Category: ChrisBolt
-
Paul Baird, Crackers in the Pantry, and Scientism
Now, what I would like to read from Chris is a line of argument where he can PROVE (and by prove I mean to a scientific standard, including the method of falsifiability) that a person has had revelation that could only have originated from the Christian god. If he can do that under lab conditions, then I’ll become a Christian.
– Paul Baird (http://patientandpersistent.blogspot.com/2011/10/once-more-unto-breach.html)
…How should the difference of opinion between the theist and the atheist be rationally resolved? What Dr. Stein has written indicates that he, like many atheists, has not reflected adequately on this question. He
-
Another Round With Paul Baird: Stating and Defending the Requested Rebuttal (4)
Introduction
Fundamentalist atheist Paul Baird asked me to rebut the following proposition PR:
PR – “I have had a revelation from a non-Christian supernatural transcendental entity that I use to ground my worldview.”
First, Paul is merely claiming that PR provides “grounding and certainty.” But how does it do that? Paul refuses to tell us, and so PR fails to constitute any sort of counter to presuppositional apologetics. It is a mere assertion.
Second, argument APR refutes PR as follows:
If atheism is true, then PR is false.
Atheism is true.
Therefore, PR is false.
The argument form is …
-
The "Humble Suggestion" of Ben Wallis
…Ben Wallis said…
Paul,
If I may make a humble suggestion…
I know how tempting it can be to respond to Chris’s nonsense, but at some point I think you just have to let him have the last word and trust that your readers are intelligent enough to see through to the ridiculousness of it all. I don’t see what point there is in further communicating with him. He’s obviously not interested in having an intellectually fruitful discussion, practically by his own admission. He doesn’t believe one is possible, because he thinks that you’re a bumbling fool. (Don’t feel
-
Another Round With Paul Baird: Stating and Defending the Requested Rebuttal (3)
You will need to review the posts below in order to follow this post:
https://choosinghats.org/2011/09/another-round-with-paul-baird-stating-and-defending-the-requested-rebuttal/
https://choosinghats.org/2011/09/another-round-with-paul-baird-stating-and-defending-the-requested-rebuttal-2/Paul Baird writes, “I read Chris Bolt’s blog pieces again and I just want to address a few issues.”
Notice that Paul has changed his story from when he was claiming that “there’s nothing new to be said.” This comes as no surprise. Paul frequently makes statements that he goes back on only days later. For example, while he states that “there’s nothing new to be said” as quoted above he then goes on to write an entire new post in response to …
-
In Antithesis, Vol 1, No. 1 is now here!
Included in this issue:
An Introduction, by Chris Bolt
The Doctrine of God in Reformed Apologetics, by Joshua Whipps
Problems with Classic Proofs for the Existence of God, by Chris Bolt
Autonomy is Hard Work: Human Autonomy as a Rejection of Christian Theism, by Ben Woodring
Exposition of Romans 1:16-2:16 – The Knowledge of God, by Joshua WhippsWe hope you enjoy reading it, and are both exhorted and encouraged thereby.
(A big thanks to Brian Knapp for his yeoman’s work in getting this issue out for you all!)…
-
"Fossils Are Real" – A Fundamentalist Atheist Shuns Knowledge
dios mio: i as just listening to WLC versus keith parsons debate keith parsons blasphemed on the mic several times heh i bet the the audience cringed WLC will debate this blonde english guy.. something Law in a few weeks, i am looking forward to that
Chris: Yes for some reason atheists like to say offensive things as though it helps their case.
dios mio:heh yeah keith parsons was furious…
Chris: And others are afraid to capitalize “God”. i.e. Paul Baird. (Stephen Law btw.)
dios mio:wow.. i cannot imagine myself debating a muslim guy in such an event, and be …
-
Another Round With Paul Baird: Stating and Defending the Requested Rebuttal (2)
See Another Round With Paul Baird: Stating and Defending the Requested Rebuttal and Paul’s exceedingly weak reply.
Apparently Paul Baird did not like my post which recounted Paul’s decision to leave the blogosphere (we see how long that lasted) and tries to cast it in the same light as his fundamentalist atheist rhetoric (“banter”) when in actuality that post was addressing Paul Jenkins’ insubstantial rhetoric about my podcasts. Paul boasts that he is going to print out our exchange and show it to his pagan friends. He predicts that they will agree with him about it. Pagans agreeing with …
-
Another Round With Paul Baird: Stating and Defending the Requested Rebuttal
Introduction
Recently on the Praxis Presup podcast I have been reviewing an exchange that took place between the three Pauls of the Skepticule podcast and Sye TenBruggencate with Eric Hovind.
Paul Jenkins mentioned the review on his blog, and I responded:
https://choosinghats.org/2011/09/fundamentalist-atheism-why-bother/
https://choosinghats.org/2011/09/paul-jenkins-and-damage-control/
By this point Paul Baird had already written on his blog that he was leaving until the New Year.
…I’m also going back to doing what the vast majority of people do with regards to the Christian faith – get on with my life as though it isn’t there and doesn’t matter.
It reminds me of
-
Helping Paul Baird Recognize An Argument
Paul Baird has taken a third break from his hiatus at his blog to respond to a post I wrote here.
Recall that Paul proposed the following (PR):
I have had a revelation from a non-Christian supernatural transcendental entity that I use to ground my worldview.
He wanted me to, “Disprove that revelational epistemology, preferably in less than 1,000,000 words.” I offered the following argument:
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, …
-
An Argument for Paul Baird
Paul Baird took another break from his blogging “hiatus” to comment here regarding a post I just recently wrote here.
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):
re·sponse
noun
1. 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 …