I see a tree outside my window -

[fivepointcalvinist]

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

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

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

But then you said:

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

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

 

[fivepointcalvinist]

Originally posted by Ron

Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist

Originally posted by Ron
Civbert,

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

ron

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

Ron

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist
...

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

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

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

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

And in propositional form the conclusion is:

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



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

Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist

Okay so now, how do you prove that God exists, since the explanation that trees exists is because God created them?

Ok... I don't.

Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist

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

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

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

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

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

[Edited on 3-22-2006 by Civbert]

 

[Saiph]

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

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

 

[Saiph]

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

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

God can be used of Christ. Can it not ?

 

[Saiph]

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

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

 

[Magma2]

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

To accommodate your sloth . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pure poison.

 

[Arch2k]

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

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

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

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

 

[Magma2]

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

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

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

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by Saiph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Saiph]

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

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

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

 

[Saiph]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Ron]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by Saiph

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

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

You just denied the Trinity.

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

You have denied the hypostatic union.

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

Ron

 

[Ron]

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

Sean,

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

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

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

Ron

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by Saiph
Anthony, no, what I am arguing for is justified true belief.

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

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

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

Originally posted by Saiph

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

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

Originally posted by Saiph

If so, then who really understands it ? Since many of us within the reformed camp on this board disagree as regarding its meaning, not to mention the rest of Christendom.

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

Or inside out according to Scripture.

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

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

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

[Edited on 3-22-2006 by Civbert]

 

[Ron]

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

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

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

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

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

Ron

[Edited on 3-22-2006 by Ron]

 

[Civbert]

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

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

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

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


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

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

[Edited on 3-22-2006 by Civbert]

 

[Saiph]

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

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

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

Did I redefine God ?

 

[Ron]

Civbert,

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

Ron

 

[Ron]

Originally posted by Saiph
I actually did not equivocate. Correct me if I am wrong Ron.

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

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

Did I redefine God ?

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

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

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

Ron

[Edited on 3-22-2006 by Ron]

 

[Saiph]

Anthony.

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

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

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

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

 

[Saiph]

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

Maybe my syllogism was a tautology.

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

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


[Edited on 3-22-2006 by Saiph]

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by Saiph
I actually did not equivocate. Correct me if I am wrong Ron.

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

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

Did I redefine God ?

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

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

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

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by Saiph
Anthony.

...Your artificial distinction between how we learn and how we know is completely goofy. .

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

 

[Saiph]

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

God has a body personally, but not ontically.

How is that ?

 

[Ron]

redeemed

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by Saiph
Anthony.

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

Time space continuum? I like the sound of that.

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

 

[Saiph]

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

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

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



[Edited on 3-22-2006 by Saiph]

 

[Saiph]

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

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




[Edited on 3-22-2006 by Saiph]

 

[Civbert]

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

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

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



[Edited on 3-22-2006 by Saiph]

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

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

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