Tag: Presuppositional Apologetics
-
Why do we expect the future to be like the past?
Why do we expect the future to be like the past?
“Because in the past, the future has always been like the past.”
This response begs the question. It assumes the very point to be proven. In the past the future has always been like the past, yes, but why do we expect that in the future the future will be like the past?
“We don’t know for certain that the future will be like the past.”
This response misrepresents the question. It assumes the question is asking about certainty with respect to the future. But the question …
-
Some Questions for Matt Oxley
Matt Oxley describes himself as a “former Christian helping others work through the battle of a lost faith.” One aspect of his mission is “to promote intelligent discussion.” So he won’t mind my probing a bit concerning his claim, “I’m a former Christian.”
Recall Scripture states, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.” (1 John 2.19) Recently a professing Christian cited this verse for Matt. The implication …
-
“The Liar Paradox and Presuppositional Apologetics 4”
-
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