"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?"
Since when you believe in Christ? Subjective. No one ever is a
born believer. Only you failed to see beliefs are subjective,
regardless of 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 herehttp://www.theopedia.com/Relativism"
Just because you equate relativism=subjective truth therefore
declare those holding subjective truth as believers of relativism,
when the concept of relativism revolves around the definition of
subjective truth, is enough to deem you dull. Example, God=love.
Therefore a loving person is a god loving person.
"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.
"
1st two statements are circular if you still don't see it. Last
sentence is physically possible.
"And mind you, relativism is not
just a theory but for many it has become a worldview.
See http://www.theopedia.com/Relativism"
Just as when there was a time when the world was believed to be
flat. No consequence to objective truth.
"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?
You are saying the Singaporean(your objective truth) did not
exist before Singapore. The Singaporean(your objective truth) was
non existent before Singapore. Your objective truth
changed into non existent when there was no
Singapore. So your objective truth changed to
another objective truth.
"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."
Was Adam allowed to eat before he sinned? Did God gave him
permission to eat before he sinned? According to you there was no
death, so Adam consumed lifeforms alive and passes them out alive.
According to you, the is no decomposition since nothing was dead.
<ok_noted.jpg>
"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?"
Badgers are not observed to be ruminants or refects. That is
where the evidence of lack comes in. You were saying that it can't
be proven what exact animals the verse points to, but whatever it
is, its as what the bible described. Thats appealing to ignorance.
How is that correcting my ignorance? And now you resort to a false
dilema of making me either not insulted or being petty and narrow
minded, attempting to undermine the insult of calling another
ignorant. That's hypocritical. I'm insulted to be corrected by a
hypocrite who thinks he corrected me by what he thinks he knew and
pointing to the things he think I do not know. I am insulted to be
compared to a hypocrite.
"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."
Since when atheist are credible? Since when evolutionist are
credible? Since when you are credible? Since when am I credible?
The bias is yours alone.
"Your intention, if I remember
you admitted earlier, was to like a challenge and
argument. Perhaps you are just being argumentative."
I like challenges but you miss the part where I wanna
bridge a reasonable communication standard.
"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."
What I see are ad naseums, tu quoques, ad hominems, appeals to
authority, appeals to ridicule, appeals to ignorance... I was
begining to favor letting you go in bliss, but you are being
hypocritical again... dismissing the users here without
(perceived)training as if the rationality of their arguments are
lesser. The more the personal you get the more you will get
exposed.
"You are CONFUSED
still."
You miss the spot where I said "I
believe thats what Tcmc was trying to say."
"Objective truth is that which is true regardless of time and space
and one's feelings or perceptions. It is independent of what one
believes or thinks or feels. And we are not talking about whether a
thing changes, but whether truth can change."
And you failed to give me a better example of what is
objective truth previously, you can try again.
"And
just because a reader brings to the text his personal background
and prejudices/biases which may influence his interpretation, that
does not mean that the objective/intended meaning of the text is
absent. We have to work at it to DISCOVER the meaning, rather than
to think we can decide its meaning whichever way we like."
The key is: interpretations. Only the source is objective,
not what you know not what I know. What I know, I know is
subjective. I pursue absolute truth by observations and hopefully
reconcile directly to the source, the beginning.
"Please explain how those 3 truths you highlighted become
subjective when referring to each other."
Time.
The question I asked was “Since when is belief defined as
subjective truth?” and you changed the subject by asking me since
when I became a Christian. A diversion, and an irrelevant one no
less.
Subjective truth is simply another label for relativism, that
you cannot understand this simple truth is enough to deem you dull.
Even this atheist website apparently got it right
http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyepistemology/a/Subjective.htm
You repeatedly failed to differentiate and distinguish between a
self-defeating argument and a circular argument. According to The
Philosopher’s Toolkit, a self-defeating argument is an argument
that, if taken to be sound, shows itself to be unsound. The term is
often used for positions or theses as well as arguments where, if
you take the principle proposed to be true, it undermines itself by
its own logic. Such cases are more accurately described
as self-defeating positions. And pray tell how do you plant your feet in mid-air or are
you being facetious?
You missed my point about relativism being a worldview. Oh well,
never mind.
And you are still sorely confused about what is objective truth.
The objective truth did not change at all. You mean you disagree
with me that before there was a Singapore there were no
Singaporeans? Or are you just trying to be funny? Worst, you quoted
the Bible but FAILED to understand what it means. That verse is not
saying that objective truth about the previous creation became
non-existent, it is saying that the former physical earth will
cease to exist and will not be remembered anymore because of the
new heavens and new earth. See, this again proves my point that
atheists really fare pathetically when they try to play Bible
exegete.
And so what if there were some people who believed that the
earth was flat? You still missed the point that the objective truth
is that the earth is not flat and that these people were wrong. And
one can only be wrong if objective truth exists.
You can play the dishonest game for all I care. You said that an
argument is a statement. I corrected you and even provided a third
party to correct you when you asked for it, and then you go ad
hominem because of a bruised ego. And it’s not that I am insisting
that you are wrong, but you are refusing to admit that you are
wrong. The evidence is plainly on my side.
You mean being cruel is not something that is morally wrong? Why
would that be just my assumption and not your problem? And then you
go shooting off alleged strawman fallacies when you realised that
you have been cornered.
You can read English, right? What does the Bible say in Genesis
about what is food for Adam and the animals? Hint: they were
vegetarian. So it still means no death before sin. And according to
the Bible, plants and fruits are not called “nephesh chayah” which
is Biblical life as distinct from biological life. If you wish to
debate intelligently with me on Bible interpretation please at
least brush up on your Bible knowledge here http://creation.com/no-death-before-the-fall
The issue is not whether the rock badger is really a ruminant or
engages in refection, but that the phrase “chews the cud” (to bring
up) is applied to it because what it does is similar to the cow or
other animal that chews the cud. The point was not to teach animal
anatomy or biology but to inform the Israelites that they can eat
only those that “chew the cud” and have split hooves, but that from
among this group of animals they are not supposed to eat the rabbit
and the coney and some others. And there’s no false dilemma because
you were really being ignorant. Else you were simply playing
daft.
And you still continue to play daft when I exposed your
fallacious claim that creationists are not credible.
And I don’t see how you have been trying to bridge any
reasonable communication standard. What standard are you talking
about? Whose standards? What criteria? None that can be discerned.
All that I have seen are your attempts to undermine the Christian
faith, just like the other atheists here.
Again, spewing out the names of fallacies proves nothing beyond
the fact that you can spew out these names. When it comes to
actually spotting and discerning them you repeatedly failed. And
the more you do this the more your pretence will be exposed.
The example of Singaporean was a good example of what is
objective truth. Your attempt to dismiss it failed. Again if the
fact is that you were born in 1990 in Singapore, then that is the
objective truth, even if 1000 years have passed. It cannot be that
you are born in 1850 in China when it is the year 3000.
I wonder why there is a need to continue on when you have
already conceded the whole argument to me when your very words are
that you pursue “absolute truth”. What then is absolute truth?
Isn’t that the objective truth I have been talking about all
along?
And please explain in detail your point about time making truths
subjective.