripturalists until they give a descent answer to the analytic question about knowledge.
> ...




I know I am jumping in with the allligators, but what do you mean by "Scripturalists"?

Thanks


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> ...



I believe it is a term used when people believe that the only thing that one can trust is something directly derivable from scripture. It is usually a derogatory term.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 23, 2004)

It being a derogatory term, is independent from what the original author means or did not mean.

Terms do change over time and the original author has little to no power over it.

Now if you meant it in a loving way. So be it. Thanks.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 23, 2004)

It is really of no consequence, either way. You meant no harm (if harm can be meant by the term).

Either way, I am not Clark or Robbins, but I am a anti-realist. I can be skeptical of empirically deriving a true scientific theory and not talk in a monotone voice. I can also say that senses are generally okay, but can fail from time to time. Hence we do not execute on the testimony of one witness. That is basically all for now.

CT


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 23, 2004)

I am really slow (no comment) but as a presuppositionalist myself, what is the difference between affirming Scripturalism and affirming that the God revealed in the Bible provides the preconditions for intelligibility?


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 24, 2004)

I personally know that I am one by observing myself etc. and I can justify my claim to you and anyone else who wants to know that I am a man by having a few witnesses tell you that I am one (or other things that count as witnesses).

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> ...



Remember I said that I was a theoretical or scientific anti- realist. I am not sure how many complete anti-realists exist. Might have to investigate it someday. I can say the plant has grown five inches overnight. I cannot say with certainty that the reason that it grew five inches overnight was X, Y and Z. I could probably get you a neat theory, but would not call it the truth.



> Your justification is the testimony of others? How would they know (remember your definition of know, now)?



My justification to you was that. If you are not certain by having people looking at my outsides, you can have them check me out naked, take my blood, take my temp, listen to me talk, etc.



> Maybe you look like one on the outside and act like one, but you could be a robot designed by a scientist.



This is possible, but I am not sure how being a realist, makes you avoid these questions. In a realist, it is impossible to create a six million dollar man? 



> You could be the military's high-tech artificial life experiement. Besides, how do you know that other people ever are reliable, i.e., tell the truth?



The Bible says that with two or more witnesses a claim is established. If you want more than that..... Now it is possible that they could be lying to you. However the Bible says that you are justified in believing them until such a time. If they are found to have defrauded you (for some reason), you extract your loses based on the false info and get more witnesses.



> What other things that count as wittnesses? Drs using science to check your insides?



Sure, you will have witnesses at some point testifying to the accuracy of the equipment. Go ahead and use it.



> I still don't see how you know with philosopic certainity and rejecting science as giving us any truth.



I think you can get certainty by observation (Whether you gain knowledge by the senses or just remember it etc. is neither here no there for this discussion). I can't give you philosophical certainty that O.J. did it, just by my testimony.

Also I do not see how you can get philosophical certainty and commit a logical fallacy. Unless you want to say affirming the consequent is not a logical fallacy, I would love to hear a response.



> is your argument: if I am a man wittnesses will attest to it. Wittnesses attest to it. Therefore I am a man.
> 
> [Edited on 11-24-2004 by Paul manata]



Isn't that affirming the consequent?

It would be "God said that two or more witnesses establish a claim. I have two or more witnesses. The claim is established."

I would say that I have my own observations testifying to the claim. The witnesses would make it go beyond my personal beliefs to making the beliefs public and able to undergo scrutiny.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> http://www.cmfnow.com/product.asp?0=232&1=314&3=8784



That looks neat. Have you listened to it. I asked you about it a few months back and you had not.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> CT,
> 
> that was funny, in a good way. Not mocking you just thought some of the stuff was funny.
> ...



But they cannot observe scientific realism. It is a concept or theory. So how can they testify before the judges or whoever? They can say they believe in it, but that is not the same issue. You can critique my witnesses based on what they saw of me.

Next, you say that I am using the verses badly. So you have that witnesses can testify that I am the man who murdered the sailor with a knife on 44th street or committed adultery with Mrs. Jones but they cant testify that I am simply a man?

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> ...



Get the mp3 version: http://www.cmfnow.com/subcatmfgprod.asp?0=423&1=424&2=-1

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 24, 2004)

I am a theonomic, postmillenial, theoretical anti-realist (Calvinism is implied)

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> ...



You cant observe that a theory is true and rational. You can observe that a theory makes a prediction and that prediction was verified. That does not make the theory true. As myself and Rick have argued over and over again. The best that you can say is that your theory is very useful (or at least you think it is). You can make observations without having a clue about the the speed of gravity etc. You cannot justify a theory by scientists agreeing that they like it. It is not an observation. It is like having witnesses come forward to say that chocolate is the best flavor. That is not an observation.



> I'm saying that the laws do not refer to "any time you have two or three witness, therefore the claim is established." Start applying this and see if it can get silly.



I am not saying that laws refer to such. I am just saying that a person can testify to what they actually saw. A car speeding down the street. Not to the truth of the theory as to why the car can go so fast. They could never testify to the truth of the theory anyway, they could just say that they have never seen a prediction of this theory fail. The observation is the car not the theory.



> p.s. how do you know there are any witnesses? If observation can get you to external truth how can you deny rational realism.



Easy. I can observe that my tv is on, without having a the true theory as how it operates. Anti-realism attacks the theory. Again you have never said anything more about Kuhn and why you refer so much to his book, and he was a top theoretical anti-realist.



> anyway, I admit that this discussion is tough. Although I do hold to a form of rational realism I must admit that there are very good arguments from the other side. My only beef with you is "knowing" anti-realism to be true?



Well there are two ways to go about things. I could say that I do not know that it is not true, but you could not justify saying that you have reached the truth due to the logical fallacy.

But I would say that a true theory of how God is really doing things would be part of the secret things of God. He did not revel it in general or special revelation. So to say that you have reached the truth, is to say that I got something that God did not reveal to me by my ingenuity.

Put another way, if we could get true theories about how God is actively maintaining his creation, would not that be equivalent to saying the Canon of God's Revelation is not closed?

CT


----------



## RickyReformed (Nov 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Also, I'm taking Sudduth's advice. I'm gonna stop talking to Scripturalists until they give a descent answer to the analytic question about knowledge.



I hear you on the Scripturalists; will you stop talking to Cheungian's as well? I hope you realize Cheungian's and Scripturalist's are not the same.

I really dig Sudduth. Do you have any idea why he pulled his articles on Clark? (He had two really good ones on his site.) Best I can figure is:
1) Robbins refuted all his arguments and Sudduth, embarassed by this, pulled them from his website. Robbins, humbly, did not gloat over his victory.
2) Robbins threatened to sue him if he didn't pull them from Sudduth's website. Sudduth complied. (I think Robbins actually did this when Sudduth tried to start a Clark discussion group.)
3) <Insert your tertium quid here>



> To be honest, I know you love Clark, Robbins, Beisner et al. You just refuse to listen to anything.



Paul, I've left Thomism for Presuppositionalism because of your influence. But I have trouble with Van Til, because I have trouble with his reformulations of Reformed theology - especially that of his disciples - and also with his appeal to paradox (which you, thankfully, in the many dialogues that I've seen you participate in, do not appeal to.) 

Here's a quote from John Frame:


> "Unoriginal as his doctrinal formulations may be, his use of those formulations -- his application of them -- is often quite remarkable. ... Sometimes these new understandings are of quite a radical sort -- _radical enough to require new formulations_, or at least supplementary formulations, of the doctrines themselves. Van Til...rarely provides such revised formulations, though he does at some significant points.... But there is much in Van Til that will require future orthodox Reformed dogmaticians to rethink much of the traditional language and thus to go beyond Van Til himself. Not that the traditional language is wrong *(generally speaking)*[!!!!! How 'general' are we talking here Dr. Frame?!?!?RR]; it is just that through reading Van Til we often become painfully aware of how much more needs to be said. [Emphasis added.RR]



Beisner has very clearly shown the influence that Van Til had and has on the Auburn Avenue crowd. You **seem** to me, **at times**, to hesitate to reject Norman Shepherd's reformulation of justification. You have pointed out that Michael Butler has come to Norman Shepherd's defense (as did Greg Bahnsen.) 

Now I realize that this is irrelevant to the current discussion. But I want to show you what has prevented *me* from accepting presuppositionalism as expressed by Cornelius Van Til.

As for Clark, I've never really understood him until I read Cheung. (Cheung is not a Clarkian, although they do have some similarities.) 




> It's almost getting to the point that it is between JohnV and I (regarding apologetics/philosophy), I just refuse to discuss it with some people anymore.



Hey! JohnV is the man - leave him out of this. :bigsmile: Seriously, though, I have alot of respect for JohnV - I wish I was half as smart and even 1/4th as charitable as he is.



> That's not to say I don't love you guys but after so long I must consider it casting pearls before swine (and you know the gist of that statement, right? Not calling you swine).



Oink.

Seriously, I love you dearly as a brother in the Lord too. I try to keep you and your son in my prayers as often as I think about it. I also wish to publicly thank you for your willingness to take on Derek Sansone while most of us lurked in the background. (He thinks he can take on Cheung again 'cuz he's reading his Systematic Theology?? HAH! Doesn't he learn anything by induction? 1 out of 1 times - ie 100% of the time - that he's engaged Vincent Cheung, he's been slapped silly. His comment "I got bored with Cheung" is like saying "I got tired of beating his fist with my face.") Sorry, I digress. 




> As for your post, RR: it is unintelligible to me until you can define knowledge. Until you do that I don;t know what you mean by saying "science can't give you knowledge."



When I figure it out, I'll let you know! 

[Edited on 25-11-2004 by RickyReformed]


----------



## RickyReformed (Nov 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Science doesn't *only* deal with theories. It tests and repeats. I makes general laws, i.e., water freezes at 32 degrees. You said you agreed, so science gave us knowledge.



Paul, are you saying water **always** freezes at 32deg? How would we even determine that? Couldn't we at best say, every selection of water whose temperature was taken to 32deg has frozen? Since the Bible never says "water freezes at 32 degrees F (or 0 Celsius, etc.)", I would guess you would say that the Bible speaks of the "uniformity of nature" to prove this, right? How would you then respond to an Old Earth creationists who appeals to the uniformity of nature to determine that the age of the earth is measured in billions of years? As a former Old Earth Arminian (like Hugh Ross, see: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/younguniverse.shtml ), it was by an appeal to science and the uniformity of nature that I defended my beliefs back then. The Bible says the earth was created in the space of six days; what do we do with the uniformity of nature then?

Regarding water freezing, someone could rebutt, "well show me an example of water *not* freezing at 32 F. and I'll agree with your skepticism." That was essentially RC Sproul's answer when someone questioned his use of the law of causality to defend his cosmological argument: "Mea Culpa. Just show me an uncaused effect and I will recant" (paraphrase)

The "water freezing" example reminded me of this selection:

*In the laboratory the scientist seeks to determine the boiling point of water. Since water hardly ever boils at the same temperature, the scientist conducts a number of tests and the slightly differing results are noted. He then must average them. But what kind of average does he use: mean, mode, or median? He must choose; and whatever kind of average he selects, it is his own choice; it is not dictated by the data. Then too, the average he chooses is just that, that is, it is an average, not the actual datum yielded by the experiment. Once the test results have been averaged, the scientist will calculate the variable error in his readings. He will likely plot the data points or areas on a graph. Then he will draw a curve through the resultant data points or areas on the graph. But how many curves, each one of which describes a different equation, are possible? An infinite number of curves is possible. But the scientist draws only one. What is the probability of the scientist choosing the correct curve out of an infinite number of possibilities? The chance is one over infinity, or zero. Therefore, all scientific laws are false. They cannot possibly be true. As cited above, the statement of Karl Popper is correct: "It can even be shown that all theories, including the best, have the same probability, namely zero."*


----------



## RickyReformed (Nov 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Ricky,
> 
> I appreciated your kind post.
> ...



Are you referring to the hesitation or to what I said that you said re: Michael Butler and Greg Bahnsen defending Shepherd?

Do you think you could send me a copy of Sudduth paper? I printed copies of the articles he used to have on his website, but I haven't been able to find them. By the way, you mentioned his upcoming book on natural theology. It's titled "The Reformed Objection to Natural Theology" (I think.) He has a Yahoo group called "Suduth Book Symposium" where he is releasing chapters from his book for people to read and comment. u2u me if you want a link.

Your right about Beisner citing Robbins and not Van Til. Let me restate what I meant:

Some people (Steve Schlissel and Andrew Sandlin come to mind) have **misunderstood** Van Til's position on logic; and because of this misunderstanding, accuse people who try to be logical as rationalists who drink from Athenian and Aristotelian wells. Beisner, in his intro to the Knox Colloquium, shows how the A4's statements are illogical. Do you disagree with this?


----------



## RickyReformed (Nov 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> As for as Sproul, he's not to presuppose creation and so the idea that all effects have a cause begs the question. I wouldn't grant that as an atheist.



I think I missed your point; "All effects have a cause" is tautalogical. Are you saying that Sproul has not shown that universe is an effect?





> Therefore, all scientific laws are false. They cannot possibly be true.





> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> All? How could one know?



Not by induction, that's for sure!

[Edited on 25-11-2004 by RickyReformed]


----------



## RickyReformed (Nov 25, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> I'm referring to both. I answerd why I hesitate. I denied saying butler and Bahnsen defended him.
> 
> I'll ask Michael if he wouldn't mind.
> ...



You seem to be hesitating regarding Schissel, etc.; I think Beisner did a very good job of showing where there argument broke down into contradictions. The simplest explanation isn't necessarily the wrong explanation.

Regarding Bahnsen, I thought you had provided this link but maybe you didn't:

from http://www.cmfnow.com/AAPC/controversy.html
*Greg L. Bahnsen
There is both objective evidence and supportive evidence for Bahnsen's support of Norman Shepherd and his views. The following is from a chapter I wrote in the recently published book, The Standard Bearer: A Festschrift for Greg L. Bahnsen, "Covenantal Antithesis."

Bahnsen agrees with Calvin's conclusion (i.e., Paul says that one is justified apart from the help of works, while James does not want to account someone as righteous who does not do good works and demands that believers be fruitful in good works). However, Bahnsen disagrees with the way in which Calvin arrives at that conclusion. Lecturing on this section of the Institutes, Bahnsen, in agreement with Norman Shepherd, says:

I think [this] is rather convoluted"¦ Let me very briefly point out, some people will say James can't mean the word justify in a forensic sense, because then he would contradict Paul. Paul says we are justified by faith, not works. James says we are justified by works. So if they both mean 'justify' in the forensic sense, there is a contradiction. Well, I don't think so, because in Galatians 5:6 Paul teaches exactly what James does. Paul says we are justified by faith working by love. We are justified by working, active, living faith. I think that's what James is teaching. They mean exactly the same thing. But nevertheless some people have insisted-and this has been a bone of controversy in my denomination even, because a professor at Westminster Seminary insisted James means this in the forensic sense.

Now"¦ people who don't like that say, It is to be taken in the demonstrative sense. The problem is, the demonstrative sense of the word justify means "to show someone to be righteous," and that doesn't relieve the contradiction between James and Paul, because Paul in Romans 4 looks at Abraham as an example of how God justifies the ungodly. James is saying, Look at how God justifies someone demonstrated as godly. The contradiction is not relieved. And so what you really get--and this is crucial, this is a crucial point--modern interpreters who don't like what I am suggesting and what Professor Shepherd is suggesting end up saying that to justify in James 2 really means "to demonstrate justification," not to "demonstrate righteousness." That is, they make the word to justify mean "to justify the fact that I'm justified." And the word never means that. That's utterly contrived. It means either "to declare righteous" or "to demonstrate righteous." It does not mean "to justify that one's justified."

"¦Am I making myself clear? I'm suggesting that the reason Paul and James are not contrary to one another is because the only kind of faith that will justify us is working faith, and the only kind of justification ever presented in the Bible after the Fall is a justification by working faith, a faith that receives its merit from God and proceeds to work as a regenerated, new person.13

Moreover, while lecturing on Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, Bahnsen responds to questions from a student regarding the competency level at some seminaries. After complimenting the seminaries for some good work, he is also critical of how other situations have been handled. When specifically asked about the caliber of 20th century instructors, Bahnsen replies that overall "the caliber has not been there." After commenting on another example, Bahnsen observes,

But then again John Murray retires at Westminster and you have a man who was very competent who took his place and because he was so competent and wrote in a way that didn't favor mass, well the opinion of many in positions of influence, he was moved out of his position. So, you have both things. The political as well as the lack of proficiency. No no, Norman Shepherd took his place.14 

Note that this endorsement of Norman Shepherd's competence came well after Shepherd had been removed from WTS. Instead of condemning Shepherd as dangerous, erroneous or heretical, Bahnsen sees his dismissal from WTS as the loss of a "very competent" man.

As the AAPC controversy became more public, I inquired of Roger Wagner15 as to what he knew of Bahnsen's views of Shepherd. This was his reply:

Randy,
Greg and I both had Shepherd for the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit in seminary and were very, very appreciative of his teaching (as well as his preaching in chapel and elsewhere from time to time). His work on the covenant and justification were not as developed (or public) at that time, but in later years (after the controversy erupted) when Greg and I talked about "Shepherd's position" on these matters, he was always very favorable to Shepherd's concerns and formulations (while perhaps none of us would endorse every jot and tittle of his published writings).

He thought, as do I, that Shepherd's critics either don't understand Shepherd's covenantal interests and concerns or don't want to (as is often the case with the critics of Van Til and Bahnsen as well). I'm not sure if it was Shepherd who pointed us to Fuller's book on law and gospel, but Greg also appreciated that discussion because it wrestles in a more sophisticated way with the question of the relation between redemption and ethics in the covenant (old and new). I think you said (somewhere) that Greg told you he agreed with Fuller's interpretation of some texts over his own after reading Fuller's book"¦.16

I'm absolutely sure if Greg were still with us, he'd be squarely on the "Shepherd side" of this issue (if I may use that shorthand in a "non-partisan" sense), and trying to get Joe M. and others of his opinion to erase the "line in the sand" they've drawn among the confessionally Reformed Reconstructionists.

I think the covenant theology formulated by Shepherd, Schlissel, Wright, and others is not only biblical, but also our strongest bastion against the growing "Lutheranism" and antinomianism in Reformed circles. We should think it through and fine-tune it as necessary, but to reject it out of hand is suicidal.

Hope that helps,
Roger

Further supporting evidence for Bahnsen's support of Shepherd and his views comes from David Bahnsen (Dr. Bahnsen's son), who has recently written:

All characterizing of Norm Shepherd's teachings aside, it was my own father who publicly and privately embraced such a Biblical reality. Even apart from his personal comments to me throughout my life about Professor Shepherd being one of his all-time favorite seminary instructors, his own sermons and writings uphold the very same need for an obedient salvation, and a living faith. If some have left the Auburn Avenue conference saying, "those men are really getting carried away with the human response part of the covenant," I feel I can confidently declare that my father would NOT have been one of them. On the contrary, their choice of emphases and their desire for paradigm shift is the crying need of the hour, in today's culture and today's church.17 *


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 25, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> ...



I did not mean to imply that everything about pragmatism is bad. I am a scientific pragmatist myself. However I am not going to say that scientific pragmatism is going to give me the true secret things of God (I do not care what worldview you want to use). I can however use the pragmatism in fulfilling my dominion mandate.

CT


----------



## RickyReformed (Nov 25, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Ricky, ask anyone. I've ALWAYS said that Bahnsen didn't wouldn't have followed these things. I have posted Bahnsen talking about the CoW, the active and passive obedience, etc. I did not post the above. If I did it was in the context of: look what they're saying.



I agree that Bahnsen believed in the CoW, active/passive obedience, but it's hard for me to get around this statement:

*However, Bahnsen disagrees with the way in which Calvin arrives at that conclusion. Lecturing on this section of the Institutes, Bahnsen, in agreement with Norman Shepherd, says:

I think [this] is rather convoluted"¦ Let me very briefly point out, some people will say James can't mean the word justify in a forensic sense, because then he would contradict Paul. Paul says we are justified by faith, not works. James says we are justified by works. So if they both mean 'justify' in the forensic sense, there is a contradiction. Well, I don't think so, because in Galatians 5:6 Paul teaches exactly what James does. Paul says we are justified by faith working by love. We are justified by working, active, living faith. I think that's what James is teaching. They mean exactly the same thing. But nevertheless some people have insisted-and this has been a bone of controversy in my denomination even, because a professor at Westminster Seminary insisted James means this in the forensic sense.*

If he's not talking about Norman Shepherd here, then who is he talking about? This "working, active, living faith" is the same language used by Shepherd and the A4.



> Regarding Schlissel et al: Not hesitiating. People can find fallacies all over the place when they disagree with someone, ever wonder why that is?



Not really. I might post Beisner's argument in another post; maybe you can show me?


----------



## RickyReformed (Nov 25, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by RickyReformed_
> ...



What presuppositons are you referring to and why can't they avoid skepticism?




> Ricky, unless you have a theory of knowledge you can't even know that you don't know anything by induction. But, I'll ask, how do you know? Induction doesn't *purport* that its conclusions are *necessary* so that does away with all your formal fallacy arguments. So, then how would you know? Maybe it would look like this: Since all the cases of knowledge by induction that I have encounterd have serious problems, therefore all the rest will? That's induction.



How do I know what exactly? (Dumb it down a little. You seem to be skipping some steps.)


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 25, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > You cant observe that a theory is true and rational. You can observe that a theory makes a prediction and that prediction was verified. That does not make the theory true. As myself and Rick have argued over and over again. The best that you can say is that your theory is very useful (or at least you think it is). You can make observations without having a clue about the the speed of gravity etc. You cannot justify a theory by scientists agreeing that they like it. It is not an observation. It is like having witnesses come forward to say that chocolate is the best flavor. That is not an observation.
> ...



Two or more witnesses justifies belief. Next, it seems that you still dont understand what I am getting at. Lets look at some long ago thrown away theory. Spontaneous generation. There were many observations that lead to the development of the theory. The theory is long gone, but the observations that lead to it, are still good.



> So, how do you know you're a man.



As I explained last night. What else do you want from me. Do I have to say I have a theory of man and I believe it to be true in order to justify belief that I am a man?



> Furthermore, just because the useful can be false doesn't *prove* anti-realism (of the operationalist sort).



First there are two questions here, me justifying my position and you justifying your position. It is true that eventhough I have shown your view to have gaping holes, that does not prove my view. I will get to further expounding my position, however currently, I think it is best to attempt to shutdown your defense of realism. 



> So, yours and RR's comments don't even get you to the conclusion. Lastly, inductive conclusions don't purport to provide *necessary* conclusions so all your formal fallacy arguments don't even apply.



Okay, and if you do not see the conclusions as necessary, then what are you trying to argue, that theory realism could possible be true. If that is all you want to say, then I basically would not have many problems with that. But you certainly cannot attack anti-realism with a position like that.



> > I am not saying that laws refer to such. I am just saying that a person can testify to what they actually saw. A car speeding down the street. Not to the truth of the theory as to why the car can go so fast. They could never testify to the truth of the theory anyway, they could just say that they have never seen a prediction of this theory fail. The observation is the car not the theory.
> 
> 
> 
> But we're talking about knowing whether you're a man. Witnesses can be false and therefore should employed as necessary evidence. Furthermore, I can gether some solipsitic atheist who would count as my witnesses that you're not a man! So, I guess you don't know that you're a man.



Did you read or not read my posts from last night. I said that I can justify myself as being a man to myself. The witnesses was for the info to be entered into the public sector. Also the witnesses are to be cross-examined so just a claim does not get it done.



> > Easy. I can observe that my tv is on, without having a the true theory as how it operates. Anti-realism attacks the theory. Again you have never said anything more about Kuhn and why you refer so much to his book, and he was a top theoretical anti-realist.
> 
> 
> 
> Like the other philosophers. I can use some of what Kuhn was doing and apply it to those without a transcendental worldview. Not all that everyone says is wrong. Science doesn't *only* deal with theories.



This is true, if you want to say that science is what we all do, everyday all day. I do not have a problem with that. Also (under your realist view) how would you know which theories are wrong and which ones just have not been refuted yet?)



> It tests and repeats. I makes general laws, i.e., water freezes at 32 degrees.



Actually all that is happening there is you are saying that nature is uniform (biblically justified) so that when I see water in the same conditions as I am observing them (now or in the past) then it will freeze at 32 F. If it freezes at a different temp in a future observation, I can say that the conditions are different than in my past observation.



> You said you agreed, so science gave us knowledge.



If you want to say that, okay. But this is not attacking my position. My position is that saying that water freezes at 32 F because.... is where you run into difficulties.



> Furthermore, there are different branches of science. One may be an anti-realist w/respects to quantum physics but a realist w/respects to geology.



Changing from anti-realists depending on the branch of science just seems to mean that you are not currently comfortable with the current theories being given in a certain branch. As I do not quite understand saying, I can know the truth in geology but cant know the truth in quantum mechanics, can you more fully explain?



> I said that the *whole issue* is tough. You shouldn;t be so dogmatic about some form of realism.



Did you fall and hit your head? You have gone from pearl before swine to dont be so dogmatic?



> > Well there are two ways to go about things. I could say that I do not know that it is not true, but you could not justify saying that you have reached the truth due to the logical fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> Your fallacy is smoke and mirrors and actually comits the falacy of a category error.



It only does if you back off of your first claim: Realism is true and anti-realism is false. If you change to maybe, then okay.



> > But I would say that a true theory of how God is really doing things would be part of the secret things of God. He did not revel it in general or special revelation. So to say that you have reached the truth, is to say that I got something that God did not reveal to me by my ingenuity.
> 
> 
> 
> I can say that something is true in as far as it goes without needing to know ALL the applications of how God does it.



Tell me as far as you think it goes, then I can properly respond.

I also do not understand what you mean by all the applications?



> And no, it is not to say that. Saying you have reached truth by thinking God's thoughts after him about the operations of His world. God gave us brains and eyes to think with. Secondary causality, CT.



Right, we are to think God's thoughts after him but still He said that there are secret things that are not for us to gather. To go further you would have to say that scientific theories are not a part of the secret things. Or that we need to be able to get to true theories in order to have dominion. 

As an aside, one of the most damning things about theory realism is that for every theory that the scientists put forward to the public, there is at least one other theory that they do not put forward. Scientists arbitrarily only put forward the simpler/est theory (if the two have the same "verification" and sometimes they put forward the simpliest even if the more complicated one is has better "verification" due to limited computer power to calculate predictions etc.) With two theories with the same predictions how can realism stand?



> > Put another way, if we could get true theories about how God is actively maintaining his creation, would not that be equivalent to saying the Canon of God's Revelation is not closed?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



One issue here is where did God say anything about a third form of revelation about himself. I know about General and Special, where do you get knowledge of this third form? (And knowing how he is actively maintaining his creation would be information about himself)


----------



## RickyReformed (Nov 25, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Re: Bahnsen. I'd have to look at it in context. My point, which you showed nicely, is that people have specticles on and are so fired up to see error in others and read what they want into them. It may be that Bahnsen's quote is similar to this kind of stuff:
> 
> RPCUS: "That the denial of the distinction of visible and invisible church and the introduction of an historical and eschatological church, opens the door to new and mystical meanings being applied to the Lord's Supper that are sacerdotal in orientation; makes justification an eschatological process instead of a definitive legal act; obscures the reality and necessity of the new birth; and corrupts the Gospel preaching by eliminating the call to repentance and faith within the congregation"
> ...



Wow. Now can we have your source(s) for this? Specifically Edwards, Bucer, Knox, Crammer, and Calvin.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 25, 2004)

Rick,
http://www.cmfnow.com/AAPC/final.html


----------



## RickyReformed (Nov 25, 2004)

Thanks CT.

I'm having a little trouble finding the quote attributed to Edwards supposedly in Volume II of Edward's Works. I thought maybe it was because I'm searching an electronic format vs a bound copy, but I can't find it using any of the key works like "perseverance", "condition of justifications", etc.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 25, 2004)

> _Originally posted by RickyReformed_
> Thanks CT.
> 
> I'm having a little trouble finding the quote attributed to Edwards supposedly in Volume II of Edward's Works. I thought maybe it was because I'm searching an electronic format vs a bound copy, but I can't find it using any of the key works like "perseverance", "condition of justifications", etc.



I don't know if it is his exact comments, but Edwards did make some statements like that in his book of sermons, Knowing Christ.


----------



## Bryan (Jun 25, 2005)

Vincent Cheung Responds

I was reading his blog today and thought some of the objections he were answering sounded framilar 

Bryan
SDG


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 25, 2005)

*You were answered Paul!*



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> ...



Link


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 25, 2005)

As I sit here typing, I know I'm seeing the words on the screen. I know I'm correcting misspellings. I know my fingers are touching the keyboard. I know the thoughts conveyed by my words and the other posts exist, and communication is possible. It seems as if Clark and Cheung may wish to deny me epistomological certainty. That is their right. I'm glad I don't live in that world, but in God's world. Unlike Clark's heroics, I am not willing to acknowledge: "I guess I don't," when challenged as to whether he knew his arm was around his wife as they were walking together.

This epistemology doesn't answer questions, it raises them, by restricting all certainty to one single aspect of creation: propositions extracted from the Bible. Who can live like that? We begin with God's Word, but we live in God's world.


----------



## JM (Jan 27, 2007)

Has Cheung done any debates?


----------

