tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post8185805033339081836..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Matt Slick's defense of the Transcendental Argument for GodVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-60901074055103916932016-08-24T09:57:40.936-07:002016-08-24T09:57:40.936-07:00I'm not convinced by his defense of 5:
"...I'm not convinced by his defense of 5:<br /><br />"Logical Absolutes are not dependent on the material world."<br /><br />I don't know the logical rules of an immaterial world, or of philosophers nothing. <br />Jimmy S. M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05429294734852937431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-73633420882669701482016-08-24T09:39:06.937-07:002016-08-24T09:39:06.937-07:00Or, you are projecting the name God onto the One T...Or, you are projecting the name God onto the One True Transcendent Pizza (tm).jdhueyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14548783175350394626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91436968003761090532016-08-23T07:06:58.682-07:002016-08-23T07:06:58.682-07:00Even if it was sound (and it isn't) to deduce ...<br />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.<br /><br /><b>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.<br /><br />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.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18184322934867239132016-08-22T10:13:38.713-07:002016-08-22T10:13:38.713-07:00"...it must be an absolute transcendent mind ..."...it must be an absolute transcendent mind that is authoring them. This mind is called God."<br /><br />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. jdhueyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14548783175350394626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18015616980846569582016-08-22T10:07:43.271-07:002016-08-22T10:07:43.271-07:00"Law of Identity: Something is what it is and..."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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /> <br />jdhueyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14548783175350394626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-36892959091501419152016-08-22T06:57:08.745-07:002016-08-22T06:57:08.745-07:00It's not so much his Calvinism, (I', a Wes...It's not so much his Calvinism, (I', a Wesleyan so not a Calvinist) but the TULIP kind like Slick is.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-57594906668704832052016-08-21T07:52:53.846-07:002016-08-21T07:52:53.846-07:00Well the number one problem with Slick is he is a ...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. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10247764763537678057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-8386103981297881572016-08-21T07:15:41.092-07:002016-08-21T07:15:41.092-07:00I have plenty of Problems with Matt Slick. I poste...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.<br /><br />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,Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com