iam - i have made the case probably hundreds of times that “universal truth” is an incoherent term. I’m not going to argue it each time.
You are dishonest, intellectually and otherwise. That is the big problem with you - you are dishonest.
“Flip seven red” is incoherent. You may disagree, and claim that I must justify this in some indisputable way, which is a dishonest position, because we both know that there are no indisputable synthetic arguments. You would be the first to say this, unless it’s the one argument you make - that without God, moral judgments are mere opinion.
But there is a lot of real estate between metaphysical certitude and whim. All of which you ignore.
There is nothing objective about my views, for that is impossible. There is nothing universal about them, for that is nonsensical. If you know what “objective” and “universal” mean, in any way, then you know at least enough about my claim to actually engage it.
Knowledge has been commonly formulated as certitude. But this is like Russell’s clean plate. You can always clean a plate a little more, but there is a point at which we accept it as clean. We can call it clean because if you don’t draw the line somewhere, we’ll never eat off a clean plate.
I don’t expect everyone to see that “universal truth” is incoherent. But I have argued for it, ad nauseum.
Here’s the problem - I cannot argue my entire philosophical view to make a single point, every time I make a single point. But it doesn’t matter. What matters is that you ignore everything between indisputable truth and extemporaneous half-formed caprice. It is no wonder that your personality shatters so regularly. But this willful ignorance of everything outside your simplistic binary formulations is just plain dishonest. You are not arguing in good faith.
If you cannot form any conception of a difference between opinion and gospel truth you have no business commenting on a thread I began in good faith.
You are a troll, and I wish the management of this forum would please censure you.