Multiple worldviews

[Scott]

I understand the ethical dimension. It seems to me that presuppositionalism, though, places us in a position that is inherently difficult to defend, because it basically rests on the demolition of all competitors, and there are many. It seems that some of this could be circumvented with a positive argument, as opposed to an argument from the impossibility of the contrary. It seems that the vast majority of presup literature is devoted to dismantling other views rather than constructing the Christian one.

Even most believers are incredulous when you make the claim only Christianity can account for human experience. They also start throwing out all the other options.

 

[Saiph]

Andrew, Paul,

I think both of you are arguing different aspects of the "light" of reason.
I find the following explanation to be lucid.

What do you think of the Dominican's idea ?

Whether without grace man can know any truth?



Objection 1: It would seem that without grace man can know no truth. For, on 1 Cor. 12:3: "No man can say, the Lord Jesus, but by the Holy Ghost," a gloss says: "Every truth, by whomsoever spoken is from the Holy Ghost." Now the Holy Ghost dwells in us by grace. Therefore we cannot know truth without grace.


Objection 2: Further, Augustine says (Solil. i, 6) that "the most certain sciences are like things lit up by the sun so as to be seen. Now God Himself is He Whom sheds the light. And reason is in the mind as sight is in the eye. And the eyes of the mind are the senses of the soul." Now the bodily senses, however pure, cannot see any visible object, without the sun's light. Therefore the human mind, however perfect, cannot, by reasoning, know any truth without Divine light: and this pertains to the aid of grace.


Objection 3: Further, the human mind can only understand truth by thinking, as is clear from Augustine (De Trin. xiv, 7). But the Apostle says (2 Cor. 3:5): "Not that we are sufficient to think anything of ourselves, as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is from God." Therefore man cannot, of himself, know truth without the help of grace.


On the contrary, Augustine says (Retract. i, 4): "I do not approve having said in the prayer, O God, Who dost wish the sinless alone to know the truth; for it may be answered that many who are not sinless know many truths." Now man is cleansed from sin by grace, according to Ps. 50:12: "Create a clean heart in me, O God, and renew a right spirit within my bowels." Therefore without grace man of himself can know truth.


I answer that, To know truth is a use or act of intellectual light, since, according to the Apostle (Eph. 5:13): "All that is made manifest is light." Now every use implies movement, taking movement broadly, so as to call thinking and willing movements, as is clear from the Philosopher (De Anima iii, 4). Now in corporeal things we see that for movement there is required not merely the form which is the principle of the movement or action, but there is also required the motion of the first mover. Now the first mover in the order of corporeal things is the heavenly body. Hence no matter how perfectly fire has heat, it would not bring about alteration, except by the motion of the heavenly body. But it is clear that as all corporeal movements are reduced to the motion of the heavenly body as to the first corporeal mover, so all movements, both corporeal and spiritual, are reduced to the simple First Mover, Who is God. And hence no matter how perfect a corporeal or spiritual nature is supposed to be, it cannot proceed to its act unless it be moved by God; but this motion is according to the plan of His providence, and not by necessity of nature, as the motion of the heavenly body. Now not only is every motion from God as from the First Mover, but all formal perfection is from Him as from the First Act. And thus the act of the intellect or of any created being whatsoever depends upon God in two ways: first, inasmuch as it is from Him that it has the form whereby it acts; secondly, inasmuch as it is moved by Him to act.


Now every form bestowed on created things by God has power for a determined act, which it can bring about in proportion to its own proper endowment; and beyond which it is powerless, except by a superadded form, as water can only heat when heated by the fire. And thus the human understanding has a form, viz. intelligible light, which of itself is sufficient for knowing certain intelligible things, viz. those we can come to know through the senses. Higher intelligible things of the human intellect cannot know, unless it be perfected by a stronger light, viz. the light of faith or prophecy which is called the "light of grace," inasmuch as it is added to nature.


Hence we must say that for the knowledge of any truth whatsoever man needs Divine help, that the intellect may be moved by God to its act. But he does not need a new light added to his natural light, in order to know the truth in all things, but only in some that surpass his natural knowledge. And yet at times God miraculously instructs some by His grace in things that can be known by natural reason, even as He sometimes brings about miraculously what nature can do.


Reply to Objection 1: Every truth by whomsoever spoken is from the Holy Ghost as bestowing the natural light, and moving us to understand and speak the truth, but not as dwelling in us by sanctifying grace, or as bestowing any habitual gift superadded to nature. For this only takes place with regard to certain truths that are known and spoken, and especially in regard to such as pertain to faith, of which the Apostle speaks.


Reply to Objection 2: The material sun sheds its light outside us; but the intelligible Sun, Who is God, shines within us. Hence the natural light bestowed upon the soul is God's enlightenment, whereby we are enlightened to see what pertains to natural knowledge; and for this there is required no further knowledge, but only for such things as surpass natural knowledge.


Reply to Objection 3: We always need God's help for every thought, inasmuch as He moves the understanding to act; for actually to understand anything is to think, as is clear from Augustine (De Trin. xiv, 7).

[Edited on 10-27-2005 by Saiph]

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

It takes the Holy Spirit to open people's eyes to accept the Christian worldview, and that takes place through the preaching of the gospel.

no, that's confusing reasons -vs- causes for belief.

That's presupposing there are *reasons* for belief. I believe the Bible preaches the only means that people are convinced of the truth is the gospel, not mere argumentation. The gospel enlightens people's minds, and that is what the Bible preaches.

Originally posted by Paul manata
anyway, Jeff, you said earlier that "everything exists, what exists is the question" which is a paraphrase of Clark. My question: how do you KNOW that claim? Where is that claim deducable from Scripture? It's not. Clark's system is dead and rotting in the grave. It can't provide an apologetic, it refutes itself.

I am simply defining the term "exist" which I have a right to do. I am not trying to gain "knowledge" in the strict sense of the term by making this claim, but simply laying the foundation.

Anyway, if you didn't see my earlier post, I agree with Hermonta that *knowledge* can be used in different senses, and here I can see improvment over Clark.

As for your statement that "Clark's system is dead and rotting in the grave." that is the question at hand, and has yet to be proven. I might also consider that one of the abusive ad hominems I have seen on this and other threads. They don't help.

Originally posted by Paul manata
As far as the many-worldviews objections go, I tried to systematicaslly deal with them but it appears that some have their mind made up and don't even understand some of my answers and keep chanting, but you haven't examined every alternative.

I gave an argument which showed that there are only two alternatives, if everyone agrees then we can move on, if not then you have issues with Jesus. If my arument stands (which it does) then the "many worldviews" is now a dead issue. We can then *move* on.

I still disagree that there are only two worldview. I believe that there are two categories or groups of worldviews, but that does not mean that there are only two. And maybe we are defining "worldview" differently. I prefer this definition of worldview. Here is an excerpt:

It [worldview] refers to the framework through which an individual interprets the world and interacts in it.

Originally posted by Paul manata
But people shouldn't act haughty because I didn't address everything in my posts. I don't have the time to write a lengthy post anticipating every objection.

I don't blame you. Thanks for you interaction as well.

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by Scott
According to presuppositionalism, in principle only one worldview can be right. While we often show that the Christian view is true by disproving other views (internal critiques), is there a way to avoid having to critique all other worldviews by showing positively that in principle only one worldview can be correct? How would someone defend this idea?

Paul Manata, I am looking for help here!

Here's where Clark fails because he cannot refute an infinite number of worldviews. Van Til's brilliance is that there are only *two* worldviews; those for and those against Christ. So, atheism and Buddhism alike are just different ways of saying the same thing: "in Christ are *not* hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."

So, the argument doesn't look like this:

A or B

~B

Therefore A

because then the opponant will say, "what about C, D, E, ...n?"

Rather, the formulation looks like this:

A or ~A

~~A.

Therefore A.

Ok, I know I am getting to this late, but I recognize a problem with this reasoning. Essentially the two proofs you´ve given are NO DIFFERENT.

Let me demonstrate. If we substitute B=~A into the second equation, quess what?!! We get the first equation! We can replace it with different symbols, but essentially, they are the same, just with different names.

A or B (~A)

~B (~A)

Therefore A.

No logician in the world would say they're the same. That's what you get ofr reading Clark's logic book.

Of course they are the same with my qualifications. BTW, I did not learn logic from Clark (philosophy maybe, but not logic).

If B=all other world views=~A then your arguments are exactly alike. Just semantics.

in logic, B does't = ~A.

Anyway, even if your missunderstanding is correct, I've still proven it. I don't need to refute many systems, just B. So, there are only two worldviews, and therefore I have proven the first major part in my argument. Since I've done that then the title of this thread is defeated. The question was about how we defeat an infinite number of systems, but I've proven that that is a false question.

My problem is that I still see B (or ~A) as defined by a multitude of worldviews. Just because you symbolically lump them together does not mean that you've shown refutation to them.

The problem is demonstrating ~~A (or ~B).

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by Scott
According to presuppositionalism, in principle only one worldview can be right. While we often show that the Christian view is true by disproving other views (internal critiques), is there a way to avoid having to critique all other worldviews by showing positively that in principle only one worldview can be correct? How would someone defend this idea?

Paul Manata, I am looking for help here!

Here's where Clark fails because he cannot refute an infinite number of worldviews. Van Til's brilliance is that there are only *two* worldviews; those for and those against Christ. So, atheism and Buddhism alike are just different ways of saying the same thing: "in Christ are *not* hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."

So, the argument doesn't look like this:

A or B

~B

Therefore A

because then the opponant will say, "what about C, D, E, ...n?"

Rather, the formulation looks like this:

A or ~A

~~A.

Therefore A.

Ok, I know I am getting to this late, but I recognize a problem with this reasoning. Essentially the two proofs you´ve given are NO DIFFERENT.

Let me demonstrate. If we substitute B=~A into the second equation, quess what?!! We get the first equation! We can replace it with different symbols, but essentially, they are the same, just with different names.

A or B (~A)

~B (~A)

Therefore A.

No logician in the world would say they're the same. That's what you get ofr reading Clark's logic book.

Of course they are the same with my qualifications. BTW, I did not learn logic from Clark (philosophy maybe, but not logic).

If B=all other world views=~A then your arguments are exactly alike. Just semantics.

in logic, B does't = ~A.

Anyway, even if your missunderstanding is correct, I've still proven it. I don't need to refute many systems, just B. So, there are only two worldviews, and therefore I have proven the first major part in my argument. Since I've done that then the title of this thread is defeated. The question was about how we defeat an infinite number of systems, but I've proven that that is a false question.

The issue comes down to not being able to demonstrate that after some number X of variations of non Christian worldviews has been shown to be incoherent etc., all other variations of the unbelieving worldview will also fall.

I also see this argument as 6 vs. half a dozen. If someone says infinite worldviews and somone else says infinite variations on one worldview, in practice there is no difference. One cannot demonstrate the defeat of an infinite anything, even when we know that the all of the infinite instances are wrong.

 

[Saiph]

One cannot demonstrate the defeat of an infinite anything, even when we know that the all of the infinite instances are wrong.

Why the focus on demonstration if, as you just said, we can KNOW they will always be wrong ?

Do I have to demonstrate that pi never ends to KNOW that by mathematical law it actually doesn't ? ?

[Edited on 10-27-2005 by Saiph]

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

It takes the Holy Spirit to open people's eyes to accept the Christian worldview, and that takes place through the preaching of the gospel.

no, that's confusing reasons -vs- causes for belief.

That's presupposing there are *reasons* for belief. I believe the Bible preaches the only means that people are convinced of the truth is the gospel, not mere argumentation. The gospel enlightens people's minds, and that is what the Bible preaches.

Every reason on earth is a reason for belief. The issue is that man suppresses his reasons due to his wickedness. The Holy Spirit 'causes' us to belief due to changing our hearts, but the reasons were always there.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Saiph

One cannot demonstrate the defeat of an infinite anything, even when we know that the all of the infinite instances are wrong.

Why the focus on demonstration if, as you just said, we can KNOW they will always be wrong ?

We know the truth of the statement because the Christian worldview is true. The issue is what to say to the person who does not want to accept that.

So the argument ends up going: "A is true because the Christian worldview is true and ~A is false because the Chrstian worldview is true." People tend not to like to hear such.

The big issue is that the argument is usually framed as being able to demonstate ~~A. I dont think it can be done. But truth can not always be demonstrated.

Do I have to demonstrate that pi never ends to KNOW that by mathematical law it actually doesn't ? ?

[Edited on 10-27-2005 by Saiph]

What do you say to a person that does not accept that law?

There is also the issue of Inductive and Deductive proofs relying on God, so that to prove Him by them would be difficult.

 

[Scott]

Jacob sent me the email below regarding my initial question and said it would be ok to post it. I think it addresses some of the issues.

If I can show that all available non-christian worldviews are faulty, does that mean that the Christian worldview is necessariliy true? Perhaps. This is tricky. In his Van Til reader Bahnsen knew that this was teh least developed aspect of CVT's thought. Both Michael Butler (sympathetic) and John Frame (more critical) have improved upon it. In the Festscrift to Bahnsen--The Standard Bearer--Butler gives a phenomenal essay on TAG. It is worth the price of hte book (and the other articles are good, too). John Frame's works on the Doctrine of God (Not the doctrine fo the knowledge of God, necessarily) and Apologetics to the Glory of God, while perhaps wrongly critiquing CVT, at least make you aware of the issues.

I am avoiding the central issue, at the moment, I know that. Bear with me for a while. Here is the thrust of the matter:

In the nature of the case, no two transcendentals can be equally valid. Even non-Christian philosophers grant this point.
For example, it cannot be logically true that the Christian worldview and X worldview both provide the preconditions of intelligibility. Before we even point out and say, "Of course, law of non-contradiction," I want to press the question, "Why is it the law of non-contradiction is even valid?" For that to be the case, what must first happen? See where I am going?

Let me sum up the objections for the moment, for you raise a good point. Page numbers are referenced to Butler's essay in The Standard Bearer.

Objection 1: The Nature of Tag: It basically reduces to some traditional form of argumentation. This is Frame's objection. However, TAG's seek what the precondition of intelligibility is. Traditional argumentation does not. The cosmological argument seeks to show God as the first Cause. It assumes causality outright. It does not ask the crucial questions (77-79)

Objection 2: The Uniqueness Proof for the Conclusion of TAG: Does the conclusion that God exists necessarily follow from the argument (Montgomery)? If the unbeliever says that Christianity can account for human experience, true, but possibly an another worldview will as well, so what? This does him little good. People live and die in terms of REAL worldviews, not hypothetical ones. If someone makes this claim, ask him to show the worldview in specific terms. If he does not, ballgame. If he does, proceed to demolish the worldview (9 times out of 10 he cannot). Let's move on with this objection: The TAG says that the non-Christian worldview cannot give an account of human experiences, NOT that an infinite number of possible worldviews cannot do this. See it as A (Christianity) or ~A. I can develop this point in another email, gladly, if you would like. There are a few other things I would like to mention, though.

Objection 3: The Mere Sufficiency of the Christian Worldview: Does demonstrating the sufficiency of the Christian worldview neccesitate the Christian worldview? In doing this we need to see the difference between necessary conditions and sufficient conditions. More on this later.

There are more objections, quite arcane in nature, that Butler deals with. If you have found this helpful and think it will benefit the brethren on PB, by all means post it. I have some more thoughts but this should be sufficient for now. Sorry I couldn't give more. I am between class and work but I will definitely be thinking of you. Also, one of my comrades in arms here in Jackson was a philosophy major who did VanTillian critiques of Nietsche and Kierkegaard. He is much more intelligent on these issues than I am. I will forward him the thrust of this email and see what he thinks.

 

[Saiph]

Hermonta,

What would you say are the proofs God has provided by creation and conscience ?

(ie. He has made it evident to them as Paul said)

 

[Scott]

I think it would be helpful to flesh out this from Jacob's email:

In the nature of the case, no two transcendentals can be equally valid. Even non-Christian philosophers grant this point.

For example, it cannot be logically true that the Christian worldview and X worldview both provide the preconditions of intelligibility. Before we even point out and say, "Of course, law of non-contradiction," I want to press the question, "Why is it the law of non-contradiction is even valid?" For that to be the case, what must first happen? See where I am going?

Has anyone (Paul?) read any writings of transcendental philosophers (outisde of Christian presuppositionalists) that discuss this point? Might be a useful line of discussion with unbelievers to be able to discuss how in principle only one transcendental position can be right and that even secular philosophers recognize this.

 

[Saiph]

I still think unbelievers "know" Christianity is the only viable world-view.
They simply do not like it. Christianity is the only worldview that can allow for the laws of logic. Islam cannot. Judaism cannot. Neither of those bridge the gap between universals and particulars.

Didn't the apostle Paul defend the truth of Christianity with the fact of the resurrection, based on the impossibility of the contrary ?

 

[Scott]

tell them that there are only two competators. that answer, logically, takes away the force of their objection.

Sorry you don't like it, but that was Bahnsen's and Van Til's answer. Why don't you deal with it?

In practice I have just not seen it work. The challenge is that the presuppositional methodology demands demonstrating the impossibility of the contrary. The number of variations of "the" non-Christian position" are many. To show the impossibility of the contrary of eastern religion involves a different analysis of showing the impossibility of the contrary of materialism. Both fail for lack of Christ but they fail in different ways. Those differences are the problem.

Paul, do you have any good analogies that could help people grasp the point you are making? I am very interested in learning ways to clearly communicate these concepts to ordinary people (non-philosophers).

 

[Scott]

"Christianity is the only worldview that can allow for the laws of logic."

Ok, how would you explain to your average Walmart shopper that only Christianity can support the laws of logic? I am asking for a explanation understandable to the ordinary guy, as opposed to someone with training in philosophy.

 

[Saiph]

Ok, how would you explain to your average Walmart shopper that only Christianity can support the laws of logic? I am asking for a explanation understandable to the ordinary guy, as opposed to someone with training in philosophy.

Scott, as I read that I had to laugh.

You are right. This is all academic stuff. I usually present the gospel the way you would to a child. I have only had 1 or two philosophical debates on worldview with unbelievers in my entire life.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Saiph
Hermonta,

What would you say are the proofs God has provided by creation and conscience ?

(ie. He has made it evident to them as Paul said)

That is a good question. I am not sure how to answer that. Whatever they are, it makes their acceptance of all non christian religions excuseless.

 

[Scott]

How do we deal with someone who tries to flip the two worldview argument? In other words A is [THEIR WORLDVIEW OF CHOICE] and ~A is [ALL OTHER WORLDVIEWS, INCLUDING CHRISTIANITY].

 

[Saiph]

I agree Paul. 2 worldviews. 2 Seeds (serpent/woman) 2 fathers (satan/YHWH) 2 Kingdoms (God/Man) 2 paths (broad/narrow)

Could we say the heathen are diversified in their singular worldview against Christ ?

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Paul manata
1. You just admitted that there are no *reasons* for belief in God. Not only is Clark's system dead, it now is smelling up the entire graveyard. (Not to mention, the Bible does teach that, but that doesn't mean there are not reasons for belief, your answer begged the question.

Whatever *reason* you provide does not do justice to the biblical view In my humble opinion.

Under the axiom view of Clark, asking for a reason to believe Christianity is as absurd as asking an empiricist why he believes what he sees is really there. "Why do you believe what you see is really there are not an illusion?" Response: "Well....uhhh...uhh...because I do..."

Originally posted by Paul manata
2. Jeff, I asked how you know that "everything exists, what matters is what is it?" Jeff, how do you know you're a man? Jeff, how do you know that Clark's system is correct?

I know that everything exists because of the definition of exist. Not because I see it if that is what you are getting at. Although like I said previously, for all practical purposes I have no problem with saying we can "know" things that we see. In this respect, I have no problem with saying that I know I am a man.

Originally posted by Paul manata
3. I specifically mentioned Clark's SYSTEM, and as such, it is not an "abusive ad-hominem, unless of course, you consider *systems* to be *men?*

ok, so instead of "against the man" what is the latin for "against the system"?

Originally posted by Paul manata
4. Jesus said, "He who is not with me is against me." Was he wrong? Two worldviews. Anyway: "It [worldview] refers to the framework through which an individual interprets the world and interacts in it." Yes, all non-Christian systems interpret the world autonomously. They deny that Jehovah and His interpretation of the world is required to understand the world, rather they interpret the world via their god-hating and Lord-supressing systems and categories of thought. There, two worldviews.

I agree with Jesus. He was not wrong.

"He who is not with me" (Christ's worldview) is against me (all other worldviews). I see two different classifications of worldviews given here; right and wrong, not one worldview vs. another.

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Saiph
I agree Paul. 2 worldviews. 2 Seeds (serpent/woman) 2 fathers (satan/YHWH) 2 Kingdoms (God/Man) 2 paths (broad/narrow)

Could we say the heathen are diversified in their singular worldview against Christ ?

It is clear from reading these last few posts that there are two different definitions of "worldview" going on here.

 

[Scott]

Paul: Can you give any analogies for the necessity of one worldview (say to mathematical axioms or something like that)?

 

[Scott]

"By definition, and ULTIMATE authority is just that, ultimate. If you ahve two transcendentals then you have an irresolvable dualism, and no unity/coherence in your worldview. There can only be one unifying transcendental."

Can you explain why this is so? This is resonating more with me. Also, what are arguments from non-Christian transcendental philosophers for the necessity of one transcendental view?

 

[Saiph]

Scott,

One cannot have two equal and opposite transcendentals.

If one is ALL good, and the other is ALL evil ? Then one of those must be deficient. One of those cannot be ALL good or ALL evil.

Satan, is not the opposite of God, he is the opposite of Michael.

God has no opposite.

 

[Scott]

"It is clear from reading these last few posts that there are two different definitions of "worldview" going on here."

I think this is a problem too. Bahnsen sometimes defined a presupposition, or worldview, to be "the most basic level of one's network of beliefs." And then Bahnsen, Van Til, et al usually define different presuppositions in terms of the various options out there. For example, Bahnsen would outline the elements of an empiricist worldview. He would speak of multiple non-Christian worldviews. So, to define worldview simply as "the non-Christian view" seems to be using worldview in a different way.

 

[Scott]

"One cannot have two equal and opposite transcendentals."

I would like to see this point developed more. One can have, for example, two different kinds of computers with different guts and operating systems. Yet they can do basically the same thing (run a word processor like Word, for example). So how would you explain to a non-presuppositionalist that in principle there can only be one worldview?

[Edited on 10-27-2005 by Scott]

 

[Saiph]

Scott,

Think of it in terms of omnipotence then. The existence of two omnipotent beings is impossible right ? That would mean in fact that one of those beings was not all powerful.

The breakdown of Dualism is that if there exists a universal transcendant good, then there cannot exist a universal transcendant evil. That would mean that the good, is not universal after all.

There are two world-views. However, the anti-God worldview is diversified in its many expressions.

Satan may paint evil many different ways. But to transgress the law in one point is to transgress it in all points.

Or, many antichrists, but one spirit of Antichrist.

[Edited on 10-27-2005 by Saiph]

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by Saiph
I agree Paul. 2 worldviews. 2 Seeds (serpent/woman) 2 fathers (satan/YHWH) 2 Kingdoms (God/Man) 2 paths (broad/narrow)

Could we say the heathen are diversified in their singular worldview against Christ ?

It is clear from reading these last few posts that there are two different definitions of "worldview" going on here.

you left out where I argued for the single and binding worldview perspective of non-Christians.

If that is how you would like to define worldview, that is your right. I stand that you are stating a "classification" of a worldview that contains many within it.

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Paul manata

I agree with Jesus. He was not wrong.

"He who is not with me" (Christ's worldview) is against me (all other worldviews). I see two different classifications of worldviews given here; right and wrong, not one worldview vs. another.

Let A = "for Him [Jesus]"

If what Jesus said is the case, then all non-Christians are: "not for Jesus.".

This can be translated, then, as ~A. Therefore, there are only TWO positions, since Jeff agreed then I have proven my point and we can move on.

QED

I am tired of arguing over these semantics, so just to get to the point, I'll concede for the sake of argument.

Now. Prove ~~A.

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Paul manata

I know that everything exists because of the definition of exist. Not because I see it if that is what you are getting at. Although like I said previously, for all practical purposes I have no problem with saying we can "know" things that we see. In this respect, I have no problem with saying that I know I am a man.

No, that's not what I'm getting at. I'm critiquing the view that you can only know propositions directly stated in Scripture and those dedusible from said propoisitions. On this view, how do you KNOW the definition for "exists?" I'm critiquing the heart of Clark. If you don't like this view, fine. But don't say people are sounding Clarkian in this thread and that Clark is in any way superior to Van Til. If Clark's apologetic methodology were true, you couldn't know that it was true.

Ultimately, wheather we are Clarkian or VanTillian doesn't matter does it? The goal is to be biblical.

I repent if I have said "I am of Apollos" so to speak.

 

[Scott]

"you left out where I argued for the single and binding worldview perspective of non-Christians."

It seems that there is equivocation in the use of the term.