This is a conversation in the group of people I hang out with:
Jimmy explain how God can be both universal and particular. Also explain how His being these two things somehow grounds their presence in the world.
The question demonstrates an immense ignorance about the problem of universals.
How can a man be a particular? After all, the word “man” is a universal. No matter what word I pick out to classify, a universal is always referenced or employed.
Yet, how can there be particular universals? Have I escaped referring to a particular thing by saying “universal?” Not unless the class is empty of referents and therefore vacuous.
The trouble is that all predication presupposes a system of universal and particular. Classification presupposes a world concept in which all particulars inhere in universals and universals exhaust in particulars without reduction. In other words, all things in human experience require particularity and universality, and must be reconciled without contradiction.
The reason why people take potshots at Van Til, followed by quickly devoting one’s face to the sand, is because there is no argument to be found from them. The hypocrisy is both telling and hilarious.