tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38436816.post7369332414846867026..comments2024-01-21T14:29:38.613-08:00Comments on Dangerous Idea 2: Is God a precondition for knowledgeVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38436816.post-79731039294761381682007-09-07T07:16:00.000-07:002007-09-07T07:16:00.000-07:00{shrug} Could have been written by anyone I guess....{shrug} Could have been written by anyone I guess. I've seen silly (indeed sillier) things written by all three categories you mentioned, B. {s}<BR/><BR/>I think there's a difference (incidentally) between identifying God (by conclusion, even if only abductively) as a precondition for knowledge; and formally presuming God's existence as a precondition for knowledge (which seems to me to be utterly false to the reality of thinking). Theological Presups tend to conflate the two notions, for various reasons; but if they only proceed abductively they can do okay with what I call a system-check duel. Their main problem is that they aren't usually content to proceed abductively, and keep trying to make an unassailable conclusion out of treating the worldview-set as a hypothesis. _That's_ when things get squirrely, and even contemptable (in my experience, and opinion.)<BR/><BR/>JRPJason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38436816.post-78156403726785052442007-09-06T13:12:00.000-07:002007-09-06T13:12:00.000-07:00I see little value in a discussion confined to two...<I>I see little value in a discussion confined to two people</I><BR/><BR/>This is the silliest things I've read in a while. <BR/><BR/>Given that sentence would you predict it was written by:<BR/>a) an evangelical christian<BR/>b) some guy on the street you were talking to<BR/>c) an atheistBlue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.com