You know that feeling when someone describes and puts a name to something that you came to believe on your own? That just happened to me with this video, thanks
Why do do people lie to themselves in such obvious fashion to think that presuppoositionalism dies anything but make its proponents look foolish or dishonest.
There is only one thing anyone can be absolutely certain of: I exist. Everything else is just levels of certainty based in the investigation of your existence.
I think I'll try testimonyialist more. Telling what God saved me from being and doing. And how He changed my life and views and presumption and presented evidence. He brought my pain from the sin of drunkenness to lead me to want what (who) I needed, the savior Jesus Christ. Then he restored me and health to me despite me not deserving healthy life and mental clarity. He knocked down my trust in myself and falshood and guided me to and through His word. Praise the Lord Jesus. Thank you Father.
If you had a basic class in logic, you should already know Van Til’s apologetic method is absurd. Van Til’s so-called “transcendental” argument for God’s existence wrongly claims God’s existence can be proved from the impossibility of the contrary. Doesn’t that sound impressive? The problem is that anyone with a semester of basic deductive logic already knows you cannot prove anything from the impossibility of the contrary. Why? Because contraries can both be wrong. One can only prove something to be true from the impossibility of the contradictory. Of course, Van Til denigrated Logic his entire career. He was an irrationist. Van Til was not a presuppositionalist. He publicly taught the satanic view that the Bible is replete with irreconcilable paradoxes (contradictions). Van Til’s so-called analogical predication is actually equivocal predication-for he constantly maintained that the mind of God never coincided with the minds of men at any given point. Since God is omniscient-knowledge is impossible for men. The inescapable implication for Van Til is that no man can ever know anything about the Gospel in particular and the Bible in general-pure satanism.
I love the content. Can you deal with the issue that the word Bible contained in the Scripturalist's axiom is ambiguous? Which canon, why? Clark would presumably agree that words without a clear definition are meaningless and because the canon of Scripture is disputed, the axiom may need improvement.
Brother I've been binging on your podcast for the last few days. I love your easy to understand analysis, but most importantly I love that you truly live out 1 Peter 3:15 when giving a reason for the hope that is in you. Lord knows I've failed in that area. Keep up the great work!
I really appreciate the presupposition all method. I lean evidence-based because I geek out on biblical creation and I loved the nerdy stuff. Anyway, I’m still a work in progress. I’m reading Dr. Lisle’s Ultimate Proof of Creation and have plenty to learn. Thank you.
Hey Redefine, random question for you... you seem like a smart guy and you're into the intellectual side of truth seeking. Have you looked into Flat Earth with much depth? It sounds crazy at first, then it just comes across as misinformed people... but a deep analysis of the debate reveals it's almost certainly true. But people experience such severe cognitive dissonance, since it's such a different way of viewing where we live (and there's so much fake Flat Earth info out which is intended to deliberately make it seem foolish by making easily refutable claims that don't even need to be made, all of which show up near the top of the results of all major engines) that most people just dismiss it as absurd prior to proper investigation.
Yes, to my knowledge as well, you are correct on that point. However, I am quite sure that he did in fact understand the Christian worldview as providing a firm basis for intelligible experience, otherwise he would not of held to the position. In his view, the Christian worldview was the best and most coherent worldview available, and by extension, such a worldview would have to provide those necessary pre-conditions. Clark did not use transcendental argument however, and I think on that point him and Van Til were different.
