(January 4, 2017 at 9:30 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(January 4, 2017 at 9:23 pm)paulpablo Wrote: The first question, who's judgement defines who we are, presupposes that someone's judgement defines who we are.

Wouldn't it be wiser to first decide does someone's judgement define who we are?

When we define ourselves, it includes judgment necessarily.  I am arguing by who we are, judgment necessarily exists of who we are. 

If you take away judgment, all traits of praise or appreciation or merit all go away. Praise, appreciation, merit all are part of judgment.

Love also is reliant on judgment. Love is a type of judgment.

You cannot love without judgment.  

You cannot appreciate a single state of a person without judgment. 

Our judgment while not fully accurately is always done with belief there is a full accurate value to the state of the person whether positive or negative.

Yes you can deny yourself in the sense and say there is no judgment to who you are. But this Atheism gone mad really.

This is to the extent you are denying everything you ever knew about yourself from a child till now, just to say there is no proof of God.

---

To make it simpler, if there is an objective value you to who you are, there is an objective judgment that maintains that value.  To deny you have objective value, is Atheism gone mad. 

The judgment implies there is a "who" judges.

Yeh I think this argument has been done before.

The only judgement we know of as taking place exists from living beings on this planet. And some of these judgements might be reliable and some might not be and the only living beings who are judging what is reliable are living beings who themselves are not totally reliable.

I haven't looked into it too much but perhaps some mathaatical and scientific values could be considered objective.
So there could be some descriptions about me that are objective such as my height or weight but if you're going to go down the road of there has to be a god because who else would provide the perfect judgement and the objective values than who will? Then that argument doesn't fly.
I'm not saying objective values don't exist, I'm not an expert but perhaps in maths and science they do exist but there doesn't need to be a God for them to exist.

Denying conclusion. You will have to explain why the argument doesn't fly.

Hint: Take a look elaboration and respond to that, not simply the conclusion.

---

Let us ask this question:

Is there a 100% accurate you?

TLR

Any way you could snip that up and cut out the bull shit? I might even read it.

I read it, and I am disappoint.

It's basically this: https://atheistforums.org/thread-45728.html warmed over.

There is no such thing as true judgement, MK. Only varying perspectives. If you want to call that chaos, so be it.

I don't fart

(January 4, 2017 at 10:48 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: There is no such thing as true judgement, MK.  Only varying perspectives.  If you want to call that chaos, so be it.

There is true judgment just as there is a true you. 

The question is how far are you willing to go to deny your Lord?

Deny everything that points to him even though we been certain about it and are still certain about and act with being certain about it.

---

(January 4, 2017 at 10:53 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I don't fart

I don't understand.

---

(January 4, 2017 at 10:53 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I don't fart

I don't understand.

(January 4, 2017 at 10:42 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: TLR

Any way you could snip that up and cut out the bull shit?   I might even read it.

You mean there's other stuff in there apart from the ?

(January 4, 2017 at 11:00 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(January 4, 2017 at 10:48 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: There is no such thing as true judgement, MK.  Only varying perspectives.  If you want to call that chaos, so be it.

There is true judgment just as there is a true you. 

The question is how far are you willing to go to deny your Lord?

Deny everything that points to him even though we been certain about it and are still certain about and act with being certain about it.

---

(January 4, 2017 at 10:53 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I don't fart

I don't understand.

---

(January 4, 2017 at 10:53 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I don't fart

I don't understand.

I was responding to Stimbo's post

(January 4, 2017 at 10:37 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Denying conclusion. You will have to explain why the argument doesn't fly.

Hint: Take a look elaboration and respond to that, not simply the conclusion.

---

Let us ask this question:

Is there a 100% accurate you?

The question makes no sense. It's like saying is lamp accurate. Or is there a 100 percent correct squirril.

What are values are you measuring in relation to me? Height? Weight?

Your argument doesn't go anywhere because you've based it all on the premise that a perfect judge has to exist, perfect judgement has to exist.
You haven't explained why a perfect judge has to exist.

(January 4, 2017 at 11:10 pm)Lignoramus Wrote:

(January 4, 2017 at 10:42 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: TLR

Any way you could snip that up and cut out the bull shit?   I might even read it.

You mean there's other stuff in there apart from the ?

Lol, good point.  That was NOT an evidence-based assumption on my part, was it?