Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by Scott
I have read Nickel and listend to Bahnsen's tape. I was wondering if anyone would be able to briefly set out a positive argument, of the sort that you would make to a co-worker who would not be willing to read a book.
you can use an ethical argument (similar to one of Bahnsen's point). I'm sure you can easily represent ethics and its foundation as our Holy Lord.
you can use an ethical argument (similar to one of Bahnsen's point). I'm sure you can easily represent ethics and its foundation as our Holy Lord. Also, most people seem to, intuitively at least, "get" the ethical type arguments.
Or you can talk about oneness (1) and manyness (3) and bring up the trinity as positing an equal oneness and manyness as opposed to monistic and/or dualistic/pluralistic worldviews.
Originally posted by Scott
I don't follow. Say that we are discussing with an atheist who ends up admitting that the atheistic view cannot support math. He says, "how does the Christian view make math possible?" What do you say?
Originally posted by SRoper
"Geometry is based on axioms, and one must assume axioms in all systems if they are rational, including Christianity."
So which axioms do you assume? For example, do you assume that Euclid's Fifth Postulate (the Parallel Postulate) is true?
Originally posted by Vytautas
If Calculus is like multiplication and multiplication is just addition and addition is found in the Bible, can you deduce Calculus from the Bible?
Or try James Nickel, Mathematics: Is God Silent?
Ross House Books, P.O. Box 67, Valecito, CA 95251
Chalcedon Foundation affiliate; www.chalcedon.edu
http://www.chalcedonstore.com/xcart/product.php?productid=2463&cat=0&bestseller
I bought this in 1996, when it was only 126pp, $16 (HB)
Now it is over 3X as long, and available for $15.40 (PB)
I would highly recommend Math and the Bible by J. C. Keister.
I don't get the argument here.
If the point is to support the idea that knowledge must be based on the "axiom of Scripture", what good is Godel's proof the truth in arithmetic can't be reduced to an axiomatic system? Godel himself thought that it supported the idea of a sort of Platonic rational intuition that transcended proof methods.
Hey, Tim! This is my father's article, in case you didn't know.