Get a copy of my book “Double-Think,” which comprehensively refuted Van Til’s satanic teachings by clicking this link: app.thebookpatch.com/BookStore/double-think--refuting-the-satanic-teachings-of-cornelius-van-til/1caacd06-b14e-4ced-87e9-a47da3285f47
calling van til's "teaching" "satanic" is completely absurd as well as sinful. your reasoning is nonsensical. there are no neutral facts and many others Christian or otherwise acknowledge this fact. everything is filtered through an internal worldview. you clearly do no engage in sound reasoning purely by calling van Til satanic. even if you were correct about epistemology, which you are not, this statement from you is as absurd as it is nasty.
Dear chump, your stupid rant fails to address anything in the video. Of course, as the video showed, scholarship should never be confused with Van Tilianism…lol! I’m glad you are offended that I would call Van Til’s moronic claim-that the Bible is filled with contradictions-satanic. Van Til was a Satanist, who rejected the verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible-and you are unable to defend him, if you have even read his published trash. It’s not a coincidence that Van Til is celebrated in an apostate nation that proudly celebrates homosexuality-and other sodomite beliefs and practices…after all, Van Til clearly asserted continuously that homosexuality was morally affirmed by the Bible.
Disprove the veracity of logic without using logic. It is impossible. That is how something is proven via the impossibility of the contrary. You cannot attempt to disprove God without appealing to a myriad of transcendentals that are not justifiable without God as the prerequisite. No other argument or assertion Van Til ever made have any bearing on this argument.
Which to everyone with a thinking mind, realizes claiming a need to know why things are true is unnecessary, let alone knowing it to 100% certainty (all humans have probabilistic minds) Realizing that just shows how much your argument is just claiming a need so you can avoid your burdens of proof, lol
To say that every proposition is the contrary of an opposition is undeniable and uncontroversial. To say that even that the statement “God exists” is the contrary of “there is no God” does not at all imply that we must accept that the contrary is actually a possibility or even a plausible position. Therefore, your syllogism is severely confused and, frankly, uncharitable, as it’s attempting to imply that merely stating that every truth claim is the contrary of a possible opposite truth claim is not in any way to suggest that the opposite claim is possible. To state that a proposition has a contrary doesn’t commit one to saying the contrary is true or even plausible. It’s simply a recognition of the logical structure of propositions. For example, recognizing that the proposition “everything exists” has a contrary “nothing at all exists” doesn’t mean one is claiming there might not be anything that exists; it’s just acknowledging the nature of propositional logic. Your ignorant critique of Van Til, as presented in the ‘syllogism’, seems to stem from an utter misunderstanding or misrepresentation of his views, not to mention absent of clear thinking and rationality. Claiming that a proposition has a contrary is a basic logical observation, not a theological claim about the truth or falsity of the propositions in question. The syllogism’s attempt to label such a straightforward observation as “blasphemous” is not only uncharitable to the point of being demonic-the Bible teaches us that this sort of malice is of satan-and misguided, it’s actually retarded.
Your pusillanimous and misological defense of heretic Cornelius Van Til, despite your pathetic and verbose braying, is nothing other than a long eared shaggy jackass begging the question...LOL! In your idiotic rant, because what you wrote cannot be classified as a defense...LOL...you never once affirm the basic definitions of deductive propositional logic (for example, the Law of Contradiction), which Van Til obviously rejected throughout his career in dialectical theology...LOL! So take your post-modern drivel, that you probably got from some $5 Books-A-Million introduction to philosophy-LOL-and flush it with the rest of the crap. Any legitimate logic text will tell you that, by definition, contradictories cannot both be true, but if one is true, then the other is necessarily false-while contraries, again, by definition, cannot both be true, but can both be false, chump. The syllogism in the video stands, and Van Til's teachings are moronic and satanic.
English was not Van Til's first language. Van Til deductively justifies that the Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Ethics of the Biblical worldview are necessarily true by showing any non-Biblical Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Ethics are necessarily false. So, what Van Til actually did was he proved the Biblical worldview by the impossibility of the contradictory (as you've defined it). So, there's no issue. And you would know this if you understood any of the argumentation in question conceptually even just on a basic level.
What I've found is those opposed to Presup virtually always resort to just definitional / semantical bickering. They don't want to actually address the fairly basic deductive argumentation conceptually because it can't be rebutted. So they have to resort to the most trivial linguistic definitional bickering imaginable to deliberately just cause a breakdown of communication to make it impossible for anyone to prove anything at all. And that is, then, interpreted as victory. Usually it's atheists doing this, but some believers do it as well... if they're emotionally motivated against Van Til for whatever reason.
Furthermore, the definitions provided for "contrary" all actually work just fine so far. All of them that I've checked. So you would have had to REALLY try hard to find a particular definition of "contrary" that would cause any issue. And from there, you'd still just be equivocating on Van Til's use of the word as he defined it.
Get a copy of my book “Double-Think,” which comprehensively refuted Van Til’s satanic teachings by clicking this link:
app.thebookpatch.com/BookStore/double-think--refuting-the-satanic-teachings-of-cornelius-van-til/1caacd06-b14e-4ced-87e9-a47da3285f47
calling van til's "teaching" "satanic" is completely absurd as well as sinful. your reasoning is nonsensical. there are no neutral facts and many others Christian or otherwise acknowledge this fact. everything is filtered through an internal worldview. you clearly do no engage in sound reasoning purely by calling van Til satanic. even if you were correct about epistemology, which you are not, this statement from you is as absurd as it is nasty.
Dear chump, your stupid rant fails to address anything in the video.
Of course, as the video showed, scholarship should never be confused with Van Tilianism…lol!
I’m glad you are offended that I would call Van Til’s moronic claim-that the Bible is filled with contradictions-satanic.
Van Til was a Satanist, who rejected the verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible-and you are unable to defend him, if you have even read his published trash.
It’s not a coincidence that Van Til is celebrated in an apostate nation that proudly celebrates homosexuality-and other sodomite beliefs and practices…after all, Van Til clearly asserted continuously that homosexuality was morally affirmed by the Bible.
@@RedBeetle Can you please provide a source for "Van Til clearly asserted continuously that homosexuality was morally affirmed by the Bible."
Disprove the veracity of logic without using logic. It is impossible.
That is how something is proven via the impossibility of the contrary. You cannot attempt to disprove God without appealing to a myriad of transcendentals that are not justifiable without God as the prerequisite. No other argument or assertion Van Til ever made have any bearing on this argument.
Which to everyone with a thinking mind, realizes claiming a need to know why things are true is unnecessary, let alone knowing it to 100% certainty (all humans have probabilistic minds)
Realizing that just shows how much your argument is just claiming a need so you can avoid your burdens of proof, lol
To say that every proposition is the contrary of an opposition is undeniable and uncontroversial. To say that even that the statement “God exists” is the contrary of “there is no God” does not at all imply that we must accept that the contrary is actually a possibility or even a plausible position. Therefore, your syllogism is severely confused and, frankly, uncharitable, as it’s attempting to imply that merely stating that every truth claim is the contrary of a possible opposite truth claim is not in any way to suggest that the opposite claim is possible.
To state that a proposition has a contrary doesn’t commit one to saying the contrary is true or even plausible. It’s simply a recognition of the logical structure of propositions. For example, recognizing that the proposition “everything exists” has a contrary “nothing at all exists” doesn’t mean one is claiming there might not be anything that exists; it’s just acknowledging the nature of propositional logic.
Your ignorant critique of Van Til, as presented in the ‘syllogism’, seems to stem from an utter misunderstanding or misrepresentation of his views, not to mention absent of clear thinking and rationality. Claiming that a proposition has a contrary is a basic logical observation, not a theological claim about the truth or falsity of the propositions in question. The syllogism’s attempt to label such a straightforward observation as “blasphemous” is not only uncharitable to the point of being demonic-the Bible teaches us that this sort of malice is of satan-and misguided, it’s actually retarded.
Your pusillanimous and misological defense of heretic Cornelius Van Til, despite your pathetic and verbose braying, is nothing other than a long eared shaggy jackass begging the question...LOL! In your idiotic rant, because what you wrote cannot be classified as a defense...LOL...you never once affirm the basic definitions of deductive propositional logic (for example, the Law of Contradiction), which Van Til obviously rejected throughout his career in dialectical theology...LOL! So take your post-modern drivel, that you probably got from some $5 Books-A-Million introduction to philosophy-LOL-and flush it with the rest of the crap. Any legitimate logic text will tell you that, by definition, contradictories cannot both be true, but if one is true, then the other is necessarily false-while contraries, again, by definition, cannot both be true, but can both be false, chump.
The syllogism in the video stands, and Van Til's teachings are moronic and satanic.
English was not Van Til's first language.
Van Til deductively justifies that the Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Ethics of the Biblical worldview are necessarily true by showing any non-Biblical Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Ethics are necessarily false.
So, what Van Til actually did was he proved the Biblical worldview by the impossibility of the contradictory (as you've defined it). So, there's no issue. And you would know this if you understood any of the argumentation in question conceptually even just on a basic level.
What I've found is those opposed to Presup virtually always resort to just definitional / semantical bickering. They don't want to actually address the fairly basic deductive argumentation conceptually because it can't be rebutted. So they have to resort to the most trivial linguistic definitional bickering imaginable to deliberately just cause a breakdown of communication to make it impossible for anyone to prove anything at all. And that is, then, interpreted as victory.
Usually it's atheists doing this, but some believers do it as well... if they're emotionally motivated against Van Til for whatever reason.
Furthermore, the definitions provided for "contrary" all actually work just fine so far. All of them that I've checked. So you would have had to REALLY try hard to find a particular definition of "contrary" that would cause any issue. And from there, you'd still just be equivocating on Van Til's use of the word as he defined it.