tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post116812922224161209..comments2023-04-14T04:28:54.000-04:00Comments on Reformed Apologist: A Sound Proof For God's ExistenceReformed Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comBlogger71125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-50447537322167725262016-06-10T17:57:37.858-04:002016-06-10T17:57:37.858-04:00B = no intelligible experience
~B = denial of no ...B = no intelligible experience <br />~B = denial of no intelligible experience <br /><br />Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-52190277386106636212016-06-10T17:45:20.048-04:002016-06-10T17:45:20.048-04:00P.2 (~A--> B)
You are saying it says (-A. -B)....P.2 (~A--> B)<br /> You are saying it says (-A. -B). it doesn't. if no god, then no intelligibilty. you have god in the negatvie (-A) so why wouldn't not intelligible (-B) be in the negative?John Doenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-251734482773164232016-06-08T17:57:53.364-04:002016-06-08T17:57:53.364-04:00Do you have a Skype?Do you have a Skype?John Doenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-15760900035893457352016-06-08T16:44:03.438-04:002016-06-08T16:44:03.438-04:00Anonymous,
Anonymous,
There is nothing invalid i...Anonymous,<br /><br />Anonymous,<br /><br />There is nothing invalid in the proof. The conclusion follows directly from the premises. That's the beauty of symbolic logic! I hope you take R.A. up on his offer. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-63482680669018262852016-06-08T16:17:25.591-04:002016-06-08T16:17:25.591-04:00I'm happy to help you think through this on th...I'm happy to help you think through this on the phone. Post a number...I won't publish it. Then I'll call you. Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-24071117715820066392016-06-08T16:10:54.877-04:002016-06-08T16:10:54.877-04:00Would it be wrong to say the other 2 thoughts? Bec...Would it be wrong to say the other 2 thoughts? Because it seems like Both other routes are consistent with that. S doesn't seem to account for intelligibility nor do the unbeliever have a basis to reject it. <br /><br />The only response the someone advocating S would say is that even those revelations are apart of your own mind. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-57849522065114902152016-06-08T15:57:32.093-04:002016-06-08T15:57:32.093-04:00No tautology at all, just elementary deductive log...No tautology at all, just elementary deductive logic. You've truncated the steps.Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-70083113617008346682016-06-08T15:55:21.820-04:002016-06-08T15:55:21.820-04:00If S is true we couldn't know it. God reveals ...If S is true we couldn't know it. God reveals in GR he created. He confirms it in SR.Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-10896902791245746012016-06-08T15:07:11.892-04:002016-06-08T15:07:11.892-04:00"Step 4 (~ ~A): It is not the case that God d..."Step 4 (~ ~A): It is not the case that God does not exist (Modus Tollens on 2 and 3)<br />Step 5 (A): --> God does exist (Law of negation"<br /><br />You seem to have a tautology. Premise 4 contains the truth of 5 . Which then 4 should've been your conclusion.It seems question begging.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-6714657754920819862016-06-08T13:34:17.550-04:002016-06-08T13:34:17.550-04:00How would you answer the problem with hard Solipsi...How would you answer the problem with hard Solipsism? Is it because God has revealed himself telling us he has created? Or solipsism cannot account for the preconditions of intelligibility? Or does Christianity only give us reason to reject it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-77122232844115736232016-05-11T18:27:45.916-04:002016-05-11T18:27:45.916-04:00Not sure that was my "challenge" but giv...Not sure that was my "challenge" but given months between your responses I reserve the right to treat each as a brute particular with no context. :) :) :) Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-75549775054447996192016-05-11T17:40:55.503-04:002016-05-11T17:40:55.503-04:00Your challenge was to do it along secular lines &q...Your challenge was to do it along secular lines "atheism". So, what I said was correct. Unless you think secular philosophy has done it ;). Which I think we agree that it has not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-72698571715342233322016-05-11T17:14:34.336-04:002016-05-11T17:14:34.336-04:00No one? Hasn't God revealed he has?No one? Hasn't God revealed he has?Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-62707735566663475962016-05-11T17:09:11.882-04:002016-05-11T17:09:11.882-04:00Well, I couldn't and no one (as I know of ) ha...Well, I couldn't and no one (as I know of ) has answered the problem of the one and many. I'm just dealing with an atheist who takes the preconditions of intelligibility as brute facts or axioms. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-13279382504534716652016-02-01T15:01:43.720-05:002016-02-01T15:01:43.720-05:00How is predication possible within the framework o...How is predication possible within the framework of atheism? Explain the intelligibility of universals and particulars according to any stripe of unbelief. What are brute particulars after all? Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-90061450871088794292016-02-01T13:56:15.244-05:002016-02-01T13:56:15.244-05:00Well, I agree with what you're saying. But tha...Well, I agree with what you're saying. But that seems to be only a good response to me because I hold to Christianity. But would a brute fact being claimed by a non theist be acceptable?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-58906469542670393542016-01-27T14:16:57.884-05:002016-01-27T14:16:57.884-05:00Yes, or should we believe some facts cannot be exp...Yes, or should we believe some facts cannot be explained by God? Are there universals that just exist on their own? Mustn't all events relate in the Lord's mind in order for there to be meaning? Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-45664546840837255502016-01-27T13:51:40.401-05:002016-01-27T13:51:40.401-05:00Well, I agree. But would you say brute facts are i...Well, I agree. But would you say brute facts are irrational? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-35898700429505696902016-01-25T16:57:37.043-05:002016-01-25T16:57:37.043-05:00God knows all facts, therefore, no brute facts.God knows all facts, therefore, no brute facts.Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-78633893325347491302016-01-25T16:33:54.955-05:002016-01-25T16:33:54.955-05:00Is TAG dependant on the PSR? It seems that brute f...Is TAG dependant on the PSR? It seems that brute facts would undercut it. Like some argue laws of logic are brute facts and we must hold to them because we can't rationally deny them. So, as Christians do we claim that there are no brute facts? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-60381386432006695142016-01-25T09:19:24.086-05:002016-01-25T09:19:24.086-05:00Does TAG rely on The PSR? It seems if brute facts ...Does TAG rely on The PSR? It seems if brute facts can be the case(like many claim the laws of logic are) doesn't that undercut TAG?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-24443972985148904632016-01-25T03:34:57.295-05:002016-01-25T03:34:57.295-05:00Couldn't one just say that these are brute fac...Couldn't one just say that these are brute facts( like laws of logic)? Is TAG dependant on PSR?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-58888775664575214102016-01-11T17:25:03.093-05:002016-01-11T17:25:03.093-05:00What is your view on Brute Facts?(Some say laws of...What is your view on Brute Facts?(Some say laws of logic are just brute facts. Some go as far to say that intelligibility is just a brute fact). So, is TAG somewhat dependant on PSR?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-59374794376888259352015-09-03T14:29:42.069-04:002015-09-03T14:29:42.069-04:00I wonder if this guy who denies the existence of m...I wonder if this guy who denies the existence of material entities gets tired of typing such nonsense on his material keyboard. But as if that was not bad enough, the entire proof takes on an invalid form from start to finish. His "therefores" never follow from what precedes them. Then there's all the informal fallacies...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-60969108914912626142015-08-30T20:29:41.971-04:002015-08-30T20:29:41.971-04:00Incoherent and self-refuting. Obviously so.Incoherent and self-refuting. Obviously so.Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.com