Category: Apologetics In Practice
-
Pat Mefford on Liar Paradox and Titus 1.12-13a (Again)
Here’s a history of the exchange with atheist Pat Mefford regarding, most notably, the Liar Paradox:
https://choosinghats.org/2012/12/pat-mefford-on-titus-1-12-13a/
http://bcaskins.wordpress.com/2012/12/18/the-liar-paradox-and-presuppositional-apologetics/
http://servileconformist.typepad.com/servile-conformist/2012/12/more-thoughts-on-chris-bolt.html
Valuable points were made in the comments by David Byron and B.C. Askins. I will limit my response to addressing Pat’s most recent post http://servileconformist.typepad.com/servile-conformist/2012/12/more-thoughts-on-chris-bolt.html.
My previous reply to Pat on Titus 1.12-13a was not merely “a brief comment” but a refutation of the point Pat has most recently attempted to proffer regarding our exchange. Pat reiterates his earlier claims in his most recent post. He notes, “All we have is the text.” Of …
-
Atheism, Subjectivism, and Meaning
Introduction
An atheist visitor to the site, Jnani, wrote the following in a comment:
Meaning is subjective and since we are all subjects, there is plenty of meaning in the universe. It’s only delusional to see meaning where there is none which I would contend the Christian WV does.
I have been interacting with atheists for quite a while now. Their blindness still occasionally amazes me.
“Meaning is subjective.”
Would Jnani apply this claim to itself? Is the meaning of, “Meaning is subjective” merely subjective ? If so, then Jnani’s claim is self-referentially problematic. The meaning of the claim is …
-
Pat Mefford on Titus 1.12-13a
Pat Mefford’s initial post on multi-valued logic was directed at the impossibility of the contrary claim found in covenantal/presuppositional apologetics. I responded here. Pat responded here and here.
His main concern now is as follows:
…In what way are we thinking God’s thoughts after him when think of this scriptural passage that was at the top of my original post?
“One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” This testimony is true.” (Titus 1: 12-13a)
Now I can respect that Paul was rhetorical point in citing Epimenides, he
-
Without God and Without Hope: An Atheist on the Connecticut School Shootings
Atheist Matt Oxley comments on Christian responses to the shooting in Connecticut as follows:
Despite how angry this makes me, how silly and offensive I find these notions, suddenly I find myself envious of people with some form of a god to comfort them and answer their questions, even if those answers are shallow and ignorant, because I am simply without any answers that can even begin to make sense of this. Answers like this seem almost blissful.
Note that Matt is angry at the application of Christian tenets to tragic events. As I mentioned in my debate with Matt, …
-
Pat Mefford on Multi-Valued Logic as an Objection to the Impossibility of the Contrary
Introduction
I will be responding to this post – http://servileconformist.typepad.com/servile-conformist/2012/12/can-presuppositional-apologists-account-for-logic-.html#
Atheist Pat Mefford offers a rather ingenious means of getting around the transcendental method as used in covenantal apologetics. Now, I know Pat, so let me begin with a bit of friendly ad hominem. The argument of Pat’s post strikes me as illustrating the dangers of familiarity with a little bit of philosophy and a lot more sin. Pat proposes non-classical views of logic (in some cases held by an extreme minority of philosophers) in an attempt to overturn a presuppositional apologetic argument. Frankly, if that is the best …
-
Sola Scriptura and the Canon Revisited: Guest Post by Adam Blauser
As I have gotten involved in dealing with Roman Catholicism and sola scriptura, I have found two things very interesting. First of all, there is a grossly simplistic view of meaning in language amongst many Roman Catholic apologists. Many of them will be willing to destroy human language in order to argue against sola scriptura, borrowing from men like Jacques Derrida and Stanley Fish to argue that we cannot know which interpretation of scripture is correct. It is amazing to be able to cite deconstructionists making parallel arguments to Roman Catholic apologists.
Second, what I am realizing more and more …
-
A Response to Jeremiah Bannister (paleocrat)
I will be responding to this post – http://jeremiahbannister.com/?p=154 – which is written in response to my post here – https://choosinghats.org/2012/11/canon-and-roman-catholicism.
Justin Scheiber of Reasonable Doubts recently linked to one of my posts on the canon of Scripture. I do not really have a way of following Justin, although I did notice an announcement that he is available for speaking engagements and debates. Perhaps one day he will debate me, but I am not holding my breath. In any event, Justin linked to me, and Jeremiah Bannister followed that link. Bannister is better known as “paleocrat.”
Some of you …