The PR (puritan reformed) guy begins his “intelligent” gobbledygook:
PuritanReformed said...
Antithesis:
With regards to the philosophy of language, you did not address sufficiently the providence of God argument. Your argument over this does not at all take into account the existance of God who is sovereign over the development.
>Lepore, for example, taught his students how best to symbolize the logical form of various statements, but this is at best inadequate when we encounter certain sentence structures
Does this therefore mean that language cannot be sufficiently symbolized using logical forms, or that language is not logical? These two things are very different. Just because there may be a problem reducing a sentence into a formal logical setence does not equate to the sentence being not able to be processed logically.
>We know that the Reformed position is that, “Scripture is perspicacious”; but does that mean we are able to know every truth/logical form/proposition contained in the Bible with 100% epistemic certainty?
I guess you mean "Scripture is perspicuous"? Is 100% epistemic certainty neccessary for all doctrines/truth? And is the opposite of 100% epistemic certainty equals 0% epistemic certainty? Also, who or what exactly determines the level of certainty to be held for any one doctrine?
4/10/08 22:49
Antithesis said...
Dear Puritan-Reformed, (can I call you PR?)
“With regards to the philosophy of language, you did not address sufficiently the providence of God argument. Your argument over this does not at all take into account the existance of God who is sovereign over the development.”
>PR, I am bemused by your apparent confusion concerning my statements. My comments are just a few inches away on your computer screen; please do go over it yourself. Amongst other things I wrote, ““Are we able to understand the logical forms of such linguistic expressions of propositional truths in all its entirety?”
Here, the issue is “language” per se and expression of that language in its logical form. My contention is that, it is difficult for language simpliciter to be precisely symbolized into its logical form in some instances. How is God’s providence in the “development” of language pertinent to the issue within this context?
“Does this therefore mean that language cannot be sufficiently symbolized using logical forms, or that language is not logical? These two things are very different.
>??? Yes, they are two very different things. And your point is? I neither say that language is “illogical,” nor claim that language cannot be “sufficiently symbolized using logical forms.” What I did insist is, language cannot be ALWAYS precisely symbolized into its logical forms. Unless you can quote me an instance whereby a logician says/prove otherwise, you have to accept that this is the limit of human means in expressing the logical forms of language.
“Just because there may be a problem reducing a sentence into a formal logical setence does not equate to the sentence being not able to be processed logically.”
>And how do you propose that we “process logically” the non-logical forms of language? Example?
“I guess you mean "Scripture is perspicuous"?”
>Yes, my bad. Perspicuous is the word.
“Is 100% epistemic certainty neccessary for all doctrines/truth?”
>If not 100% certainty, how much do you suppose we require?
“And is the opposite of 100% epistemic certainty equals 0% epistemic certainty?”
> I’m seeing a straw man here. Epistemic certainty is a cline or gradation, so how would you propose that we derive the contradictory value of an arbitrary degree of certainty? Isn’t that what you mean by “opposite?”
“Also, who or what exactly determines the level of certainty to be held for any one doctrine?”
>Epistemic certainty concerns knowledge. Allow me to answer your question with this question, “Would you regard yourself as having knowledge of a particular doctrine/truth if you have any less than 100% epistemic certainty?” If yes, what degree of certainty would you admit?
Who or what exactly determines the level of certainty to be held for any one doctrine? If you are Clarkian, you should be defending the “primacy of the intellect.” So as rationalists, shouldn’t we use reason? Or perhaps you have something from the Word of God – any thoughts?
My question to Joel was, “We know that the Reformed position is that, “Scripture is perspicuous”; but does that mean we are able to know every truth/logical form/proposition contained in the Bible with 100% epistemic certainty?”
I am asking this, NOT from a philosophical point of view, but from a biblical perspective. The hint is in the preceding comment. Think about it, PR.
your truly,
Antithesis
4/10/08 23:22
Antithesis said...
PuritanReformed wrote, “Question: Is God sovereign over language? If God is sovereign, then since He reveals Himself in words, shouldn't He superintend the development of language such that human languages are able to express God's truth univocally?”
Using your line of reasoning,
Question: Is God sovereign over His own inspired Word? If God is sovereign, then since He reveals Himself in words, shouldn't He superintend the preservation/textual criticism of His very own Words of Scripture in the apographs/eclectic texts such that what we have in our hands is the very inerrant, inspired Words of the autographs unequivocally?”
So do we have errors in our extant manuscripts?
Do we have the inerrant words of God today in our hands?
If we can’t even answer this question, why are we “discussing” the expression of “God's truth univocally?” Why, we aren’t even sure if these (apographs/eclectic texts) are God’s very words as it is in the autographs, let alone the “expression” of univocal truths via these words/sentences.
Or perhaps a 100% certainty in textual criticism is a presupposition in “presuppositional” apologetics, eh?
yours truly,
Antithesis
4/10/08 23:34
No comments:
Post a Comment