A Conversation with Jason Petersen, Part 4

Around the Worldview in 80 Lies (...Half Truths, Deceptions, Misrepresentations and other assorted Falsehoods)

Jason Petersen, throughout his 24,000-word reply to Parts 1 and 2 of our "conversation", told me I was dishonest and lying numerous times; I counted over 20, not including the allegations of dishonesty in his previous post.  The purpose of it was to discredit my character, and of course, to demonize atheists.   So, I will likewise respond to his repeated ad hominem.  I will try to provide some brief explanation for each of his false hoods, and try to describe them for what they are.  He stated that I like to ridicule and mock Christians.  He says he made me look foolish. As I understand the argument for the most part, I know I do not need "to feel foolish" at all.  And if Petersen feels mocked or ridiculed....he is only doing it to himself.

 

Each capitalized "LIE" of Petersen's post (or more appropriate description) is followed by a direct quote of what he said, along with an explanation if required.  I include context where required, although most of his pretensions stand on their own.

 

LIE:  "...she has laced this very paragraph with prejudicial conjecture."  Presuppositional Apologetics IS prejudicial conjecture.

LIE:  " the one benefit that I named was that Christianity solves the problem of skepticism." No, it does NOT solve the problem of skepticism (see last post).  An appeal to supernatural authority does not solve the problem, or as I will call it, "authoritay magic."

LIE:  (False fallacy claim) " After quoting me, Karen moves to straw man..."

LIE:  As a Christian, I believe that we should all be “rational.”  We are both equally rational: if he were going to be honest, Petersen should replace the word "rational" with "Fundamentalist Evangelical Calvinist Literalist."

LIE:  "... in order for her to claim that anything is useful(while being rational) she would have to have a first principle that will solve the problem of skepticism."  (see above)

LIE:  " if she actually tried to solve the problem of skepticism, it would remind her that Christianity is true."  Christianity doesn't solve it either.

LIE:  "She then says that the problem of skepticism is irrelevant to reality. This is quite an ignorant statement to be sure."  If that's true, claiming it is solved by "authoritay magic" makes it more irrelevant and just as ignorant.

LIE:  "Her conception of reality, like other atheists, is delusional and fabricated." 

LIE:  "Alex [Botten] is irrational both in the context of a debate and outside the debate."

LIE:  "He [Botten] is irrational outside the context of a debate because he chooses intellectual adolescence over rationality, and as a result, avoids issues such as the problem of skepticism."  Alex doesn't claim "authoritay magic" will solve it, which is worse than an avoidance. 

LIE:  "One would think that a woman her age would not resort to playground tactics." "Playground tactics" is pretending one has it solved a philosophical problem by saying "magic" does it, which is what Petersen is doing.

LIE:  (and hypocrisy)" Even though she tried to play the victim earlier in her blog post by pointing out that I was “rude,”...   I never play victim.

LIE:  "I also stated that her question was silly. I clearly pointed out why this was so and that the fact that she even asked that question shows she is hypocritical in her thinking."

LIE (and snark):  "It is unfortunate that the joke will be on her, because this set of text will wind up making her look very foolish." 

LIE:  "In fact, she would be irrational to state that she even knows the concept of what reality actually is in the first place."

LIE:  "....she will wind up showing that what The Bible says about the suppression of the truth is true, and she will also show herself to be irrational."

LIE: *** However, she defined the problem of skepticism incorrectly. Let’s look at her definition again:

“The problem of skepticism, I’m guessing–since Petersen never defined what he meant by the “problem of skepticism”– is the solution to infinite regress experienced in skepticism.“

The problem of skepticism is not a solution; it’s a problem.***

There was an enthymeme in there.  It's assumed it's "Petersen's solution to the infinite regression experience in skepticism" which is "I can't tell you how my god ends the regress, but this vague Bible verse here says it's by 'authoritay magic."

LIE:  "What does Karen offer to show that I can’t stop the infinite regress with the axiom of revelation? A bare, naked, assertion, that “I can’t do it."  No, this is not a bare naked assertion.  Bible verses don't magically end the regress.  All the verse says is some ambiguous stuff about "god's (promised) power."  How "authoritay magic" would end infinite regress is never defined or even alluded to.  A vague Bible verse IS NOT A SOLUTION.

LIE:  (and weasel-worded hypocrisy) "...The problem is, I am not arguing against reality, therefore, I have not committed this fallacy, rather, I am arguing that by refusing to solve the problem of skepticism, both Alex and Karen cannot be rational when they argue about things contained within reality.... This comes from someone who refuses to solve the problem of skepticism, so then, I can easily ask, how does Karen know that she lives in the same reality?"  Petersen didn't resolve it either.  And if he's "not arguing against reality", is he saying his argument (his god) is not real?

LIE:  (and blatant bull sh*t) "When the atheists realized that these philospophies failed to solve the problem of skepticism, they would move on to the another one." (Christianity does not solve it either--see above.)

LIE:  "Also, note that Karen uses a lot of prejudicial conjecture when she talks about presuppositional apologetics."  (Presuppositional Apologetics IS prejudicial conjecture.)

LIE:  "Calling something a fallacy involves prescriptive logic."  Logic is not prescriptive...the "laws of logic" are not laws, they are features of reality that do not have known exceptions, which is why they are called laws; however, pre-sups have reified them (called "fallacy of reification" as well as made a false analogy of "laws") because of their obsession with Platonic realism.  A linguistic expression of abstractions drawn from a direct observation of reality is only dependent on observation of reality.

LIE:  "It is interesting that Karen calls the axiom of revelation an a priori fallacy. This accusation clearly shows that Karen rejects all a priori knowledge."  A priori fallacy, in this case, is that God is assumed to exist as a "presupposition" a priori, without any empirical investigation.  This is not about the philosophical position.  One can only accept a priori information if it is known to be true or has been proven; in Petersen's case it has not.

LIE: "...revelation is self-sufficient and able to resolve philosophical problems such as the problem of skepticism without having to leave its own first principle and theorems."  Appeal to authority with no other explanation does not resolve this philosophical problem. (see above)

LIE: "Who is special pleading? It would appear that Karen is. This is because she wants me to just give her a benefit of a doubt on the problem of skepticism when she will not afford me of the same courtesy."  Petersen confirmed that he cannot give anyone "the benefit of the doubt" because that is not possible if he's asserted he cannot be wrong.

LIE:  "They [the atheists debating presups] all claimed success each time, but their real thoughts on the matter were revealed when the atheists started to repeatedly change their approach, which would, of course, show that the atheists were aware that their “solutions” fell short while claiming they were successful."  Peterson does not know the difference between "static" and "dynamic."  Besides the fact I have 3 videos showing the ways in which  the pre-sups have "evolved" their argument from the classic one.

LIE:  "She claims that just because I don’t like it doesn’t mean that it isn’t an answer. This is correct, except for the fact that her answer is a bad answer, and I can tell her why."   Except that "solving the problem of skepticism" is not an answer because the "authoritay magic" by god doesn't solve it.

LIE:  "Karen once again shows that she does not understand he point I am making to her."  It seems to be the case that no one understands except other pre-sups.  Maybe Petersen should try a new argument if "no one understands."

LIE:  "She ignores the fact that the presuppositional apologetic focuses on exposing the suppression of the truth."   The only thing PA suppresses is dissent (the proof of which is its unfalsifiability ).

TRUE, BUT:  "Karen does not care about solving the problem of skepticism."  No I don't, but claiming "authoritay magic" solves it is not an explanation either.

LIE:  "Those who do not believe suppress the truth of God’s existence in unrighteousness."  Jason, do you think I should believe you just for not wanting to be guilty of your charge of my suppressing the truth?

LIE:  “[Karen] Where did I ever lecture Petersen or Sye Ten Bruggencate on being rational? “...[Petersen] ...Who has been making the case that presuppositional apologetics is a bad approach?"  Petersen and Bruggencate are both rational, just seriously misinformed about the advantages of this apologetic.

LIE:  "Whatever is irrational in argumentation is irrational in reality as well."  I suggested ways to test it in reality and Petersen attacked them.  Beliefs without falsification have no value, therefore his beliefs have no value in argumentation AND reality.

LIE:  "The first principle in a worldview must be able to solve the problem of skepticism."  God using "authoritay magic" does not solve the problem of skepticism. (see above, I think this is the tenth time I've responded to this question.)

LIE:  "Because I, as a Christian, have revelation of God through scripture, logical consistency follows from that truth."  No, pre-sups like Petersen interpret Biblical verses, while other sects of Christianity interpret them differently, therefore, the revelation is inconsistent.

LIE:  (MASSIVE) "Christianity must be embraced if one wishes to be rational. Karen’s worldview has failed in this respect, and if she wishes to be rational, she must embrace the presuppositions of Christianity and convert to Christianity."  I bet I could prove I'm more rational than Petersen, but he has disparaged all testing so he could keep his argument unfalsifiable and thereby untouchable (and thereby useless).

LIE: (IN Petersen's dreams)  "She then appeals to Alex Botten’s already refuted retort, that if the explanation is sufficient for himself, then he has no need to provide a first principle."  Alex had better answers because he wasn't relying on a content/explanation-free revelation.

TRUE:  "This is not a prediction of Christianity, and even scientists will tell you that IQ tests should be taken with a grain of salt."  Because Christianity (the type Petersen uses in his argument) cannot make predictions...since it is unfalsifiable.  Petersen confirms again.

LIE:  "I would also like to know where she thought I was threatening her."  "Not be getting away with any of those sorts of dishonest tactics" are Petersen's words, along with " Any other future comments that do not address any of the arguments I put forth will go to spam" in his blog.  In other words, I put my comments into my own blog so I didn't have to risk the threat of having them deleted as "spam" at his blog.

FREUDIAN SLIP:  "Karen presupposes atheism to argue for atheism."  I think Peterson said this wrong if he thinks everyone believes in his god.

LIE: "The more interesting question is whether or not Karen will ever be willing to accept the Christian worldview even though the secular alternatives have failed."   "The secular alternatives" have helped me navigate quite successfully through life...and I didn't even have to know what a "worldview" even was!

LIE:  (MASSIVE) "Karen has asked for proof of God, but she is proving that she knows that God exists, because she is unable to argue and live consistently with the worldview that she has laid out."  (Please see above)  I have proven nothing of the sort.  On the other hand, by openly admitting he "cannot be wrong" and attacking any testing of his argument, he has refuted himself.

LIE: (INSULTING)  "Karen’s view is irrationalism."   The presuppositional argument is irrational because it is unfalsifiable, makes unproven assertions, appeals to authority, shifts the burden, poisons the well, and is a tautology in its premise.

LIE:  "Rather, Karen prejudicially redefines the axiom of revelation in order to suit her position."  Petersen said "The Bible tells me so...."   Case closed.

LIE (AND STRAW MAN):  "If Karen is going to argue “Well, that’s just your interpretation,” then Karen is going to have to provide an exegesis of the text that shows that there is no special or general revelation."   I NEVER made the claim there is no special or general revelation.  My contention is that both are revealed by the Bible, which Petersen confirmed.

LIE (AND ANOTHER STRAW MAN): "...according to Karen, two Christians may get different interpretations of the same Bible verse, and therefore, Christians don’t have revelation."  I did NOT say Christians had no revelations, quite the contrary, almost ALL religions are via revelation.  I said revelations are inconsistent, which is basically an interpretation of bible verses.  I could just as well say "inconsistent interpretations."

LIE (as well as Non Sequitur and Absurd):  " After all, according to her logic, if reality is sufficient for knowledge, then everyone should agree on every aspect of reality and if people don’t agree on every aspect of realit, then no one can know reality." 

LIE "....for her worldview cannot account for the prescriptive law of contradiction." A linguistic expression of abstractions drawn from a direct observation of reality is only dependent on observation of reality.

MISINTERPRETATION:  "Sye would not claim that he is omniscient, nor would I."  For Sye or Petersen or anyone else to get the RIGHT REVELATION--the one they claim "was revealed to them in a way they can be certain"--they would have to be, albeit temporarily, omniscient, for the revelation of that specific verse.  It would be required to "make the pre-sup know" that their revelation superseded other revelations of the same verses. 

LIE (In Petersen's dreams):  "Such a notion ["Sye-Clone"] is just a condescending term for presuppositionalists that constantly press atheists on questions that atheists have been unable to answer."   They DO answer the questions, the pre-sup won't accept any answers (except the content and explanation-free). 

HALF TRUE: " There certainly is a working definition of Christianity, despite Karen’s false claims."  Petersen provided "a working definition" of eight beliefs central to the Christian doctrine.  I actually think this is a good approach.  However, as I noted previous to this comment "there are often disputes with regard to who is a 'real' Christian and who is not..." which means there is no general agreement on this.  And there are some well-known disputes in the eight beliefs which I might enlarge upon in a future post.

LIE: "The truth of scripture is independent of any erroneous interpretation."  This begs the question of how the "truth" is determined, and how one would know for certain it was the "truth" especially when all the sects and denominations claim the same truth. 

LIE:  "To this day, the most notable endorsers of this interpretation [of Romans 1] that I have seen is a small cult called The New Covenant Group."  (1) Appeal to popularity (2) Non-fundamentalist sources please (3) Some teaching websites make no mention of universality of Romans 1; I think it is a safe bet that fundamentalist  Christian websites would be adamant about Paul's message being universal as that would be clearly necessary for proselytization purposes, and (4) Petersen has already spoke of how some things can be widely viewed as true and then found out to be false.

LIE (and HYPOCRISY): "I don’t merely accuse her of lying, rather I have proven that she is lying."  If that's true, then the same is true of Petersen.  It's taking much longer than I thought to list them all, however, there are so many demonstrable lies, I've even left a few out.

SELF-REFUTATION:  "Science is useful, but always false."  And that is the difference between Petersen's presuppositional argument and science.  Science requires TESTABILITY or FALSIFIABILITY to be useful.  Petersen's argument, however, is untestable and unfalsifiable....therefore IT IS USELESS.  Scientific experimentation demands that it proven true or false; Petersen's argument can be proven neither true nor false.  Petersen obviously believes in science because he makes great use of its end products, such as his computer.  But unfalsifiability renders the pre-suppositional argument into something for which there's no reason to believe.

HIGHLY BIASED SUBJECTIVE OPINION. "Even though William Lane Craig meets atheists on these grounds, he manages to decimate them in every meeting."

LIE (PANTS ON FIRE!):   "If Karen thinks that Christians don’t have any evidence, perhaps she would like to explain why classical apologists regularly wipe the floor with atheist scholars in public debates and exchanges?"   If classical apologists burst into tears and ran off the stage, Petersen would still proclaim victory.  This is a lot like his argument--"I'm going to say we won no matter what happens."  By the way, since Petersen is the first to mention "victory", perhaps he isn't aware of Danth's Law?

FINALLY A GREAT QUESTION:  "What do atheists offer?"  Well, atheism is like "not buying what theism is offering" since there's no evidence for any of it....and that's it.

LIE:   "...but the atheist in their own worldview, has no basis for objecting to evil and suffering."   This is a great way for Petersen to weasel out of explaining why there's evil and suffering in the world with his omni-benevolent god. 

MISREPRESENTATION:  "Karen is assuming that there are [moral] grounds for how one 'ought' to behave when she makes these statements."    Yes there are, just not Petersen's.

LIE:  " This is another example of Karen suppressing the truth of Christianity, for she must abandon her own worldview in order to argue with me about ethics."  For me harming another person is wrong, for Petersen it is transgressing his god's commands.  "She must abandon her own worldview" is therefore patently false.

OBLIGATORY SELF-LOATHING with a touch of double standards.  " In fact, every person on this planet is a liar, adulterer, and a murderer. The very sins that Karen points out in her self-righteous attitude has been committed by all of humanity."  Notice while Petersen claims I have no basis for objecting to evil or making moral judgments (of what is "right") he thinks he can condemn me as "self-righteous."   I can't be "self-righteous" if, according to him, I have no basis to determine what's "right."

LIE AND DOUBLE-TALK.  "This is because Karen only accepts knowledge that comes from experience. If this is the case, Karen cannot observe every occurrence of the consequences of the law of contradiction."  IF this is the case?  Again, Petersen's reification of the law of contradiction makes his argument incoherent.

LIE:  "Earlier, I showed how Karen’s epistemology entails that all propositions are false." 

LIE (PANTS ON FIRE!):  "I do not need to prove to Karen that God exists, because Karen has already demonstrated that she knows that atheism is unjustifiable and that she does indeed know that God exists."

LIE: "It means that Karen’s worldview is irrational and not justifiable."

LIE:  "Karen can function in life, but it entails that she must live a life of delusion."

LIE:  "Karen doesn’t know what the fallacy of composition is."  Petersen must not have understood what I said.  He concluded I was an empiricist because I used the word observational.  He took a part and generalized it to the all of me.  But it seems he can't make up his mind as to how to label me--he's called me a pragmatist, empiricist, objectivist, and naturalist.

LIE (MASSIVE):  " Recall earlier that I said that IQ tests are only concerned with the answers you pick, and not how those conclusions are reached. This renders Karen’s objection irrelevant to the subject matter."

One must reach a conclusion in each individual question in an IQ test, through the use of logic and reasoning (the very things pre-sups claim their God "owns" and one MUST account for).   Petersen would not get a 135 test result by guessing every answer (another LIE).  He is attempting to trivialize the test because he requires his argument to remain unfalsifiable.  There are many other tests available to test reasoning and logic, and I'm sure Petersen would try to minimize those as well.

TRUE:  "Like me, he [Gregory Bahnsen] would dismiss such a test as meaningless."  For the same reason above--this is clear evidence that presuppositionalists do not want their argument tested in any way.  If Petersen is going to claim his argument is effective in reality, there should be a way to demonstrate its effectiveness.  But he basically says any test is meaningless; therefore, his argument is meaningless. 

LIE:  "Since the reasoning behind such a suggestion has been thoroughly demolished...."  Petersen did no such thing.   But Petersen can say "he won" all he wants, as it further validates Danth's Law.

ABSURD:  "Similarly, the IQ test only concerns itself with the answers that is picked, but it does not test the validity of how the conclusions are reached."  If two students took the same test in separate rooms and each verbally answered the questions as to how they reached their conclusion, and they both gave almost the same responses and both got the same score, and it turned out one student was an atheist and one student was a theist, does the theist deserve an A and the atheist a D because the atheist couldn't account for his logic and because the way he reached his conclusions was invalid compared to the theist?  

HALF TRUE:  "However, Karen continues to criticize dogmatism, even though Karen herself is a dogmatist. Unlike myself, who is openly dogmatic about Christianity."   The only true statement here is that Petersen is openly dogmatic.  The rest of it is unashamed falsehood.  I am a reluctant agnostic and would be open to  a compelling argument for a god.  Petersen, on the other hand, is closed to anyone who doesn't believe exactly like he does. 

LIE (MASSIVE):  "If the first principle doesn’t solve the problem of skepticism, than any argument or presupposition that follows the first principle will be ultimately unjustifiable and will collapse into skepticism.”  The ONLY answer is 'the first principle of revelation' through accepting that Christianity is true.”   Petersen's "first principle" which is "authoritay magic" DOES NOT resolve it.   He has no answer, just a belief or faith claim.

HYPOCRISY (MASSIVE):  ” Karen attempted to twist the context of our conversation for her benefit."  And Petersen isn't?  I'll go into Petersen-speak here:  Spare me.

LIE (WORD GAMES AND DOUBLE-TALK):  "If all propositions must be testable in order for them to be justified, then one must ask how we would test whether or not a justified proposition makes a proposition justified?"  Again, Petersen is weasel-wording his way out of testing his argument in reality.

LIE:  "I have no reason to prove God,, since Karen has already shown that she is aware that God exists by abandoning her own presuppositions and embracing my Christian presuppositions." 

Just commentary:  [Karen:] "'Please give a detailed internal critique of Christian worldview. '[Petersen:] 'The Christian worldview is internally and logically consistent when the first principles and presuppositions of Christianity are examined:  First Principle: The Bible is the Word of God.' "    After that Petersen listed some propositions stemming from the principle:  that "the word of God" provides "truth" which answers questions pertaining to the purpose of life and the universe.   He did not provide enough detail however, to show the Christian worldview is sound.   And because of inconsistent revelations, I have no reason to accept it.  There are also differing definitions of worldview, Petersen's is only one particular definition, based on theology.

LIE:  “Explain how you receive your revelation and know it is the correct one. “  Scripture and the testimony of the holy spirit. (2 Timothy 3:15–17, 1 Corinthians 2:10).  I'll ignore the controversy surrounding 2 Timothy 3:15-17, and just use the Corinthians verse: "But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God."   That doesn't tell me anything with regard to how he validates his revelation.  This was discussed in my previous post. Petersen says he knows his revelation from the bible is the correct one because the bible says it's the correct one (and all the while others are receiving different revelations from the same Bible).  In other words, his answer is not just circular but inconsistent.

PROOF OF INCONSISTENT REVELATION/CIRCULAR ARGUMENT :  “ '[Karen:] Explain how you know you have the right god (the Calvinist one?)'  [Petersen] "The Bible tells me so.(Exodus 3:14, John chapter 6)..."

FALLACIOUS DECEPTION:  “'[Karen]How does “God” prevent infinite regress?' [Petersen] God is not subject to any other authority, so he stops the infinite regress, for there is no authority that is binding on God. (Romans 9, 1 Samuel 2:3)."  So here Petersen makes it clear he has no solution for "the problem of skepticism" except an appeal to the "authority" of Biblical verses (see my previous post).  I had asked Petersen not to rely on stretched interpretation of Bible verses, and both of these are basically stretched beyond belief.  They give no indication whatsoever about how infinite regress is stopped.

The reason I call the above a "fallacious deception" is because Petersen continually harped about having a solution to skepticism, and the repeated claim non-believers could get nowhere without having one.  But his solution is based on the fallacy of  appeal to authority (the Bible) which tells nothing about how the regress is ended.  So his demands were unwarranted, a deception.

BIZARRE ADMISSION:  “'[Karen] How do you account for your god?' [Petersen]' I don’t understand this question. If God is the ultimate authority, then there is no need to account for him.'"  So let me get this straight.  Petersen believes he does not have to account for his ultimate authority, because it's the ultimate authority (?).  

LIE:  "(especially since Karen already has shown that she suppresses the truth of God in her rebellion against God.)"

EXCUSES and strained interpretations:  "[Karen]'Where specifically does the bible give any specific insight or instruction on circularity, validation of one’s reasoning, proper construction of argument, or the validity of the senses, etc. (or is it just your interpretation of biblical verses)?'  [Petersen]"God is not obligated to call anything such as logic, syllogism, etc. by man’s categories."  Petersen says it can be "deduced" from verses.   More extraordinarily stretched Biblical interpretation.

LIE:  "There is a choice, Karen can embrace Christianity or continue her exercise in delusion."

LIE:  "(I assume that Karen probably went to Bahnsen Burner for help in responding to me.)"
 

STRAW MAN/EVASION:  "Explanations of how we receive revelation that Christianity is true is found all throughout scripture."  I'm not asking how Petersen receives revelation that Christianity is true, I'm asking how he checks that his revelation is correct.  In other words, how does he know he is not being lied to?  If he says "God cannot lie" my response would be that is exactly what someone would tell you if they were lying.

MORE EVASION and contradiction:  "Her attempt to demonstrate this [that God has 2 wills and can do whatever he chooses and so the Bible cannot be trusted] is an exercise in futility, if Karen holds that The Bible cannot be trusted according to calvinist theology, then why is she attempting to quote The Bible in support of it?"  Then ignore the verses that contradict the ones that are convenient to you like you always do, Jason.  But Calvinist doctrine (which Petersen fails to address) still stands: God has two wills, and one is secret.  His god does not have to do everything that is "revealed."

SNARK: " By Karen’s logic, since she has no training in philosophy and epistemology, she should stop having discussions with presuppositionalists."    If Sye Ten Bruggencate can go from working in a boiler room to being one of the top "VanTilian" presuppositionalists, I can do this without such training.

LIE (LAST SENTENCE):  "I addressed this arbitrary claim earlier as well when I listed the positions that the atheist community has taken in order to try to deal with presupposoitional apologetics. For the record, all of them have failed."    In Petersen's wildest dreams.  And again, I don't say these types of things because of Danth's Law--it's not for me, or him, to make that judgment.

LIE:  "Ah yes, Karen says that I am free to believe as I wish, but she leaves out the part about how she wishes to troll and ridicule all presuppositionalists."   If Petersen thought I was trolling or ridiculing him, he should have deleted my comment. 

LIE:  "Karen truly does not believe that I have a right to believe Christianity and thinks that I should embrace her feeble worldview instead."  I think it's the other way around.   It's obvious from his dialogue that Petersen is not just admittedly dogmatic, but incorrigible. 

LIE:  "So then, the validity of arguments are determined by whether or not you “like” the arguments?"  I never talked about nor used in any form the word "validity."  I said I found PA offensive.

GROSS HYPOCRISY:  " We can now see that Karen’s objection to the axiom of revelation is begging the question, because she assumes that The Bible is false in order to say that the axiom of revelation is not self-evident."  While Petersen asserts (dogmatically!) that the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true, and God exists because the Bible says God exists...which is why I reject his "First Principle."

LIE (REPEATED):  Karen has demonstrated that she suppress the truth of God, rather than believe that he doesn’t exist.   Repeating Bible verses gets Petersen nowhere.

LIE (REPEATED): "Why should I prove God when Karen has already proven that she knows that God exists? " What Petersen demonstrated was that his claim to have solved the "problem of skepticism" was fallacious and that his argument was ineffectual and had no value because he admitted it was unfalsifiable.  Repeating Bible verses gets Petersen nowhere. 

LIE:  "I have clearly shown(multiple times) that I hold what is irrational to hold in debate is irrational to hold in reality."  Except like everything else in his argument, he can't demonstrate it to be true in reality.

LIE:  "She committed numerous fallacies, insulted me multiple times, mocked me, and by doing so, she ironically made herself look foolish."  Petersen's projection is monumental.

So there they are, including his hypocrisies, absurdities, excuses, evasions and admissions, along with a few statements that were true and shown because they were embarrassingly revealing of his position.

As in my video on this subject, I will answer any response Petersen wishes to make, therefore this may not be my last post on this subject.