I personally prefer order. However, I find contradiction unavoidable. Christ being fully God and fully human, for instance

This isn’t a contradiction. Remember that there is a second part of the Law of Non-Contradiction.

A can not equal Non-A (r.t)

In other words, A can not equal Non-A in the same time and the same respect.

So if you have a circle it can not be a square at the same time in the same respect. It is a logical contradiction.

So say someone argues that a cylinder is both a square and a circle at the same time. They would be correct, except that it is not both a circle and a square in the same respect. From one side it is a square and from another side it is a circle.

Christ’s being 100% God while at the same time being 100% Man is rational based upon the above logic.

Christ’s Spirit was 100% while is body was 100% Man. Therefore the respects are different. The immaterial part of Christ was completely God and the material part of Christ was completely man. This doesn’t mean that the immaterial couldn’t influence the material, nor that the material couldn’t influence the immaterial (ex. Christ felt pain when he was placed upon the Cross)

See my link in the above post. There is a logical argument that the immaterial does exist.

“It fails on the level of the most basic.”

Does your position entail the rejection of all versions of epistemic foundationalism?

I think William Lane Craig has written a good article summarizing the benefits of Alvin Plantinga’s Foundationalism.

ColtsFan on September 12, 2007 at 1:19 AM

Yes, it doesBased upon his Foundationalism he is wrong. He actually needs to use Rational Pressupositionalism.

The issue is that an ontological argument fails based upon any non-Material Monism argument. In is argument is does not argue against Spiritual Monism. Knowledge can exist in Spiritual Monism, because knowledge would be an intrinsic part of Brahman, due to it must existing by self-defeating argument. (I know that I do not know, means that you must know)

So we know that knowledge can exist in a Spiritual Monistic worldview.

My issue with Craig is that he does not prove and cannot prove God from the Kalam Theory.

Basically to prove a world view rational you need to:

1. Answer the most basic (Does knowledge exist)
2. Answer what is Eternal (The second most basic question)

Craig needs to use the Square of Opposition, and disprove the other three worldviews first:

1. All came into being (All is temporal)
2. All is Matter.
3. All is Spirit.
4. A mix of 2 and 3.

That only leaves Some is Eternal. Then he can use Kalam argument to prove that it is rationally possible.

Basically, I won’t go over the arguments again, but you can read them here start with the 9:04pm post.

I know I haven’t addressed Nonfactor’s response, but I have been pressed for time with this new job. Hopefully, I can over the weekend.

I am not seeking to challenge you.

Thanks for your comments.

I am sorry for the confusing “laying down my cards” analogy.

I’m from Indiana, and we play euchre a lot. :-)

I personally prefer order. However, I find contradiction unavoidable. Christ being fully God and fully human, for instance.

My position is that the Incarnation does not involve at all a logical contradiction. However, faulty interpretations or faulty definitions of the Incarnation may involve contradiction, which is another reason why we should reject them. But the traditional, classical definition or interpretation of the Incarnation does not involve contradiction.

Kevin Vanhoozer of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. I know him.

He is good. He tends to focus on Continental philosophy, but I believe he also would agree with me that there are no logical contradictions in Christianity.

There are mysteries, and topics that go “beyond reason,” but nonetheless are not themselves Anti-Reason. They may go “beyond reason” in that they require faith, but they do not require an irrational faith.

Contact me here if you want to discuss anything further.

I personally prefer order. However, I find contradiction unavoidable. Christ being fully God and fully human, for instance.

As for my cards, I don’t have many – the guy I quoted above is 19th century American pastor and theologian Horace Bushnell, himself a Romantic, and heavily influenced by the Romantic poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge. I am trying to connect Bushnell’s Romantic theology with contemporary Evangelicals such as N.T. Wright, and Kevin Vanhoozer, in the sense of a “dramatic theology.” In a good way, I should add.

That is interesting. I would love to talk to you about this – maybe not here though

Great. Sounds good to me.

I will lay my philosophical cards on the table here. I am influenced by the writings of Gordon H. Clark, particularly this book. I have also found this book to be very helpful, as well as this excellent book.

You are correct. God can’t make “round squares” because any and every contradiction is wrong and sinful and impossible.
ColtsFan on September 12, 2007 at 11:52 AM

That is interesting. I would love to talk to you about this – maybe not here though. For my dissertation, I am studying a guy whose most well-known quote is that:

Accordingly, we never come so near to a truly well rounded view of any truth, as when it is offered paradoxically; that is, under contradictions; that is, under two or more dictions, which, taken as dictions, are contrary to one another.

Interesting.

er…lemme try that again (no coffee yet):

TheisticEvolution.org

jediwebdude on September 12, 2007 at 9:00 AM

Evolution and Christianity do not mix.

There’s plenty of science that supports the Creationism worldview.

I agree. My problem with religion is simply its implication that people are born “bad” and God makes them good.
frreal on September 12, 2007 at 9:18 AM

But what if the philosophical evidence points towards a worldview that teaches that humans have something called “total depravity” in them? What if the evidence points in the opposite direction of your worldview? Would you personally change your position?

Total depravity or the view “that humans have something fundamentally wrong with them” is indeed reflective of reality. Religious Liberals and the early 19th century Atheistic Humanists (I am looking at my personal copy of “Humanizing Religion” by Charles Francis Potter) were always criticizing Bible believers for their “negative view” of human nature, preferring instead to believe that human nature is “good” and that an upbeat, positive, optimism about humanity should and will win in the battle of ideas in the long run. Atheistic Humanists of the last century were convinced of the inherent goodness of human nature.

But what happened? Why did religious liberalism and atheistic humanism decline in popularity and influence?

The chemical warfare of World War I, followed by World War II, followed by the discovery of concentration camps and stoves for Jews, followed by the worldwide spread of Karl Marx in North Korea and Vietnam, followed by communism of Central America (Nicaragua, Cuba)…

The point is that the cheerful optimism rooted in a “human nature is good” viewpoint of Religious Liberalism and atheistic Humanism died many years ago.

leads to an inherant belief that those who claim disbelief are “bad” despite doing “good” things, while those who claim belief but do “bad” things are still “good”. This is where/why you get your militant atheists.
frreal on September 12, 2007 at 9:18 AM

The Christian position is that atheists may in fact do “good” things, but those actions flow from a heart that is not centered on God.

As far as Christians who do “bad things” but who are still called “good,” here is my response. Our everyday practices, and pattern of behavior reveal the true state of our hearts. Our outward behavior reveals the true condition of our heart. If a Christian consistently does “bad things,” without repentance, then he may be a hypocrite, and thus, not a Christian at all. Jesus’s harshest words were not directed at an unbelieving, skeptical, dying world.

Rather, Jesus’s stern words were directed at so-called, “professing believers” who claim to follow Jesus, yet deny Him by their lifestyle. The strongest argument for atheism is the lives of so-called, professing Christians who acknowledge Jesus Christ with their lips verbally, but yet deny Him as Lord by their evil deeds and their sinful lifestyle. But these so-called Christians are not Christians at all, according to the Bible.

That is why I get upset at HotAir.com when I see arrogant Christians acting uncharitably and rude towards unbelievers. The mark of Christian living is love emanating from a transformed heart that is utterly dependent on God’s grace alone. This eliminates any pride or any arrogrance on the part of the individual Christian believer.

After all, Jesus himself said that many people will claim to follow Him out of purely sociological or psychological or cultural reasons, instead of choosing to follow Jesus out of a transformed, thankful, dependent heart.

Only in a religion created by men would a god promise a group of people a land for which they did not labor, and for which in order to claim said land it was required of them to slaughter all of its inhabitants …. all except for the virgins that is.

Your quote above may be valid for other religions, but not relevant for Christianity. For an excellent discussion of
the psychological motivations of Christianity in comparision with atheism, check out this excellent book. Also, this superb book, SUSPICION AND FAITH: The Religious Uses of Modern Atheism is also relevant to some of your points as well.

no, God can’t make boulders too heavy for him to lift, round squares or exceed the salary cap.

tlynch001 on September 12, 2007 at 12:15 AM

You are correct. God can’t make “round squares” because any and every contradiction is wrong and sinful and impossible. That is why Christians can appeal to God as the source of rationality.

This book deals with the above subject in some good detail, as well as this other book by Alvin Plantinga. Both are excellent resources on understanding God’s nature.

…True attainment, at this point, happens and there is nothing you can do to happen it.

ganeshpuri89 on September 12, 2007 at 2:02 AM

My collie says:

Unless, of course, fate has it that you stumble across the anal profile of your dreams — in which case your quest for nirvana can get side-tracked indefinitely. (sniff-sniff, tail wagging)

Stupid dog.

Sort of how I feel about Pat Robertson. Yeah, he’s in my camp but I do wish he’d either shut up or wise up about half the time he opens his mouth.

John on September 12, 2007 at 3:09 AM

I agree. But often I doubt if he really is in our camp.

It’s what God is.

Kahuna on September 12, 2007 at 8:30 AM

???

Yeah, that may have been a bit harsh, nailinmyeye, i was just saying that the extreme fringes of any human conflict almost meet in the middle. not in a moral equivalence kind of way, but their intolerance and hatred of the other ’side” can get in the way.

bbz123 on September 11, 2007 at 11:11 PM

I understand. I just hadn’t heard that particular phrase, and I wondered if I had missed something.

ganeshpuri89 on September 12, 2007 at 3:35 AM

Your back and forth with ColtsFan was very interesting reading, which I had to do slowly, and look things up. I can’t contribute much to that discussion (other than this book on meditation which is a favorite of mine), but I had a few thoughts:
You’re up until 4am and you’re at Clemson, so you’re a kid. Wow! If not, maybe you’re an old man who can’t sleep. In either case, since I hadn’t seen you comment before, I hope you will in the future about some of the political issues we face– especially the issues of war and peace, Iran/Iraq, etc. Why? Because I’d like to see and learn how your perspective on the universe informs your opinions about how we should act in regard to the issues facing us now. I’m curious about that because I’ve always been a ‘big picture’ thinker, leaving the details to others. But in regard to the issue of Islamic terrorism, and more specifically how to protect myself and my family, I find the “details” very important now. So how does your thinking help you with the details?

And CT your answer at 11:22 PM was just dishonest. God created the whole world. Including wars. Assuming he exists.

Further, all the smiting and so forth in the Bible that Dawkins refers to — and the direction to seize Israel from the Philistines, etc. — doesn’t exist?

This is an argument you will lose if you’re honest. So don’t be honest

You’re giving Dawkins’ very same arguments, which as Platinga demonstrated, don’t have an epistemilogic basis. How do you condemn wars? How do you condemn genocide? On what basis? Simply declaring God evil because of certain things he allegedly decreed (which he didn’t) by itself proves nothing, unless you’re using some alternative standard that you can prove is a) infallible and b) logically coherent. So where is your standard?

Nonfactor on September 12, 2007 at 5:53 AM

I agree. My problem with religion is simply its implication that people are born “bad” and God makes them good. This leads to an inherant belief that those who claim disbelief are “bad” despite doing “good” things, while those who claim belief but do “bad” things are still “good”. This is where/why you get your militant atheists.

Only in a religion created by men would a god promise a group of people a land for which they did not labor, and for which in order to claim said land it was required of them to slaughter all of its inhabitants …. all except for the virgins that is.

Also, the Colts are good, the Pats are better. Accusations of cheating be damned. Brady stopped for a cup of coffee and a danish before passing the ball. I’m sure Brady needs to cheat when trying to read the Jets defense. I’m sure Moss was cheating in when he was triple covered.

Just to be clear, I hate the Pats and the Colts.

Peyton reminds me of old school football players.

You mean like Troy Aikman?

I have faith in Tony Romo (only cuz I have no choice).

TheisticEvolution.org

TheisticEvolution.org

bbz123 on September 11, 2007 at 10:54 PM
What exactly is a “Militant Evangelical”? Just curious.

nailinmyeye on September 11, 2007 at 11:07 PM

It’s what God is.

ColtsFan on September 12, 2007 at 12:02 AM

Being a Niners fan, I FRIGGEN HATE PARITY!!! :-)

Although it has allowed me to get behind other teams. After the heartbreaking years rooting for the Bills after my guys were out, only to watch Kelly and company choke against the vile Cowboys :-), it was a pleasant super bowl rooting for a bunch of great guys and classy players like you guys have on the Colts. Peyton reminds me of old school football players. A throwback to the 60’s when players were, for the most part, heroes we could look up to.

RightWinged,

When are you going to bring back your website?

ColtsFan on September 12, 2007 at 1:45 AM

Possibly never… I moved it to a separate host (from other sites I’m involved with) and the hosting company turned out to suck, and I kept having all sorts of problems… and I got busy, so it didn’t really bother me… then as time went on I just cared less and less, and whenever I’d get up the energy to call the hosting company, the idiots gave me a run around (basically they couldn’t answer my questions) so I sort of gave up.

At this point, I barely even think about it… not saying never… but possibly never, as my motivation for bringing it back is lacking… sad too, because I rarely blogged, especially for the last 6 months the site was still up (it was still up for months, but I wasn’t able to edit it) and I was still averaging 500+ hits/day, but it never translated in to significant ad revenue. If someone can promise me ad revenue, it would motivate me to bring it back, haha!