3 Comments

Mitchell LeBlanc

It seems to me that Choi saying that *we* know that the Fristian knows of God in that world through stipulation, but I don’t see how that entails that *in* that world the Fristian knows of the Fristian God stipulatively.

P.S. Did you get my e-mail Chris?

C.L. Bolt

That we know Fristianity by stipulation does not entail that Fristianity would be known by stipulation if it were true, however Choi takes Butler’s claim (“If Fristianity is otherwise identical to Christianity, the only way for us to know [that its god is a quadrinity] would be for the Fristian god to reveal this to us.”) to be false since we know it by stipulation. In Footnote 32 Choi adds, “If Butler intends by this actual revelation, then, of course, his objection is confused.” Hence I take it that Choi is rejecting revelation in the hypothetical. If he is not then you are correct that the response will need to be different.

The last email I received from you was the Swinburne article. I don’t see anything else. Try chrisbolt@ymail.com

[BLOCKED BY STBV] Presuppositional Apologetics Interview (objections to the method) with Resequitur | True Forms

[…] https://choosinghats.org/2010/09/praxis-presup-episode-4-2/ […]

[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The comment’s server IP (216.151.210.18) doesn’t match the comment’s URL host IP (66.155.9.238) and so is spam.


Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply to C.L. Bolt Cancel reply