Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[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.