(November 21, 2011 at 5:06 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 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
Quote: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."
Quote: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.
Quote: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.
Quote:You have a better ultimate standard?
Science and reason
Quote: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
Quote:How would you independently verify it’s length?By measuring against a meter stick from other manufacturers.
Quote:According to whom? You? Lol.By definition of the terms "subjective" and "objective"
Argumentum Ad Neuseum.
Take a drink
Quote: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."
Quote: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.
Quote: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.
Quote: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.
Quote:Nope, that’s how majority rule works there Bub.
But that's not something I ever advocated now is it?
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
