Tag: revelation
-
Why Shouldn’t Paul Baird Choose Hats?
Paul Baird has given us his opinion in the case of the use of worldviews he does not adhere to.
This is a common complaint ie why argue a worldview that you do not hold ? The answer is the tallest child in the playground argument ie I do not have to be the tallest child in the playground to point out that you are not the tallest child in the playground – I can point out that individual (in this instance it would be a child of equal size).
Paul’s understanding here doesn’t really deal with the problem being …
-
Adventures in Missing the Antithesis
Paul Baird recently addressed what he seems to think is the “philosophy that underpins the Christian Presuppositional Apologetics.” He’s wrong, of course, but let us show him why, shall we? He cites Chris’ citation of an argument tucked away in the appendix of PA:S&D as that supposed “underpinning.” Interestingly, he goes on to ask why “do Presuppositional Apologists not start with this explanation that PA is about establishing the need for a unique self sufficient knower and identifying that self sufficient knower exclusively as the Christian god?” Well, that is readily apparent – because we don’t believe that to be …
-
Is Paul Baird Ashamed of Atheism?
“Every system of philosophy must tell us whether it thinks true knowledge to be possible. Or if a system of philosophy thinks it impossible for man to have a true knowledge of the whole of reality or even of a part of reality, it must give good reasons for thinking so. From these considerations, it follows that if we develop our reasons for believing that a true knowledge of God and, therefore, also of the world, is possible because actually given in Christ, we have in fact given what goes in philosophy under the name of epistemology. It will then …
-
Another Round With Paul Baird: Stating and Defending the Requested Rebuttal (6)
History
https://choosinghats.org/2011/09/an-argument-for-paul-baird/
https://choosinghats.org/2011/09/helping-paul-baird-recognize-an-argument/
Introduction
…Paul Baird said…
You have to remember that this didn’t used to be a hypothetical for me. I was a card carrying North European Solitary Pagan at one time, and there was some revelatory basis to my worldview so I’m not playing some devils advocate game with CBC here.
That said, the purpose of using the Pagan worldview is that, arguably, and leaving aside characters like Aleister Crowley, it is an indigenous faith of these islands, alongside Druidism and many others. That is to say it predates Christianity and shares none
-
Another Round With Paul Baird: Stating and Defending the Requested Rebuttal (5)
History
https://choosinghats.org/2011/09/an-argument-for-paul-baird/
https://choosinghats.org/2011/09/helping-paul-baird-recognize-an-argument/
Paul’s Problems
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.
Paul’s Response
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 …
-
"The Chris Bolt Comedy Hour"
Paul Baird had the idea of turning my recent interactions with fundamentalist atheists into the Chris Bolt Comedy Hour. I do not know how much I will get in royalties, but given the popularity of movies like Napoleon Dynamite even a small percentage will do.
Paul introduces the first act, featuring a fundamentalist atheist who repeatedly insists, “I know nothing.” (Audience laughter.) He claims that he does not know whether or not a book by Darwin exists, and admits that he does not even know whether or not I exist, but wants to talk to me about the book …
-
The Unfortunate Case of the Missing Argument
I’m not going to link all of Paul’s posts in this – they’ve been linked ad nauseum from here, already. His blog is Patient and Persistent – I trust our readers are more than capable of finding these comments of his 🙂
There are times when I’m engaged in an exchange with someone and I’m not sure if I’ve understood them correctly. That’s how I felt reading Chris Bolt’s stuff. It turns out that I did understand him correctly.
Note: Paul does not here explain 1) What he understood correctly, or 2) How it is the case that he understood …
-
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 …
-
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 …