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

/ C. L. Bolt / One Comment

Here’s a history of the exchange with atheist Pat Mefford regarding, most notably, the Liar Paradox:

http://servileconformist.typepad.com/servile-conformist/2012/12/can-presuppositional-apologists-account-for-logic-.html

https://choosinghats.org/2012/12/pat-mefford-on-three-valued-logic-as-an-objection-to-the-impossibility-of-the-contrary/

http://servileconformist.typepad.com/servile-conformist/2012/12/offering-a-response-to-chris-bolt.html

http://servileconformist.typepad.com/servile-conformist/2012/12/offering-a-response-to-chris-bolt-1.html

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://bcaskins.wordpress.com/2012/12/24/the-liar-paradox-and-presuppositional-apologetics-2-a-critique/

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 …

Read more

Pat Mefford on Titus 1.12-13a

/ C. L. Bolt / 5 Comments

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

Without God and Without Hope: An Atheist on the Connecticut School Shootings

/ C. L. Bolt

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, …

Read more

Listen to Chris Bolt on Backpack Radio this Sunday, December 16

/ C. L. Bolt / 2 Comments

Lord willing, Vocab Malone will be interviewing me on Backpack Radio this Sunday, December 16, 2012 at 6PM on KPXQ-AM in Phoenix, Arizona. You can live stream the program from this website – http://www.kpxq1360.com – or catch the recording when it goes up on this website – http://backpack.podbean.com. Make sure to tune in, and don’t forget to check out other episodes of Backpack Radio!…

Read more

Pat Mefford on Multi-Valued Logic as an Objection to the Impossibility of the Contrary

/ C. L. Bolt / 14 Comments

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 …

Read more

Calvin and Thomas

/ C. L. Bolt

Our wisdom, in so far as it ought to be deemed true and solid Wisdom, consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves. But as these are connected together by many ties, it is not easy to determine which of the two precedes and gives birth to the other. For, in the first place, no man can survey himself without forthwith turning his thoughts towards the God in whom he lives and moves; because it is perfectly obvious, that the endowments which we possess cannot possibly be from ourselves; nay, that our very being is

… Read more

Overly Pious Apologetic Practitioners

/ C. L. Bolt

Often people argue that conversions do not come about through argument. The idea is that faith in the Gospel alone is what saves. We cannot argue anyone into the kingdom. So we should just preach the Gospel.

The suggestion is superficially insightful. It sounds pious to preach the Gospel. And it is. But imagine preaching the Gospel to those who vocally reject its most basic tenets. Once the Gospel has been preached, and the unbeliever persists in his or her statements to the effect that God does not exist, sin is a psychological trick to get children to behave, Jesus …

Read more

A Christian Epistemology of Testimony

/ C. L. Bolt

Epistemology of Testimony

In the Word of God we have the testimony of God. We accept this testimony on faith. We are warranted in doing so. One might say that we have a testimonial epistemology.

Doubting Scripture

Unbelievers often call the aforementioned testimonial epistemology into question. They question our accepting the Word of God on faith. They question the notion that we have the Word of God.

Frequently the aforementioned doubts stem from other testimony. So for example, a young person reads that naturalistic, macro-evolutionary biology is true and that he would be stupid or wicked for not accepting …

Read more