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?

[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….

[Epimethean]

Where? Be specific.

Here, for instance. We have been specific, and at each point of specificity, you have eventually defaulted to reasoning along the lines of "nothing makes sense without god, and god is outside of all our understanding, but I know that god is there, because without him there, nothing would make sense."

[Statler Waldorf]

Where? Be specific.

Here, for instance. We have been specific, and at each point of specificity, you have eventually defaulted to reasoning along the lines of "nothing makes sense without god, and god is outside of all our understanding, but I know that god is there, because without him there, nothing would make sense."

Where did I say that?

[The Grand Nudger]

The entirety of the last 49 pages. Mostly. You also seem to like leaving similar droppings in other threads.

[Statler Waldorf]

The entirety of the last 49 pages. Mostly. You also seem to like leaving similar droppings in other threads.

These are all just assertions, you are going to have to point to a specific case so I can tell you why you are wrong.

[The Grand Nudger]

Is it 50 pages of "specific cases" yet? Shize, nope, still 49. So, before we continue, are you being serious or just arguing for the sake of argument? Because I don't want to waste my time.

Let me ask you something, does the phrase "you cannot account for" ring a bell to you?

[DeistPaladin]

Is it 50 pages of "specific cases" yet? Shize, nope, still 49. So, before we continue, are you being serious or just arguing for the sake of argument? Because I don't want to waste my time.

Let me ask you something, does the phrase "you cannot account for" ring a bell to you?

I know I'm done. I got a new signature quote out of all this so it's not a complete loss.

[Statler Waldorf]

Is it 50 pages of "specific cases" yet? Shize, nope, still 49. So, before we continue, are you being serious or just arguing for the sake of argument? Because I don't want to waste my time.

Let me ask you something, does the phrase "you cannot account for" ring a bell to you?

So you can’t point to a specific case? I didn’t think you could. At least I finally found a way to deal with you, call you on your B.S., and then move on when you can’t back it up.

I know I'm done. I got a new signature quote out of all this so it's not a complete loss.

I find it interesting how you run away every time I have you pinned in a corner on something; you would have had to say, “The standard of a meter stick is a meter because it is a meter by definition.” This of course would be the same argument I used for the goodness of God that you thought was somehow logically fallacious. So I will tally that as a win for me because I made you use the exact same argument you said I couldn’t use which of course would be special pleading.

Did you also miss the fact I cited sources stating that circular reasoning was not in fact logically invalid? Did you also miss the fact that I forced you to also use circular reasoning when it came to the use of human reason and the length of a meter? I get so tired of having to teach you the basics of logical reasoning for free; I need to start charging a fee.

[The Grand Nudger]

You can certainly bitch and moan all you like, but "you cannot account for".... You'd be dead broke if you made reasoning your business. If you want to succeed you have to pick something you have a talent for.