Infidel Guys Podcast

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by caleb_woodrow
Originally posted by Magma2
Did you not learn the truth claims of the bible by induction?

No I didn´t and if you´re a Christian neither did you.

How could I learn special revelation without reading it or hearing of it (that is by induction. Well we can deduce from the bible its truth but initially we learn the conclusions through induction, do we not)? Of course it is by the working of the Holy Spirit but we need to use our sense experience using induction to *read* or *hear* the special revelation. In as much we are not using deduction in itself in learning the initial truth claims. At least I don't see how. I could be wrong.

I think learning by deduction or induction is a category error. We do not learn by arguing because arguing is a type of output, so we learn by input.
 
Originally posted by Paul manata
p.s. still looking for a Clarkian who wants to defend your guys' position in the book I'm trying to get done. Why don't any Clarkians want to do it? Is there a problem with you guys actually putting your views on the line? Doesn't look good.

May I give it a shot? What is the title of your book and where can I get a copy?
 
Originally posted by Magma2
I think you´re confusing a few terms, but I think I still get your meaning. I think instead of induction above you mean either sensation or empirical means or something along those lines. So I gather you argue that we come to a knowledge of the truth by sensate means, I suppose by having our auditory nerves being tickled or by somehow drawing inferences from ink marks on a page. Have I got it?

I don't know, I think I do probably have the terms confused but it still makes sense to me. I of course have to study more on the topic.


Originally posted by Magma2
Well, you said that God changes his creation. God doesn´t change his creation, rather his creation changes according to his sovereign, eternal and immutable decree. Not only that, the number of days you live, where you live and the number of hairs on your head "“ even whether or not you´ll get your hair cut next Thursday at noon "“ are determined down to every detail by the same immutable decree. in my opinion Barker got around Paul´s reply, at least partly, by claiming his brand of mechanism was a form of compatibilism. He evidently wasn´t, or didn´t claim to be, a strict determinist.

I think we are defining change differently. Perhaps a better word would be cause.
 
Originally posted by Paul manata

secondly, you told me that you were not a clarkian over at unchained! you told me that you don't don't believe all that we can know are propositions in scripture and those deduced from scripture. but know you do?

Let me be clear. I do not believe all that we can know are propositions in scripture and those deduced from scripture. However, I still hold to his view of logic and things like that. I believe some things can be known without going to the Bible. I also believe that Scripture is a stating point for knowledge, but things can be known outside of scripture.
 
Originally posted by Paul manata

sorry, but you can't. The contributers need ph.ds.

anyway, it's a reformed views on apologetics book.

After you are done with your program, could you tell me more about the book?
 
Originally posted by Paul manata


it's basically like the 4 views book on apologetics, but all the contributers will be reformed. Also, I'll have other species of presuppositionalism included, rather than just Van Tillianism.

Are the views Frances Schaffer presup, Gordon Clark presup, Van Til presup, and Reformed Epistemology?
 
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by Vytautas
Originally posted by Paul manata


it's basically like the 4 views book on apologetics, but all the contributers will be reformed. Also, I'll have other species of presuppositionalism included, rather than just Van Tillianism.

Are the views Frances Schaffer presup, Gordon Clark presup, Van Til presup, and Reformed Epistemology?

I'm not classifying RE under presupp, though it has some things in common.

But, the others are basically it, except I don't know of any Schafferians! Also, I might split VTil into a Bahnsen/Frame thing.

I can think of a few who might qualify as Schafferians, but none that I know of offhand that have Ph.D's. I think Schaeffer thought of himself as mainly an evangelist and may not have had as defined an apologetic as Van Til and Clark.
 
Originally posted by Pilgrim
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by Vytautas
Originally posted by Paul manata


it's basically like the 4 views book on apologetics, but all the contributers will be reformed. Also, I'll have other species of presuppositionalism included, rather than just Van Tillianism.

Are the views Frances Schaffer presup, Gordon Clark presup, Van Til presup, and Reformed Epistemology?

I'm not classifying RE under presupp, though it has some things in common.

But, the others are basically it, except I don't know of any Schafferians! Also, I might split VTil into a Bahnsen/Frame thing.

I can think of a few who might qualify as Schafferians, but none that I know of offhand that have Ph.D's. I think Schaeffer thought of himself as mainly an evangelist and may not have had as defined an apologetic as Van Til and Clark.

Phil Fernandas analyzed and explained Schaffer´s apologetic and called it Verificational Presuppositionalism. So he does have one. His analysis is in the link that I posted on this topic section if you want to hear it.
 
Robbins decilned for myriad reasons but I asked him for Crampton's contact info and he's not got back to me. If you know Cramptons could you U2U me?

A myriad of reasons? I was under the impression that he was waiting for you to apologize for the virtiolic and personal attacks you've hurled his way on your blogs and elsewhere.

I know he does have a lot on his plate, incuding finishing his own book on apologetics.
 
4 lawyers are locked in a room arguing over how best to defend their client who is charged with murder. One indignantly maintains self-defence is the best option. Another is vehement for temporary insanity. Another attacks his fellows for not looking for a scapegoat. The fourth man sits quietly in the corner waiting for the opportunity to speak. At last he comes forward with the suggestion that such is the preponderance of evidence in favour of the man's innocence that his best defence will be a sound exhibition of the truth. If that does not serve the turn, it is quite clear there is something wrong with the judicial system.
 
Originally posted by joshua
I love it when Barker says, "This is fun here...", speaking of when Paul was replying to Barker and the moderator interrupted. Immediately after (and a bit during) Barker's statement you can hear him sigh a sigh of weariness....ha ha ha ha

:lol:

:ditto:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top