"Again, Tcmc
did admit that objective truth exists. Think about it: To say that
there is no objective truth is already to presuppose there is,
otherwise that claim is irrational."
You'd still insist Tcmc conceded when its you who got the
context confused...
"I did not
raise any bar. I made clear what is meant by feet firmly planted in
mid-air. Your magnetic levitation and aeroplane do not fit at all
and it misses the point. But ASSUMING that I grant your examples,
does it mean relativism is true. Of course not."
It apparent you did just no so to your good self. Anyway told
you its was your strawman, this relativism but you choose to argue
all the way. Applause for your effort.
"Why the lack
of obligation or incentive to ask where the laws of nature come
from? Is it because you do not wish to see that the answer is
ultimately philosophical, even theological but not scientific?
Sciences cannot go beyond and ask why there are natural laws or who
establish them is because that's beyond the capabilities of
science. But that just mean that science is limited, we do not need
to be limited in the same way. We can always ask further. To do
science one has to PRESUPPOSE the existence and uniformity of these
laws."
I'd inquired from my preferred source just not obligated to
share it. You, however seemed to have an agenda on teaching your
perceived rightness of things so no stopping you there.
"But if I was
right about an argument being a series of statements then why were
you so reluctant to affirm it? You were wrong not merely because of
my insistence that I am right, but because your error has been
shown. An argument is NOT a statement (singular) but a series of
statements (plural)."
However, in the right context, a single statement can
abbreviate a whole argument if the other implicit pieces of the
argument are clear from the context.
"My first
example was that my BELIEFS changed over time, but not the
objective truth about my religious position in 1990. Same
too with durians example. The objective truth is that I like durian
in 1990 but hate it in 2000. My tastes changed but the truth did
not. It would be objectively wrong to change it to say that I hate
durian in 1990 but love it in 2000, that would be contradictory to
the facts in the example."
How can you be so confused... your 1st example was the
Singaporean, the 2nd was your beliefs. These and your other
examples does not fulfill your definition of objective truths.
"OK, you were
right, you were the one who said that God was cruel. This is what
you said, "So are you saying the other lifeforms suffered mortality
because of one man sin? Conclusion: God is cruel to impose such
suffering to other lifeforms on the 1st mistake that man supposedly
made." So you are telling me that you were NOT making a moral
judgement about God being cruel but just stating something neutral?
I don't see how you can maintain this. The point is that people
with a properly working moral compass all agree that being cruel is
morally wrong. But now you said it is neither good or
evil?"
Let you be the judge so show me the laws or definitions
pertaining to cruel as being morally wrong in this particular
context. I assert again, I did not make any moral judgement when I
said God is cruel to the other lifeforms. If you want to pass
judgement please refer to law or definition else its just bias and
prejudice.
"I know what
the definition of troll is, I am challenging YOUR accusation that
the mere emotional response you have to my talking about your kids
is tantamount to trolling. Mind you I wasn't even
badmouthing them. But I am willing to let this pass so that we can
move on."
It questions your intention of refering to my kids when you
could have done perfectly without. Very reasonable question. If you
not willing to explain, I'll take it that I can exercise the
priviledge make your mom references.
"Concerning
the "chewing the cud" issue, what critical ambiguity are you
talking about really? As mentioned ad nauseum to you, the
context was about the kind of animals that are considered unclean
to the Israelites. They were to eat only those that chew the
cud AND have divided hoofs, but not if only one of the conditions
were met, as with the rabbit and coney."
The description "chewer of the cud" can be left out if it was as
you claimed. However, if its written it would mean to use the
description to identify. You had cloud the description with an
ambiguity thats critical for identification. I'll take it as you
just don't know whats "chewer of the cud" means.
"Whether you
insult me or my alleged hypocrises, the fact is that you DID
insult. But like I said, I am not going to continue this slugfest,
though you have trampled and spit on my olive branch that was
extended to you, justifying that as a refusal to
compromise."
I did insult your hypocrisies and I'm proud of it. I trample on
hypocritical formalities as well.
"You are
CONFUSED between treating the Bible as a science textbook and using
the Bible to inform our scientific study of the world. The Bible is
NOT a science textbook. It is a HISTORY book as it tells us about
beginnings, and also a futuristic one as it informs us of the end
to come."
The bible is not, but those people ARE taking it as science
text, making scientific references to it ALL the time.
"Yes, I find
it hard to believe that you are not here to win arguments. If you
were that conscious of tearing down your opponent's fallacies, then
why are your posts peppered with such fallacies as well, to the
extent that you mocked me for not pointing out more which you
committed? Pretty inconsistent, aren't you?"
Its just your bias or your unwillingness to concede. These does
not concern me, only logic and truth does. You really don't
understand these fallacies as a tool to test an arguement do
you?
"And whether
you intend to insult mother or not, I'm going let it pass. If you
did not, then your conscience is clear. And if you did, I'm letting
it go and choosing not to hold it against you. So you have
absolutely nothing to lose and is walking out of this. A good deal
really, win win for you."
You are implying that I could have insulted your mother when you
cannot even define it. I was not even involved in the insulting in
the 1st place. Where from I walk away? But you did accused me of
insult. Judge and you shall be judged upon.
