Chris Bolt offered a brief comment here on our last exchange (bold emphasis is mine):
According to the text, Cretans are always liars. Taken in the strictest sense it follows that if a person is a Cretan, then that person is a liar. But should the claim be taken this way? Perhaps the statement simply means that virtually every Cretan is a liar, or Cretans in general are liars. If so, then Pat’s concern disappears, because the Cretan who uttered this statement need not have been a liar, and there is no contradiction.
YES! "According to the text" All we have is the text. Here is the bit of text from Titus under consideration (bolding mine):
Κρῆτες ἀεὶ ψεῦσται
Considering this is taken from Callimachus' Hymn to Zeus, we see the same phrase in the Callimachus text (bolding mine):
Κρῆτες ἀεὶ ψεῦσται
The bolded word (ἀεὶ) doesn't exactly have a large ranging semantic domain; it pretty much means always, perpetually, every single instance, and so on. I wouldn't say, "taken in the strictest sense" but taken in the only sense that the text and context allows. Incidently, Paul borrows from Epimendes again in the Acts 17:28, where Paul famously engages with pagan philosophers at the Areopagus.
Chris goes on to say:
But I think there is a much better common sense response to Pat’s concern. Note that the text does not claim that Cretans always lie. Rather, Cretans are always liars. A liar is a person who lies. Liars are often known for their propensity to lie. Some habitually lie. My mother would say they “lie like a dog.” But very rarely, if ever, does a person do nothing but lie.
Chris may state a common sense view, but it is a view not allowed by the text nor the context. Saying x is always y means that in every instance x can be y, it will be y.
But enough about Titus, I wanted to take some time to restate what my intent has been with our recent engagement:
First, If an apologist is going to make use of the “Impossibility to the Contrary” they are going to have to resolve paradoxes like the liar paradox.
Second, How an apologist goes about resolving these problems has to remain consistent with their theology and in Chris’ case, the sovereignty of God and revelational epistemology. Grounding all knowledge and truth in God’s nature while accommodating paradoxes is going to be no easy feat.
And third, all of this is also going to impact what kind of transcendental argument can be made. The weaker and weaker the TAG gets, the easier and easier it becomes to deflate. Van Til offered some wildly strong metaphysical claims, but I’m a little disappointed to see apologists backing off them.
In any case, I hope this moves the discussion forward.
