Let's start with the part where you imply I'm debating in bad faith:
ianrust wrote: Did you delete the part of the definition of axiom where is says it is an actuality? Yes, you did. Wow... you are a waste of time.
Your definition of “axiom” as it appears in the third post from the top of "page" 13:
ianrust wrote: "Full Definition of AXIOM
1 : a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit
2 : a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : postulate 1
3 : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth”
So what was that about leaving out the part where it says an axiom is an actuality? Honestly, if you’re going to debate these points, you really should know what you’ve posted previously.
ianrust wrote:ReliStuPhD wrote:ianrust wrote:God is a self-evident truth.
Incorrect (though this does show you know what axiom means, so you're just mistaken on this point).
No, correct. Assertion > countered. !
Fair enough. We've both asserted something and neither of us have demonstrated it. So how do we proceed from here? Since you've made the first positive claim (that God is a self-evident truth), you go ahead and demonstrate it and then I'll respond with a rebuttal.
ianrust wrote:Well this is because truth is not rational, and then it is rational, because there are 7 ways of defining truth and both are included.
Not a single one of the 7 definitions you provided above supports your contention that truth is not rational. Everyone of them is "based on or in accordance with reason or logic," either implicitly or explicitly.
ianrust wrote:I have already shown you this in another post, which you did not respond to.
<snip>
Oh yeah, that post you did not respond to also puts to rest your parenthetical contention. So... GO read it, mr magic
My honest apologies. Which one was that? I'm happy to take a crack at it. (I think you can link directly to a post by clicking on that post's heading and pasting the link here.)
ianrust wrote:An orange is an actuality.
But wait, you're no longer talking about just a noun. The indefinite article establishes that you have a referent.That is to say, you cannot speak of the truth of "an orange" without a referent. That word-referent pairing is propositional. The noun itself is still not a truth independent of the propositional relationship "we call x by this name." To get at this from another angle, go ahead and step up to the challenge I offered earlier: tell me what is true about "orange" without using a proposition.
ianrust wrote:We use nouns to refer to oranges,
No. We use nouns to refer to "things" (for lack of a better term). We use the noun, orange, to refer to a particular thing (two particular things in this case: the fruit and the color). A technicality, perhaps, but an important one from an epistemological standpoint.
ianrust wrote:Here you have just quoted the irrelevant parts of the definition and refuted them, as if you are talking to yourself. Are you insane? Did you not see the part of the definition I bolded, clearly to mark it as my portion?
Wait, so you've included definitions of the word "truth" that are irrelevant? How exactly does that work without being cherry-picking? What, if you don't like a particular part of the definition, it's irrelevant? Still, I did respond to the part of the definition you bolded, didn't I? You even responded to it.
Here it is below! That bolded part! And you even responded to my response! I guess i should have left the bold font face, eh? Sorry, I assumed you'd remember what it was you bolded. My fault for figuring you would be able to keep your own post straight. (PS in the future, if you don't want to refer to the other parts of a definition, just leave them out. I don't mind if you have to go to the 6th definition to make a point. I can certainly understand not wanting to focus on the first 5 that undermine your point.)
ianrust wrote:actuality or actual existence.
<I can paste my long response back in, but since it's just a post or two above, I'll just save us some space -RelStu>
Yes, the part I bolded has a "little ground". When I say orange, I refer to something that is real. I do not say orange out of vanity. My idea of orange is slightly different than yours; this is an inherent flaw in communication; nonetheless when I say orange, I refer to an actual orange. There is no platonic ideal of an orange.
Right! You're not simply using a noun, you're using that noun to refer to a set of propositions that are true. It is the propositions that are true, not the noun. Put differently, the noun is shorthand for that set of propositions. Without the concomitant propositions, the noun is meaningless.
ianrust wrote:But certaintly if I am holding an orange, than I know what an orange truly is.
Oh yeah, um.. if you spoke another language, such a moon-talk, you might say 'penzeel' and refer to an orange, but since we both speak english this does not happen. So again, not relevant.
Quite the contrary. It's entirely relevant, because it is not the noun that is true, but the propositions. That's how we know that when you say "orange" and I say "penzeel," we know we're talking of the same thing. We're both using a word to refer to a set of propositions (or at least one proposition: that what you're holding in your hand is an orange/penzeel). The noun is there for convenience. It is not "truth" though it does point to a set of truths.
ianrust wrote:Again, you are refuting definitions which I did not include as part of my point. You love to talk, don't you?
You should not include them in the post then. That, or say "I only care about the bolded part." But sure, I'll take the blame for that. I should have assumed you wanted to ignore the parts of the definition that undermined your claim. Of course, the 6th undermines your claim too, because by holding the orange in your hand and pointing to it, you're engaged in a rational explanation of the word you're using. The moment you gesture to the thing you're referring to, you've shown that truth is rational. Otherwise, why gesture?
ianrust wrote:ReliStuPhD wrote:You could really do with an epistemological enema.
It has to go into the ass, doesn't it?
If that's where you're pulling your epistemology from, I guess. Hopefully, that's not what you're doing, though.
ianrust wrote:Hey, taking it up the ass with i phone is doable with practice.
Perhaps so, but I've never had it happen, so I can't really comment.
Now, in the interests of wrapping all of this up, let me suggest that you're making a basic epistemological error that is easily fixed. Rather than saying "nouns are truth," simply say something like "nouns are shorthand for a set of propositional truths" (because that is what they are in effect). "Orange" expresses a whole range of true propositions ("Oranges are round," "Oranges are tangy fruits," "Oranges do not grow in the Arctic," and so on). Of course, this would mean you'd have to reformulate your primary position that the noun "God" is truth. Instead, you'd have to say that the noun "God" is shorthand for a range of true propositions ("is omnipotent," "is non-contingent," etc). But as long as you keep doubling down on the quite incorrect contention that truth is irrational and nouns are truth, you're going to (1) keep refuting yourself and (2) give the atheists something to gleefully pounce on.
Quite so.