Apologetics to the Glory of God

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, PR is false.

I broke the argument down, noting that it is modus ponens, and that Paul will accept the truth of the premises. The argument is therefore not only valid, but sound, at least according to Paul Baird’s position. However, the conclusion of the argument is that PR is false. Hence PR was disproven, as Paul requested.

Now let’s see if Paul’s response has anything to do with the argument I offered.

Chris has posted yet another “response” and my quotation marks are more justified than before because he simply cannot understand the question put before him.

The readers will note that I not only understood Paul’s request to, “Disprove that revelational epistemology,” I expressed it in PR, and offered the argument above against PR. Paul may be having difficulty understanding the argument that was put before him, but I do not know why. The comments I made in my previous post about the quotation marks applies here as well.

Anyway – the link https://choosinghats.org/2011/09/an-argument-for-paul-baird/

Do you see a rebuttal of a non-Christian revelational epistemology ? No, me neither.

Does anyone know if Paul Baird suffers from some sort of partial blindness? (Perhaps this sort of dodging comes about as a result of spiritual blindness!) Is it possible that the scroll function on his computer stopped working?  Readers will note that they can in fact see a rebuttal to a “non-Christian revelational epistemology,” namely, the rebuttal to the non-Christian revelational epistemology (PR) that I just reposted above. The argument was even placed in bold lettering in the original post, but I will make it bigger here for Paul’s sake:

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.

The argument is valid, so Paul cannot object to that feature of the argument, the first premise is true by definition of what atheism means, and the second premise is one that Paul has wholeheartedly affirmed as true again and again, so the conclusion that PR is false easily follows. So what’s Paul’s response to the argument? Let’s keep going.

How hard can it be ? Maybe Chris didn’t understand the hats analogy, which is odd considering it was an unintended pun on the name of his blog.

I do not know why Paul is asking how “hard it can be” to write out a rebuttal to PR, but I will answer that it was not very difficult at all. Regardless of the difficulty involved though, the argument is sound as far as Paul is concerned but he has not dealt with it. I do not remember what Paul is referring to concerning a “hats analogy.” I presume this has something to do with one of his debates, but it has been some time since I listened to those, and they are not relevant to what Paul asked for, which was a rebuttal of PR. Here is that rebuttal again in case Paul forgot it:

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.

Anyway, it was the basis of the second half of the Second Debate and a line of argument that Sye tried desperately to refute in the Third Debate with his currency argument (can I hold a dollar bill in my hand, can I give you that dollar bill for you to hold in your hand, now can you do that with your revelation ?)

I did not use any “currency argument,” but did offer an argument rebutting PR. Paul still has not given a reason for rejecting it. Just in case Paul may not know what argument I am referring to:

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.

PA, even if accepted, only gets to a generic supernatural entity. Dr Glenn Peoples, who I quoted in the Second Debate, noted that and even commented on my use of his words with some resignation, and I also quoted several others making the same point in the Third Debate.

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. By the way, I provided that rebuttal:

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.

Sorry, Chris, but the quotation marks are valid. Unless and until you can disprove a non-Christian revelation then PA does not exclusively validate the Christian god, and it’s not just me that thinks so, but hey, we could all be wrong couldn’t we ?

Again Paul’s assertion assumes that I have not already dis-proven his suggested non-Christian revelation (PR). I have no difficulties with offering the proof again:

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.

I would await his next post with interest but the exchanges so far confirm the points I’ve made already

– there’s nothing new to be said
– I have other claims on my time (particularly from Tuesday).

If Paul thinks that there is “nothing new to be said” then so much the worse for his position. He has not touched the argument I provided in response to his request. He need not do so of course, and I understand that people have lives outside of Internet exchanges, but again, so much the worse for his position.

I did not force Paul Baird to break his hiatus, and in the time it has taken him to type out his rhetoric and condescension to try and deceive his readers into thinking he has made some grand point he could have told us why exactly he rejects the argument I offered. Does he think it is invalid? Does he reject one if its premises? So far he has done neither, and I do not see that he can. The conclusion follows, his request is satisfied, and he should think about going back on that hiatus. I will leave this rebuttal of his PR here for when he returns:

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.

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *