Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[DeistPaladin]

You obviously don’t know what axioms are;

A self-evident truth. YHWH's infallibility isn't so self-evident to the rest of us. We can't even see any evident he exists. But that doesn't stop you from making bare assertions to "prove" your other 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.

Odd. I don't have any such troubles.

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

That which is objective isn't subjective as well, depending on point of view. If it depends on point of view, it's subjective.

You seem to think circularity is logically invalid

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

You like hitting the "reset" button, don't you?

Haven't I already explained umpteen times that we don't need to justify the use of logic aside from the fact that we like the results.

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

They're made according to the standards of weights and measures.

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.

I quoted you the dictionary's definition. If you want to create a special exception for a hypothetical being that exists outside of time, etc. etc. then you need to first prove this being exists and why it creates a special exception for the definition of "subjective".

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.

It's called "mocking". Not everything has to be an argument.

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

Not in that verse. I'm just saying the Ad Hoc is the method the faithful have to rationalize scripture.

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.

The criminal is being punished for his behavior. Next?