"FACT: Tcmc DID concede that
objective truth exist. And that means relativism is
false."
The relativism was your strawman all along. And you do
understand the meaning of concede, don't you?
"My agenda is clear, to show
by that there are good reasons to think that theism is true
and atheism is false."
So who else but you need to elaborate more...
"I saw that coming, that you would
qualify your "statement is an argument" thingy."
Its from your 3rd party link... click any part of the coloured
paragraph.
"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."
From your above definition, your examples fail to meet the
(truth of the statement)independent of feelings and
(Singaporean)independent of time criteria. The moment you include
time, its time related....
"Then what were you trying to say
when you said God was cruel? No different from saying that you like
the colour of red?"
But I like blue and you insist that blue is morally wrong, base
on your judgement. Until now you fail to show what is wrong with
saying God is cruel to other lifeforms.
"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."
What is your intention else than trolling to mention my kids
when you could perfectly done so without? I have said I am
indifferent to your words and have no power to intervene your
priviledge of type whatnots, its you who is dishonorable using
others's kids in petty arguments. This is the last chance for you
to clarify your intention.
"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."
You did mention your expertise in Christianity... so its just
flatulence. If its there, its meant to identify and you don't know
whats "chewer of the cud"... *sniggles*
"I do take note of your delight
and pride in insulting your opponent. Your accusation of
hypocrisies are just that, accusations."
You have no sense of shame... there is no way out of your
hypocrisies, its in black and white digitally for now.
"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?"
Of course it can be used. You can use it to your subjects of
interest just don't use its as a science text.
"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 were simply wrong in the things you pointed out however you
want to deny. I said before I can let you win arguments.... if you
wan it bad enough.
"You did insult. And you were
proud of it. Nuff said."
I'm proud that I call out your hypocrisies and you cannot rebut.
No one can insult one's mother worse than being a hypocrite. Thus
there no need for me to add insult to injury.
Wrong. My point about relativism was not a strawman. Tcmc was
arguing for relativism, but then she saw where it was going and
agreed that there are objective truths. If that is not conceding
the argument I don't know what is.
I have elaborate a lot already on why theism is reasonable and
why atheism is not.
And you failed to quote the earlier part which says
"Normally, a single statement in isolation does not
constitute an argument, but simply a declaration or
assertion."
You are confused concerning objective truth and the part about
it being independent of time. What it means is that if
the fact is that you were born in 1990,
then it can't be that 20 years later the truth changes that
you were born in 1980. Geddit? And I mentioned this
before, the fact that people can be wrong about anything
PRESUPPOSES the existence of objective truth. Relativism or
subjective truth means no one can ever be wrong since what's true
for you is not true for me.
Moreover I will NEVER say that your choice of colour is right or
wrong so that's your strawman. I said it before, preferences and
tastes are not matters of truth like the earth is round.
I have already clarified my intention, it was merely using your
kids as an example. Why would asking you to do experiments with
your kids be trolling? 5 kids = 5 experiments = 5 outcomes.
Scientific method is repeatable. Problem is that you get personal
when there was no need to, though I can understand it would be
upsetting for you to be told 5 times by your kids that
you are wrong about plants needing nutrients from dead
animals in order to grow. They don't NEED it.
No one uses Lev 11:3 to determine which animal chews the cud.
Lev 11 already is informing the Israelites what they can or cannot
eat, animals that they would typically encounter in their daily
lives and is not meant to identify every living animal species
under the sky that chews the cud. It seems so desperate that you
have to ignore what I said and harp on things beyond what the Bible
text is trying to communicate.
What I have written I have written. If what I have written are
hypocrisies, then so are yours.
Again I said it before, creationists are NOT using the Bible as
a science textbook, but using it to inform us about how we should
go about doing science, and providing the lenses through which we
interpret the observational data. Mind you we are talking
primarily about HISTORICAL science here, not operational
science.
Pointed out your fallacies I did, however much you want to
deny.
And re the last point, I already said I am not going for a
slugfest.
