I don't give a rat's butt what Plato thinks about ideas I just expressed.
"When you imply that because God is a Platonic concept then Truth (as you've defined it) must also be a Platonic concept, you are not only stating what I would consider to be a tautology, you are also committing the fallacy of circular argument, in which you take a premise and make it into a conclusion."
Unfortunately, you were unable to clearly state
what I stated as a circular argument. You instead paraphrased what I wrote in a very remote and altered way, THEN refuted it. That is fallacy number one -- hypothesis contrary to fact! IF NOT THIS, then...don't proceed to base a conclusion upon it!
In other words: if I didn't say it, then it is not my statement that you are refuting!
You seem to have been sold a bill of goods.
Ya wrote: "That is the notion of Platonism that claims that truths are absolute-- they exist 'out there' independent of Mankind's existence. That is isomorphic to the claim of Christianity that God represents such absolutism, not only with regards to Truth, but also Morality, and perhaps even beauty"
Hi again Kyle. Reading your paragraph almost aged me. I can feel your disease which was probably contracted by giving too much of your life to "non-fiction" books rather than science fiction of the pre-1980 era, which is much better for you.
Returning to your point: do you think your way of categorizing ideas works for everyone
--even if your categories only explain ideas
with which you basically don't even agree?
Sorry to be so icky. I'm metaphorically and for now psychologically covered with incoherent, illogical slime thrown on me by some of the other posters here.