Transcendental argument for God’s existence: your response

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

You are avoiding my question, or at least it appears that way.

[T_aquaticus]

@Dale

You are avoiding my question, or at least it appears that way.

Your question avoids the rather important process of determining what is true.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@T_aquaticus

Your question avoids the rather important process of determining what is true.

Actually, it does not.
 

@Dale

How much discussion do you want over “If a statement is true, then we should accept it”? Do we disagree?

First, we start with the most basic unanswered moral question. Is “If a statement is true, then we should accept it” objectively true, in your opinion? If it is not, then we are finished here.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@Dale

If it is not, then we are finished here.

I didn’t mean that to be as ungracious as I now suspect it must look. Let me try again. If you cannot allow that this, “If a statement is true, then we should accept it”, is objectively true, can you explain why? Is there anything subjective about that statement itself?