SoldierOfTheRock
Puritan Board Freshman
Hey there guys! (and gals!)
My philosophy class here at Cedarville University is going over knowledge, what it is and can we have it. We have kinda been dealing with the idea that we can not have any real knowledge without a God. We have been reading through Descartes' Meditations and an article by some guy named Unger who proposes skepticism.
In class my professor pointed out that Descartes uses a type of circle in his reasoning to get to a God and to justify his reasoning and logic. I have been searching around the internet and find that it is normally referred to the Cartesian Circle. I may have found that term here... perhaps not.
Alright, so here is the question. Was Descartes incorrect in making this inference. I have a problem with anyone using any type of circular reasoning to get to any conclusion. I realize he was trying to prove there is a God, and to justify his sense, but that is no reason to use a logical fallacy. So did he use a logical fallacy?
If he did use a logical fallacy, is there anyway to justify our senses, reason, or prove there is a God empirically? (that may not be the correct term to use.) I guess I am asking this: "Can God be proven?"
I have heard some of you through alot of terms around that I do not understand. I am a philosophy major here at CU, but there are still many things I do not understand.
I went to the library tonight and picked up two books. "The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God" by John Frame, and Van Til's Apologetic" by Greg Bahnsen... would these be a good place to start for a solid foundation for both philosophy and apologetics?
My philosophy class here at Cedarville University is going over knowledge, what it is and can we have it. We have kinda been dealing with the idea that we can not have any real knowledge without a God. We have been reading through Descartes' Meditations and an article by some guy named Unger who proposes skepticism.
In class my professor pointed out that Descartes uses a type of circle in his reasoning to get to a God and to justify his reasoning and logic. I have been searching around the internet and find that it is normally referred to the Cartesian Circle. I may have found that term here... perhaps not.
Alright, so here is the question. Was Descartes incorrect in making this inference. I have a problem with anyone using any type of circular reasoning to get to any conclusion. I realize he was trying to prove there is a God, and to justify his sense, but that is no reason to use a logical fallacy. So did he use a logical fallacy?
If he did use a logical fallacy, is there anyway to justify our senses, reason, or prove there is a God empirically? (that may not be the correct term to use.) I guess I am asking this: "Can God be proven?"
I have heard some of you through alot of terms around that I do not understand. I am a philosophy major here at CU, but there are still many things I do not understand.
I went to the library tonight and picked up two books. "The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God" by John Frame, and Van Til's Apologetic" by Greg Bahnsen... would these be a good place to start for a solid foundation for both philosophy and apologetics?