Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[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.