The basic truths that are indisputable. If I am doubting, I am thinking. Cogito Ergo Sum. Starting point self consciousness. Reconstruction of knowledge. The late R.C. Sproul, Preacher Teacher. Next lecture please. ♥️✝️♥️
Many people have difficulty processing quantifiers, such as "all" or "some," logically. I am blessed to have a mathematics background. In a course in set theory and number theory, I was introduced to the symbol ∀ which means "for all ..." and the symbol ∃ which means "there exists ..." and many other symbols. These quantifiers were used incessantly and their meanings and relations to one another became engrained in my thinking for life. Many of the errors I see in reasoning are related to the misuse of quantifiers. Of course, if *_all_* men are mortal then *_some_* men are mortal. Unless one says "some but not all," "some" is included in "all."
That's not what the Greek meaning of the word "ALL" indicates. The Greek language states there are two meanings for the word "ALL" 1. It means ALL in everything 2 it means some of ALL
@@DogSoldier1948 - Please relisten from (10:31) to (11:22). My post is a response to this. I have no idea why you are talking about the Greek language. However, your post made me relisten to the entire video, searching to figure out what you are talking about. I did not discover an answer but there's no harm in listening to the lecture a second time.
Descartes started his reasoning with doubting on everything and implicitly about God ; since the devil knows when we start doubting, the next step is to disbelieve and finally disobey God. Modern philosophers' duty is to elaborate & spread especially anti-biblical doctrines.
But Descartes did not have in him the reason, the cause of his existence ; that determines the being of a subject or object. Descartes didn't departed from the tangible reality, but from the thinking, the mind. Vs the aseity of God. Descartes find out he was a spiritual being, but his assertion cogito ergo sum, is false because the mind wasn't the source of his existence. He was taking in fact the idea of Saint Anselm, who made a false ontological demonstration of the existence of God by using a cause to effect demonstration by also departing from a concept, but of God. That proves nothing else than comparing concepts between each other. And Descartes made his this idea. To illustrate this Saint Anselm proposed the following syllogism: God is the greatest concept I can imagine. But God with His existence is a greater concept than God without His existence. Therfore God exists.
The new foundation of knowledge R C Sproul is talking about is placing human ideas at the center of human preoccupations that opened the door for the legitimacy of new pseudoscientific domains disconnecting from the truth : the science of engineering and human sciences, relaying on imagination, leading to this monstrosity called atheism in which the sacred has been discarded.
![R.C. Sproul [ How To Deal With Anger ]](/img/1.gif)
This message is from Dr. Sproul’s 35-part teaching series The Consequence of Ideas. Learn more: www.ligonier.org/learn/series/consequences-of-ideas
One day I will have a full time job again so I can buy some of these DVD sets!
Thank you for sharing this message by the late Dr. R.C. Sproul. ❤
The basic truths that are indisputable. If I am doubting, I am thinking. Cogito Ergo Sum. Starting point self consciousness. Reconstruction of knowledge.
The late R.C. Sproul, Preacher Teacher. Next lecture please. ♥️✝️♥️
Many people have difficulty processing quantifiers, such as "all" or "some," logically. I am blessed to have a mathematics background. In a course in set theory and number theory, I was introduced to the symbol ∀ which means "for all ..." and the symbol ∃ which means "there exists ..." and many other symbols. These quantifiers were used incessantly and their meanings and relations to one another became engrained in my thinking for life. Many of the errors I see in reasoning are related to the misuse of quantifiers.
Of course, if *_all_* men are mortal then *_some_* men are mortal. Unless one says "some but not all," "some" is included in "all."
That's not what the Greek meaning of the word "ALL" indicates.
The Greek language states there are two meanings for the word "ALL"
1. It means ALL in everything
2 it means some of ALL
@@DogSoldier1948 - Please relisten from (10:31) to (11:22). My post is a response to this. I have no idea why you are talking about the Greek language.
However, your post made me relisten to the entire video, searching to figure out what you are talking about. I did not discover an answer but there's no harm in listening to the lecture a second time.
free top level philosophy class is amazing !!
Good stuff!
Descartes walks into a bar. Bartender says "can I get you a drink?" and Descartes says "I think not" and vanishes.
💚
Descartes started his reasoning with doubting on everything and implicitly about God ; since the devil knows when we start doubting, the next step is to disbelieve and finally disobey God. Modern philosophers' duty is to elaborate & spread especially anti-biblical doctrines.
But Descartes did not have in him the reason, the cause of his existence ; that determines the being of a subject or object.
Descartes didn't departed from the tangible reality, but from the thinking, the mind. Vs the aseity of God.
Descartes find out he was a spiritual being, but his assertion cogito ergo sum, is false because the mind wasn't the source of his existence.
He was taking in fact the idea of Saint Anselm, who made a false ontological demonstration of the existence of God by using a cause to effect demonstration by also departing from a concept, but of God. That proves nothing else than comparing concepts between each other. And Descartes made his this idea.
To illustrate this Saint Anselm proposed the following syllogism:
God is the greatest concept I can imagine.
But God with His existence is a greater concept than God without His existence.
Therfore God exists.
This deep background helps to put a lot of things in perspective. I know understand the whys I was not aware of
The new foundation of knowledge R C Sproul is talking about is placing human ideas at the center of human preoccupations that opened the door for the legitimacy of new pseudoscientific domains disconnecting from the truth : the science of engineering and human sciences, relaying on imagination, leading to this monstrosity called atheism in which the sacred has been discarded.