tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post5674648585902470997..comments2024-03-21T03:04:18.673-04:00Comments on Unapologetica: God, Language, and ScripturalismRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-64850366310807078082012-04-26T14:00:49.426-04:002012-04-26T14:00:49.426-04:00Maybe so. As a final point, then, if language - an...Maybe so. As a final point, then, if language - and since language is a precondition for knowledge, knowledge itself - extends from God's will, all of God's knowledge is accidental/non-necessary (on your view). I would be very uncomfortable with that.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-55814540813169455402012-04-23T01:15:23.006-04:002012-04-23T01:15:23.006-04:00That's probably all I'm going to say Ryan....That's probably all I'm going to say Ryan. I think we may be getting too deep into hidden things.Drake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-62255134929375545342012-04-23T01:13:02.094-04:002012-04-23T01:13:02.094-04:00"In what way is it ambiguous?"
Well we ..."In what way is it ambiguous?"<br /><br />Well we have touched on these issues before. Divine necessity could mean a necessity of nature or it could mean the eternality of a divine volition. <br /><br />That God eternally thinks in a certain language I will not deny, but is that language a necessity of nature, or an eternal volition? <br /><br />I think the latter. If the latter then the words he thinks with are not necessities of nature but simply agreeable volitions to nature. In that case, God's nature could allow to have thought in a different language and still be the same God.Drake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-1336860472646895592012-04-20T22:51:31.912-04:002012-04-20T22:51:31.912-04:00In what way is it ambiguous?
P1. God knows some p...In what way is it ambiguous?<br /><br />P1. God knows some propositions - namely, propositions about His nature - necessarily. [He couldn't not know about His own nature.]<br /><br />P2. Propositions are comprised of words. [There are no propositions not comprised of words.]<br /><br />C. To know any proposition necessarily presupposes that at least some words are necessary. [If the words aren't necessary, then either the proposition known isn't necessary or there are some propositions not composed of words.]<br /><br />"Given the above,would it not be equally meaningless to say that if there are necessary propositions, there are also necessary words, signs, or symbols?"<br /><br />Equally to what? I don't follow. Could you expand?Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-66232394101564147402012-04-20T20:18:02.338-04:002012-04-20T20:18:02.338-04:00I did read the article in its full. I am challengi...I did read the article in its full. I am challenging your ambiguous use of the word "necessary". <br /><br />"To ask in what language he knows them would, given the above, be as faulty as asking which of the two sentences about John does God know. God knows all valid linguistic conveyances of the same meaning"<br /><br /><br />Sounds like you have made a great argument on why language is then arbitrary. Given the above,would it not be equally meaningless to say that if there are necessary propositions, there are also necessary words, signs, or symbols?Drake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-78424306683938961812012-04-18T22:08:06.352-04:002012-04-18T22:08:06.352-04:00If you read the post all the way through, I say in...If you read the post all the way through, I say in the last paragraph that I think it would make more sense to consider all particular language"s" as necessary because we can consider them only to be geographically distinct. <br /><br />To put it another way, we agree that different sentences may convey the same information, right? "John hit the ball" and "the ball was hit by John" mean the same thing. Just because the sentences are different doesn't mean we should consider the sentences to be different languages. But then, why consider a so-called English sentence to be a different language than a Hebrew sentence which means the same thing? It seems to me the only reason to think of them as different languages is convention; one group predominately uses one set of words and sentences whereas another group uses another. It's a matter of geography. <br /><br />God knows propositions about His nature necessarily. To ask in what language he knows them would, given the above, be as faulty as asking which of the two sentences about John does God know. God knows all valid linguistic conveyances of the same meaning. He knows all language"s."Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-42067009532334976622012-04-18T20:39:05.932-04:002012-04-18T20:39:05.932-04:00So if God thinks to Himself "I am just" ...So if God thinks to Himself "I am just" in English, are you saying that he could not have thought that in Hebrew; that the English language is not simply an eternal choice but a necessity of nature that emanates from his nature?Drake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-82291540534472993132012-04-16T16:34:54.823-04:002012-04-16T16:34:54.823-04:00Then I mean knowledge of His nature.Then I mean knowledge of His nature.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-51845481003301209012012-04-16T16:19:02.142-04:002012-04-16T16:19:02.142-04:00Drake,
"But even on your view, is not God&#...Drake, <br /><br />"But even on your view, is not God's knowledge of Himself both eternal and necessary?"<br /><br />By "knowledge if himself" what do you mean exactly, because nature and will are both aspects "of himself"?Drake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-44833355955612772152012-04-16T14:36:19.261-04:002012-04-16T14:36:19.261-04:00But even on your view, is not God's knowledge ...But even on your view, is not God's knowledge of Himself both eternal and necessary?Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-69533405523782470522012-04-16T04:28:49.164-04:002012-04-16T04:28:49.164-04:00Ryan,
"If there are eternal and necessary p...Ryan, <br /><br />"If there are eternal and necessary propositions - and as God's knowledge of Himself is both, there is - then there are eternal and necessary words. You can't have the former without the latter."<br /><br />We have already had this discussion. Eternality does not imply a necessity of nature.Drake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-13868288745142433582012-04-16T00:04:57.234-04:002012-04-16T00:04:57.234-04:00"A propositions is the meaning of a declarati..."A propositions is the meaning of a declarative statement. Language is the arbitrary transport of that meaning."<br /><br />If there are eternal and necessary propositions - and as God's knowledge of Himself is both, there is - then there are eternal and necessary words. You can't have the former without the latter.<br /><br />"You seem to be equating a meaning with its carrier."<br /><br />From your perspective, that would be true, whereas you seem to be saying that words can be arbitrary but that propositions can be necessary. That doesn't make sense.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-46024792754862312372012-04-15T23:31:03.524-04:002012-04-15T23:31:03.524-04:00"What are the referents of those arbitrary si..."What are the referents of those arbitrary signs and symbols, then? Other propositions comprised of arbitrary signs and symbols? Or something supra-linguistic? I think either case is problematic."<br /><br />Meanings of declarative statements: propositions. A propositions is the meaning of a declarative statement. Language is the arbitrary transport of that meaning. <br /><br />"Other propositions comprised of arbitrary signs and symbols?"<br /><br />This is where I am not following you. You seem to be equating a meaning with its carrier.Drake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-28456993360097679862012-04-15T04:28:51.510-04:002012-04-15T04:28:51.510-04:00What are the referents of those arbitrary signs an...What are the referents of those arbitrary signs and symbols, then? Other propositions comprised of arbitrary signs and symbols? Or something supra-linguistic? I think either case is problematic.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-24483426085878696502012-04-15T03:48:55.398-04:002012-04-15T03:48:55.398-04:00"Simply put, if there are necessary, known pr..."Simply put, if there are necessary, known propositions, there are also necessary words, signs, or symbols."<br /><br />>>>This necessity is it a necesiity of the eternality of its use, that de facto, those are the signs and symbols that God chose to think, or is it a necessity of nature, that those particular signs and symbols that God uses to think are inherently representative of the klnowledge they are expressing (representation vs. arbitrary tag)? Myself, I have to go with the former and if that is the case Clark's assertion that all language is arbitrary would still stand.Drake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.com