tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post111971494515583093..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Sense & nonsenseRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-88869082543418065272009-01-10T16:52:00.000-05:002009-01-10T16:52:00.000-05:00I need some clarification concerning Cheung's epis...I need some clarification concerning Cheung's epistemology? After reading his Ultimate Questions book; I wanted to know if his belief in Occasionalism is dependent on the senses in order to have the occasion in which the Logos conveys knowledge to his mind? If the 5 senses are not necessary then is knowledge conveyed from telepathy?<BR/> <BR/>Cheung made this statement:<BR/> <BR/>" Second, not only do they [Psedo-Presuppusitionalists] fail just as miserably as the unbelievers in justifying or accounting for their reliance on sensation, intuition, induction, and science, they even<BR/>admit that these irrational ways of knowing and reasoning are necessary in order to discover the contents of divine revelation. In other words, although they claim that it is revelation that accounts for, say, our sensations, our sensations are what allow us to<BR/>access revelation in the first place.<BR/><BR/> <BR/>The result is not just one vicious circle disintegrating into a mess of confusion and nonsense, but worse than that, they have placed themselves in the exact position of the unbelievers – they make themselves and their own human investigation the center and<BR/>precondition of all knowledge. They explicitly place revelation under sensation, intuition, induction, and science. And in many ways, this is even worse than even an explicitly anti-<BR/>Christian philosophy that has enough sense to question irrational epistemologies."<BR/> <BR/>How can he say this if he is dependent on the senses? Could you please clarify Steve.R. Dozierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05886710825410814697noreply@blogger.com