Well, since I've been cursed with a crazy memory, I remember something Touchstone said once on Debunking Christianity which, when coupled with the above, make for some interesting predicaments.
Touchstone had said in a thread last year on Debunking Christianity when asked how he knew something,
"Espistemically, we *don't* know that God got it right this time. I'm not one to point to a deductive production that establishes that."
And therefore according to Touchstone to epistemically know (whatever that means, is there non-epistemic knowledge that is distinct from opinion? If not, then "epistemic knowledge" seems a bit redundant. Anyway...) that P one must be able to "point to a deductive production that establishes that" P.
Despite the problems with this infallibilist constraint on knowledge, Touchstone pretty much ruins anything he says here. Does he know that TAG is a bad argument? No. In fact, given his antipathy towards "words like necessity" why would he even say what he says above! Apparently since he has such a big problem with "necessity," and cringes when us Triabloggers use the word, then he should never try to know anything. Unless, perhaps he will be consistent and say that "point[ing] to a deductive production that establishes that" P doesn't necessitate the conclusion. That is, there could still be a possibility that P is false. If so, then why can't he say that "God got it right this time?" That doesn't require certainty. That doesn't require necessity. And so we must interpret Touchstone as saying that he can't know that P because he can't establish P in a necessary and infallible way. Not only is he tacitly assuming that laws of logic are necessarily true, he's also acted like a hypocrite here. Indeed, since he has such an aversion towards "necessity," especially "logical necessity," then I guess Touchstone doesn't "know" anything! Therefore, all Touchstone has been doing here is offering his opinion on matters. Why someone debates so vigorously and in such a long winded way about matters of opinion is beyond me. But perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps Touchstone is the sort of fellow that stands out in front of Baskin And Robbins ice cream shop debating people about whether chocolate tastes better than vanilla.
This is what happens to people with bad philosophy. People who don't bother to think through their system. People who say things without thinking them through. Touchstone said he doesn't like philosophy. Perhaps if he didn't hate it so much he'd avoid silly mistakes like the one above. Now, if he wants to deny his internalist and infallibilist constraint on knowledge, fine. Then he's wrong in what he said on Debunking Christianity. He's not a careful and cautious thinker. More like a gun man who fires wildly with his M-60, hoping to hit anything. A sniper takes his time, systemizes his thoughts. But Touchstone hates sniping. Takes too much intellectual time and effort. Better to blaze away. Touchstone is the Kamikaze of apologists, not the Bob Lee Swagger. In order to "save" his faith, he must make knowledge unatainable. In order to save himself, he kills himself. He knows he's going down, so he takes others with him.