Hugo Holbling

*Gratuitous post alert*

It's my opinion that Keith is setting an awesome example to all of us here. For those who haven't been following, Keith is an Objectivist (or maybe was... ) and i don't buy this way of thinking at all. We clashed on many occasions and i bashed Keith a good deal, probably unfairly but never to be taken seriously; it just so happens that i think humour and rhetoric have their place in philosophy. In spite of all this, when i made the suggestion to Keith that he should read such-and-such, still insulting him in my peculiar way, he agrees immediately and starts asking for recommendations. It may be that Keith's Objectivist views will change as a result of his reading, or he may come back at me stronger, making me wish i'd never tangled with him - either way, his willingness to challenge his ideas when asked to by someone who has rarely sent a kind word his way is (i think) to be commended by all.

Nice moves, Keith. :notworthy

Keith Russell

Awww, shucks!

Keith.

Dominus Paradoxum

"Soli Deo Gloria" eh? Well, I know you're not Catholic then ^_~ .

So, you believe that Christ is one person with two distinct natures? That would commit you to a belief in "thin paticulars", which are a characterless subject of predicates, i.e. properties. Personally, I find it very implausible to suppose that the two natures count as one person just because they happen to 'hang' on the same metaphysical coathook.

SeaKayaker

Dominus Paradoxum,

You know more Church History than do many Christians.

I am not sure if this came up in response to the paper or not, but you say that my belief that Christ was one person with two natures:
Who better to ask this than the King of Paradox (shouldn't it be Paradoxi or Paradoxorum - 2nd neuter genitive instead of nominative or accusative?)? In my experience, a paradox is a set of two statements that seem contradictory but are both true. If the Christian God exists, then He must be beyond total human comprehension. Men would be able to have true knowledge of Him through His revelation, but this would be incomplete. It would only make sense, then, that there would be paradoxes in God. One such paradox that is beyond complete human comprehension would be the union of the natures of Christ. I believe that it is both a necessary implication and an explicit teaching of Scripture that Christ was two natures in one person and that within the Christian worldview such a union is plausible. If you want to challenge this belief, therefore, you need only to show the irrationality of the Christian worldview on its own assumptions.

Waning Moon Conrad

Chris,

I skimmed the draft of your thesis. I'm going to have a look for different translations of the Tao Te King because I'm really not sure that you have a handle on what Taoism really is.

You can be as fervent a fan of Van Tillian Presuppositionalism as you wish but at the end of the day it amounts to aschool of thought deciding that it is correct and then being creative at finding reasons to support this allegation.

I'll say to you what I say to any Christian who thinks to convert me to the belief that their opinion is empirical truth.

Show me that there is a god who is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.

Then prove to me that he wrote the Bible.

Then and only then is it possible to take the Bible seriously as a source of epistemology - but not the King James version.

Various events in history inevitably raise various questions about morality but I must say that generally speaking, I prefer to keep politics out of ontology.

sotzo

Greetings Waning Moon:

You can be as fervent a fan of Van Tillian Presuppositionalism as you wish but at the end of the day it amounts to aschool of thought deciding that it is correct and then being creative at finding reasons to support this allegation.

Van Tillianism (at least the Presupp portion) is concerned with epistemology. Most would not blame Descartes for beginning with the cogito ergo sum on the basis that it has no reasons for it a priori. Rather, most would say, that is the starting point for Descarte's epistemology (the presupposition if you will) and follow it out from there.

Therefore, I'm not sure it is fair to cite Van Til for positing the Chrisitian God as the starting point, especially in the context of him attempting to establish an epistemology. Van Til doesn't decide he's correct before establishing his epistemology. If you've read him you know that he follows the assumptions of Christian theism and naturalism, sees where they lead and establishes the fine points of his epistemology thereafter.

I'll say to you what I say to any Christian who thinks to convert me to the belief that their opinion is empirical truth.

An opinion cannot be empirical (nor can the grounds on which Christian theism sits since its claims are historical in quality) so I would argue with you against any Christian who says their opinion is empirical truth.

Show me that there is a god who is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.

Let's agree what proof would qualify for such a claim. The claim is about the existence of a god. Would you agree with the following:

1. God is immaterial
2. Proof for the existence of something immaterial does not necessarily need to be empirical? (that is accesible via the scientific method)

Then prove to me that he wrote the Bible.

Okay, let's handle one at a time though else I'll get confused!

Then and only then is it possible to take the Bible seriously as a source of epistemology - but not the King James version.

Okay.

Various events in history inevitably raise various questions about morality but I must say that generally speaking, I prefer to keep politics out of ontology.

Is this in reference to the KJV? I'm not sure what you mean...sure there was politics involved with its translation, however I'm not sure it would best be characterized by "mixing politics with ontology".

Anyway, hope you are well this day.

cheers,
joel