tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post1413720962096157563..comments2023-09-01T16:11:44.564+08:00Comments on Daniel's Place - (Reformata et semper reformanda): Christianity, Verification and FalsifiabilityDaniel Chttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00678184721218949112noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-60131955125100605672013-05-28T14:26:01.138+08:002013-05-28T14:26:01.138+08:00No, because they generally do not deal with the in...No, because they generally do not deal with the inductive problems inherent in their apologetics methodologyDaniel Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678184721218949112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-75063372929266505062013-05-26T09:12:43.646+08:002013-05-26T09:12:43.646+08:00is it because according to a calvinistic perspecti...is it because according to a calvinistic perspective the RC and Arminians put human reason above God's reason by saying people can "choose" God ,so then to be consistant their apologetic must be the same?wakawakwakahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15264808613704582683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-51619843027621374882013-05-26T03:07:08.669+08:002013-05-26T03:07:08.669+08:00Arminians and RCs wouldn't use presuppositiona...Arminians and RCs wouldn't use presuppositional arguments. To them it sounds dumbDaniel Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678184721218949112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-31703777408187542782013-05-24T09:24:27.469+08:002013-05-24T09:24:27.469+08:00is it me or are presupptional arguments almost onl...is it me or are presupptional arguments almost only used by Calvinists? is there like a connection between the two, would it be inconsistent if lets say an Arminian or a Roman Catholic tried to use an argument brought fourth by Clark or Van till?wakawakwakahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15264808613704582683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-67466918214844915382012-06-21T10:10:35.398+08:002012-06-21T10:10:35.398+08:00Charlie, I think you are missing Daniel's poin...Charlie, I think you are missing Daniel's point here. Clark did start from scripture (divine revelation) rather than logic, but he also said (correctly) that a first principle can be falsified if it is shown to be inconsistent. <br /><br />As for the Van Tillians leaning close to the Neo-orthodox theologians... that is true, but I don't see how that says anything about what Daniel has Joel Tayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05998671738735829947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-49740386728223184052012-06-21T09:24:30.148+08:002012-06-21T09:24:30.148+08:00@Charlie:
to critique rationalism, empiricism etc...@Charlie:<br /><br />to critique rationalism, empiricism etc does not necessarily preclude one from being a rationlist of some sort. This is not to say that Clark is one - he isn't - but to say that things are not so clear cut.<br /><br />You are in error to say that Clark does not say that Scripture can be falsified. Clark gave the criterion of logical consistency as a defeater for Daniel Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678184721218949112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-35245725625677250072012-06-21T09:11:33.527+08:002012-06-21T09:11:33.527+08:00Scripture needs nothing other than the presupposit...Scripture needs nothing other than the presupposition that it is God's Word. That's Clark's starting point for epistemology, not logic in and of itself. His second assumption is that God operates via logic and rational language: Jesus IS the Logos, or "logic" in personal form.Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-18648461616938180962012-06-21T09:09:14.676+08:002012-06-21T09:09:14.676+08:00I am not sure that you're getting Clark's ...I am not sure that you're getting Clark's argument correct. Clark gives a thorough critique of rationalism, empiricism, existentialism and secular philosophy in general--which proves he was not a rationalist. Also, Clark does not ultimately say that Scripture can be either verified OR falsified. Rather Clark's argument is that Scripture is the starting point for ALL knowledge Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.com