Question For Van Tillians (2)

[Ianterrell]

The Creator Creature gap is bridged by natural and special revelation. God in his otherness communicates through condescension in the form of covenant.

Believer and nonbeliever can communicate by means of human language. :smug_b:

No seriously. There isn't any nuetrality because the unregenerate's word-view is constantly skewed by their suppression of God's truth. Christian theism is antithetical to the unregenerate. There is no common ground that they can go to so that truth can be made available to the needy unregenerate. Though they may agree on certain things the unregenerate will always be inconsistent or even simply offer naked refusal rather then accept God's truth. Their wicked heart does not give them ability to bow to God's gospel command, even if every evidence is piled upon their stubborn necks. They are from the get go hostile to God's law and gospel.

 

[philosopher82]

in van til's book "christian apologetics" he makes some statements worth noting here,

in the chp "the system of christian truth" he says
"in this respect( regarding a few concepts he said were in perfect unity in God's mind) the knowladge of God is wholly different than ours"

what can he mean here? well does he mean on these facts only God's knowladge is wholly different than ours? well further on in the same chp he gives a critique of the veiw of neo-orthodoxy that i think sums up his veiw
"but when this God, whose being and knowladge is said to be wholly different from the being and knowladge of man, as it must be......"
this "wholly different" concept is the problem in his thought. if God is wholly different from us than there is no point of contact between us and God, this means in a philosophy of language that communication of any type is impossible. why is this so? well in order for two beings to communicate there must be something in common between them therefore they can not be wholly different from one another. if God says he will save us or that 2+2=4 he knows it in a way "wholly different" from us than it is absolutly different, this means that of course if 2+2=4 for us than it means something completly different from the way we know it. this means we would not ever understand whatever he says. a complete qualitative difference runs into contradictions.

1. God is wholly different from man
2. whatever man knows is different wholly from the way God knows it
3. if God knows that the symbols 2+2=4 than we cannot know it or we would not be wholly different from him
4. if God does not know 2+2=4 than he ceases to be all-knowing
5. neither of these conclusions fit with reality or christianity therefore God's being and knowladge cannot not be completly different


as you can see this is a valid logical argument and cannot be rationaly rejected. now to turn to the problem of the point of contact between the beleiver and the unbeleiver. van til attmits that man does in fact know that God exists through nature but suppresses that knowladge. i dont think he means absolute knowladge of God is rejected or else all unbeleivers would be atheists which their not. it still seems that he admits that there is a point of contact here in reason perhaps. so if there is a point of contact, namley reason in the sense that logic didn't change in the fall or reason only man's goals and assumptions in general, than why does criticise "knowladge in general", also what is his alternative to this? knowladge in general means that all knowladge is the same in the sense that reason can always discover what ever may be known by men. namley in his veiw the arminian veiw that man by his reason alone can reach knowladge of God. van til calls this the autonomy of man, even that word means only self-law i understand he means that man alone. but if knolwadge in general is rejected than what other kind of veiw of knowladge is there? i must admit that i can't begin to figure out his alternative here, he dosen't describe it here in this book i own and it's been nearly a year since i have read his other books. but lets examine "knowladge in general", if we say there is a qualitative difference here than we run into the same problem we did above, so if there is no qualitative difference here than there is knowladge in general.

so if he rejects knowladge in general than can there be a point of contact here? another logical picture here:
1. knowladge is not "in general" it is not the same according to who you are talking about, God, beleiver, and unbeleiver
2. not the same is a qualitative distinction therefore if a person knows something that even another person knows there is knowladge in general
3. if no person knows the same thing in the same way than communication is impossible which can not fit with reality
4. therefore the rejection of knowladge in general leads to conclusions not compatible with christianity

another valid argument. but what is my veiw? i say van til's transcendental arguments are wonderful but not the only arguments one can use, in fact his criticism of the cosmological argument is flawed in the sense that he ascribes more to the results of the argument than is there. as you can see i not only believe that there is knowladge in general but if the Holy spirit permits it than an unbeleiver will assent to these arguments. the traditional arguments do work in fact i can answer hume's critique using his own philosophy. i'm not trying to be argumentative here or devisive but i feel van til's thought is dangerous at points but he was a brilliant man and a great figure in the church in general.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

[quote:e57a77d4dc="Paul manata"]Philosopher,

(1) Your quote said that "[i:e57a77d4dc]in this respect[/i:e57a77d4dc] God's knowledge is wholly different than ours." What is that respect?
[/quote:e57a77d4dc]

Paul, it would be fair to say God's knowledge is more precise, extant, etc. than ours, but not wholly different. Sums of equations may have a depper meaning for God but not a wholly different meaning. The respect Van Til was speaking of was the relationship of ideas (at least what I gathered). That is untrue. My idea of "two" can be both relational and summative. I believe 1+1=2. So does God. I believe "2" is the number in my family. So does God. I believe yesterday and today, combined togher as days is "2" and so does God. His knowledge may be more extant and deep, but not different in respect to the denomination of a given idea that has been accomodated to our thoughts. Otherwise, Kant rules.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Haven't read it yet.

God knows 1+1=2 as Creator

We know it as creature.

God's thoughts are the standard.

Ours are not.

God knows *that* 1+1=2

We know *that* one plus one equal two.


How could the quality of an equation differ? In extent, yes. We agree. In essence? That woudl mean I would be unsure about what God thought and what I thought about what God thinks.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

[quote:e2e4e4c2e8](1) Do God and I both know the same object of knowledge? That is, when God sees a rose and I see a rose, do we both know that *same* rose?[/quote:e2e4e4c2e8]

It would be impossible to deny it.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

[quote:b749c4d31d](2) Is the epistemological standard of knowing the same? (hint: our ultimate standard is God and God does not consult anything higher than His mind, so...). [/quote:b749c4d31d]

In the context of your question, no, it is not the same standard, but is the same substance. (I take route 12 to go to "smallville" and you take an airplane that not only sees route 12 fromt he sky, but more efficiently flies over the cornfield to the center of town quicker.)

 

[philosopher82]

dear Paul manata,

i did answer your question but only implicitly. if God's knowladge is wholly different from ours and you point to one instance that it is the same than you are contradicting yourself, that was the point of my logical argument. the term wholly other does not regard types of knowladge or meanings of the word "to know" it is whole, it is allinclusive. it's not mean to point that out either, you should tell me when i dont answer your questions, it's polite. do you agree with my assesment of the relationship between beleivers and unbeleivers? you didn't comment on that. remember that "wholly" is a quantifier in logic and means all without exception this is the problem with his thought, he uses allinclusive words and criticises any attempt to reduce that. God's thoughts are standard but 2+2=4 is the same no matter who you are, God would understand the ifinite aplications that are involved here we couldn't. he could understand the depths of semiological value and how these symbols interact and all kinds of other things we can't but thats still not a wholly different knowladge. that in no way denies the creator creature distinction, it only affirms that we are made in his image not that are knowladg4e is totaly different.
the rest of the quote is insignificant when compred to the second i gave but i'll give it to you anyway:
"there are no hidden in the being of God that he has not explored. in the being of God, therefore, possibility is identical with reality, potentiality is identical with actuality."

the reason i didn't give it was it was problematic towards the end there. i will admit that it does clarify it to a specific area, but the second quote were he agrees with neo-orthodoxy there can be no question he meant it universily. God bless i look foward to your reply.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

I understand what you mean.

I start with me, then Natural Revelation, then the Scriptures, which are accommodated to me. God does not have to do that. There is a qualitative difference between the two (obviously).

We could be a bit more technical and say our epistemological aspect of knowing is our finite mind. God is not limited that way, so we start of different playing fields. However, I do use certain innately set categories to think. God put those there otherwise I couldn't think, so I get to use His logic (in finite terms). So....

Let's say, yes, our standard is God (though that is jumping the gun), and God's standard is Himself.

 

[luvroftheWord]

[quote:5173b7084d](I take route 12 to go to "smallville" and you take an airplane that not only sees route 12 fromt he sky, but more efficiently flies over the cornfield to the center of town quicker.)[/quote:5173b7084d]

Actually you'd take Route 8. Trust me, I'm the Smallville guru on this board. :bs2:

Didn't mean to take away from the discussion, but I just could not resist.

 

[philosopher82]

why does my whole argument depend on the verb "to know" being the same? if you could kindly elaborate, i still don't see what difference it makes so if you could explain that one as well. there is no room for playing down wholly other it just means what it means you know. if he is only talking about one type of knowing than thats fine, but we would still have simmilarities with God then and at least some of his knowladge would be the same as ours.

 

[philosopher82]

if van til didn't believe that in every way God's knowladge is wholly different than ours, then why did he say what he said in my second quote i gave. he agrees with barth and brunner about his being and knowladge being wholly other. if he agrees with them and there is no question what they thought then he does mean knowladge wholly. i agree with you and that saves the whole communication problem, but his agreement with barth and brunner dosen't leave him much of an option. i like your shaking hands smilies.

 

[philosopher82]

yes but your reffering to one respect, van til says that barth and brunner are right and they beleived in total difference "wholly". i think honestly were not really getting anywhere and just wasting time, not that it is fun talking to you. but i feel that we are not are not making headway and just splitting hairs, i'm always gulty of this so i got the answers i was looking for so if you don't mind we can devote our attention to other discussions.

 

[JohnV]

You guys got way ahead of me. I had a little problem wihreading posts earlier. So please bear with me if it appears that I haven't read your posts carefullly enough.

If I may take it back a few posts. Paul, you said, [quote:6f604da5b5]But we bothy should agree that wer do not, and cannot not, know all of God's thoughts nor know *in the way* God knows. The creature will never be similar to the blessed Creator. [/quote:6f604da5b5]
I'd like to ask a question about that: if our thoughts are so qualitatively different, then how do you know this about God?

I see that you answered this somewhat in previous posts, but it still seems to beg the question concerning the Presup's ability to non-subjectively read the Bible, when in fact the presupposition is the Bible is subjectively read by man. I'm asking, as in the other post, about the subject/object relationship in particular.

 

[philosopher82]

well if thats the game then if van til didn't mean that about God's knowladge then why does he agree with neo-orthodoxy? i only wanted to not burn bridges and tick you off thats the only reason i wanted to stop but if you want to keep talking thats fine then so do i. your very intelligent so it has been a pleasure. answer that question please. also if i am wrong then why have the majority oy of commentators agreed with me. i have not read all commentators but all i have read is the same as what i'm saying. but to put the crux of my argument together on this one point i have against him, there are others too, he agreed with barth and brunner who both agree that God's knowladge and being are wholly other in every respect

 

[philosopher82]

one more thing to add you know van til accepted an idealistic epistomology while rejecting its metaphysics. i will have to get you a web site from my pastor that has this paper on it it is very interesting. his agreement with barth and brunner limit his deffining cabibility, in fact his criticism in the following section is not their total qualitive differewnce but quite the opposite. i noticed in that book i read where he would go back and forth like you said he means different here. but he still goes back and forth. i know you dont think he goes back and forth but i think he goes back and forth from you to me.

 

[JWJ]

Paul,

Reading your threads you did clear some things up I had regarding Van Til. Thanks. However to compare Van Til to Michael Moore is a joke. Michael Moore is a liar and proven time and time to be a liar.

Jim

 

[JohnV]

Paul:
I am not happy with the wording of your answer, that's all. I have trouble with it. I am not suggesting that the Bible can only be read subjectively;I believe the Bible to be the objective truth from God Himself. But I also believe the creation to be so as well. It seems to me that I like to put man and his mind inside the creation and not the creation in man's mind. Man, saved or not, has to work intellectually inside that norm, for there is no other.

I think, Paul, you misunderstood my question. And it is completely my fault, for I could have done much better than to pretend your terms.

As to your question:[quote:819a028b54]Tell me, John, when an RC tells you that you cannot have the bible qua Bible be your standard but it is actually your subjective interpretation of the Bible that is your standard, how would you respond? [/quote:819a028b54]
My response would be that this insinuates a dichotomy between the revelations. The occasion (read: given context) for the Special is the General, and is not out of accord with it; the purpose (as in "for God's glory") of the General is the Special. For man was created to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever. There can be no dichotomy within and between the revelations. The only context within which any man can know, with or without the Bible, is God's revelation. There is no other way.

What the RC believes falls within this somewhere, whether or not he acknowledges it. So does the atheist's beliefs. Getting at the deceptions is both essential, and also humbling. For we all carry our own too.

(Remember, when you say "there are no brute facts" you mean almost the same thing as my saying "all facts are brute". We just have a different way of coming at it, as I understand from our previous conversations. I would not agree with your philosophical terms, and you would not agree with mine; but we both stand firm on that an object is what God defines it to be, not what man makes of it. )

I don't try to take a philosophically verbalized approach, though in discussions on this Board I have tried to do so. I see the person as more necessary, in order to get in touch with his person. Understanding him and his use of language and paradigms, will help me understand him. But he will not change his paradigms, or his belief, or his philosophy, no matter how air-tight my arguments may be, unless he first realizes that he must depart from sin, even in his thinking. For it is not arguments that change a man, unless he is first changed in heart. So the heart is the aim of my conversation with him.

As an apologist, of sorts, it is my job to know the right relationship of facts, according to God's revelations, which cannot contradict; and to know with certainty that God is glorified in all things. To believe it, yes; but then also to see it. The scoffer and I look at the same object, and that object is no different for him than it is for me, for it glorifies God for both of us. But he scoffs at it, and turns it's witness against himself, because he lives in his sin, and will not embrace the light. Thus, in his repugnance to it, his ridiculous interpretations of that object, he demonstrates even to himself that he has indeed recognized what I see, but is repulsed by it through his sin, and his love for sin. In his fallen nature he hates God, and the believer can see that. He has no grounded arguments, but rather self-justifying excuses.

The believer can also see that this scoffer is made in the image of God, and that he too may be called of God to believe. So he must demonstrate in his talk and in his action that he too is just like this lost scoffer, no better for being a Christian, but saved by the better sacrifice of Christ, and so, better only through Him. It is a calling of great humility in service.

As a Catholic, he may argue his system. It may or may not be that I can out-argue him. But if I don't try to reach to his heart it is all in vain, even if I do out-argue him.

I have my "system"; he can call it 'evidentialist', or 'classical'. I don't balk at that. But I don't call it that per se. Nor do I consider my "system" something to be touted. I know it is but a mere shadow of understanding as it ought to be. After all, it is but a human system. It is compliant with the Word of God and with His revelation of Himself in creation, though it is yet as weak as the person holding it. It is compliant because it is open to correction by the Word of God. I aspire to know as I ought to know, and that is enough for me. So I will not try to argue systems with him in such a case. For that is not as important as trying to reach him and bring his intellect also into obedience.

This sounds more ideal than it would work out in actual fact. But it would be my aim, as circumstances allowed.

Please PM me if you have something for me to respond to, for I am going to be busy for a while. I will try to answer as best I can.

 

[philosopher82]

do you even know what idealism is? i doubt you really understand it's philosophical doctrines. van til did criticise it yes theres no desputing that, but it is clear that he was influinced by it. the idea of presupositions in general came from idealism. he replaced the absolute with the ontilogical trinity, thats it. when he says that:
"the whole problem of philosophy may be summed up in the question of the relation of unity to diversity: this so called problem of the one and the many receives a definate answer from the doctrine of the simplicity of God"
when he claims an answer to this question, which is not even close to an acurate conception of philosophy, in the being of God he is saying exactly what the idealist philosophers were saying about the absolute. i know he didn't really didn't come out and say that he did what i'm saying but it is impliced in his thought. his veiws on circular arguments also came from idealism, in fact a change in the veiw of clssical logic didn't come until hegel. what he says here is right in line with them.
on what we talking about before, i agree he used quatifiers there is no doubt what i'm saying is that with the totality of his thoughts here he is not consitant. van til admits some similarities between us and God, then praises the "neo-orthodoxy" for its beleif in the wholly other nature of God. he agrees that when God knows a rose he knows the same things that we do and more plus a qualitative difference as well, then turns around and denies "knowladge in general". he says we are made in the image of God and thus have simmilarities to God, then turns around to reject being in general. his statements are contradictory here lets examine.
why would van til assume simmilarities and then deny the only logical basis that can be made. "knolwadge in gneral" and "being in general" are tautologies. they are always true heres why. being in general assumes that there are simmilarities on a basic level between all beings. not that they are absolutly the same or judged on a hrizontal line. the reason this is a tautology is because it's denile leads one into a contradiction.
1. being in general assumes simmilarities among beings in general.
2. this means in particular that existance is existance, even though they may exist in two different ways( God self-existant, man dependant on God) it in no way changes the fact that the two beings exist.
3. a denial of this princilpe would lead to:
A. the destruction of language and are ability to understand it
B. it would make all logic meaningles which leads one into contradiction
C. in saying that "there is no being in general" your saying that all beings in general have no being in general, which is a selfdefeating statement.
4. since the denial of this principle destroys one's ability on a number of points, and its self-defeating, it cannot be denied

now knowladge in general:
1. knowladge in general assumes that there is at least in all knowing beings a simmilarity in knowladge, there are propisitions that any two beings can know at the same time
2. denying this means:
A. comminication between beings is impossible
B. skepticism
C. your also saying that all knowing beings, know there is no knowladge in general another self-defeating statement
3. since the denial of this is incompatible with reality and logic it must be affirmed.

you can see that van til could not hold those two beliefs even if he allowed quatifiers, which he did. my last point is yes i have an a priori against him, he thinks that classical apologetics is either not reformed or not reformed enough. i never doubted his theological stance at all just his epistomology and philosophy, why must he doubt ones theological convictions against their apologetical beliefs? in fact the ony acceptable form of his argument only leads you to the same place that the traditionalones do. you can never show the trinity by assuming it.

 

[philosopher82]

first off dont insult my intelliegence by quoting something in the philosophy forum i said about my ability. what i was saying was a way to introduce my ability in philosophy without sounding arrogent. in actuallity i have studied philosophy and theology serioussly for four and a half years, i would say i knew a thing or two. second if you don't know what idealism is how do you know van til wasn't one? to sayt "well he criticised it so he couldn't be" is not an argument at all. whats odd here is for a van tillian you sure do become dogmatic about wording, we all know van til wasn't the best judge on words to use. i have a question for you, since your only argument against what i have been saying is "your reading him wrong or your ignorent of him" then you point to some other place where van til says something different on an issue, which in the end only makes van til contradict himself. but i want to, one understand what you think he said and two how that realates to his thoughts on a whole.

what does he mean when he regects:
1. being in general, knowladge in general,
how does his use of the word analogical and how is it realated to the actual meaning.
also what does he mean when he regects the idea of nuetrality. and last what is his examples of how unbelievers conceive of logic differently than beleivers.

 

[philosopher82]

i apologize if i offended you but don't you think he is a bad judge of word usage when his definations of being/knowladge in general are not anywhere near the meanings of the words. plus how does your definition relate to his critique of thomism in particular, where he defines it in a neo-platonic way that has nothing to do with ipersonality? i'm sorry i assumed you did'nt know what idealism is you could have just answered my question the first time. i do know what qualifiers are my whole point was when he agrees with barth and the only qualifier he used was the totality of God no particular qualifiers were used from him. van til defines anological reasoning as thinking God's thoughts after him, which was what i was reffering too, which has nothing to do with the word analogical which is where many of the false crituiqes of him, this was the same problem when he challenged clark. so is he saying that when he critiques traditional apologetics for beleiving in a neutrality against the beleiver and non-beleiver, that always when an unbeleiver arives at truth he will twist it? van til said unbeleivers conceived of logic differently than beleivers, if this is true than aristotles definition of the law of contradiction is twisted in his form? he also says that unbeleiving world-veiws all believe in chance as the creator of this world than how does he account for deists, theists, idealists? since van til can't pick a right word to describe himself than i'll just have to rely on you for answers

 

[philosopher82]

i have to tell you that when we first started i did have some critiques that i have found out may not be so but i have come under the conclusion that his own philosophy as you have described is incompatible with his critiques of other positions. his complete lack of regard for the meaning of wordsmakes it nearley impossible to discern what he means but i think this is a curse and not a blessing. for instance when he defines mans reasoning as "analogical" there are certian meanings that word has and others it does not have, analogical has no univocal meaning at all. if there is no univocal meaning in all our knowladge with Gods than that leads to skepticism, but according to you he doesn't deny a simmilarity between our knowladge in fact he may know things about 2+2=4 that we dont but he still knows univocaly the same stuff we know about it. why then if the man was so smart did he mean one thing and use a word that does not contain in it's meaning what he really meant? did his dutch backround prevent him from a complete knowladge of the english language? this is unlikely considering he was right on key when he was criticising thomas aquinas, so then why did he use that word? thats one of the thousand dollar questions with van til, i doubt anyone can answer it.

van til uses words that in your interpritation of him he dosen't mean in fact you have shown that he dosen't come close to the meanings of these words. the worst yet was when i asked you what he meant by knowladge in general and being in general you said he meant impersonality, now i don't really need to point out the horrible contradiction in saying that knowladge in general is impersonality. knowing implies personality. i pointed out that taking these words as they mean and denying their existance resulted in contradictions, you basicly said thats not what he meant by the words so again you have him stretching the meaning of words well beyond their scope. these are very bad choices on his part. i have come to realize that the direction you were going in your interpritation of him, at least what i saw, would invalidate his critiques of traditional apologetics and other elements of his thought.

i will show you a big one, i didn't want to bring it all out like this because i anticipate that all you will say is "your reading him wrong" which amounts to not one credable argument. if you are going to use that argument than a few steps you have mostly left out are required. when you quote some other thing he says to try to invalidate my argument from the explicate meaning of words he says elsewhere. you have to to show that the two sentences fit together not just quote something else all that shows is that he says one thing here and another thing there. you need to show either that my explicate interprtation of the word is wrong or that his use is different from what it expliciatly means.
now to the problem i wanted to show you. it is no doubt that in part of his meaning of " IN GENERALS" that he uses one thing permiates his criticisms of christians who use these words; that they either believe in a neutral ground between christians and non-christians or that the christian conceives of it as non-christians, since in his opinoin they do conceive differently, do which ultimatly reduces to the first argument. his insistance on unbeleivers conceiving ideas differently than we do present a problem for him. he doesn't mention this problem but it is the logical conclusions of his thought here. what could be meant here? if unbeleivers conceive of things totaly differently from christians than their beleifs in totality are false. this means they never hold a true beleif, which is obviously a mistake to say it would become a contradiction for van til. so lets reduce what he means here to try and resolve the problem. let's say that only some of their beleifs are false, not all. what this means is that there at least a finite number of propositions that beleivers and non-beleivers conceive of the same. a class could be made of these in fact, but what would this mean to a denial of common ground? if their are certain things that we both have in common, beleivers and non-beleivers, than there is common ground to engage the non-beleiver at. this was his argument against , one of at least, traditional apologetics. that we believe in a common ground to engage the non-beleivers on, also he talked about comprimising with non-christian worldveiws. so a denial of common grace, which he didn't do, leads one to a contradiction lets see how his arguments and thoughts go up against his acceptence of common grace. undoubtly he would accept my point of the class of concepts, ideas that the two opposing wolrdveiws have in common this would imply at least that there is:
1. common ground between the beleiver and non-beleiver, which criticises T.A. for
2. truths that non-beleiving philosophies have that we don't have which would be a good reason "comprimise" our worldveiw with theirs, which he also criticised T.A. for
so his arguments here and conceptions are at best incredibly weak. he can't deny my principles also his insistance on non-beleiverving persons conceiving things differently can not reconcile with common grace or his insistance is weak on the fact that God forces all of them into basic truths for survival, it wouldn't matter if they wanted to conceive of all truths differently because God doesn't allow some of their beleifs to be so. this is one of those problems and you can't escape my analysis here because the two possibillities are logicly contigent of eachother, namley denying one implies the other and vice versa.

 

[philosopher82]

i think your absolutly right about restricting this discussion to one question, one point. but i also have some things i have repeatedly warned you on that i would like to once again say. in your last post you said i said that van til taught that fallen men could not know anything. i said no such thing if you rmember me telling you more than once that i would be using the [b:94f01e09cb]reductio ad absurdium[/b:94f01e09cb] method of analysis to deal with van til, than you would not say that. i take what he does say work out it's logical conclusions and show how he can not consistently hold onto his beleifs in totality. i know you are well versed in philosophy so there is no reason why you didn't reconize that. this is a valid method and i will be using it so please relize that before you say something like that it is only embarrasing to you.
also i have let many shallow and unvalid arguments slide here and i wont let them anymore. for an either ex or continuing semanary student you are just plain lazy in your assesment of and development of arguments. i told you more than once that to simply quote van til saying something different than what i quoted does not vindicate him, it only proves he contradicted himself. you have got to start not only quoting him elsewhere but resolve the contradiction by showing that what i quote is the wrong interpritation of the quote. remember show it don't prepose it, preposing something only tells me your opinoin not that i am wrong.

i will also say that if this debate is going to put strife between us than i dont want to debate anymore, we are both christians and i don't want to burn bridges here.

with all that being said heres my first question. what is van til's veiw of the way unbeleivers conceive of concepts ideas and reality? please for all reasons sake ead me understand me and reply in good arguments and assesments, and i will do the same.

 

[philosopher82]

also i will be going on vacation here in a few days so i will try to reply as much as possible but i might not be able to, i should though. i will be gon 23 days so be patiant.