I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Jon Paul]

Back to your original statements. Maybe I've missed something in the rambling theological language you constantly use, but your argument seems to be: Atheism is logically flawed because it rejects the notion that there is an 'objective moral truth'. Therefore everything else must be subjective and necessarily false, including atheism.

No, that is not "my argument". This is a gross perversion of my epistemological comparison between the epistemic structure of a Christian, monotheistic worldview with atheist, nonmonotheistic worldviews.

I don't have time for repeating what I have already said, so I will quote myself first:

What the fuck is "moral truth?" Is there "immoral truth."

The expression 'moral truth' doesn't refer to morally judging a 'truth'. It refers to moral truths as such, that is, objective epistemic foundations for moral standards. Immorality is specifically a negation of 'morality' which follows from the judgement that something does not live up to given moral standard. It already presupposes moral truth.

If anyone still hasn't understood this, I have presented two different foundations for my transcendental monotheology.

One is the a posteriori argument from empirical observation of the (meta)physics of reality.

The other is the epistemological impossibility of the contrary being true (e.g. the fact a non-monotheological/atheist/naturalist epistemic structure accounts only for the abstractions of subjective brain chemistry, not a transcendental objective truth, and therefore can't possible be true according to its own epistemology).

What you are addressing is not the a posteriori argument, it's the second, epistemological part (which you haven't understood very well).

If this is an attempt to produce a logical fallacy, its woefully inadequate. Firstly you're lumping together morality and truth, when the two things are entirely seperate. Some things are objectively true regardless of belief (or non-belief) system, or morality i.e. The Earth orbits the sun.

Morality is a human concept which changes between cultures, over time etc. The very fact that our morality has developed and improved over time (i.e. slavery is now generally considered a bit of a no-no, despite its embedded history in cultural practice) goes to show that morality is a pliable concept.

You are begging the question and presupposing that there cannot be a such thing as moral truth. You are begging the question that moral affirmations can only be relative and subjective. Which is fine. Proves nothing, except that you can at least see what kind of perspective on morality your worldview mandates.

What I am doing is not 'lumping morality and truth together', but simply analysing different worldviews which either deny that there can be moral and logical truth or affirm it. Atheism is an example of the former, Christian monotheism of the latter.

And I mention two kinds of truths that the epistemic structure (e.g. that which can be possibly known according to a worldviews own presuppositions) of a non-monotheistic worldview cannot affirm as transcending subjective minds: logical and moral truth. Which is simply to say, objective epistemic foundations which warrant logical and moral judgements.