This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
I have plenty of Problems with Matt Slick. I posted on CARM for 15 years.I have a couple of problems with Bhansen too. With presuppers as a whole they seem to assume that because they assume they are right everyone else should. My wounded inner idealist thinks the abstractions he speaks of are a priroi the product of mind but I can't blame atheists for doubting it and I don't how to prove it I don't think Slick or Bhansen prove it. It doesn't necessarily follow that because we draw such abstractions that they must be the product of mind.The Lewis argument actually gives us a reason to think ind ids the foundation, my variation it is to take an abductive path and say it's the explanation for a rational view of reality,
Well the number one problem with Slick is he is a Calvinist. Same theological error as all cults: Gospel reflects Godhead. If you err on one, you err on both.
It's not so much his Calvinism, (I', a Wesleyan so not a Calvinist) but the TULIP kind like Slick is.
"Law of Identity: Something is what it is and isn't what it is not. Something that exists has a specific nature. For example, a cloud is a cloud--not a rock. A fish is a fish--not a car."However, these labels of categories are strictly a human invention and the boundaries of the categories are often vague and fuzzy. Take the example of a cloud that comes in contact6 with the ground: the cloud is no longer called a cloud, it is now called fog. But the basic physical properties of the moisture hasn't changed.Also, the laws are not Absolute in the since of being unique. Just as there are other geometries beside Euclidean, there are other forms of logic besides Aristotelian - fuzzy logic is an example.So, given all that, I think that the argument that the existence of Logic somehow implies the existence of a divine entity is just wrong.
"...it must be an absolute transcendent mind that is authoring them. This mind is called God."Even if it was sound (and it isn't) to deduce the existence of a 'transcendent mind', there is no reason to assume that that mind is "God" - it could be some other transcendent mind, Baal, maybe, or George or Vishnu.
Even if it was sound (and it isn't) to deduce the existence of a 'transcendent mind', there is no reason to assume that that mind is "God" - it could be some other transcendent mind, Baal, maybe, or George or Vishnu.oc course it is, you don't understand the concept of God, Look at the tread on ontological argument above and see what he says about prefect pizza,. your argument a bout Vishnu is the same mistake.for perfect pizza to be proved by the OA the Pizza has to have the qualities o God such that you are just calling God by the name "pizza." The same is true of Vishnu.
Or, you are projecting the name God onto the One True Transcendent Pizza (tm).
I'm not convinced by his defense of 5:"Logical Absolutes are not dependent on the material world."I don't know the logical rules of an immaterial world, or of philosophers nothing.
Post a Comment