>Do you think that by writing 'it does not' without
>qualification, is sufficient to convince me or anybody else
>otherwise?

Of course not, that's why I've clearly explained it. In case I've been unclear, allow me to do it again:

A person who believes that "morality is relative" is a hypocrite the moment he becomes an activist or asserts ANY moral point of view as "better", in ANY way shape or form, than another. For, if morality is truly relative, as he says, then NO moral notion can be better than ANOTHER. This person's ideal utopia is NO BETTER than Hitler's Germany. It cannot, in ANY possible world, be better, if he retains his doctrine of relativity.

If you cannot see that, this is pretty much as far as you and I can go.



>Even IF there is an objective truth (as you suggest), what
>happens when a man of God interprets this and communicates it
>to others? It becomes subjective... D'oh!

Really? Let's test that. But let's transpose it to an issue that you do not bring a presupposed, unreasoned skepticism to.... ready?

Both of us are in two seperate rooms, divided two doors, such that for me to get to your room, I would have to open the door leading from my room, traverse a short hall (during which time my door would swing shut) and then open the door to your room and enter it.

Now...

Each of our rooms has a light in it, with an on/off switch.

Suddenly the door to your room opens, and I enter, and I tell you that the light is "on" in my room.

Now, EITHER the light is on, or it is not. My announcing that the light is on, has NO bearing on whether the light is on or it is not. However, my statement EITHER corresponds to reality or it does not.

You are calling my announcement that the "light is on" (subjective/opinion) without acknowledging that it is a statement ABOUT AN OBJECTIVE FACT.

That's ridiculous.

My announcement that "the light is on" does not become "mere opinion" just because "I" announce it. I am walking into the room and conveying an "objective truth" to you. It is EITHER true for both of us or false for both of us.


If I tell you that objects fall at 32 ft/sc squared (?), it is not MERELY my opinion that that is so. It is a belief corresponding to objective fact.
Your statement that it "becomes subjecitve" just by someone saying it is misleading and unreasoned, and disproven.


>>However, a relativist CANNOT say that... therefore any
>"right"
>>he suggests should be worked for is merely his personal
>>opinion (since moral fact does not exist) and he is then
>>merely dogmatically fighting for HIS moral opinion to usurp
>>other people's moral opinions.
>


>I'm not sure why you keep using bandying dogmatism, when it is
>a term that traditionally describes the teachings of the
>CHURCH. See the irony?

LOL! The question is DO YOU see the irony?
I'm quite conscious of using it.. I'm using it for JUST that reason. So the irony get's exposed. For...

Look again. IF morality is relative, then EVERY activist on this board is a dogmatic bigot! For they are simply imposing THEIR idea of wright/rong on other people, which is WHOLLY unjustified if there is no reason to prefer one moral opinon over another (relativism), which precisely their position! They are the unfounded dogmatics then! That is the irony!



>Do you really think God explains the flaw in the uniformity
>principle?

Tell me about the flaw in the uniformity principle and then I'll be happy to answer that.


>Do you think it makes sense to say that there
>cannot be an infinite regression of causes, but a God that is
>infinite?

IF it's true that the universe had a beginning, then there cannot be an infinite regression of natural causes.

HOWEVER

I do NOT propound the "first cause" argument as proof of God's existence. It is invalid. The proof for the Christian God's existence is much more obvious than that.


peace.