Puritan Board Graduate
My premise here is that the Bible leaves no room for the possibility of a fourth or more members of the God head. That kills the possibility of the situation.If I remember correctly, it broke down when it was *asserted* that the quadrune god was impossible while the triune God was possible. It was not shown that 4 was *impossible*.
That would mean that you would be asking to show that the Bible is true, which I do not believe to be a proper question.
I have seen the same comments and believe that at best he has moderated his stance concerning VanTillian Presup. But if you have followed the thread, you would have seen that I was not using him as support for VT or anything close to that. I was using him because he is close to Prof. Salmon, who has written against S4 and S5 versions of modal logic. If those are not valid for possible world semantics, then a great deal of possible worlds stuff becomes problematic because they assume these levels of modal logic.I've seen you use Sean Choi's name quite a bit in support. But is Sean Choi even a presuppositionalist anymore? Not according to his comments on Jeff Lowder's blog a while back.
Again, we have left Van Til and pretty much left TAG on the sideline for a little bit. The question is the validity of the Quadrune claim to be possible. One can despise Van Til and still could answer that such is impossible.Dropping his name as an argument against modality doesn't do much good in defending VT.
I do not have anything to discuss with him concerning Van TilEven if he does reject modality, he apparently still rejects the strong VT argument - I could be mistaken though. So I guess it could be commented that I'd love to see the convo b/w you and Choi in regards to VT.
Since I am not currently defending TAG but instead attacking Quadrinity, it might be a while.In the meantime, I'm still waiting for:
1) what these "preconditions of intelligibility" are?
2) what are the *essential* doctrines of Christianity? and
3) what makes these *essential* doctrines and them *alone* necessary for intelligibility?
Amen and Amen.