Uniformity of Nature; One & Many; Transcendental Argument.

The Uniformity of Nature and the One and the Many; TAG.
Sources:
Psychology of Religion: Van Til
Epistemic Justification: Richard Swinburne
Stanford Ency. Of Philosophy; Lewis' many clouds
Bach
Google Images (education)

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Christianity
• Apologetics
• Epistemology
• One and Many
• Uniformity of Nature
• Jesus Christ
• Plato
• Hume
• Kant
• Berkeley
• Van Til
• Bahnsen
• Lewis
• Swinburne
• Dawkins
• Dennett
• Hitchens
• Van
• Til
• Craig
• Moreland
• Kreeft
• Wilson
• Transcendental Argument

[SetonsH4ll]

I can see the deduction of atheism's falsity, and the argument for the trinity in the end as an ontological one but in what way does the Trinity explain the one and the many?

[Theologica37]

Check PM

[guitarstrummr]

Okay, I had to stop this video because your claim about atheists and time and matter was so silly it shows you have little clue what an atheist like me thinks.

"[To an atheist...]The universe is nothing but mere time and chance acting on matter." ~ Video at 6:20

First of all, "chance" doesn't "act" on anything. Neither does time. Chance and time are not things that do stuff. Chance is an illusion created by a limited mind. Time is just a dimension and dimension don't do anything.

[Theologica37]

By "chance", in this context, is meant causal relations without intended purpose, no specific direction or meaning. The variables of time and matter are the causal parameters in this system that would be of relevance.

[havock89]

Yep. You have gone into this with some depth in the video.

Great video btw. I have to watch them a couple of times to get my head around it all. but very well put together and precise in the language used. This doesnt give people wiggle room to logically misinterpret what your argument is - although it doesnt stop people form making illogical arguments, as we have seen.

God bless you.

[TheFunkyTheist]

Whoa. This sounds very platonic! Haha.

While I don't think that the trinity per se is a deduction from the existence of universals and particulars, I think you provided a very convincing way of understanding how universals and particulars must be accounted for apart from Nominalistic thinking. At least that's what you seemed to be arguing here from I what I could tell. Very interesting indeed.

[ogirv101]

1:10:

I have a perfect quote from Albert Einstein that explains this, it's so relevent that I can't even understand why it's not on the video, want me to post it?

[ogirv101]

@blapperz:

You have been continously stating that people have been following fallacies, without even understanding the fallacies themselves. Correcting you isn't a fallacy, assuming that it's a fallacy to correct you is a fallacy. Calling someone fallacious because you don't understand the fallacy means that you're a flat out idiot, and when you don't accept it, it means you're stubborn and close minded. Not trying to offend you, but go and read what 'appeal to authority' is.

[Theologica37]

Its not an appeal to ridicule for me to point out that you are not dealing with the arguments; its right here in writing.

You say my claims are false with 0% argumentation and 100% blind posit. Same thing with this "false premises" nonsense. There is 11 minutes to this video; you've dealt with no more than a second of it. You are just spamming my page with complaints.

[blapperz]

In place of a support for a claim is a statement "this guy believes it so you should too".

Suspect what you want? Even if I were a troll, you are still appealing to ridicule or guilt. Which is as it turns out is another logical fallacy.

Nice formulation of pointless buzzwords of which lend zero credibility to your false claims or credibility.

Seriously though, you admit to false premises yet use them support a particular conclusion. It's entirely fallacious.

[Theologica37]

You, apparently, do not understand what an appeal to authority is. I did not make the claim that because someone said something, that it is therefore true. You have responded to exactly 0% of the argument presented in this video. You within the span of roughly 10 minutes, posted comments on many of my videos; all of which share this shallow rhetoric.

I was somewhat excited initially, but now I am moving through the substance and suspect you to be a troll.