This discussion has come up for me on Facebook more intensely, against the evidentialists, classical apologists and an atheist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I think this was a default believe for me, probably analogous to Anselm's ontological argument. I believer it was later on that I learned (1<\/a>, 2<\/a>, 3<\/a>, 4<\/a>, 5<\/a>, 6<\/a>, 7<\/a>) that Gordon Clark (logic = Logos = nature of God) vs. Cornelius Van Til (logic does not equal Logos and is created by God).<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is also related to why I put theology above all, including philosophy, to many's dislikes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Van Til touched on this here and there. He spoke against God being under the philosophy of Chance in The Defense of Christianity<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A good google key phrase would be: \"van til\" \"logic is created\"<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Update 9\/28\/2022: \u6234\u6c38\u5bcc first made the distinction between the mind of God and the mind of man, which should not have overlapped, I assume. Then he somehow connect the two as if they are one, even though he emphasized on their distinction: viz. God cannot lie, God cannot deny Himself, etc. But how is this God's logic and not man's? Therefore, I would comment this way: The minds are not logical entity. The mind and logic are not the same thing. You can say thoughts, but never logic. Logic, including the logic of identity, noncontradiction, etc. is part of this cosmos, this universe, which is created, therefore logic is created.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n On further investigation, I came across (through Alex's Facebook search on logic) this article by Nathaniel Gray Sutanto, which was even brought up for discussion with the author on Reformed Forum<\/a>: his paper on \"Two theological accounts of logic: theistic conceptual realism and a reformed archetype-ectype model\". I shall give my feedback in the comments.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This discussion has come up for me on Facebook more intensely, against the evidentialists, classical apologists and an atheist. I think this was a default believe for me, probably analogous to Anselm's ontological argument. I believer it was later on … Continue reading
On 9\/24, I was able to attend on Zoom, through Alex's public invitation on FB, this talk: 2022 \u57fa\u7763\u6559\u4e0e\u4e2d\u534e\u6587\u5316\u7814\u7a76\u6240 4 Views of Philosophy - \u4f55\u8c13\u54f2\u5b66 - \u56db\u79cd\u89c2\u70b9 - \u9a86\u5fb7\u6069\uff0c\u77bf\u65ed\u5f64\uff0c\u66fe\u52ad\u607a\uff0c\u6234\u6c38\u5bcc. The part I like about Alex Tseng is his willingness to be open to conversation with anyone who seeks (unlike David Tong who's either \"too\" busy or hard to reach on a private level). However, Dr. Tseng does seem to exhibit quite a bit of vengeful heart towards people who \"wrongs\" him, but then I could be wrong, maybe I just don't know enough about these debates on Karl Barth. I would think \u77bf\u65ed\u5f64\uff0c\u66fe\u52ad\u607a are on one team, while \u9a86\u5fb7\u6069, \u6234\u6c38\u5bcc on another. The former's view on the reformed, while the latter come from classical if not Arminian apologetics philosophical approach. Hence I had to ask them, is logic a creation of God? or of God's nature\/property. Only \u6234\u6c38\u5bcc answered, as expected, he said it's God's property, therefore, God cannot be above logic. God cannot deny Himself. I obviously would disagree. However, I saw Alex kept nodding his head as if in approval as \u6234\u6c38\u5bcc kept explaining.<\/p>\n\n\n\n