tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post819423658761849727..comments2024-03-27T09:11:00.450-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: Jet's Flimsy DenialsBahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-47841026214295562212007-05-05T13:23:00.000-04:002007-05-05T13:23:00.000-04:00My response to your material has continued.My response to your material has continued.apolojet.wordpress.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08177947765135734409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-51221126988243133682007-05-03T00:20:00.000-04:002007-05-03T00:20:00.000-04:00Sorry, I'm confused again. I haven't read all of J...Sorry, I'm confused again. I haven't read all of Jet's posts, so I am just trusting that what you have said is accurate (which 'presupposition' you can grant I hope--(did I use that word right?)). I haven't read most of the books you refer to, so I don't know much about them either. So I'm coming pretty much only from your post and a small amount of study in rhetoric, and a bit more in logic. One problem: John Frame's "best illustration" doesn't seem to be the illustration for how men have "free will" and God is sovereign, but rather how there are causes within the world the author created and the cause outside that world (the author himself). So I think he is illustrating something different than you suppose. Same thing with Poythress: by your explanation (which is all I have to go on)--it seems that the analogy is actually Dorothy Sayers', not Poythress', but anyway--again the analogy isn't between free will and predestination (I think that's the word you used in another post). It is an analogy primarily for the creativeness of the author. So your cartoonist analogy seems to be a little different.<BR/><BR/>Oh, it also seems that things have gotten piled together--things that Jet or some of these other guys you and he cite probably wouldn't combine--when you say:<BR/><I> Of course, theists are going to try to weasel out of the implications of such declarations, but this is to be expected given their worldview-wide habit of evasion. The theist needs to come clean on what he believes: either he believes that “God controls whatsoever comes to pass,” which could only mean human beings are analogous to characters in a cartoon acting precisely as the cartoonist intends (indeed, as cogs in a massive “plan” which was set in motion long before we even came to be), or he doesn’t (in which case his god is simply another entity among all the others of the universe, having no more significance than a rock). These are not my problems. </I> <BR/>From "God controls whatsoever comes to pass" we have concluded that people are "as cogs in a massive 'plan' which [sic] was set in motion long before we came to be". I don't see how these two are logically equivalent. Similarly for "he [God] doesn't" control whatsoever comes to pass, how is that equivalent or reducible to "having no more significance than a rock". I realize answers to these issues aren't your problems acc. to the post, but since you have created these dilemmas I want to make sure there is no other choice.<BR/><BR/>P.S. I don't think the dialogue set up is terribly fair...but I did like your post when you stated your view on where life came from, which I guess simply is that life didn't come from..., it just is. I found that very interesting! Thanks!<BR/>-BPFUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08091238326202463336noreply@blogger.com