I am a Christian now. Truth doesnt exist. Hail Hitler!

Truth does not need to determine itself as true because truth is self-evident

No it's not circular reasoning.

The truth is the truth

It does not adhere to your worldview. It transcends your worldview or any system you try to enforce on it.

Why can't the truth of Christianity be self-evident if it is the true religion?

OMG, you are going to become another Jim Bakker aren't you?

No it's not circular reasoning.

You said that truth is self-evident (that it proves itself). That is circular reasoning where A is a proof for A.

I'm bringing up the point of truth being the truth whether you believe it or not. 

Is that something you agree with?

This point does not include trying to prove a truth to see if its true.

The truth would already be true whether it is known to you or not

Self-evidence doesn't need to be proven

Besides, your logic can be applied to Jesus-God too. Jesus-God is Jesus-God whether you believe in it or not.

It also doesnt include any proof that truth even exists.

The truth would already be true whether it is known to you or not

That sounds like an unproved claim.

So it cant be proven. Its just faith.

Why is this a problem?

Is that a true statement? It's self-defeating to believe in truth that says "there is no truth."

It is unproven--because it's self-evident

All beliefs and religions require some level of faith.

Am I correct in saying that you believe proof has to precede truth?

But then I would like to understand what is "proof" to you. 

Is the world and universe in all of its design evidence?

Is that a true statement? It's self-defeating to believe in truth that says "there is no truth."

Nothing is true, not even this statement. I already said that I dont believe in truth. I believe in Jesus. No "self defeat" happens, because the statement doesnt claim that its true. It claims that both it and all other statements are not true. This disproves science and truth.

Why is this a problem?

Your logic proves that Jesus-God exists.

It is unproven--because it's self-evident

So you concede that your truth is unproven. This sounds like victory for the Bible.

"Nothing is true, not even this statement." Where does this truth come from?

Come on man, you know that all statements are either true or not true. To claim not not truth is to claim truth

I would say that my logic demonstrates the reality that truth is self-evident.

If God is truth, then He is self-evident.

But my logic is not needed for truth to be true.

No, not my truth. The essence of truth.

I'm talking about truth in general

, and then you try to shame it by calling  it "the truth of the Bible."

Are you saying here that truth being self-evident is bad?

Am I correct in saying that you believe proof has to precede truth?

You claim that truth exists. So prove that truth exists. Otherwise, its just faith.

But then I would like to understand what is "proof" to you. 

Is the world and universe in all of its design evidence?

No. The existence of the world and universe is only evidence if we assume that we should trust our eyes. However, I already explained that we shouldnt trust our eyes. God is by definition greater than our eyes, so why should one believe in what he sees with his own eyes? It is much better to believe in one of the thousands of interpretations of one of the few hundred versions of Bible.

Come on man, you know that all statements are either true or not true. To claim not not truth is to claim truth

Truth doesnt exist, thus the fantasy division between truth and not truth doesnt exist either.

I would say that my logic demonstrates the reality that truth is self-evident.

No, that was your claim which is circular logic. Do you think circular logic is true?

One of us is correct, right?

you believe what you are saying is correct

If we should never trust our eyes, what is reality then?

Our vision is a gift from God to let us explore His creation and to enrich our lives

Is that statement true or not? You are bringing up an exception to the rule, so you need to prove this exception, at least to show that it is more likely than the already established truth logic.

Circular reasoning is a fallacy, which means it is illogical.

Is that statement true or not? You are bringing up an exception to the rule, so you need to prove this exception, at least to show that it is more likely than the already established truth logic.

You have it backwards. It is you who needs to prove your rule. I dont need to prove anything since I never claimed that anything is true. In fact, I maintain that true statement doesnt exist.

One of us is correct, right?

No. Truth doesnt exist, so it is impossible to be correct.

you believe what you are saying is correct

Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that what I am saying is correct. Not sure why you are attacking a strawman like that.

You are making a claim.

Proof?

It could be possible that you don't believe what you are saying. But you present yourself like you do believe it.

If what you're saying is not correct, and you admit to that, why should I argue with you?

You are making a claim.

But I am not saying that the claim is true.

It could be possible that you don't believe what you are saying. But you present yourself like you do believe it.

No. The claim "truth doesnt exist" maintains that nothing is true. Thus, none of my claims need to be proved because I never said they are true.

In the words of a famous writer:

"If someone proved to me that Jesus isnt the truth, then I should prefer to remain with Jesus rather than with the truth."

I dont even know why you argued so far. Arguing against Christians is pointless

For the sake of argument you are though. I think you'd benefit from looking up the answer for "What is a claim in debate terminology?"

But, this is contradictory to the function of a debate. Two people are representatives for their chosen side on the topic. You can't represent the side that"nothing is true" because fighting for that is contradictory to what it means.

Every time you try to defend that nothing is true, you are contradicting the fundamentals of argumentation which is the highest and intelligent form of conversation.

Hypothetical that isn't reality

For the sake of argument you are though. I think you'd benefit from looking up the answer for "What is a claim in debate terminology?"

Again, I am not claiming that my claim is true. I come into a debate by arguing that my position is not true.

But, this is contradictory to the function of a debate. Two people are representatives for their chosen side on the topic. You can't represent the side that"nothing is true" because fighting for that is contradictory to what it means.

Again, you have it backwards. I am not representing my side as true. I am representing my side as not true.

Every time you try to defend that nothing is true, you are contradicting the fundamentals of argumentation which is the highest and intelligent form of conversation.

I am not defending that "nothing is true". That is just your assumption. By claiming that nothing is true, I have nothing to defend since I didnt claim that anything is true.

This is contradictory to the function of a debate. 

It would be valid for you to argue that the claim "unicorns are real isn't true" is true or that "unicorns aren't real" is true or something of the like

your claim is that "nothing is true," even truth itself (whatever that means).

I've explained how your claim is nonsensical

Your claim is contradictory to the function of a debate

, and to an extent, language itself.