tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post1244319093728888139..comments2024-03-17T08:25:33.806+00:00Comments on Thoughts of Francis Turretin: W. L. Craig's GameTurretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-66113350448430096792007-09-13T16:20:00.000+01:002007-09-13T16:20:00.000+01:00Dear Dan,As an additional note, I think you'll fin...Dear Dan,<BR/><BR/>As an additional note, I think you'll find it difficult consistently to defend the truth of "counterfactuals" using a "correspondence to reality" definition of truth.<BR/><BR/>-TurretinfanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-27208310979141128692007-09-09T15:02:00.000+01:002007-09-09T15:02:00.000+01:00Incidentally, Dan, feel free to jump into either c...Incidentally, Dan, feel free to jump into either challenge (the monergism one in a sidebar here, or the exegesis one in a parallel track backchannel).<BR/><BR/>-TurretinfanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-33315990316768505702007-09-09T14:52:00.000+01:002007-09-09T14:52:00.000+01:00Dear Dan,Thanks for your additional comments.You d...Dear Dan,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your additional comments.<BR/><BR/>You disputed the criticality of the lack of mutual exclusisivity between logical and causal relationships, and doubted its truth. I'll provide a simple example to show its truth: a man named Stevenson is logically subsequent to the man named Steven. In other words, as a matter of logical priority, the man named Steven has a first Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-45906500929837259102007-09-08T16:30:00.000+01:002007-09-08T16:30:00.000+01:00Dear Turretin,TF: You fail to respond to the fact ...Dear Turretin,<BR/><BR/>TF: You fail to respond to the fact that "logical" is not mutually exclusive of "causal." That failure is critical.<BR/><BR/>I don’t see how this point is critical. Even if it’s true (and I doubt that it is), that doesn’t show that the connection is causal in this specific case.<BR/><BR/>TF: Sure, the relationship between "truth" and "correspondence to reality" is Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-22213565708555761762007-09-07T16:52:00.000+01:002007-09-07T16:52:00.000+01:00Dan:Can you answer the question, "What makes a pro...Dan:<BR/><BR/>Can you answer the question, "What makes a proposition true or false?"<BR/><BR/>I submit that if you cannot, you have subscribed to a philosophy that is unable to account for truth.<BR/><BR/>-TurretinfanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-48776579855299720282007-09-07T16:47:00.000+01:002007-09-07T16:47:00.000+01:00Dear Dan,You fail to respond to the fact that "log...Dear Dan,<BR/><BR/>You fail to respond to the fact that "logical" is not mutually exclusive of "causal." That failure is critical.<BR/><BR/>As to the three-part argument regarding the second point of the summary you provided:<BR/><BR/>Sure, the relationship between "truth" and "correspondence to reality" is definitional (although WLC cannot possibly accept such a definition of truth, so you - Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-24843538661483968252007-09-07T01:15:00.000+01:002007-09-07T01:15:00.000+01:00Dear Turretin,Thee: I don't claim that "reality ca...Dear Turretin,<BR/><BR/>Thee: I don't claim that "reality causes the truth value of propositions." Instead, I claim that correspondence to reality causes the truth value of the propositions. In other words, the reason that "Today the sun is shining brightly" is true (if it is true) is because it corresponds to reality.<BR/><BR/>Interesting. In that case I would argue that there is no difference Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-7105598094525287132007-09-03T15:41:00.000+01:002007-09-03T15:41:00.000+01:00Dear Dan,Thanks for your comments.You wrote:"Your ...Dear Dan,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your comments.<BR/><BR/>You wrote:<BR/>"<I>Your thesis seems to be that reality has a causal relationship with the truth value of a proposition. I will unfairly boil your argument into two parts:</I>"<BR/><BR/>I respond:<BR/>You seem to have identified my claim correctly, but misunderstood it, as we will see below. I'm not too worried about the boil-down.<BR/><BR/>Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-56378145493447856512007-08-31T17:41:00.000+01:002007-08-31T17:41:00.000+01:00Dear Turretinfan,I wanted to respond to your post ...Dear Turretinfan,<BR/><BR/>I wanted to respond to your post regarding Craig’s analysis of Newcom’s paradox. Rather than going line by line, I will pick out what I think is the key point: causal vs. semantic (or definitional) relationships. <BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/><BR/><BR/>“WLC writes: "This analysis, however, seems to rest upon a misunderstanding in which the causal relation between an event orAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com