Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I am working on the issue of induction right now and I do see the problem that arisesThis all comes down to VanTillian vs. Scripturalism. Triblogue supports VanTil and Cheung is more in line with Scripturalism but by his own admission not a toe the line, just in the line.
One of the strong points of classic Gordon Clark presuppositionalism is his rejection of proving something "inductively." This problem is highlighted by Brian Bosse on his blog.
That posted, I enjoy Cheung's work, it's worth a read.
j
I am working on the issue of induction right now and I do see the problem that arises
However, will you agree that given a deductive argument, there can be premises that are true, and does premises are not from scripture (but not against Scripture either) and is still logically valid?
Hey there BRother JM,I just want to re-state I'm new to philosophy, just getting my feet wet...
How do we know if the conclusion is valid?
A quote fron the net:
Premise: If I am decapitated, Ill die. (true)
Premise: I wont be decapitated. (very probably true)
Conclusion: I wont die. (alas, false)
A logical conclusion is valid or invalid but not true or false...does that sound about right?
I don't believe a true premise will guarantee a valid conclusion...but I could be wrong and often am.
Peace,
j
I think you are a wise older Brother in the Lord!I just want to re-state I'm new to philosophy, just getting my feet wet...
How do we know if the conclusion is valid?
A quote fron the net:
Premise: If I am decapitated, Ill die. (true)
Premise: I wont be decapitated. (very probably true)
Conclusion: I wont die. (alas, false)
A logical conclusion is valid or invalid but not true or false...does that sound about right?
I don't believe a true premise will guarantee a valid conclusion...but I could be wrong and often am.
Peace,
j
Some will object, "But dont we know that we are in this room, or that 2 plus 2 equals four, or that grass is green?" To answer that objection, we must define the words "know" and "knowledge."
There are three sorts of cognitive states: knowledge, opinion, and ignorance. Ignorance is simply the lack of ideas. Complete ignorance is the state of mind that empiricists say we are born with: We are all born with blank minds, tabula rasa, to use John Lockes phrase. (Incidentally, a tabula rasa mind a blank mind is an impossibility. A consciousness conscious of nothing is a contradiction in terms. Empiricism rests on a contradiction.) At the other extreme from ignorance is knowledge. Knowledge is not simply possessing thoughts or ideas, as some think. Knowledge is possessing true ideas and knowing them to be true. Knowledge is, by definition, knowledge of the truth. We do not say that a person "knows" that 2 plus 2 is 5. We may say he thinks it, but he does not know it. It would be better to say that he opines it.
Now, most of what we colloquially call knowledge is actually opinion: We "know" that we are in Pennsylvania; we "know" that Clinton either Bill or Hillary is President of the United States, and so forth. Opinions can be true or false; we just dont know which. History, except for revealed history, is opinion. Science is opinion. Archaeology is opinion. John Calvin said, "I call that knowledge, not what is innate in man, nor what is by diligence acquired, but what is revealed to us in the Law and the Prophets." Knowledge is true opinion with an account of its truth.
It may very well be that William Clinton is President of the United States, but I do not know how to prove it, nor, I suspect, do you. In truth, I do not know that he is President, I opine it. I can, however, prove that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. That information is revealed to me, not by the dubious daily newspaper or the evening news, but by the infallible Word of God. The resurrection of Christ is deduced by good and necessary consequence from the axiom of revelation.
Who's your favorite Reformed Apologist and why?
Reformed?
No - and I knew someone would comment on my including Lewis on my list - but he is/was an excellent Christian apologist. Don't think it gets much better than Mere Christianity.
edie
Frank wrote about his life and his father in the semi-autobiographical novels Portofino, Zermatt, and Saving Grandma. These details are in these books. This is what Frank says about the books:what?
Where did you get this information by Franky Jr. ?
I don't know his theology, but I know he's familiar with Clark and Van Til, if that means anything...Does anyone know what Phil Fernandes believes? Before I start downloading his lectures/debates [link] I'd like to know if he's Reformed, Amyraldian or Arminian, etc.
Thanks,
j
DO you have the book?Frank wrote about his life and his father in the semi-autobiographical novels Portofino, Zermatt, and Saving Grandma. These details are in these books. This is what Frank says about the books:
In 1947 my mother and father moved to Europe. They were American Protestant, Reformed, Calvinist missionaries. I was thus part of an experiment in radical Christian living "by faith alone" in the commune of L'abri in Switzerland where I grew up. I've been exploring this childhood in my semi-biographical novels of the Calvin Becker Trilogy---Portofino, Zermatt and Saving Grandma.
Who's your favorite Reformed Apologist and why?
Amen about Greg Bahnsen!Greg Bahnsen .
Because he smashed into pieces an Atheist arguement live , and he did it with humility!
http://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/2006/12/05/greg-bahnsen-vs-gordon-stein-the-great-debate/
The Great Debate: Greg Bahnsen vs. Gordon Stein by Greg L. Bahnsen [Debates]
I believe that you are correct (If I remember back that far) a deductive argument is either valid or invalid which has nothing to do with true or false.I just want to re-state I'm new to philosophy, just getting my feet wet...
How do we know if the conclusion is valid?
A quote fron the net:
Premise: If I am decapitated, Ill die. (true)
Premise: I wont be decapitated. (very probably true)
Conclusion: I wont die. (alas, false)
A logical conclusion is valid or invalid but not true or false...does that sound about right?
I don't believe a true premise will guarantee a valid conclusion...but I could be wrong and often am.
Peace,
j
But a valid argument, if the premises are true, must indeed have a true conclusionI believe that you are correct (If I remember back that far) a deductive argument is either valid or invalid which has nothing to do with true or false.
Favorites:
Sproul "Faith Alone" was my first Reformed Theology read.
Bavinck "Doctrine of God" Difficult but worth the effort.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?