In Defense of a Non-Natural Moral Order

[Acrobat]

You’re equivocating with the term “objective” in order to make an appeal that doesn’t have the probative force to answer the question at hand.

Additionally, your argument seeks to establish that some position you call “non natural” explains items which exist, so far, as mere assertions.

Finally, it’s not at all clear what is non natural, or ordered, in any of it.

---

There are fewer objections to the supernatural order that you’re actually thinking of, btw.

Food for thought.

I’ve indicated that use of objective, is to indicate that good exists independent of our mind.

And non-natural as indicating that this isn't reducible to any natural properties ( scientific and historic facts) about x. If we dissected the holocaust we’re not going to find a natural property called good or bad about it.

I not only used these terms, but clearly indicated why I used them, and what I mean by them.