Authored by: Mitchell LeBlanc.

In a previous post, I clarified my position on the reliability of God’s honesty. To this he has not responded to the entire post but merely the first portion in which I discuss whether or not a Thomist is more justified than a presuppositionalist in stating that God is honest. His response is here.

Bolt quotes me as saying that the idea of a lying God is logically absurd on a Thomist concept of God but not on a Presuppositionalist conception. To this I would just like to revise my statement and say that the idea of a lying God MAY be logically absurd on ANY system of natural theology. Presuppositionalism, however, is not natural theology but rather ‘revealed’ theology, and this is why it cannot succeed in establishing the honesty of God.

I outlined one manner in which a natural theologian might establish the absurdity of God’s lying:

1. God is the being that which none greater can be conceived
2. It is greater to be honest than to be a liar
3. Therefore, God is honest.

Bolt seems to think that if I can grant this, I should have no problem granting:

A. God is the being described in Christian Scripture
B. The description excludes the possibility of lying
C. Therefore, God is honest.

I’m afraid I don’t follow his thinking, for why does granting the first syllogism entail granting the second?

Perhaps Bolt is attempting to draw a comparison between (1) and (A). Even as an atheist I can accept (1) on the basis that SHOULD God exist, he must be the greatest possible being. Consider this a ‘working definition’ of God, something that presumably is even required for atheists to assert their atheism. I fail to see where accepting (1) necessitates that I must accept (A), in fact it is an absurd claim! (1) belongs to the realm of NATURAL theology whereas (A) belongs to the field of REVEALED theology. As a matter of fact (1) may very well contradict (A), if I can conceive of a God greater than the being described in Christian Scripture I have effectively used (1) to discount (A).

Bolt then asks why we should accept that it is greater to be honest than to be a liar, and this is a good question. Thankfully, this isn’t a problem of my own as I accept neither syllogism above insofar as they postulate an actual existence of God.

In Bolt’s last paragraph he states:

The alleged Thomist definition of God as synonymous with Anselm’s definition is false, as Thomists are in the Christian tradition and hence ultimately define God in terms of Scripture.

This is true, but not in matters of priority. Thomists are natural theologians, not revealed theologians. Hence, they argue for God not with appeal to the Bible, but rather with a form of evidentialism. This is not similar to presuppositionalism, it is in many ways its very opposite.

Bolt then says that:

This is one of the biggest problems with Thomism, the god it proves is not the God of Christian Scripture though the Thomist will try his or her hardest to have a person believe that it is.

This seems to me to be a direct contradiction of what he has just said prior. However, it is interesting to note that if Thomists have proven God and it is not the God of Christian Scripture then how can Bolt assert that the God of Christian Scripture exists? Is he a polytheist, now believing in more than one God?

I wonder if Bolt discards all traditional arguments for God’s existence in favor of his presuppositionalism, this is not a matter of argument but rather of my own personal curiosity. If he has discounted such, it seems that presuppositionalism is the final obstacle on his path to atheism.

I await Bolt’s complete response to my criticism of God’s honesty.