reduced my argument in order to say, 'if there are no truths then by definition you cannot argue'.

But consistently I have iterated that there are 'truths' that can be tested against our existing system of knowledge of the world. But there aren't any absolutes (notwithstanding the argumment-within-an-argument about this very statement is an absolute), because our human knowledge of the world is limited to human interpretation. Historically, our understanding of the world has changed. E.g. it was once an 'objective truth' that the earth was flat. Our understanding will constantly evolve and as such we must accept the transient nature of what we hold as 'true'.

You have asserted, (but then denied) that the existence of God is an objective truth. You have also asserted that without God there is no good and evil. It is this that I strongly doubt, and you consistently ducked the issue like the 'sparring reverend' you appear to be..

Of course, I don't think I won the argument, but everytime I try to walk away from it YOU seem to declare a victory. We should have ended this argument ages ago when I suggested.

Peace.