Pat Mefford on Liar Paradox and Titus 1.12-13a (Again)


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

Read more

Pat Mefford’s Question about the Impossibility of the Contrary

Atheist Pat Mefford asked a strange question in the context of a discussion about the impossibility of the contrary. I would love to try and answer it. However, Pat is a smart guy, and I need him to dumb it down for me.

What if I insisted on a multi-value logic? Such as Kleene’s 3-valued logic that has a third value that is an intermediate between true and false?

Is Pat claiming A v ~A is false? Or that it is undefined? I’m not sure. Comments are welcome.…

Read more