Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's only a waste of time if you want to get anywhere. These conversations deliver cheap amusement by the truckload. One couldn't find a more effective parody of fundy belief than Stat. When a person builds a monument to ignorance in their own mid, the results are always lolworthy.

[Epimethean]

Stat has definitely upped the ante on studied ignorance lately. The oxymoron is alive and well in bibledum.

[Statler Waldorf]

Why do you do it every post then, Stat?

I don’t, my standard for infallibility is axiomatic, as it should be. You are the one trying to measure infallibility with fallible standards, it can’t be done.

Circular reasoning. "We know that Yahweh is infallible because he's infallible"
-Take a drink

Nope, we know He is infallible because He is the necessary standard of infallibility because of the absurdity of the contrary; it’s not circular reasoning.

I must have missed the part of the definitions that say subjective can be objective from another point of view.

Yes you must have, I thought it was pretty obvious myself that laws that exist outside the human mind that are merely discovered by the human mind would be objective.

"It's true because the Bible says so."

Well I never actually used that argument but if I had, the Bible is the ultimate standard of truth, so of course something would be true because scripture says it is. You have a better ultimate standard?

Funny, I think that's exactly what I said. "You know that Yahweh is good because he's good and so we know that we can measure goodness by Yahweh because Yahweh is good."

You have a better standard for goodness? You can’t even articulate how you even measure these things, so this discussion is rather pointless.

DP “How do you know that valid logical syllogisms are logical?”
SW “Because they are the standard of logic, so they are logical by definition.”
DP “Circular argument!! So meh!”
SW “Well it’s argument by proper definition not actually circularity, but do you have a better standard to measure logic by rather than a syllogism?”

...SILENCE.....

Actually, the meter stick is a meter long because the manufacturer made it so. If we are in doubt, say by mistake at the manufacturing plant, then we'd need to independently verify the length.

How would you independently verify it’s length?

God is still a being. A being, no matter how powerful, can't make up arbitrary rules and declare them "objective".

According to whom? You? Lol.

"That's the OT. It doesn't count."

It’s actually covenant theology, brush up on it if you want to actually discuss such matters.

Abuse of the ad hoc hypothesis to protect a cherished a prior belief from being disproved.

I don’t really care what your personal opinions are; demonstrate how anything you said above would even remotely apply to what I said. The verse was not only talking about property, anyone could see that, you just wanted it to be only talking about property so you asserted it was despite what it clearly said.

Argumentum ad neusem. Apologist ignores every point that was made to disprove their argument and simply starts over again.

Actually I was pointing out the logical absurdity of your position. I asked you who determined someone was morally responsible for allowing a action to exist. You said the slaves determined that, so of course the next logical question is so morality is determined by majority? So I will wait for you to actually take a position on this rather than just subtly hiding it in your responses. So, how is it that slaves are the ones who determine someone is morally responsible for allowing something to exist? Waits for question dodging in 3....2....1....

Straw man

Nope, that’s how majority rule works there Bub.

She doesn't have my patience for dealing with the willfully ignorant. Sorry.

Why try to have a debate on your positions when you can watch men sodomize one another huh?

Stat has definitely upped the ante on studied ignorance lately. The oxymoron is alive and well in bibledum.

You guys are hilarious. I love how every time I run you through with your own position, or point out how your whole worldview is logically incoherent you just call me ignorant like that means a thing in debate. A completely irrational person thinking I am the ignorant one is totally fine by me, fools will always hate the wise.

[DeistPaladin]

I don’t, my standard for infallibility is axiomatic, as it should be. You are the one trying to measure infallibility with fallible standards, it can’t be done.

Bare assertion fallacy. "I take it as an axiom that my god is infallible".
-Take a drink

Nope, we know He is infallible because He is the necessary standard of infallibility because of the absurdity of the contrary; it’s not circular reasoning.

"We know that Yahweh is infallible because it is necessary that he be the standard of infallibility because otherwise he wouldn't be infallible and that would be absurd. This isn't circular reasoning. It's just a series of bare assertions."

I thought it was pretty obvious myself that laws that exist outside the human mind that are merely discovered by the human mind would be objective.

How about ANY mind? Why are human minds the only ones who can be subjective? Sounds like special pleading to me.

Well I never actually used that argument but if I had, the Bible is the ultimate standard of truth, so of course something would be true because scripture says it is.

"I would be right to say the Bible is true because it says so, because the Bible is true and so anything it says would be true because what's true could never be a lie now could it?"
-World is spinning from all the circular reasoning. Take a drink.

You have a better ultimate standard?

Science and reason

You have a better standard for goodness?

How about the ones I've been repeatedly offering you and you've been ignoring?

Argumentum Ad Neuseum.
Take a drink

How would you independently verify it’s length?

By measuring against a meter stick from other manufacturers.

According to whom? You? Lol.

By definition of the terms "subjective" and "objective"

Argumentum Ad Neuseum.
Take a drink

It’s actually covenant theology, brush up on it if you want to actually discuss such matters.

"I believe it's true because it's part of my beliefs."

The verse was not only talking about property, anyone could see that, you just wanted it to be only talking about property so you asserted it was despite what it clearly said.

I may need you to go into more detail on your interpretation. Otherwise, you're using the standard Ad Hoc method of explaining away contradictions in scripture.

If you say "well maybe..." enough times, you can make anything fit.

You said the slaves determined that, so of course the next logical question is so morality is determined by majority?

No, I've repeatedly said that morality is a function of how we treat our fellow sentients and that the slave's unwillingness to be slaves is justification enough for their being free.

So I will wait for you to actually take a position on this rather than just subtly hiding it in your responses.

I've been repeatedly offering the same answer over and over and it's really getting old.

Nope, that’s how majority rule works there Bub.

But that's not something I ever advocated now is it?

[Statler Waldorf]

Bare assertion fallacy. "I take it as an axiom that my god is infallible".

You obviously don’t know what axioms are; I am not the least bit surprised though, I will add it to the list that is growing.

"We know that Yahweh is infallible because it is necessary that he be the standard of infallibility because otherwise he wouldn't be infallible and that would be absurd. This isn't circular reasoning. It's just a series of bare assertions."

Nope, if He were not infallible we would be unable to know anything, nor would we even be able to question His infallibility.

How about ANY mind? Why are human minds the only ones who can be subjective? Sounds like special pleading to me.

Did you miss the part where I said laws of morality are subjective from God’s perspective and objective from man’s?

"I would be right to say the Bible is true because it says so, because the Bible is true and so anything it says would be true because what's true could never be a lie now could it?"

Yes the Bible would be true because it said it was, but that’s not the only argument for the infallibility of scripture. You seem to think circularity is logically invalid, it actually is not (the conclusion does logically follow the premise because it is a restatement of the premise); it just doesn’t progress anywhere so it shouldn’t be used in argumentation.

-World is spinning from all the circular reasoning.

Coming from the guy who can’t justify the laws of logic without invoking circular reasoning? That’s kind of funny actually.

Science and reason

Science and reason? Seriously? Ok, how do you know that science and reasoning are themselves true or valid?

How about the ones I've been repeatedly offering you and you've been ignoring?

Wait where? Where did you provide standards of goodness that were not arbitrarily based upon people?

Argumentum Ad Neuseum.

Restating arguments that still stand un-refuted is not Argument ad Nauseum.

By measuring against a meter stick from other manufacturers.

How do you know those meter sticks are actually a meter long?

By definition of the terms "subjective" and "objective"

Where in the definition does it say it applies to all beings, even those that are supernatural, infallible, omnipotent, omniscience, and exist outside of time? I am calling B.S. on this one.

Argumentum Ad Neuseum.
Take a drink

That’s funny; your little “take a drink” tactic is actually an argument ad nauseum because it is not logically valid and yet you keep using it hoping it sticks. That made my day; it’s the little things in life.

I may need you to go into more detail on your interpretation. Otherwise, you're using the standard Ad Hoc method of explaining away contradictions in scripture.

Contradictions? There is a contradiction in that verse? Where?

Since you never seem to know this, we will brush up on what an actual contradiction is one more time before you waste your time, “A and not A at the same time and in the same relationship.”

No, I've repeatedly said that morality is a function of how we treat our fellow sentients and that the slave's unwillingness to be slaves is justification enough for their being free.

So if a murderer is unwilling to go to prison that is justification for not sending them there? You have an interesting view of morality.

I've been repeatedly offering the same answer over and over and it's really getting old.

Actually your answer changes quite often depending on the moral situation, like you will change it here because of my question about murderers, you will say something about society rather than people just not wanting something done to them.....

But that's not something I ever advocated now is it?

Well it’s hard to tell what you actually advocate because it seems to change daily.

[Epimethean]

Holy shit are you full of bare ass ertions.

[Statler Waldorf]

Holy shit are you full of bare ass ertions.

Did you know that until you actually point to one and demonstrate how it is truly a bare assertion your statement above is nothing more than a bare assertion? Kind of funny huh?

[Epimethean]

Since you continue to make your circular arguments based on what has continued to be pointed out as a pure tautology, there is nothing further to do but poke you with a stick and hope you will wake up to reason. You are not using any.

[Statler Waldorf]

Since you continue to make your circular arguments based on what has continued to be pointed out as a pure tautology, there is nothing further to do but poke you with a stick and hope you will wake up to reason. You are not using any.

None of my arguments have actually been demonstrated to be circular. You'd have to demonstrate that my conclusions are merely restatements of my premises. I have not seen this done at all.

[Epimethean]

Your entire argument has been shown to be circular. The fact that any of us continue to play ring around the rosie with you is perhaps further proof of this, as, if we just let you be as soon as you stopped making any convincing argument, you would be left talking to the mirror or a fellow apologist. The fact that you fail to see that this has happened time and time again is convenient-and telling, since you believe in a myth/legend cycle with no substantiation save for the mass delusions of its adherents.