"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.
FACT: Tcmc DID concede that objective truth exist. And that
means relativism is false.
My agenda is clear, to show by that there are good reasons
to think that theism is true and atheism is false.
I saw that coming, that you would qualify your "statement is an
argument" thingy.
My examples of objective truths cannot be faulted. It's not my
confusion at all. Objective truth is that which corresponds to
reality, independent of feelings, time etc etc.
Then what were you trying to say when you said God was cruel? No
different from saying that you like the colour of red?
Of course I could have chosen not to mention your kids. But does
the mere mention of them amounts to trolling? Like I said, if you
don't like the mention of your kids, just say so. No need to accuse
others of trolling. In any case, I am happy not to talk about them
or bring them into the discussion since it is a sensitive spot for
you.
The Bible was not written by me, not up to me to leave out "chew
the cud" just because critics have issues with it, issues that are
not really issues at all.
I do take note of your delight and pride in insulting your
opponent. Your accusation of hypocrisies are just that,
accusations.
While the Bible is not a science textbook, it does speak on
things in the real world, so why can't the Bible be used to inform
the way we do science? Or history? Or archaeology?
It's OK to own up to your own fallacies which I pointed out. No
need to sound so defensive that you were merely testing things out
lah.
You did insult. And you were proud of it. Nuff said.
