tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post2808940629853333370..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: How to Answer the FoolRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-22806238865735479692013-07-27T17:12:00.111-04:002013-07-27T17:12:00.111-04:00Good review. Hope Turretinfan listens.
God be wi...Good review. Hope Turretinfan listens.<br /><br />God be with you,<br />DanGodismyjudgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05310455924556730920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-52616901033457736822013-07-26T22:57:27.648-04:002013-07-26T22:57:27.648-04:00Spot on review. Spot on review. James T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/01142229245740596936noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-44605389392381149572013-07-22T17:13:32.991-04:002013-07-22T17:13:32.991-04:00Sorry Steve, I had replied to Jeff and accidentall...Sorry Steve, I had replied to Jeff and accidentally placed it here. Thanks for the tip on James Anderson. I'll def take some time to read up.Auggybendoggyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01730767940271614636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-59160968320555289502013-07-22T13:23:37.721-04:002013-07-22T13:23:37.721-04:00Sorry Jeff, I'm being ambiguous. I meant that ...Sorry Jeff, I'm being ambiguous. I meant that it seems to me (not that it is) that in order to convince someone of a proposition they must first accept the premises. Since atheists don't accept Christian premises like the existence of Christ or God, then charging that they're borrowing from a "christian worldview" is meaningless to them and does nothing to help them to come to agreement. If you're arguing with an atheist, I would assume it's important to convince them of your premises that lead to your conclusion? So if the proposition is set that there is only a Christian world view and no other exists, then they would have to agree. But they don't agree because they believe there are many ways of viewing the world. Am I wrong about that?Auggybendoggyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01730767940271614636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-32763376593869849152013-07-22T13:22:45.831-04:002013-07-22T13:22:45.831-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Auggybendoggyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01730767940271614636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-22512435645787530832013-07-21T22:04:55.821-04:002013-07-21T22:04:55.821-04:00You may also want to see this to see that TAs aren...You may also want to see this to see that TAs aren't "questions" but arguments, and deductive ones:<br /><br />http://www.proginosko.com/docs/No_Dilemma_for_TAG.pdfMaul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-67711055807761146112013-07-21T21:41:04.992-04:002013-07-21T21:41:04.992-04:00I know that definition. I also have the book. In a...I know that definition. I also have the book. In any case, as the SEP article makes clear, TAs are indeed deductive arguments.Maul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-66720696585826193532013-07-21T13:13:10.438-04:002013-07-21T13:13:10.438-04:00Mr.,
This isn't Sye's definition- this is...Mr.,<br /><br />This isn't Sye's definition- this is Stanford's definition (buy the book).<br />The definition then concludes with, "Thus, transcendental arguments attempt to discover the preconditions of human experience".<br /><br />Seems to me (and Stephen Hawking) that "preconditions" are a more important consideration- don't you think?Ron Van Brenkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15623171051016737306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-37888297766413549302013-07-21T12:46:24.914-04:002013-07-21T12:46:24.914-04:00Mr.,
I sympathize with your frustration but Sye i...Mr.,<br /><br />I sympathize with your frustration but Sye is neither "naive" nor "ignorant". And I greatly admire his boldness and his piety. <br />Also, following someone because they are "bold and pious" is not a bad thing- sure narrows down the mentors, huh? <br /><br />But what Sye is piggybacking on here is Van Til (via Bahnsen). Where Van Til insists that "probability means something very different to a non-believer". That "non-believers like Hume will not allow for any probability". And that even "possibility [a much larger category] means something very different to a non-believer as well". That non-believers really don't know what they are talking about. That their categories are much too small.<br /><br />Now, Van Til was somewhat of a minimalist but did "not reject the theistic proofs" and endorsed the "historical and archaeological proofs" which his colleagues were better at.<br />Yet I think that Sye has successfully shown in that even Van Til's minimalist argument for the existence of God is entirely sufficient to convict man of contempt- and he is to be applauded for that. <br /><br />As Van Til would say 'a trinity of cheers for Sye...'Ron Van Brenkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15623171051016737306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-47494693809564339522013-07-21T12:08:17.646-04:002013-07-21T12:08:17.646-04:00"transcendental arguments do not argue from f..."transcendental arguments do not argue from facts and evidences to a conclusion by induction or deduction like traditions arguments (which assumes that logic is more fundamental/ultimate/epistemologically necessary than God), but rather asks how facts, evidences, etc. can even exist, have meaning, and be intelligible to human beings in the first place."<br /><br />This really is "nuclear strength" apologetics. Apparently the famed "transcendental argument" for God's existence isn't an *argument* at all but, rather, a *question*!<br /><br />Maul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-66025737213686423292013-07-20T21:45:10.932-04:002013-07-20T21:45:10.932-04:00Since I can't prove Sye's existence with a...Since I can't prove Sye's existence with a TAS, but I can to a probability < 1, say, .8., does that mean I believe in a probability*?<br /><br />No, I believe in Sye. Is it "a probable Sye"? Sye's phrasings are enough to show he doesn't know what he's talking about. <br /><br />He also says the Bible has "a" (singular) approach. This apparently follows, granting Sye his (questionable) exegesis, from the fact that Gen. 1 doesn't attempt to prove God's existence. So it's hasty. But give Sye the premise that the Bible *never* attempts to prove God's existence. Does it follow from this that it is improper or somehow impious to attempt to do so? Of course not. This is similar to how some baptists argue: We don't have an example of infant baptism, therefore infants should not be baptized. Or, in contemporary terms, "We don't have an example of a woman president; therefore, women should not be presidents." Even if one believes the conclusion, it should be for the reasons cited. <br /><br />Unfortunately, Christians will repeat the same error and follow someone just because he's "bold" and "pious." But in reality it's more of the same, Christians looking naive and ignorant of basic issues.Maul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-35625611511429783252013-07-20T17:05:16.135-04:002013-07-20T17:05:16.135-04:00Auggybendoggy writes "Seems one has to meet t...Auggybendoggy writes "Seems one has to meet them on their grounds to talk them out of the forest so to speak."<br /><br />What does this mean?Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14336155651560538168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-20679561627010882642013-07-20T13:04:26.980-04:002013-07-20T13:04:26.980-04:00It's important to judge presuppositionalism by...It's important to judge presuppositionalism by its best representatives, e.g. James Anderson. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-33272427741468758752013-07-20T12:51:34.443-04:002013-07-20T12:51:34.443-04:00Steve, Excellent review. The points you make are ...Steve, Excellent review. The points you make are what keep me from embracing the Pre-suppositional approach - although, I imagine that's not all. I've always had issues when pres-sups give unbelievers a hard time about arguing from their own point of view because they're borrowing from the Christian world view. Such a claim seems to me to lead in circles because you have to prove to them they are borrowing from the Christian world view and they don't yet believe in Christ at all - so why would they suddenly see that? Seems one has to meet them on their grounds to talk them out of the forest so to speak.Auggybendoggyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01730767940271614636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-69357876291379823192013-07-20T08:11:43.007-04:002013-07-20T08:11:43.007-04:00That was friendly Steve,
As I mentioned to my fri...That was friendly Steve,<br /><br />As I mentioned to my friend Sye the other day (we went to the same church)... listen to recent Reformed Forum podcasts for even friendlier criticism of his 'strict apologetic' from Dr. Scott Oliphint.<br /><br />I have great love and respect for Sye. And his request for your review strengthens my respect immensely. Unfortunately he was not respecting my "friendly fire". <br /><br />BTW TUAD- See if you can get a hold of the book Classical Apologetics by Gerstner, Sproul and Lindsay (Sye has my copy). Frame likes much of their argument for supplementing pre-sup with evidentialism. <br /><br />I also use this supplemental approach in this post-<br />http://vanberean.blogspot.ca/2013/06/a-novel-argument-against-homosexuality.html <br />Ron Van Brenkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15623171051016737306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-8814016380534897322013-07-19T21:26:00.480-04:002013-07-19T21:26:00.480-04:00Anything wrong with being a pragmatist when it com...Anything wrong with being a pragmatist when it comes to apologetics-evangelism? Sometimes use evidentialism, sometimes use presuppositionsism. Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-32764892754431567252013-07-19T20:36:40.986-04:002013-07-19T20:36:40.986-04:00Good review, thanks.Good review, thanks.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.com