CoH Wrote:Better to say "I don't know" than to say "it must be god." Because unless you are privvy to some higher level of knowledge than we all are in regards to this, you don't actually know, either. And if you ARE privvy to this knowledge and are refusing to share it...then you're an asshole and we have no reason to believe you until you actually show the information and prove it as well. And by the way, proving the information will require a lot more than just pointing at a dusty old book and saying "THIS HAS ALL THE ANSWERS!" For such a difficult question, the answer will need to be very complex and flawless at every turn for such certainty.
As far as I can tell, he's a sort of Deist. This of course means that he *doesn't* have experiential justifications for believing morals to be the works of a god. Therefore, the *only* other justification is one of philosophical reasoning. Well... 38 pages later and all we have are the bare assertions without so much as an attempt to show why *objective morals* exist.
C'mon Inigo... show us the money already.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
