RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
To my Clarkian brothers (Civbert, Bartel, and anybody else),
I know what it feels like to be misrepresented and straw-manned. In theological debates Reformed christians owe their brothers the Christian charity to fairly and accurately represent the opposing side. Sadly, in any discussion, this is almost never done.
I have a few questions for you for clarification. I probably won't challenge anything you say. I just want to make sure I know what you are and AREN'T saying.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Inductive Reasoning
Is scientific reasoning, in its most empirical form, fallacious?
Would the below be accurate critique of scientific reasoning, empirical, from a Clarkian standpoint?
If Hypothesis H is true, then Experiment E will produce results R.
Experiment E does produce results R.
Therefore, Hypothesis H is true.
(This is a logical fallacy. Would you all then critique scientific reasoning on the grounds that its methodology begs the question?)
On to more important matters:
Assurance and Scripturalism
If "Person x's" name isn't in the bible, then can he have assurance of his salvation? If no, explain in light of WCF XVIII:2's certainty....infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation.
Thank you for your patience
I know what it feels like to be misrepresented and straw-manned. In theological debates Reformed christians owe their brothers the Christian charity to fairly and accurately represent the opposing side. Sadly, in any discussion, this is almost never done.
I have a few questions for you for clarification. I probably won't challenge anything you say. I just want to make sure I know what you are and AREN'T saying.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Inductive Reasoning
Is scientific reasoning, in its most empirical form, fallacious?
Would the below be accurate critique of scientific reasoning, empirical, from a Clarkian standpoint?
If Hypothesis H is true, then Experiment E will produce results R.
Experiment E does produce results R.
Therefore, Hypothesis H is true.
(This is a logical fallacy. Would you all then critique scientific reasoning on the grounds that its methodology begs the question?)
On to more important matters:
Assurance and Scripturalism
If "Person x's" name isn't in the bible, then can he have assurance of his salvation? If no, explain in light of WCF XVIII:2's certainty....infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation.
Thank you for your patience