tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post3881638967827168126..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Scripturalists in the MatrixRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-61240440478874509882016-08-21T09:23:11.532-04:002016-08-21T09:23:11.532-04:00>How does Sean know he has hands? <
I don’t...>How does Sean know he has hands? <<br /><br />I don’t. I opine it and unlike Hays, I draw a distinction between knowledge and opinion.<br /><br />>Does Sean believe we have sensory organs? If so, what's their purpose? What function did God design eyes and ears to perform? <<br /><br />I do believe we have sensory organs and it would seem God designed eyes and ears in order for men to better function in the world God created. Then again, unlike Hays I don’t believe that beliefs alone qualify as knowledge. Also, unlike Hays, I prefer not to beg the question and conclude that because God designed eyes and ears that they are therefore a means of cognition. God made stomachs too in order to function in God’s world, but I don’t think stomachs are means to knowledge or that eating is cognitive. Instead, I believe “Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'"<br /><br />>What does Sean believe about the world? Does he think our organs and body parts actually exist? Or does he think God feeds delusive input into our minds to simulate the illusion of a physical world with bodies, eyes, ears, &c.? <<br /><br />I believe a lot of things about the world including the reality of hallucinations. I also believe that God indeed feeds delusive input into the minds of men to simulate all sorts of illusions, including the illusion that there is no God and no judgment. For a list of other delusive input God feeds into the minds of men, I think Hays can find a partial list starting in Romans 1:22ff.<br /><br />>ii) However, he attributes to me a position I explicitly deny. I've done so on many occasions. Let's take a recent example:<br /><br />Here and elsewhere, Ehrman keeps insisting that unless we have the autographa, we no longer have the words of God. But that confuses the medium with the message. That confounds God's word with a record of God's word. The word of God isn't the paper and ink, but the message. A MSS is just a storage and retrieval mechanism–like a CD. The same information, the same word of God, can be instantiated in various media. It can be written. Or spoken. Or digitized. Or memorized. In the latter case, the word of God is mentally rather than materially exemplified. God's word isn't lost whenever a physical record of God's word is lost. <<br /><br />Actually, I think the above statement is quite good. I don’t spend much time on this blog and I am sorry I missed it. I would go a bit further and say that God’s word consists of all the propositions God has revealed to include all the necessary inferences as well. This is an important point because propositions are the meanings of a declarative sentences, the message, and while seemingly obvious, only propositions can be true or false. Sensations, whatever they may be, cannot be true or false, so it would seem that “sense knowledge” – a phrase Hays frequently uses – is either begging the question or just nonsense. I’m inclined to think it’s the latter. <br /><br /><br /><br />>ii) Since, however, Sean denies sense knowledge, doesn't that mean he thinks colors are essentially ideas? The color red is just a concept of red? <<br /><br />Not sure what else colors might be other than ideas? I had a friend who couldn’t see any colors at all. Maybe he is the one seeing the world as I t really is? How do I know? Unlike Hays, I try not to be so presumptuous concerning things I don’t know.<br /><br />>What does Sean make of all those Biblical commands to "write" down God's revelations, viz., Exod 17:14, 34:1,27; Deut 17:18, 27:3,8; 31:19, Isa 30:8; Jer 30:2; 36:2,28; Ezk 24:2; 43:11; Lk 1:3; Rev 1:11,19, 21:5. ? That means committing the word of God to writing. Paper and ink (or papyrus or velum or stone).<<br /><br />I would refer Hays to what he wrote above and that God’s word “isn’t paper and ink, but the message.” I also acknowledge “the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word.” Sense knowledge notwithstanding.Sean Geretyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01483041680109436046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-79765429887857886652016-08-15T23:58:36.634-04:002016-08-15T23:58:36.634-04:00i) So you can't rebut my specific arguments in...i) So you can't rebut my specific arguments in response to your comment. Thanks for raising your white flag of surrender.<br /><br />ii) I already dealt with the primer you cite. I did that a year ago, so you're way behind the curve–as usual. You need to keep up with the actual state of the argument:<br /><br />http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2015/08/proving-first-principles.htmlstevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-44762841515794875302016-08-15T13:59:04.029-04:002016-08-15T13:59:04.029-04:00This might help you Steve, even though I can't...This might help you Steve, even though I can't help with your self-serving smugness. https://godshammer.wordpress.com/2016/01/22/gordon-clark-primer/Sean Geretyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01483041680109436046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-24687340840039396172016-08-13T10:56:32.384-04:002016-08-13T10:56:32.384-04:00Speaking of presuppositionalism, Greg Bahnsen'...Speaking of presuppositionalism, Greg Bahnsen's doctoral dissertation is available for download here:<br /><br /><a href="http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/p15799coll3/id/388025" rel="nofollow">http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/p15799coll3/id/388025</a><br /><br />The title of the dissertation is, <i>A Conditional Resolution of the Apparent Paradox of Self-Deception</i>ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-56274549482365872452016-08-12T22:16:38.246-04:002016-08-12T22:16:38.246-04:00Sometimes Clarkians remind me of Muslims and the E...Sometimes Clarkians remind me of Muslims and the Eastern Orthodox. Just as Muslims are culturally stuck in 7th century Arabia and the Orthodox are stuck theologically in the 8th century (think last of the 7 ecumenical councils), so Clarkians are theologically and philosophically stuck in Gordon Clark's limited 20th century understanding of epistemology and philosophy. Philosophy and epistemology has progressed since then and Van Tillian presuppositionalism apparently can do (and has done) better at incorporating such advances.<br /><br />Clarkianism does great at exposing the bankruptcy of secular epistemology and philosophy, but unfortunately doesn't supply a positive answer and alternative that's livable, Biblical and philosophically consistent (contrary to Clark's own insistence and emphasis on logical consistency).ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.com