(December 9, 2017 at 2:35 am)Grandizer Wrote:(December 9, 2017 at 1:03 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: This is kind of funny, because the second part I highlighted, shows that you do not understand what subjective and objective mean in regards to the moral argument for God. It doesn't have anything to do with it being accessible to us, ones knowledge of it, or speaking objectively about it. It is about the nature of morality, and what is the basis for calling anything right or wrong. An objective morality, is what gives one any real rights (that I have heard tossed around here a lot lately). It why you can talk about rights and morals outside of the individual or the social grouping, at all, and that they may be correct or incorrect in doing so. So despite your confidence, you are only demonstrating your ignorance.
Uh, thats you strawmanning me by committing a non sequitur. Not my problem if you cant read.
I don't understand, could you please explain where the non sequitur was, and how you think that straw manned you?
And if you where not talking about the moral argument for God, then I apologize. If you where; then talking about a system of knowing, means you don't understand the argument you are attempting to assail, and are just looking foolish by attacking the other poster saying they don't know what they are talking about.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther