tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post6267714648036334904..comments2023-04-14T04:28:54.000-04:00Comments on Reformed Apologist: Confusion Over The Transcendental Argument For The Existence Of GodReformed Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comBlogger227125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-61977737439978316902016-05-24T18:21:31.918-04:002016-05-24T18:21:31.918-04:00Are you saying God(agreeing on omniscience) knows ...Are you saying God(agreeing on omniscience) knows things propositionally? Where would you fall on the Clark - Van Til controversy? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-47330977027783421682016-03-21T19:33:02.886-04:002016-03-21T19:33:02.886-04:00Me and a friend got into an argument about whether...Me and a friend got into an argument about whether Bahnsen Held to A or B theory of time. I said A he said B. Would you know? ( We also argued about which is Christian. Which the common sense view really fits the idea of the biblical progression of time Genesis to revelation)V.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-25008527130072833772016-03-14T14:53:57.872-04:002016-03-14T14:53:57.872-04:00The arbitrary part seems to go against the common ...The arbitrary part seems to go against the common view that God is a necessary being. While your objection ignores that and treats him as contingent. Vincentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-73247811162144493292016-03-14T14:40:51.057-04:002016-03-14T14:40:51.057-04:00I think that John Frame has some good input "...I think that John Frame has some good input "through the years have applied such reasoning to the concept of ethical goodness. Does God love the good because it is good, or is it good because God loves it? The latter answer would seem to make goodness something arbitrary; but the former answer would seem to make goodness independent of God.<br />The problem is resolved, I think, by the principle advanced in the lecture outline: that God’s nature is righteous and therefore normative. God loves goodness because he is good, and therefore he commands goodness in his revelation to man. Therefore in one sense, God loves the good because it is good; the concept is not arbitrary. Yet he does not need to look outside himself for a standard of goodness. That standard is his own character.<br />In some senses, too, the good is what God loves, what he commends and commands; the good is what he says is good! (1) Our only access to God’s nature is his Word. Therefore our concept of God’s goodness must be determined by his revealed word. For us, the good is good because God says it is. But this does not mean that God hits us with a lot of abstract commands which could have been opposite to what they are.1 The word reveals not only God’s commands, but also his nature. In the word we see how wonderful God’s character is, as well as the commands which proceed from it. The word also reveals our own nature, created by God to image him. In the word, we see that God’s commands are “for our good.” Thus God’s word gives us, not only commands, but also a context showing the background of those commands in God’s nature and his creative work.<br />(2) In another sense, this is also true for God himself. For God’s Word and God’s goodness are equally ultimate aspects of his character."<br /><br />Also, the old Euthyphro dilemma can be turned around on the atheist. Is something good merely because people (nations,communities,individuals) say it is Good? Or is something good because it is actually good? The first option makes it arbitrary (yet I think when pushed you'll be forced into Non cognitivism. Which then you have to deal with the Frege-Geach problem). The other options presents the idea that there is something out there , up and above that man must submit to.Vincentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-20437047007879259142016-03-14T13:48:50.419-04:002016-03-14T13:48:50.419-04:00I don't think I can help you other than by tak...I don't think I can help you other than by taking. Feel free to send contact phone number. I'd not publish and would try to phone.Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-16985017623023118742016-03-14T13:44:14.877-04:002016-03-14T13:44:14.877-04:00In other words,Is good-making property defined as ...In other words,Is good-making property defined as whatever God's nature is? Or are there good-making properties Which are required for the nature of God?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-79754584626225699932016-03-14T12:51:30.076-04:002016-03-14T12:51:30.076-04:00 It could be arbitrary if God had the nature he ha... It could be arbitrary if God had the nature he happened to have with no reason for it to be a given configuration over another. There’s no necessitating that he “could change his nature” for it to be arbitraryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-30624656496943723662016-03-12T05:52:22.388-05:002016-03-12T05:52:22.388-05:00Do you hold to A theory of time or B theory?Do you hold to A theory of time or B theory?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-50008643960752240402016-02-26T18:25:43.325-05:002016-02-26T18:25:43.325-05:00Read Romans 1:20 and Psalm 19:1,2.
God himself u...Read Romans 1:20 and Psalm 19:1,2. <br /><br />God himself utters forth speech through creation and providence. It's called general revelation. His thoughts are communicated to our minds. Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-2882017509608892912016-02-26T16:57:00.955-05:002016-02-26T16:57:00.955-05:00If sensations can be formed into proposition , the...If sensations can be formed into proposition , then it seems we can gain knowledge from our senses. But how does one get propositions from a non propositional source? That was really my thoughts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-33378621789826089452016-02-26T07:00:40.862-05:002016-02-26T07:00:40.862-05:00I no longer see my response to your 2:32 post but ...I no longer see my response to your 2:32 post but you apparently saw it given your 4:56 post. Anyway, here it is again: <br /><br />"Sensations that come through the senses to the mind can be formed into propositions. That means general revelation can be understood in propositional form. Yet also, an adult without senses and an infant who knows no words by which it is often thought statements must be formed and thereby propositions believed does nonetheless know God on some level. Is this propositional or non propositional?" <br /><br />Anyway, your query is ambiguous to me. You don't delineate your problem. You only say you have one.Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-71942471143746607992016-02-26T04:56:08.071-05:002016-02-26T04:56:08.071-05:00That is propositional.That is propositional.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-55626340796239743412016-02-24T02:32:02.184-05:002016-02-24T02:32:02.184-05:00If truth is propositional (I think we both agree,b...If truth is propositional (I think we both agree,but I assume this) , then how do we explain that (1) natural revelation comes through the senses yet gives the person knowledge of God and (2) we come to know scripture through our senses ? They seem on the surface to be a problem ( I was listening to a talk by Scott Oliphint)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-53413516040417664712015-11-11T15:56:35.034-05:002015-11-11T15:56:35.034-05:00V
As I said before, given the never ending open e...V<br /><br />As I said before, given the never ending open ended questions, I'll only discuss over the phone. Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-26922657261175284552015-11-11T14:28:19.952-05:002015-11-11T14:28:19.952-05:00How would you reply to certain positions?
Like ,Di...How would you reply to certain positions?<br />Like ,Dialetheism and objective idealism.Vincentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-91732696096938783682015-11-04T07:57:25.473-05:002015-11-04T07:57:25.473-05:00Yes, G Clark. And yes, on this I do agree with all...Yes, G Clark. And yes, on this I do agree with all three, that truth is mental. It can only exist in minds. :)Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-87960228288915740062015-11-03T22:29:06.484-05:002015-11-03T22:29:06.484-05:00Your last comment answered my question. So, one la...Your last comment answered my question. So, one last question . Do you agree with Augustine,Plantinga, (I'm guessing Gordan) Clark? Thank youRexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-90026242884378646982015-11-03T07:57:17.093-05:002015-11-03T07:57:17.093-05:00Rex, I'll take your call. Please post your num...Rex, I'll take your call. Please post your number and I won't publish it. Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-45759833433852084722015-11-03T07:55:44.984-05:002015-11-03T07:55:44.984-05:00Bahnsen didn't bring in the mind of God in tha...Bahnsen didn't bring in the mind of God in that manner. He asked Stein how a naturalist like can account for universal abstract entities that are invariant. He then noted how God can provide the precondition.... That propositions are mental is not a Bahnsen argument. Augustine, Clark and Plantinga employed it. Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-91907700350456523812015-11-02T22:27:24.349-05:002015-11-02T22:27:24.349-05:00Well, I asked about laws of logic . Mainly Bahnse...Well, I asked about laws of logic . Mainly Bahnsens argument (used against Stein). Would you use the laws of logic argument in this manner. Laws of logic are absolute and unchanging. They are abstract entities. Abstract entities exist in minds. How does an atheist account for immaterial,unchanging,absolute, universal abstract entities without a mind that has the same qualities? ( Btw. I'm not arguing against Christianity. I'm an orthodox Christian. I'm just asking a certain question about TAG)Rexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-54610957529342572222015-11-02T22:16:42.784-05:002015-11-02T22:16:42.784-05:00You're not making sense to me. Not sure what y...You're not making sense to me. Not sure what your grasp is of the terms. Your thoughts seem disjointed. I don't see any point in continuing. There's probably enough in this marathon thread to chew on. Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-53556707216377415972015-11-02T22:07:21.488-05:002015-11-02T22:07:21.488-05:00So, you're saying abstractions need minds? Whi...So, you're saying abstractions need minds? Which then follows that you're saying they're conceptual . So, don't we end up in the same position as the first comment stated?Rexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-76934564294980582432015-11-02T21:55:43.977-05:002015-11-02T21:55:43.977-05:00By abstract he meant not material in nature. That&...By abstract he meant not material in nature. That's all. They're transcendentals. Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-66272301267967732302015-11-02T21:43:37.014-05:002015-11-02T21:43:37.014-05:00You know the Dr. Bahnsen -Dr. Stein argument. Laws... You know the Dr. Bahnsen -Dr. Stein argument. Laws of Logic are invariant,immutable, or absolute and unchanging. It doesn't make a difference there. But the controversial issue is the conceptual or abstract part.Rexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-85617125030658660332015-11-02T20:05:17.599-05:002015-11-02T20:05:17.599-05:00Not tracking, Rex. I believe the law of non contra...Not tracking, Rex. I believe the law of non contradiction is an attribute of God. Since God is ultimate and given His simplicity, I have no problem saying that God is not only logical but also Logic. He's love, good, etc. Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.com