Tautology Wiki
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 2: Line 2:
   
 
=== Van Till ===
 
=== Van Till ===
Bahnsen and Van Till presuppositionalists for some reason failed to notice that Calvinism is a grand tautological banality. My own theory is that the tautological bafoonism that undergrids Greek philosophy Calving studied and absorbed . This theory needs support
+
Bahnsen and Van Till presuppositionalists for some reason failed to notice that Calvinism is a grand tautological banality. My own theory is that the tautological bafoonism that undergrids Greek philosophy Calving studied and absorbed . This theory needs support
   
Van Till did not notice that Hegel formulated [[Meaningless sentence]]s and absorbed some of Hegel's nonsense into his philosophy.
+
Van Till did not notice that Hegel formulated [[Meaningless sentence]]s and absorbed some of Hegel's nonsense into his philosophy.
   
 
Rhetorical tautologies are extremely dangerous because the tautological structure of the argument is indisputable and the conclusion thus a non-sequitur.
 
Rhetorical tautologies are extremely dangerous because the tautological structure of the argument is indisputable and the conclusion thus a non-sequitur.
  +
  +
  +
  +
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/03/whats-wrong-with-calvinism/
  +
  +
  +
  +
http://fromtheheartofpastorkenny.blogspot.com/2008/02/tautology-of-calvinsim.html
 
[[Category:Calvinism]]
 
[[Category:Calvinism]]

Revision as of 05:13, 10 April 2014

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIBJ1wVqCeU free will issue

Van Till

Bahnsen and Van Till presuppositionalists for some reason failed to notice that Calvinism is a grand tautological banality. My own theory is that the tautological bafoonism that undergrids Greek philosophy Calving studied and absorbed . This theory needs support

Van Till did not notice that Hegel formulated Meaningless sentences and absorbed some of Hegel's nonsense into his philosophy.

Rhetorical tautologies are extremely dangerous because the tautological structure of the argument is indisputable and the conclusion thus a non-sequitur.


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/03/whats-wrong-with-calvinism/


http://fromtheheartofpastorkenny.blogspot.com/2008/02/tautology-of-calvinsim.html