Ok, Chris has posted a “response” at https://choosinghats.org/2011/09/paul-baird-breaks-his-silence/ and continues to validate my points.
Note that right away Paul places “response” in quotation marks. Perhaps he does not think that my post was a response, but then he would be wrong (at least according to www.dictionary.com):
noun1. an answer or reply, as in words or in some action.
Perhaps Paul did not get the definition of “response” wrong, but instead was attempting to give his readers the impression that my post was actually a poor response. But Paul never explains why my response was a poor one. Instead, he makes another bare assertion. He then makes the very odd statement that, “Chris…continues to validate my points.” What points would those be? We are not told. Nor are we told how my post validates any of these alleged points. I suspect that those who read the exchange in question will come away wondering what Paul is talking about here or assume that it is just another fundamentalist atheist rhetorical ploy.
Chris – it’s really simple. I have had a revelation from a non-Christian supernatural transcendental entity that I use to ground my worldview.
Disprove that revelational epistemology, preferably in less than 1,000,000 words.
I am not completely sure what this part of Paul’s comment has to do with my post, and I am not going to try and make Paul’s case for him. I also do not know what a “transcendental” entity is in the context of his comment. Perhaps Paul means “transcendent.” They are not the same thing. Setting these concerns aside, I will gladly disprove Paul’s claim as he has requested and in less than 1,000,000 words.
PR states: “I have had a revelation from a non-Christian supernatural transcendental entity that I use to ground my worldview.”
If atheism is true, then PR is false.
Atheism is true.
Therefore, PR is false.
Note that the argument form is modus ponens (If p then q, p, therefore q). The argument is valid.
Is the argument also sound (not only valid, but valid with true premises)? I do not think so, but I cannot imagine why Paul would think that the argument is not also sound.
Consider the first premise, “If atheism is true, then PR is false.” Since atheism by definition excludes the existence of revelation and supernatural entities, atheism and PR are contradictory. So the first premise is true.
Consider the second premise, “Atheism is true.” Paul wholeheartedly affirms the truth of the second premise.
From which the conclusion follows that PR is false, quod erat demonstrandum.