The conclusion to my previous post in this series was that Paul offers no new objection to my pointing out that he provides no support for PR, no new objection to APR, no objection to my answer concerning alleged competing transcendentals, and no acceptance or rejection of my debate proposal.
In his latest comments Paul references the Choosing Hats Twitter account and a number of posts pertaining to FSC’s (Fristianity Style Counters). Neither of these has anything to do with the line of argumentation I have followed above.
“Oh, and still no brief exposition of the transcendent proof from the Chris Bolt combo.”
We were never talking about a brief exposition of the “transcendent proof.” Apparently Paul missed the part in my last post where I said I do not even know what that is.
“Some think that I think I’m some sort of genius. Not me, but I do know some people who think that of themselves.”
“TAG works just as well for any other god too as Dr Glenn Peoples acknowledged.”
I addressed this in the second post linked to above. Apparently Paul forgot. Here it is again:
That’s an assertion, and not one that I accept. I have no idea what Glenn Peoples has to do with anything. Should I quote PhDs to Paul who accept that “PA” does get to more than a generic deity? Does Paul have anything to support his mere assertion? Even if he does, this has nothing to do with what he asked me for, which was a rebuttal of PR.
“Ok, so I’ve looked and simply found bad arguments and special pleading but no transcendent or transcendental argument, and no yogic flying either, which I was actually anticipating.”
Paul has not demonstrated that there are any bad arguments or special pleading, though he has repeatedly asserted that there are. Paul mistakes his assertions for arguments. Finally, the point of the discussion has not been for me to present the transcendental argument. In the first post in the list of links above we read the following:
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.
This has been the point of the discussion, though Paul has repeatedly, in typical fundamentalist atheist fashion, attempted to divert attention away from the fact that he was answered so quickly. I satisfied Paul’s request long ago in the first post linked to above and Paul has been dancing about ever since.
I will leave these here so Paul will not be so quick to forget them in the future:
PR states: “I have had a revelation from a non-Christian supernatural transcendental entity that I use to ground my worldview.”
Paul still offers no account of how PR “grounds” his worldview.
If atheism is true, then PR is false.
Atheism is true.
Therefore, PR is false.
Paul still offers no reason for rejecting the conclusion of this argument
“Is the Bible the Word of God?”
Affirmative – Chris Bolt
Negative – Paul Baird
15 minute opening statements, 15 minute cross-ex, 12 minute rebuttals, 10 minute closings
Paul still offers no acceptance or rejection of my debate proposal.
Paul offers no new objection to my pointing out that he provides no support for PR, no new objection to APR, and no acceptance or rejection of my debate proposal. Apparently Paul has bowed out of the discussion. Why did he refuse to tell me what was wrong with my proof? Why did he refuse to answer my challenge to debate? Fundamentalist atheists should be asking themselves these sorts of questions and questioning their faith.
Leave a Reply