Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[Statler Waldorf]

Your entire argument has been shown to be circular.

Where? Be specific.

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.

That’s only one definition of axiom; that is not how the term is used in logical reasoning.

Odd. I don't have any such troubles.

That’s not the point, I would argue you do have troubles but you are only able to reason at all because you assume God exists in your reasoning.

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

That’s not correct; man discovers God’s decrees through His revelation, that was the very definition of objectivism you used earlier. Are you now changing your definition?

Things can be objective from one perspective and subjective from another, the events we decide on today are subjectively decided by men in the present, once they become history though they become something that can be objectively studied.

Did I go to fast? Sometimes I go to fast.

“Unlike most informal fallacies, Begging the Question is a validating form of argument. Moreover, if the premisses of an instance of Begging the Question happen to be true, then the argument is sound. What is wrong, then, with Begging the Question?
First of all, not all circular reasoning is fallacious. Suppose, for instance, that we argue that a number of propositions, p1, p2,…, pn are equivalent by arguing as follows (where "p => q" means that p implies q):
p1 => p2 => … => pn => p1
Then we have clearly argued in a circle, but this is a standard form of argument in mathematics to show that a set of propositions are all equivalent to each other.” – FallacyFiles.org

As I said, circular reasoning is not invalid in the same sense other fallacies are because the conclusion does follow from the premise because it is a re-statement of the premise itself. It just does not have any force in argumentation, although a person will ultimately have to resort to some form of circularity in their worldview when their ultimate standards are reached. The higher up your axioms are and the fewer they are in number the better.

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

I like pointing out your prior failures yes.

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.

So you are trying to give a reason as to why you use reason? Circular argument!

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

How do you know the standards are actually a meter long?

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".

How would a dictionary definition even apply to God? That’s just ridiculous, are you saying Noah Webster held more authority on such matters than God Himself?

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

So it was an appeal to ridicule? Does everything you do have to be fallacious?

Not in that verse.

Yeah I didn’t think so.

The criminal is being punished for his behavior. Next?

Given your definition of morality though, where does anyone have the authority to punish anyone for anything? All I saw was, “well slavery is wrong because slaves don’t want to be slaves.” Which of course logically also states, “punishing murderers for their crimes is wrong because murderers don’t want to be punished for their crimes.” I’ll give you a chance to think of a better reason as to why slavery is wrong if you’d like….