|
Post by Josh Parsley on Aug 7, 2007 18:15:35 GMT -5
I ran across the below and it made me smile. It's so simple, but I don't know how many would be convinced by it.
An Argument for God's Existence
1. The number one is a concept or idea.
2. Ideas can only exist in minds.
3. The number one is eternal
4. The number one is immutable.
5. The number one must exist independently of human minds.
6. There must exist an eternal and immutable mind.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Aug 7, 2007 19:15:01 GMT -5
Haha, that's interesting. It kind of sounds like a mini-transcendental argument for the existence of God. I don't go for that kind of thing much, right now, anyway... but where did you find that, Josh?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Aug 7, 2007 19:36:29 GMT -5
I was listening to a apologetics course by Ron Nash. He was showing that you can can many proofs for God that are logically valid and sound yet not convincing. Nash was under Clark, but he disagrees on a few issues. Rather than doing deductive presuppositionalism he would say he does inductive ( he says abductive is a better word) presuppositionalism. You can find it at www.biblicaltraining.org/class.php?class=TH601 then under The Existence of God the specific lecture is called background By the way www.biblicaltraining.org is a good site. Oh, beware of the Calvinism though, I think they are all Calvinist. I plan on going through the courses on Apologetics (and the others that are similar), Church History, and some on other religions.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Aug 7, 2007 19:41:56 GMT -5
They are only Calvinists because only consistent Calvinism is consistent with good apologetics. ;D
The problem with the proof is that even if it worked, it could also work for Mormonism, Islam, or any other general theist (or deist, for that matter!).
Edit: I did not mean to say here that the only reason a Calvinist is one is because it is consistent with presuppositional apologetics. There are other reasons, of course. I just meant to say that presuppositional apologetics, in my opinion, is only consistent with Calvinism.
|
|