"Tcms said that truth
changes."
Subjective truth, I might
add. The context was belief, which was understood but not you.
"If that is not holding to the
notion of subjective truth, then what is it?"
Hasty
generalization... Are you saying realtivism= holding to
subjective truth? If so, that is the exception rather than the
norm.
"Those who hold to relativism do
hold to a warped notion of truth, and I have already explained why
it is so. Your failure to
discern it and instead to confuse it with circular reasoning does
not render my case against relativism invalid. Any bloke can cut
and paste chunks of WOT on informal fallacies, but not everyone can
identify them correctly."
Ad hominem. Spotted the your strawman(relativism), made a call
and discuss it for fun.
"You claimed that it is circular
reasoning for me to argue that relativism is self-defeating, yet
you were unable to point out where the circular reasoning is. In
the first place did you even understand the point I was making? Let
me again show you how self-defeating relativism is. If you claim
that relativism is true, then is it ABSOLUTELY true, or relatively
true? Think hard, don’t just give a knee-jerk response. Can God
exists and God does not exist be both true? Relativists say “can”
and thus violate the law of non-contradiction. Not only did you
also fail to understand the contradictory nature of relativism, you
still erroneously think this is circular reasoning on my part.
Wait, there’s more. You also failed to see how relativism has no
basis to judge. If what’s true is true for you and what’s true is
true for me, then how can anyone be wrong? Relativism
self-destructs when it is applied onto itself but instead of
realising the absurdity of relativism you again accused me of
circular reasoning. Thus you can’t fault me for noticing that you
don’t know what circular reasoning is. See http://carm.org/refuting-relativism"
Lets take a look at some of the contents of your link:
All truth is
relative.
I guess the other lifeforms deserved the sudden mortality.
Still, does not provide Biblical support that the other lifeforms
were imortal.
I'm not perfect but God is. Don't make the mistake to compare human
rationality with God's way in reference to love.
"Concerning chewing the cud, I was
not appealing to ignorance, but correcting YOUR
ignorance."
There is evidence that badgers not having behaviours of ruminant
or refecting.
Was pointing out your fallacies and you resort to insult...
What fine values Christians have nowadays... *shakes head*
"Yes, creationists are people who
believe God created. But that by itself does not mean that
creationists are not credible. To claim that would be to invoke the
genetic fallacy. And mind you, I was also talking about
creationists who are also scientists. And then you throw out
another alleged fallacy of composition, no doubt trying to sound
impressive but perhaps without much substance."
They are defined as such. What other definitions are there? What
else can creationist mean? If your are referring to the
scientists, scholars or whatnots, name them appropriately. The most
vocal of the lot cannot represent all of them, can they? Thus moi
pointing out the fallacy.
Its never their origins that I despise, its the noise the vocal
lot make. Should you still falsely accuse me of a genetic fallacy
or a special pleading, you seemed too desperate. There were so many
that I committed, but you just falsely accuse me of two.
Pathetic...
I was hoping your would see my intentions... but you put your
self before what good you original intended to do and lost
direction.
<Son_I'm_disappoint.jpg>
If belief is that which changes, then Tcmc should be clear in
her communication. In any case, since when is belief defined as
subjective truth? And again you any-o-how allege a fallacy of hasty
generalisation when there is none committed. Relativism =
subjective truth. I suggest you brush up on your knowledge
concerning what relativism is here http://www.theopedia.com/Relativism
And you are STILL confused between what a circular reasoning is
and what a self-defeating argument is. The statement "Relativism is
true" is a self-defeating statement akin to saying "The truth is
that there is no truth." It's like saying that you have your feet
firmly planted in mid-air. And mind you, relativism is not just a
theory but for many it has become a worldview. See http://www.theopedia.com/Relativism
When there was no earth, there would be no Singapore to speak
of. That's the objective truth about the existence of Singapore
before earth existed. How difficult is this? Even if today
Singapore is wiped off the face of the earth, the objective truth
remains that (say you were born in Singapore in 1990) you were born
in Singapore in 1990. And even if the whole universe vaporised,
that truth is still true, it does not cease to be true, though it
may cease to be relevant or meaningful with no one around to take
note.
Regarding the Flat Earth Myth, the only conspiracy is that
concocted by the enemies of the Christian faith, who deceptively
tries to cast the faith in a bad light by perpetuating a
science-faith conflict.
There is no intimidation on my part at all in merely pointing
out that you were WRONG to stubbornly insist that an argument is a
statement. How you can even claim to be not wrong is beyond
comprehension. Guess it is a matter of ego here for you.
Of course saying God is cruel is making a moral judgment,
because the assumption is that there is something morally wrong
with being cruel. If it is just a matter causing pain or suffering,
then would you say the doctor is cruel in causing pain and
suffering in treating a patient of cancer through chemotherapy? Of
course not.
I don't blame you for your lack of theological training and
Bible knowledge. When God finished with Creation on Day 6 He said
it was "very good". It couldn't be all "very good" when death and
suffering is present then and animals are dropping dead or dying
around Adam and Eve. No, the other life-forms did not deserve death
at all. It wasn't anything they did but what Adam did. But that's
the point I was making, sin affects everything. And God's way
is higher than ours. The mistake that atheists make is to think
that God must be subject to their rational view.
I don't know what badger evidence you are talking about. The
point is that the rock badger/hyrax/coney is an animal which the
Bible classified as one that "chews the cud" using the language of
appearance. Why would you consider it an insult when your ignorance
is being corrected? You can't be that petty and narrow-minded
yah?
You are employing double standards here: you can treat all
creationists as not credible but I cannot speak of creationists
generally as credible? The fallacy is all yours. Are creationists
making a lot of noise? Sure. And what's your problem with that?
Atheists and evolutionists are making a lot of din too.
Your intention, if I remember you admitted earlier, was to
like a challenge and argument. Perhaps you are just being
argumentative. But even so, it shows that you are a novice when it
comes to critical thinking. Perhaps you were only just introduced
to the world of informal fallacies but lacked the training in them,
thus explaining how your confusion in recognising and
identifying them.
