This was a plea to my friends at HCR to stop wasting time on accommodation theories and evidential apologetics, and to get back to preaching the word.
Jason Bradfield
Jason embraced Christ his senior year of high school in 1993; served two years as a youth minister in Anniston, AL and Houma, LA with the Southern Baptist denomination; and briefly attended New Orleans Theological Seminary. He is currently pursuing a M.Div with Whitefield Theological Seminary and is the 'web servant' for Whitefield Media. During a stretch of around three years, he took the good news of the Kingship of Christ to some of the most poverty stricken areas of Anniston and Birmingham, AL, as well as New Orleans, LA, in the form of Hip Hop. He embraced ‘full preterism’ in 2oo3 and renounced it in 2o1o. He serves as RCM’s ‘web-servant’ and runs a family blog at MinionDominion. Jason resides in Knoxville, TN with his wife Amanda and children Jordan, Alexis, Kaylee, and Anna. Check out more from Jason.
Augustine
Prove to me that the sun will rise tomorrow without inductive reason. Try to drive your car or cook your food without inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is a part of every aspect of our life. There is some truth in what you are saying but claiming inductive reasoning is worthless is a ridiculous statement for anyone who actually must work, walk, eat and fucntion.
If inductive reasoning was worthless, airplanes would not fly, cars would not drive, etc. All of these were derived by science through inductive reasoning, not scriptural propositions.
Deductive reasoning only is effective when the premises are accepted as true,so it is an internal form of reasoning, only for those within the community that accepts those principles as true.
Inductive reasoning gains entrance to teh community which accepts the premises as true.
Science has encapsulated many truths on which we base our daily lives, through induction. Saying we should dismiss induction is very Humean, but does not speak from scripture. God uses inductive reasoning in many of his commandments, do this because if you do this will happen (inductive) not just do this because I say so.
Livign in a real world takes both inductive and deductive reasoning. The atheist is reductionistic, but youa re as well. YOu deny they way God created us to learn about our world. God did not implant propositions about reality into our minds. Instead he gave us cause and effect, do this and you shall surely die, not do this, period. God teaches through induction as well. Or can you show me from scripture hwo to make an airplane fly? Or how to care for a newborn? Or how to write a book? Or how to speak? This are all things we learn from induction, not deduction.
Your reductionistic theory fo knowledge wroks within a limited number fo Christians, but it worthless in living in a real worl, were induction is necessary just to walk across the street.
Augustine
Prove to me that the sun will rise tomorrow without inductive reason. Try to drive your car or cook your food without inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is a part of every aspect of our life. There is some truth in what you are saying but claiming inductive reasoning is worthless is a ridiculous statement for anyone who actually must work, walk, eat and fucntion.
If inductive reasoning was worthless, airplanes would not fly, cars would not drive, etc. All of these were derived by science through inductive reasoning, not scriptural propositions.
Deductive reasoning only is effective when the premises are accepted as true,so it is an internal form of reasoning, only for those within the community that accepts those principles as true.
Inductive reasoning gains entrance to teh community which accepts the premises as true.
Science has encapsulated many truths on which we base our daily lives, through induction. Saying we should dismiss induction is very Humean, but does not speak from scripture. God uses inductive reasoning in many of his commandments, do this because if you do this will happen (inductive) not just do this because I say so.
Livign in a real world takes both inductive and deductive reasoning. The atheist is reductionistic, but youa re as well. YOu deny they way God created us to learn about our world. God did not implant propositions about reality into our minds. Instead he gave us cause and effect, do this and you shall surely die, not do this, period. God teaches through induction as well. Or can you show me from scripture hwo to make an airplane fly? Or how to care for a newborn? Or how to write a book? Or how to speak? This are all things we learn from induction, not deduction.
Your reductionistic theory fo knowledge wroks within a limited number fo Christians, but it worthless in living in a real worl, were induction is necessary just to walk across the street.
Augustine
Prove to me that the sun will rise tomorrow without inductive reason. Try to drive your car or cook your food without inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is a part of every aspect of our life. There is some truth in what you are saying but claiming inductive reasoning is worthless is a ridiculous statement for anyone who actually must work, walk, eat and fucntion.
If inductive reasoning was worthless, airplanes would not fly, cars would not drive, etc. All of these were derived by science through inductive reasoning, not scriptural propositions.
Deductive reasoning only is effective when the premises are accepted as true,so it is an internal form of reasoning, only for those within the community that accepts those principles as true.
Inductive reasoning gains entrance to teh community which accepts the premises as true.
Science has encapsulated many truths on which we base our daily lives, through induction. Saying we should dismiss induction is very Humean, but does not speak from scripture. God uses inductive reasoning in many of his commandments, do this because if you do this will happen (inductive) not just do this because I say so.
Livign in a real world takes both inductive and deductive reasoning. The atheist is reductionistic, but youa re as well. YOu deny they way God created us to learn about our world. God did not implant propositions about reality into our minds. Instead he gave us cause and effect, do this and you shall surely die, not do this, period. God teaches through induction as well. Or can you show me from scripture hwo to make an airplane fly? Or how to care for a newborn? Or how to write a book? Or how to speak? This are all things we learn from induction, not deduction.
Your reductionistic theory fo knowledge wroks within a limited number fo Christians, but it worthless in living in a real worl, were induction is necessary just to walk across the street.
Jason
Augustine (real name? if not, please use real name in replies so i know who i am talking to), perhaps you should watch the video again, because i never said that induction was “worthless.” Since you have constructed this straw-man, most of your response is void. I do want to make a few points, however.
1. You asked me to prove to you that the sun will rise tomorrow without inductive reasoning. Easy:
“Thus says the Lord,
who gives the sun for light by day
and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night,
who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar—
the Lord of hosts is his name:
“If this fixed order departs
from before me, declares the Lord,
then shall the offspring of Israel cease
from being a nation before me forever.”
Here, God compares his faithfulness to the offspring of Israel with the fixed order of the sun, moon, and stars. This lets me know that that the sun will be around tomorrow. I believe that God keeps his promises, do you?
Now, your turn. Prove to me, inductively, that the sun will rise tomorrow. Let’s see the argument laid out.
2. What “some truth” do you agree with, considering that you opposed the principles underlining my entire video?
3. I never denied that we use induction throughout our day. I’m using it now. That, however, was not the point of my video. You can cite another 200 examples of scientific advancement and you will still be missing the point. There is a distinction between a flat out denial of induction vs a limited acceptance of induction. You falsely accuse me of the former, when i’m arguing the latter.
4. You state, “Deductive reasoning only is effective when the premises are accepted as true,so it is an internal form of reasoning, only for those within the community that accepts those principles as true. Inductive reasoning gains entrance to teh community which accepts the premises as true.”
This makes no sense whatsoever. For clarification: Logic deals with inferences and whether they are valid or not. One can make a valid deductive argument, yet conclude with a falsehood. Logic does not supply us with truth. So why do you think inductive reasoning has an advantage over deductive reasoning in the acceptance of “truth”? What is it about inductive reasoning that gives it an edge in “gaining entrance” as accepted truth? Why should i accept the premises behind your inductive argument? What is your definition of truth?
What does flying a plane have to do with “truth”?
5. You say, “God uses inductive reasoning in many of his commandments, do this because if you do this will happen (inductive) not just do this because I say so.”
What? Again, this makes no sense at all. God, for example, told Adam that if they ate of the tree, they would “surely die.” What does that have to do with “induction”? You need to explain this in more detail, other than just saying it is “inductive”.
God said that they would “surely die”. It was a certainty….Don’t test God…Do this, and you’re dead. The penalty of death was not derived by God from something else; its certainty rest in the authority of God. In other words, death was certain because God said it was certain.
Nor did their “knowledge” of the command/penalty have anything to do with inductively learning from the world. God spoke. They heard. And the certainty of that command/warning did NOT depend on whether they accepted it or not!
What you are saying doesn’t make any sense. Please provide a definition of “inductive reasoning.”
6. Funny you mention “atheists.” I have been arguing this form of apologetics for a long time and almost every atheist that has responded to me has done so saying almost everything you have, verbatim. No joke. The exact response. Just visit my YouTube channel and read all the comments by atheists. http://www.youtube.com/user/kingnebster
They, like you, argue for the validity of induction in learning truth. They have to because they cannot meet the demands of logic! Listen to my podcast here for further explanation: Changing the Rules – http://thereignofchrist.com/2009/09/changing-the-rules/
So, i don’t know what you think you are accomplishing by comparing me to atheists when in actuality, you are the one making their exact same arguments.
7. Why are you asking me to show you from Scripture how to build a plane? I never said i could. Again, you entirely missed the point. Furthermore, what does being able to write a book have to do with “knowing/learning truth”?
8. What do you mean it works for a limited number of Christians? Either it works or it doesn’t.
I really do hope you take a little more time in explaining yourself in detail.
Jason Bradfield
Augustine (real name? if not, please use real name in replies so i know who i am talking to), perhaps you should watch the video again, because i never said that induction was “worthless.” Since you have constructed this straw-man, most of your response is void. I do want to make a few points, however.
1. You asked me to prove to you that the sun will rise tomorrow without inductive reasoning. Easy:
“Thus says the Lord,
who gives the sun for light by day
and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night,
who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar—
the Lord of hosts is his name:
“If this fixed order departs
from before me, declares the Lord,
then shall the offspring of Israel cease
from being a nation before me forever.”
Here, God compares his faithfulness to the offspring of Israel with the fixed order of the sun, moon, and stars. This lets me know that that the sun will be around tomorrow. I believe that God keeps his promises, do you?
Now, your turn. Prove to me, inductively, that the sun will rise tomorrow. Let’s see the argument laid out.
2. What “some truth” do you agree with, considering that you opposed the principles underlining my entire video?
3. I never denied that we use induction throughout our day. I’m using it now. That, however, was not the point of my video. You can cite another 200 examples of scientific advancement and you will still be missing the point. There is a distinction between a flat out denial of induction vs a limited acceptance of induction. You falsely accuse me of the former, when i’m arguing the latter.
4. You state, “Deductive reasoning only is effective when the premises are accepted as true,so it is an internal form of reasoning, only for those within the community that accepts those principles as true. Inductive reasoning gains entrance to teh community which accepts the premises as true.”
This makes no sense whatsoever. For clarification: Logic deals with inferences and whether they are valid or not. One can make a valid deductive argument, yet conclude with a falsehood. Logic does not supply us with truth. So why do you think inductive reasoning has an advantage over deductive reasoning in the acceptance of “truth”? What is it about inductive reasoning that gives it an edge in “gaining entrance” as accepted truth? Why should i accept the premises behind your inductive argument? What is your definition of truth?
What does flying a plane have to do with “truth”?
5. You say, “God uses inductive reasoning in many of his commandments, do this because if you do this will happen (inductive) not just do this because I say so.”
What? Again, this makes no sense at all. God, for example, told Adam that if they ate of the tree, they would “surely die.” What does that have to do with “induction”? You need to explain this in more detail, other than just saying it is “inductive”.
God said that they would “surely die”. It was a certainty….Don’t test God…Do this, and you’re dead. The penalty of death was not derived by God from something else; its certainty rest in the authority of God. In other words, death was certain because God said it was certain.
Nor did their “knowledge” of the command/penalty have anything to do with inductively learning from the world. God spoke. They heard. And the certainty of that command/warning did NOT depend on whether they accepted it or not!
What you are saying doesn’t make any sense. Please provide a definition of “inductive reasoning.”
6. Funny you mention “atheists.” I have been arguing this form of apologetics for a long time and almost every atheist that has responded to me has done so saying almost everything you have, verbatim. No joke. The exact response. Just visit my YouTube channel and read all the comments by atheists. http://www.youtube.com/user/kingnebster
They, like you, argue for the validity of induction in learning truth. They have to because they cannot meet the demands of logic! Listen to my podcast here for further explanation: Changing the Rules – http://thereignofchrist.com/2009/09/changing-the-rules/
So, i don’t know what you think you are accomplishing by comparing me to atheists when in actuality, you are the one making their exact same arguments.
7. Why are you asking me to show you from Scripture how to build a plane? I never said i could. Again, you entirely missed the point. Furthermore, what does being able to write a book have to do with “knowing/learning truth”?
8. What do you mean it works for a limited number of Christians? Either it works or it doesn’t.
I really do hope you take a little more time in explaining yourself in detail.
Anonymous
Amen! The power to convert the hearts of men lies in the word of God – Rom 10:17. If you don’t give them scripture (like your answer to Augustine) then you have given them nothing as far as truth is concerned. It will be that word that works upon them, not the wisdom of this world. I had only heard one scripture that later the Lord brought to my mind at an appropriate time, and because of believing it and putting my hope in that promise, I called upon the Lord. And no evolutionist arguments or philosophical arguments even arose. We’ve got to quit trying to work from their paradigm and learn to do what we are told!
Robin
Anonymous
Amen! The power to convert the hearts of men lies in the word of God – Rom 10:17. If you don’t give them scripture (like your answer to Augustine) then you have given them nothing as far as truth is concerned. It will be that word that works upon them, not the wisdom of this world. I had only heard one scripture that later the Lord brought to my mind at an appropriate time, and because of believing it and putting my hope in that promise, I called upon the Lord. And no evolutionist arguments or philosophical arguments even arose. We’ve got to quit trying to work from their paradigm and learn to do what we are told!
Robin
MoGrace2u
Amen! The power to convert the hearts of men lies in the word of God – Rom 10:17. If you don’t give them scripture (like your answer to Augustine) then you have given them nothing as far as truth is concerned. It will be that word that works upon them, not the wisdom of this world. I had only heard one scripture that later the Lord brought to my mind at an appropriate time, and because of believing it and putting my hope in that promise, I called upon the Lord. And no evolutionist arguments or philosophical arguments even arose. We’ve got to quit trying to work from their paradigm and learn to do what we are told!
Robin
Sam
I would suggest Augustine read David Hume.
“Limited power of induction.” I like that…has a nice ring.
God knows no induction since He knows all things, past, present, future. Therefore, God does not use “induction.”
Induction is not “worthless.” Jason never said that. It’s “useful” and “practical.” It cannot ever, though, be a means of establishing absolute propositions.
By absolute propositions, I mean universal propositions that are never subject to change. They are true today, yesterday, and forever in all possible worlds. Inductive reasoning, by its very structure, is, therefore, incapable of doing this, any logic textbook will tell you this.
Finally, read David Hume.
Did I mention David Hume?
Sam
I would suggest Augustine read David Hume.
“Limited power of induction.” I like that…has a nice ring.
God knows no induction since He knows all things, past, present, future. Therefore, God does not use “induction.”
Induction is not “worthless.” Jason never said that. It’s “useful” and “practical.” It cannot ever, though, be a means of establishing absolute propositions.
By absolute propositions, I mean universal propositions that are never subject to change. They are true today, yesterday, and forever in all possible worlds. Inductive reasoning, by its very structure, is, therefore, incapable of doing this, any logic textbook will tell you this.
Finally, read David Hume.
Did I mention David Hume?
sam
I would suggest Augustine read David Hume.
“Limited power of induction.” I like that…has a nice ring.
God knows no induction since He knows all things, past, present, future. Therefore, God does not use “induction.”
Induction is not “worthless.” Jason never said that. It’s “useful” and “practical.” It cannot ever, though, be a means of establishing absolute propositions.
By absolute propositions, I mean universal propositions that are never subject to change. They are true today, yesterday, and forever in all possible worlds. Inductive reasoning, by its very structure, is, therefore, incapable of doing this, any logic textbook will tell you this.
Finally, read David Hume.
Did I mention David Hume?
augustine
All you prove is that induction is limited, not that deduction is the only source of truth. Logic is a human invention to describe how facts and premises fit together. Logic was invented by man just as calculus was invented by man, just as space travel was invented by man.
As you clearly point out, deductive reasoning does not lead us to truth, it just leads to valid logical relationships between premises. It is not a truth determining exercise. inductive reasoning at least is pragmatic. It leads ot what works in the real world. While it may not be ultimately "true," induction provideds a human approximation of truth through what we are provided through natural revelation. Deduction, ont he opther hand, can be made to say whatever the logician wants it to say throug manipulation of the premisis.
Deduction fails to provide absolute propositions as well, Sam. Since the human deciding the premisis is just as fallible as the human doing the inductive reasoning in an inference tot he best explanation.
Why shoudl a man made mathematical scheme be my measuer of truth? Logic, liek an other man-made system, can be manipulated and used to make it say whatever the individual user wishes for it to say.
You won;t find aristotlian, symbolic, or any other form of logic in scripture. So you must first prove that logic is a accurate means of determining truth from scripture and an exclusive means for doing so, before sayign indicutive reasoning is not proper for biblical truths. Your claim concerning deductive reasoning begs the question that your valid reasoning is the same as truth determining reasoning. Just because your arguments are valid from a logic textbook's point of view speaks nothign about the truth of the end result of that chain of reasoning.
Prove deductive reasoning is the only means ot determine truth, by using only deductive reasoning! All you end up with is question begging nonsense.
I have reas a lot fo David Hume, and your presuppositionalism does not answer Hume, it merely begs the question by changing the rules. You say, "you are right David, we cannot inductively determine truth, therefore, we are just going to declare trutht o be what we say it is and then calim anyone who deosn;t use oru methdos aer using the wrong methods."
You can claim the gnostci knowledge game (not that you are gnostic, juyst this one poitn fo thinking is), that only the initiate can see the truth of your pemisis and conclusions. That is question begging, a logical fallacy. So to dismiss invalid induction, you must employ a fallacy. Your point proves that logic is very limited to provide any stps toward truth. You must prove your premisis first, since in any logical argument the premisis must be accepted, otherwise it is a mathematical game that is worthless at best, misleading and deceptive in some hands.
So deduction only works if both party's accept the premisis. So it cannot be the method fo apologetics you desire. It would be just as reasonable and fruitful to say "God elects, so we shoudl just nto do any form of apologetics. Only God can change hearts so we should say nothing." There is nothign different in the real worl between that statement and your claims.
God is not a proposition. Faith is never described as a proposition in scripture. If faith were merely propositions, then there would be no need to beleive in what is not seen, sicne we would already see it! Clrakain presuppositionalism is an arrogant langaueg game that smacks of elitism and angry people,. not actually truth to reach the lost with the gospel.
Clarkians spend much much much more time attackign other Christians views of epistemology than they do actually reasing out to the lost. The fruti proves the theoloigy!
augustine
All you prove is that induction is limited, not that deduction is the only source of truth. Logic is a human invention to describe how facts and premises fit together. Logic was invented by man just as calculus was invented by man, just as space travel was invented by man.
As you clearly point out, deductive reasoning does not lead us to truth, it just leads to valid logical relationships between premises. It is not a truth determining exercise. inductive reasoning at least is pragmatic. It leads ot what works in the real world. While it may not be ultimately "true," induction provideds a human approximation of truth through what we are provided through natural revelation. Deduction, ont he opther hand, can be made to say whatever the logician wants it to say throug manipulation of the premisis.
Deduction fails to provide absolute propositions as well, Sam. Since the human deciding the premisis is just as fallible as the human doing the inductive reasoning in an inference tot he best explanation.
Why shoudl a man made mathematical scheme be my measuer of truth? Logic, liek an other man-made system, can be manipulated and used to make it say whatever the individual user wishes for it to say.
You won;t find aristotlian, symbolic, or any other form of logic in scripture. So you must first prove that logic is a accurate means of determining truth from scripture and an exclusive means for doing so, before sayign indicutive reasoning is not proper for biblical truths. Your claim concerning deductive reasoning begs the question that your valid reasoning is the same as truth determining reasoning. Just because your arguments are valid from a logic textbook's point of view speaks nothign about the truth of the end result of that chain of reasoning.
Prove deductive reasoning is the only means ot determine truth, by using only deductive reasoning! All you end up with is question begging nonsense.
I have reas a lot fo David Hume, and your presuppositionalism does not answer Hume, it merely begs the question by changing the rules. You say, "you are right David, we cannot inductively determine truth, therefore, we are just going to declare trutht o be what we say it is and then calim anyone who deosn;t use oru methdos aer using the wrong methods."
You can claim the gnostci knowledge game (not that you are gnostic, juyst this one poitn fo thinking is), that only the initiate can see the truth of your pemisis and conclusions. That is question begging, a logical fallacy. So to dismiss invalid induction, you must employ a fallacy. Your point proves that logic is very limited to provide any stps toward truth. You must prove your premisis first, since in any logical argument the premisis must be accepted, otherwise it is a mathematical game that is worthless at best, misleading and deceptive in some hands.
So deduction only works if both party's accept the premisis. So it cannot be the method fo apologetics you desire. It would be just as reasonable and fruitful to say "God elects, so we shoudl just nto do any form of apologetics. Only God can change hearts so we should say nothing." There is nothign different in the real worl between that statement and your claims.
God is not a proposition. Faith is never described as a proposition in scripture. If faith were merely propositions, then there would be no need to beleive in what is not seen, sicne we would already see it! Clrakain presuppositionalism is an arrogant langaueg game that smacks of elitism and angry people,. not actually truth to reach the lost with the gospel.
Clarkians spend much much much more time attackign other Christians views of epistemology than they do actually reasing out to the lost. The fruti proves the theoloigy!
augustine
All you prove is that induction is limited, not that deduction is the only source of truth. Logic is a human invention to describe how facts and premises fit together. Logic was invented by man just as calculus was invented by man, just as space travel was invented by man.
As you clearly point out, deductive reasoning does not lead us to truth, it just leads to valid logical relationships between premises. It is not a truth determining exercise. inductive reasoning at least is pragmatic. It leads ot what works in the real world. While it may not be ultimately "true," induction provideds a human approximation of truth through what we are provided through natural revelation. Deduction, ont he opther hand, can be made to say whatever the logician wants it to say throug manipulation of the premisis.
Deduction fails to provide absolute propositions as well, Sam. Since the human deciding the premisis is just as fallible as the human doing the inductive reasoning in an inference tot he best explanation.
Why shoudl a man made mathematical scheme be my measuer of truth? Logic, liek an other man-made system, can be manipulated and used to make it say whatever the individual user wishes for it to say.
You won;t find aristotlian, symbolic, or any other form of logic in scripture. So you must first prove that logic is a accurate means of determining truth from scripture and an exclusive means for doing so, before sayign indicutive reasoning is not proper for biblical truths. Your claim concerning deductive reasoning begs the question that your valid reasoning is the same as truth determining reasoning. Just because your arguments are valid from a logic textbook's point of view speaks nothign about the truth of the end result of that chain of reasoning.
Prove deductive reasoning is the only means ot determine truth, by using only deductive reasoning! All you end up with is question begging nonsense.
I have reas a lot fo David Hume, and your presuppositionalism does not answer Hume, it merely begs the question by changing the rules. You say, "you are right David, we cannot inductively determine truth, therefore, we are just going to declare trutht o be what we say it is and then calim anyone who deosn;t use oru methdos aer using the wrong methods."
You can claim the gnostci knowledge game (not that you are gnostic, juyst this one poitn fo thinking is), that only the initiate can see the truth of your pemisis and conclusions. That is question begging, a logical fallacy. So to dismiss invalid induction, you must employ a fallacy. Your point proves that logic is very limited to provide any stps toward truth. You must prove your premisis first, since in any logical argument the premisis must be accepted, otherwise it is a mathematical game that is worthless at best, misleading and deceptive in some hands.
So deduction only works if both party's accept the premisis. So it cannot be the method fo apologetics you desire. It would be just as reasonable and fruitful to say "God elects, so we shoudl just nto do any form of apologetics. Only God can change hearts so we should say nothing." There is nothign different in the real worl between that statement and your claims.
God is not a proposition. Faith is never described as a proposition in scripture. If faith were merely propositions, then there would be no need to beleive in what is not seen, sicne we would already see it! Clrakain presuppositionalism is an arrogant langaueg game that smacks of elitism and angry people,. not actually truth to reach the lost with the gospel.
Clarkians spend much much much more time attackign other Christians views of epistemology than they do actually reasing out to the lost. The fruti proves the theoloigy!
Jason
(13) You say, "Faith is never described as a proposition in scripture."
Well what in the world is a proposition? I don't know how you are defining it and perhaps you could supply that definition, but i am defining proposition as the meaning of a declarative sentence. The very act of you telling me what faith is not is a proposition. You're not making any sense at all.
(14) Your last bit here almost caused me to not approve your comment. However, on the other hand, i thought displaying it would be helpful in demonstrating how non-sensical people can get attacking Scripturalism.
You say that we, clarkians, spend more time attacking other christians than we do reaching out to the lost.
Uh, and what do you call all this that you have been doing here? Not only have you tortured what i actually said, but you have gone to quite the length in doing so! Furthermore, are you omniscient? How do you know what Clarkians do? Do you have their homes bugged?
Are you "angry" at me? Sounds like it. So what does that make you?
I believe clarkian presuppositionalism is the superior method because it is based on the Scripture. My plea to Christians is to get back to teaching and proclaiming this Word of God and stop wasting their time thinking that they can *manipulate* people into belief by arguing outside of the bible.
None of this makes me angry. Because, see, i believe that even in all the *watered-down* apologetics i do hear…even all that is decreed of God and in his care. I can rest in that. God is in control. So again, i'm not angry. I may get frustrated with what i see as a waste of time, but i'm not "angry".
The purpose here is to challenge Christians with doing things better; not to attack. The only "attacking" i see here is from YOU calling all clarkians "angry", "elitist", and not concerned with truth and reaching the lost.
Look, if you REALLY do want to discuss the merits of these methods, then let's discuss. But let's not play games here.
Jason
(13) You say, "Faith is never described as a proposition in scripture."
Well what in the world is a proposition? I don't know how you are defining it and perhaps you could supply that definition, but i am defining proposition as the meaning of a declarative sentence. The very act of you telling me what faith is not is a proposition. You're not making any sense at all.
(14) Your last bit here almost caused me to not approve your comment. However, on the other hand, i thought displaying it would be helpful in demonstrating how non-sensical people can get attacking Scripturalism.
You say that we, clarkians, spend more time attacking other christians than we do reaching out to the lost.
Uh, and what do you call all this that you have been doing here? Not only have you tortured what i actually said, but you have gone to quite the length in doing so! Furthermore, are you omniscient? How do you know what Clarkians do? Do you have their homes bugged?
Are you "angry" at me? Sounds like it. So what does that make you?
I believe clarkian presuppositionalism is the superior method because it is based on the Scripture. My plea to Christians is to get back to teaching and proclaiming this Word of God and stop wasting their time thinking that they can *manipulate* people into belief by arguing outside of the bible.
None of this makes me angry. Because, see, i believe that even in all the *watered-down* apologetics i do hear…even all that is decreed of God and in his care. I can rest in that. God is in control. So again, i'm not angry. I may get frustrated with what i see as a waste of time, but i'm not "angry".
The purpose here is to challenge Christians with doing things better; not to attack. The only "attacking" i see here is from YOU calling all clarkians "angry", "elitist", and not concerned with truth and reaching the lost.
Look, if you REALLY do want to discuss the merits of these methods, then let's discuss. But let's not play games here.
Podcast
(13) You say, "Faith is never described as a proposition in scripture."
Well what in the world is a proposition? I don't know how you are defining it and perhaps you could supply that definition, but i am defining proposition as the meaning of a declarative sentence. The very act of you telling me what faith is not is a proposition. You're not making any sense at all.
(14) Your last bit here almost caused me to not approve your comment. However, on the other hand, i thought displaying it would be helpful in demonstrating how non-sensical people can get attacking Scripturalism.
You say that we, clarkians, spend more time attacking other christians than we do reaching out to the lost.
Uh, and what do you call all this that you have been doing here? Not only have you tortured what i actually said, but you have gone to quite the length in doing so! Furthermore, are you omniscient? How do you know what Clarkians do? Do you have their homes bugged?
Are you "angry" at me? Sounds like it. So what does that make you?
I believe clarkian presuppositionalism is the superior method because it is based on the Scripture. My plea to Christians is to get back to teaching and proclaiming this Word of God and stop wasting their time thinking that they can *manipulate* people into belief by arguing outside of the bible.
None of this makes me angry. Because, see, i believe that even in all the *watered-down* apologetics i do hear…even all that is decreed of God and in his care. I can rest in that. God is in control. So again, i'm not angry. I may get frustrated with what i see as a waste of time, but i'm not "angry".
The purpose here is to challenge Christians with doing things better; not to attack. The only "attacking" i see here is from YOU calling all clarkians "angry", "elitist", and not concerned with truth and reaching the lost.
Look, if you REALLY do want to discuss the merits of these methods, then let's discuss. But let's not play games here.
Jason
Augustine,
(1) I'll ask one last time: if 'Augustine' is not your real name, please sign your comments with your real name. I want to know who i am talking to. Your next comment will be deleted if this is not taken care of.
(2) No one here ever said that deduction is a source of truth or the only source of truth. God's word is the source of truth. Logic is a tool used in formulating proper relationships between the propositions made in scripture and conclusions we infer from scripture. It doesn't give us truth. No one here has ever said that, so i have no idea who or what you are arguing against.
(3) You say induction is pragmatic. Ok, so what? What does that have to do with the Bible? I asked this of you before and it doesn't appear that you have answered it. Ok, you having a computer is "pragmatic"…again, so what? What does having a working computer have to do with the bible and truth?
(4) You say induction provides an "approximation" of truth. How do you know it does? In order to know that you are close to the truth, you have to know what truth is; else how would you know you are getting close to it?
An "approximation" of truth isn't truth, and if that is all you got, then well, you're in deep trouble.
(5) You say deduction can be made to say whatever the logician wants it to say. First of all, deduction is deduction, period. It is either valid or invalid; so in that sense, you can't make it say whatever you want it to say. Secondly, while it is true that one can construct an argument using whatever "manipulation of premises" the person wants; THAT has absolutely NOTHING to do with what i'm arguing for.
God's word is TRUTH. We don't invent it. God's revelation is there and we either accept it or we don't. And in our understanding of what it all means, we utilize logic. So i'm not talking about using whatever premises we feel like using. I'm talking about starting from the bible.
Again, i have no idea who or what you're arguing against because you are not even dealing with what i or Sam have actually said.
(6) "Deduction is the process of reasoning by which the conclusion is inferred from the premises by logical necessity; on the other hand, induction is the process of reasoning by which the conclusion is not inferred from the premises by logical necessity. In deduction, the conclusion includes only information that is already contained in and necessarily implied by the premises; but in induction, the conclusion includes new information that is not already contained in and necessarily implied by the premises.
"In other words, an inductive argument yields a conclusion that is supposedly but not necessarily implied by the premises. For this reason, induction is always a formal fallacy; that is, the conclusion is never certain, never rationally established. In fact, since the conclusion is not necessarily implied by the premises, there is no way to logically show that there is any necessary relationship at all between the conclusion and the premises." – quoted from Vincent Cheung
Therefore, "Augustine", arguing that induction gives "approximation" is nonsense. If you can't demonstrate that your inductive conclusions have any necessary relationship, then you certainly can't argue that they are "closer to the truth".
(7) How is the law of contradiction, for example, man-made? It is embedded in everything we do and say. It is how God thinks. Having a revelation from God presupposes logic, for it would be impossible to reveal anything meaningful without it.
Jesus can not be both Jesus and non-Jesus at the same time. It would be totally insane to say otherwise. Every word you typed in your response utilizes logic – you can't escape it. Every word has a meaning. And in order for it to mean something, it must also NOT mean something. The law of contradiction is inherit in this conversation and unavoidable, whether you want to recognize it or not. So to say that logic is not found in scripture is absolutely absurd. Plus, scripture contains a TON of examples; 1 Co 15, Jesus in most of his responses to his enemies…the list is endless.
(8) You still haven't provided a definition of "inductive reasoning".
(9) Do you believe that the Bible is the Word of God? Do you believe it is "true"? If so, how do you know it is?
Jason
Augustine,
(1) I'll ask one last time: if 'Augustine' is not your real name, please sign your comments with your real name. I want to know who i am talking to. Your next comment will be deleted if this is not taken care of.
(2) No one here ever said that deduction is a source of truth or the only source of truth. God's word is the source of truth. Logic is a tool used in formulating proper relationships between the propositions made in scripture and conclusions we infer from scripture. It doesn't give us truth. No one here has ever said that, so i have no idea who or what you are arguing against.
(3) You say induction is pragmatic. Ok, so what? What does that have to do with the Bible? I asked this of you before and it doesn't appear that you have answered it. Ok, you having a computer is "pragmatic"…again, so what? What does having a working computer have to do with the bible and truth?
(4) You say induction provides an "approximation" of truth. How do you know it does? In order to know that you are close to the truth, you have to know what truth is; else how would you know you are getting close to it?
An "approximation" of truth isn't truth, and if that is all you got, then well, you're in deep trouble.
(5) You say deduction can be made to say whatever the logician wants it to say. First of all, deduction is deduction, period. It is either valid or invalid; so in that sense, you can't make it say whatever you want it to say. Secondly, while it is true that one can construct an argument using whatever "manipulation of premises" the person wants; THAT has absolutely NOTHING to do with what i'm arguing for.
God's word is TRUTH. We don't invent it. God's revelation is there and we either accept it or we don't. And in our understanding of what it all means, we utilize logic. So i'm not talking about using whatever premises we feel like using. I'm talking about starting from the bible.
Again, i have no idea who or what you're arguing against because you are not even dealing with what i or Sam have actually said.
(6) "Deduction is the process of reasoning by which the conclusion is inferred from the premises by logical necessity; on the other hand, induction is the process of reasoning by which the conclusion is not inferred from the premises by logical necessity. In deduction, the conclusion includes only information that is already contained in and necessarily implied by the premises; but in induction, the conclusion includes new information that is not already contained in and necessarily implied by the premises.
"In other words, an inductive argument yields a conclusion that is supposedly but not necessarily implied by the premises. For this reason, induction is always a formal fallacy; that is, the conclusion is never certain, never rationally established. In fact, since the conclusion is not necessarily implied by the premises, there is no way to logically show that there is any necessary relationship at all between the conclusion and the premises." – quoted from Vincent Cheung
Therefore, "Augustine", arguing that induction gives "approximation" is nonsense. If you can't demonstrate that your inductive conclusions have any necessary relationship, then you certainly can't argue that they are "closer to the truth".
(7) How is the law of contradiction, for example, man-made? It is embedded in everything we do and say. It is how God thinks. Having a revelation from God presupposes logic, for it would be impossible to reveal anything meaningful without it.
Jesus can not be both Jesus and non-Jesus at the same time. It would be totally insane to say otherwise. Every word you typed in your response utilizes logic – you can't escape it. Every word has a meaning. And in order for it to mean something, it must also NOT mean something. The law of contradiction is inherit in this conversation and unavoidable, whether you want to recognize it or not. So to say that logic is not found in scripture is absolutely absurd. Plus, scripture contains a TON of examples; 1 Co 15, Jesus in most of his responses to his enemies…the list is endless.
(8) You still haven't provided a definition of "inductive reasoning".
(9) Do you believe that the Bible is the Word of God? Do you believe it is "true"? If so, how do you know it is?
Podcast
Augustine,
(1) I'll ask one last time: if 'Augustine' is not your real name, please sign your comments with your real name. I want to know who i am talking to. Your next comment will be deleted if this is not taken care of.
(2) No one here ever said that deduction is a source of truth or the only source of truth. God's word is the source of truth. Logic is a tool used in formulating proper relationships between the propositions made in scripture and conclusions we infer from scripture. It doesn't give us truth. No one here has ever said that, so i have no idea who or what you are arguing against.
(3) You say induction is pragmatic. Ok, so what? What does that have to do with the Bible? I asked this of you before and it doesn't appear that you have answered it. Ok, you having a computer is "pragmatic"…again, so what? What does having a working computer have to do with the bible and truth?
(4) You say induction provides an "approximation" of truth. How do you know it does? In order to know that you are close to the truth, you have to know what truth is; else how would you know you are getting close to it?
An "approximation" of truth isn't truth, and if that is all you got, then well, you're in deep trouble.
(5) You say deduction can be made to say whatever the logician wants it to say. First of all, deduction is deduction, period. It is either valid or invalid; so in that sense, you can't make it say whatever you want it to say. Secondly, while it is true that one can construct an argument using whatever "manipulation of premises" the person wants; THAT has absolutely NOTHING to do with what i'm arguing for.
God's word is TRUTH. We don't invent it. God's revelation is there and we either accept it or we don't. And in our understanding of what it all means, we utilize logic. So i'm not talking about using whatever premises we feel like using. I'm talking about starting from the bible.
Again, i have no idea who or what you're arguing against because you are not even dealing with what i or Sam have actually said.
(6) "Deduction is the process of reasoning by which the conclusion is inferred from the premises by logical necessity; on the other hand, induction is the process of reasoning by which the conclusion is not inferred from the premises by logical necessity. In deduction, the conclusion includes only information that is already contained in and necessarily implied by the premises; but in induction, the conclusion includes new information that is not already contained in and necessarily implied by the premises.
"In other words, an inductive argument yields a conclusion that is supposedly but not necessarily implied by the premises. For this reason, induction is always a formal fallacy; that is, the conclusion is never certain, never rationally established. In fact, since the conclusion is not necessarily implied by the premises, there is no way to logically show that there is any necessary relationship at all between the conclusion and the premises." – quoted from Vincent Cheung
Therefore, "Augustine", arguing that induction gives "approximation" is nonsense. If you can't demonstrate that your inductive conclusions have any necessary relationship, then you certainly can't argue that they are "closer to the truth".
(7) How is the law of contradiction, for example, man-made? It is embedded in everything we do and say. It is how God thinks. Having a revelation from God presupposes logic, for it would be impossible to reveal anything meaningful without it.
Jesus can not be both Jesus and non-Jesus at the same time. It would be totally insane to say otherwise. Every word you typed in your response utilizes logic – you can't escape it. Every word has a meaning. And in order for it to mean something, it must also NOT mean something. The law of contradiction is inherit in this conversation and unavoidable, whether you want to recognize it or not. So to say that logic is not found in scripture is absolutely absurd. Plus, scripture contains a TON of examples; 1 Co 15, Jesus in most of his responses to his enemies…the list is endless.
(8) You still haven't provided a definition of "inductive reasoning".
(9) Do you believe that the Bible is the Word of God? Do you believe it is "true"? If so, how do you know it is?
Jason
(10) Your paragraph on how i would respond to Hume is downright ridiculous. I would never respond to Hume in the way you have worded and therefore, you reveal once again that you clearly do not understand what we are saying.
We are not declaring truth to be whatever we want it to be. Again, GOD's WORD IS TRUTH. Neither Sam nor i made that up. And it is true whether you, sam, or i accept it or not.
As for Hume: All Hume affirmed is what anyone who actually understands induction should affirm. Hume, unlike so many others, merely called attention to the problem induction creates. And if that was all we had, then yes, it is a HUGE problem. But thankfully, we are not left in the dark. Why? Because TRUTH is not found inductively, but TRUTH was REVEALED from God.
So while the problem of induction is still a "problem" when it comes to rationally justifying certain claims we make; BIBLICAL CLAIMS do not suffer that problem because these claims were not inductively reasoned…they were REVEALED.
For example: Jesus is Lord. How do i know that? Because of induction? No. God told us that.
Same goes for everything else claimed in scripture. I didn't induce these claims.
(11) You claim that i believe that "only the initiate can see the truth of your premises and conclusions" and that this is "gnosticism".
rofl. Are you kidding me?
First off, one can "see the truth" and yet still not believe it or obey it. So it is incorrect to say that i believe people can't "see the truth".
Many people understood quite well what Jesus was saying. They heard the truth and understood it. It wasn't hidden knowledge. The problem with them however, is that they didn't believe it. They didn't accept it.
So to call that "gnosticism" reveals again that you clearly don't understand what i am saying.
(12) You say, "So deduction only works if both party's accept the premisis. " [sic]. First off, deduction is either valid or invalid and whether it "works" or not (validity) that has NOTHING to do with whether a party accepts it or not. You keep trying to make logic subjective when it is not.
Secondly, as i have already explained, a valid conclusion of a deductive argument is not necessarily "true". Logic is not going to tell us that. This has nothing to do with trying to get the other party to "accept the premise."
NOTHING you do can determine that. Inductively or deductively. So i don't why you keep bringing that up. My argument has never been that deduction causes faith. It doesn't.
Faith is a gift. People are born again, not of works, not of their own doing, but by the sovereign grace of God. That's what the BIBLE says.
The "acceptance of premises", therefore, is not in my power. It is not my job. Even in a "free-will" theory, you would still have to admit that you can't CAUSE belief in people.
But there is a distinction between causing belief and proclaiming truth. So for you to say that i must "say nothing" because "only God can change hearts" is again, just downright confused and absurd.
Jason
(10) Your paragraph on how i would respond to Hume is downright ridiculous. I would never respond to Hume in the way you have worded and therefore, you reveal once again that you clearly do not understand what we are saying.
We are not declaring truth to be whatever we want it to be. Again, GOD's WORD IS TRUTH. Neither Sam nor i made that up. And it is true whether you, sam, or i accept it or not.
As for Hume: All Hume affirmed is what anyone who actually understands induction should affirm. Hume, unlike so many others, merely called attention to the problem induction creates. And if that was all we had, then yes, it is a HUGE problem. But thankfully, we are not left in the dark. Why? Because TRUTH is not found inductively, but TRUTH was REVEALED from God.
So while the problem of induction is still a "problem" when it comes to rationally justifying certain claims we make; BIBLICAL CLAIMS do not suffer that problem because these claims were not inductively reasoned…they were REVEALED.
For example: Jesus is Lord. How do i know that? Because of induction? No. God told us that.
Same goes for everything else claimed in scripture. I didn't induce these claims.
(11) You claim that i believe that "only the initiate can see the truth of your premises and conclusions" and that this is "gnosticism".
rofl. Are you kidding me?
First off, one can "see the truth" and yet still not believe it or obey it. So it is incorrect to say that i believe people can't "see the truth".
Many people understood quite well what Jesus was saying. They heard the truth and understood it. It wasn't hidden knowledge. The problem with them however, is that they didn't believe it. They didn't accept it.
So to call that "gnosticism" reveals again that you clearly don't understand what i am saying.
(12) You say, "So deduction only works if both party's accept the premisis. " [sic]. First off, deduction is either valid or invalid and whether it "works" or not (validity) that has NOTHING to do with whether a party accepts it or not. You keep trying to make logic subjective when it is not.
Secondly, as i have already explained, a valid conclusion of a deductive argument is not necessarily "true". Logic is not going to tell us that. This has nothing to do with trying to get the other party to "accept the premise."
NOTHING you do can determine that. Inductively or deductively. So i don't why you keep bringing that up. My argument has never been that deduction causes faith. It doesn't.
Faith is a gift. People are born again, not of works, not of their own doing, but by the sovereign grace of God. That's what the BIBLE says.
The "acceptance of premises", therefore, is not in my power. It is not my job. Even in a "free-will" theory, you would still have to admit that you can't CAUSE belief in people.
But there is a distinction between causing belief and proclaiming truth. So for you to say that i must "say nothing" because "only God can change hearts" is again, just downright confused and absurd.
Podcast
(10) Your paragraph on how i would respond to Hume is downright ridiculous. I would never respond to Hume in the way you have worded and therefore, you reveal once again that you clearly do not understand what we are saying.
We are not declaring truth to be whatever we want it to be. Again, GOD's WORD IS TRUTH. Neither Sam nor i made that up. And it is true whether you, sam, or i accept it or not.
As for Hume: All Hume affirmed is what anyone who actually understands induction should affirm. Hume, unlike so many others, merely called attention to the problem induction creates. And if that was all we had, then yes, it is a HUGE problem. But thankfully, we are not left in the dark. Why? Because TRUTH is not found inductively, but TRUTH was REVEALED from God.
So while the problem of induction is still a "problem" when it comes to rationally justifying certain claims we make; BIBLICAL CLAIMS do not suffer that problem because these claims were not inductively reasoned…they were REVEALED.
For example: Jesus is Lord. How do i know that? Because of induction? No. God told us that.
Same goes for everything else claimed in scripture. I didn't induce these claims.
(11) You claim that i believe that "only the initiate can see the truth of your premises and conclusions" and that this is "gnosticism".
rofl. Are you kidding me?
First off, one can "see the truth" and yet still not believe it or obey it. So it is incorrect to say that i believe people can't "see the truth".
Many people understood quite well what Jesus was saying. They heard the truth and understood it. It wasn't hidden knowledge. The problem with them however, is that they didn't believe it. They didn't accept it.
So to call that "gnosticism" reveals again that you clearly don't understand what i am saying.
(12) You say, "So deduction only works if both party's accept the premisis. " [sic]. First off, deduction is either valid or invalid and whether it "works" or not (validity) that has NOTHING to do with whether a party accepts it or not. You keep trying to make logic subjective when it is not.
Secondly, as i have already explained, a valid conclusion of a deductive argument is not necessarily "true". Logic is not going to tell us that. This has nothing to do with trying to get the other party to "accept the premise."
NOTHING you do can determine that. Inductively or deductively. So i don't why you keep bringing that up. My argument has never been that deduction causes faith. It doesn't.
Faith is a gift. People are born again, not of works, not of their own doing, but by the sovereign grace of God. That's what the BIBLE says.
The "acceptance of premises", therefore, is not in my power. It is not my job. Even in a "free-will" theory, you would still have to admit that you can't CAUSE belief in people.
But there is a distinction between causing belief and proclaiming truth. So for you to say that i must "say nothing" because "only God can change hearts" is again, just downright confused and absurd.