Van Til-Clark debate settled - once and for all!

[Magma2]

1. Yes, allow you to opine without coming down on you and putting you in the awkward position of having to actually justify all your mere unjustified opinions. That is, opine away without me continually pointing at that you're yet again, simply offerin g unjustified opinions.

Again, either it’s a high horse or just that big head pictured above, but what you fail to note is that without some sort of account I have no reason to think that all your bloviating and pontificating is anything more than your own opinions and neither does anyone else. The trouble with you Paul is that you constantly avoid the issue. Frankly, you run from it. I guess you are scared of epistemology after all, even more the Bible’s answer. You never face the question of how do you know squarely, you merely ridicule those who have and when confronted react like some petulant schoolboy.

2. My remark about Christmas was a joke (but unfortunately roboticClarkians can't have a sense of humor, it's too subjective for them... how boring- anyway...), but I do indeed celebrate it. Anyway, call me Popish, or what you will.

I get it, you can dish it out, but taking it . . . . Well, my apologies, but it is a popish holy day and anything but Christian. Please don’t let that get in the way of your celebration.

Anyway, I'm offering a reductio ad absudum (and I've told you this too many times to count) of *your* view. So, when I ask *you* how *you* know I'm asking that according to *your* theory of knowledge. And, according to *your* theory of knowledge, you don't know any of those things I ask you to tell us how you know.

I’m quite aware of what constitutes knowledge and what is opinion and also why the axiom of Christianity, the Scriptures, has a monopoly on truth (more specifically, the truth which can be known). History fails where Scripture succeeds. archaeology fails where Scripture succeeds. Science fails where Scripture succeeds. Non-Christian philosophy fails where Scripture succeeds. That’s because in Christ “are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” and not just some of those treasures as Van Tilians, so-called “Reformed” Epistemologists and so many others just assume. You think because you assert something it is true and you have knowledge. As the preacher said, “this too is vanity.” You need to consider what makes the man of God complete or perfect according to 2 Tim 4:16,17 and then tell me what other sources of knowledge he needs and even where they might be found. I'm confident you won't do that either. Don't let the bible get in your way Paul. I noticed too I was “spot on” and you failed to define how you wanted me to understand your use of the word “know.” I see your game is again exposed.

I'm fine to leave it at that. Call me names, call me afraid, whatever. If that's what helps you sleep at night. If you must know, though, I don't discuss things with 99% of the Clarkians out there. I'd actually rather pay someone to kick me in the groin really hard. Much more enjoyable and profitable.

Yet, you keep having to toss in your soiled two-cents every time Clark’s name is mentioned.

Maybe next time, keep your change to yourself. Or, better yet, instead of talking, read Clark and by God's grace may your mind be opened. That certainly beats a kick in the crotch.

 

[Magma2]

For your next post feel free to show how you know any of the things you just said.

I’ll be happy to oblige after you define knowledge.

Now, even if I did tell you what my theory of knowledge was, big deal, you couldn't know that I said it was what you thought it was.

You assume too much. I have a pretty good handle on Van Til self-refuting and anti-Christian epistemology which reduces the truth of Scripture to a morass of incoherent paradoxes and provides the breeding ground for charlatans and frauds now corrupting P&R churches. Do you have something new to offer?

I said that I was using the word 'know' in the sense *you*use it. Didn't you read what I wrote?

Which is? I haven’t defined knowledge and I have no idea how you intend to use it since you have equivocated on this word in the past.

Scriptures use the word know in many different senses, maybe one of these verses will help you:

(Gen 4:1) And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

(Isa 1:3a) The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib . . . .

(2 Tim 3:7) . . . always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

(Gen 29:5) And he said to them, "Do you know Laban the son of Nahor?" And they said, "We know him."

(John 8:32) “. . . and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

(1 Tim 2:3,4) This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.


If I were to guess, I would think you intend knowledge, at least in the epistemic sense, to be understood per the verse in Isaiah above. But since you haven’t told me, I don’t want to follow your lead and just assume. However, if you want to discuss knowledge in the sense used in John 8 and 1 & 2 Tim cited above, perhaps we can talk and it might even be productive. However, if you just want to keep playing your games, perhaps I will take your advice and "run along."

And, based on that definition, all you're doing here is offering your opinion. You don't know any of the things you opine here.

Based on what definition? You haven’t provided one. If you have, I admit I must have missed it. As for opinion, it seems that’s all you’re offering as well, so I guess we’re even. Maybe you classify the verses above and the ones I’ve previously cited as opinion too? Since you will not face the problem squarely, much less honestly, who knows or can even opine? However, from dealing with you thus far, my opinion is that you’re less than an honest opponent which explains your endless evasions.

Who said I said it was a "Christian" holiday, Sean? I won't let it get in the way of my celebration, just like you don't let birthday's get you down. Anyway, maybe you'll get a crown from Jesus for being more holy than the rest of us. Way to major on the minors.

I thought I was minoring in the minors. Sorry you’re so sensitive.

Oh, and one more thing, how do you *know* that it's a popish holiday? Can you deduce said proposition from Scripture? Didn't think so.

Again, it depends on which sense you’re using the word “to know.” I’ve played this game with you before and even if you can fool others by your endless equivocations, that doesn’t mean that I have to play the fool as well. Sorry to disappoint, but if you can find warrant in Scripture for keeping the day, let’s see your argument. As for me, I'm torn.

Sean, I answer you in detail every time.

Really? Where are those posts? Where have you even defined knowledge? As far as I can tell you can’t even answer a simple question.

How would you know otherwise?

I don’t and you won’t tell me how I might. Clark, unlike you, wasn’t happy with just begging the question. You evidently are quite content in doing just that.

See, I'm trying to be a tough minded Calrkian. A better one than you.

That would require that you actually read Clark and grasp what he says. From what I can tell you are perhaps incapable of both. Besides, Clark has dealt with critics far more capable and honest than you who weren’t afraid to face the problem of epistemology squarely. You should listen to the Clark/Hoover debate (http://www.trinitylectures.org/MP3/The_Clark-Hoover_Debate.mp3) if you want to see an example of an honest opponent. While David Hoover got his clock cleaned, he at least faced the issues squarely and honestly.

Run along...

I suppose I should. I don’t KNOW of a better way to shake off those extra Christmas pounds I’ve gained. Besides, you’ve done nothing so far except evade and avoid the central question, so no sense just spinning my wheels. I guess I’ll just have to wait for someone who is willing to take the problems of epistemology seriously and stop posturing. You're so called "reducio" can only work if you can provide a better answer in place of the one you ridicule and mock. From what I can tell, your argument, if one can call it that, is nothing more than pretense.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Since Paul's a friend of mine, and I don't need people hassling me about favoritism, I'm closing this thread with Sean's "last word."

& , R.I.P.

Happy smileys to all, and to all a 'goodnight'.