It is rational to place faith in the invisible pink unicorn.

Introduction:Thanks to Con for courageously putting up a fight. Alas, his attempt at invalidating modes ponens is not likely to succeed. I will go through Con's various objections to my case and demonstrate that they do not prove that my argument is invalid. Con's case is extremely disorganized so I will go through it and extract the relevant parts again. Premise 1: All humans use faith to judge everythingThere are two problems with Con's challenge to this premise: It does not appear in my argument The premises of my argument do not have to be true If we are generous and assume that this is Con's interpretation of my premise K, point 2 still applies. Finally, Con's objection to premise is weak anyway. He says it is false because faith means belief without evidence. So what? It could be the case that everything we believe must rest on some amount of faith. For a detailed argument to back up that conclusion, see what Con posted in Round One. Premise 2: God is part of everythingThe same problems that applied to his objection to Premise 1 apply to this. Once again, we will grant that this is a weak interpretation of what K entails. This sentence contains some linguistic ambiguity (is God a component of all things or is God in the set of all things? ). Clearly, KRF's argument contained the obvious implication that God is part of the set of all things. This is also true of the invisible pink unicorn. If Con wishes to assert that a given thing is not a part of the set of all things, he is free to do so. Instead, Con does not challenge this premise but merely lists it, which helps my case by demonstrating that K → P is true. However, not of the premises need to be true so it is mostly beside the point. Con then moves on to attack K in more detail. .. Defending KCon spends a lot of time telling use what the dictionary says logical and rational mean. kthanxCon says that K commits the fallacy of special pleading. Let me post an extremely simplified version of KRF's argument so we can see if it commits the fallacy of special pleading. Let R be the regress problem in epistemologyLet S be the case that the set of solutions to the regress problem in epistemology is not emptyLet N be the case that humans have knowledgeLet F, C, Re, and I be all possible solutions to the regress problem in epistemology R N N → S F or C or Re or I ~ C, Re, and I F In KRF's argument, F is Foundationalism, the belief that all knowledge ultimately rests on faith. C, Re, and I are other solutions which he contends are insufficient. R is established by the nine step argument that you can see in Round One. That N is the case and that N → S should probably not need to be explained. Thus, KRF's argument appears sound and valid. Con cannot attack KRF's proofs of 1 or 5 because those are premises and do not pertain to validity. Now, where is KRF demanding special considerations that differ from a set of rules he normally accepts? I see no example of this fallacy anywhere in this argument. Con is just infatuated with the idea that having faith in one god commits the fallacy of special pleading. Unfortunately for him, Pro didn't argue anything remotely close to the “I have faith in my God but not in others because trolololol! ” case that he was expecting. He presented a very legitimate case for foundationalism as a solution to the regress problem in epistemology which does not commit the special pleading fallacy. Actually, I think there are some problems with KRF's case. Does foundationalism entail faith if the presuppositions can be shown to be logically necessary? I'm not sure about this. However, it doesn't matter at all. The entire above argument was just for fun. The conclusion of KRF's argument was taken as a premise in my valid proof of the existence of the invisible pink unicorn. It doesn't matter if the argument leading up to it is entirely invalid, all that would do is made my premise K false, which again does not matter. Con's Block of TextCon goes on a long rant to let us know that a set of mutually exclusive things cannot all be the case. kthanx. He then tells us that if we were to randomly pick what God to believe in, our odds of picking the right one would be really low because there are lots. kthanx. That's not what KRF was arguing. He was arguing that no matter what we believe, it will have to be based on faith to some extent. This also has nothing to do with validity, only soundness. Look at the logical form of my original argument: K K → P P Suppose there are 10 things that P could be. If you believed any one of them, you would have a 90% chance of being wrong. Still, the proof would be valid for 100% of them and if you believed in none pf them you would have a higher chance of being wrong (100%). If the various possible P's are mutually exclusive, that means that either a premise is wrong or there is an antinomy. Neither possibility means that my argument is invalid. Conclusion:Modus ponens is logically valid.