The following is from Chris Matthew and his conversation with some atheist. He’s an up-and-coming presuppositionalist: There are a couple of remarks that merit response, @FondestAlloy. 1.) Do you deny the possibility of knowing whether something is objectively true? 2.) … Continue reading The Unity of Knowledge
Necessitarian takes on two atheists on the topic of empiricism. It is good for younger presuppositionalists to read how to perform presuppositionalism at a profound level. Necessitarian: I cannot agree that my system struggles with any such question. For Aristotle, … Continue reading Perceptions Boundary
Here are some recent thoughts that I have had about the topic of eternal generation. I was dialoguing with a Latin trinitarian. He stated that the Father possesses a property that causes him to emanate the Son. So, naturally, I asked if the Son possesses that same property then it seems like he should emanate a son aswell. This was his thoughts about that problem: Every property of the divine essence is firstly a hypostatic property of the Father; but each property which is communicated is instantiated distinctly by the distinct hypostases. Ergo, when you say “is THIS life-givingness, etc.” … Continue reading Eternal Frustration
Michael Jones recently was interviewed by Braxton Hunter and Johnathan Prichett. It was an interview styled like MSNBC interviewing Obama. You have to wonder if Hunter and Prichett even have arms with the softballs they threw for Jones. They start … Continue reading Michael Jones on Idealism
Thibodaux has written a response to my article. So, let’s review it: http://spirited-tech.com/COG/2019/08/06/thibodaux-the-saga-continues/ https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2019/08/09/tackling-calvinist-errors-on-omniscience-aseity-plus-a-deductive-proof/ I’ve been pretty clear since the beginning of our dialogue that God doesn’t derive His attributes from creation. Quoting previous posts: Does Thibodaux not distinguish between a person professed position and the implications of the position? Sure, he denies that that is his position but that is the implication of his position. He doesn’t do anything to dispell us of that argument. To sum up the heretofore poorly-explained objection, the objector makes the error of conflating the attribute of omniscience with the specifics of God’s knowledge. … Continue reading Thibodaux: A Dependent Independence
This will be a collection of articles against transgenderism. Here are the points of privilege(he/him pronouns): Chris Matthew: ‘LGBT’: Intelligible or Incoherent? Benjamin H. Arbour: Transgenderism, Human Ontology, and the Metaphysics of Properties TheCouncil: Gender and Biology Thank You, Comrades! Continue reading ‘LGBT’: Intelligible or Incoherent?
Jimmy Stephens recently stated something that I have been arguing with J. C. Thibodaux. Here is a relevant part of the conversation: TheQuestioner: In a discussion with a fellow believer, I brought up the fact that Jesus declared to Peter that He would deny Him as an example against the PAP. I said that because Jesus knew in advance what Peter would do, Peter couldn’t have done otherwise. They said that this doesn’t suggest that Peter couldn’t have done otherwise, but would not do otherwise. Would you say that God’s knowledge of what we will do means that we could … Continue reading Libertarian Foreknowledge
I was in a recent conversation about whether profanity is inherently immoral. Here are some of the statements and questions that arose: If you can’t read this in violation of Matthew 15:10-20, Ephesians 4:29, Ephesians 5, and James 1:26, there is no rational grounds to reject ANY curseword given the “neutral” context. I hope you realize that when you reject bad words, then all words are now good? This means that he commits himself to the notion that words are inherently immoral. That certain words are immoral in any given circumstances to use. I think an example would show the … Continue reading Bridled Tongues
J.C. Thibodaux has responded to my refutation: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2019/08/01/calvinist-debate-talking-past-the-argument/ Before we get to that, his big objection in his initial post was that the Arminian view of free will would somehow ‘explain’ God’s attributes. Though I expressed that his objection about people ‘explaining’ God’s attributes wasn’t clear, instead of any clarification we get this: The problem with the second point is that it is clearly incorrect. It is relevant because it still shows that Arminians have tensions in their worldview. He’s still not clear what he means by this, but suffice to say that complaining about creation ‘explaining’ God’s attributes without even defining his … Continue reading Thibodaux: The Saga Continues
The Council 
You must be logged in to post a comment.