Father Arguments

[Esquilax]

He also said: "Here's my gentle exit from this quagmire: an appeal to universal moral law does not have to be to a god.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I'm getting a little tired of christians retreating at the first hurdle and refusing to defend the moral system they actually believe in.

As Kant reasoned for universal morality while appealing to reason, not god. It's in my opinion, not satisfying, but any moral apparatus, that I've heard from this forum, dissolves into irrationality, and arbitrary-ness. To conjecture a moral apparatus, already defines what is good and bad, and to imperically decide what is good and bad, defines a moral apparatus, so that the reasoning is circular.

But if you're reasoning based on reality, something objectively true with quantifiable reactions to a wide range of stimuli that humans are likely to encounter, you can define your moral apparatus there, without needing recourse to any notion of good or bad than that which we experience in our lives.

In fact, this leads to a difficulty in using reason in the conventional way to discuss morality. But we all experience a kind of morality that cannot be denied. Godell's theorem definitively shows that any system cannot be complete and consistent. There are things that are true that cannot be proved to be true within that system. So you can continue to not believe, but you must accept the fact that you may be wrong in your unbelief. Don't give up,Keep searching for truth."

I think someone's just kinda fleeing from the problem, and misrepresenting a whole lot of what was said in the process.