I posted a reflection a small aspect of Van Tillian thought at a Reconstructionist page on facebook. I wasn't even criticizing Van Til, but asking an epistemological question. The firestorm that followed was....well...quite believable, actually. As a general rule Reconstructionists do not read outside their fields and haven't discussed anything new in two decades. Once they realized they were simply over their heads philosophically, the more abrasive ones backed off.
But I thought this should be fun. The Transcendental Argument says if you don't presuppose the existence of God, knowledge is consistently impossible. I am not going to actually address that point. A number of guys have offered devastating refutations of TAG (e.g., it proves Fristianity, the truth of the Pope, etc) The catch-phrase is this, The truth of the Christian Faith is the impossibility of the contrary.
Major Premise: Jesus said with God all things are possible.
Minor Premise: The contrary is a thing.
Conclusion: The Contrary is possible.
Relax, it's a joke.
But I thought this should be fun. The Transcendental Argument says if you don't presuppose the existence of God, knowledge is consistently impossible. I am not going to actually address that point. A number of guys have offered devastating refutations of TAG (e.g., it proves Fristianity, the truth of the Pope, etc) The catch-phrase is this, The truth of the Christian Faith is the impossibility of the contrary.
Major Premise: Jesus said with God all things are possible.
Minor Premise: The contrary is a thing.
Conclusion: The Contrary is possible.
Relax, it's a joke.
No comments:
Post a Comment