that book made my brain degenerate into a puddle of frustration. How do we really know what is from what is merely a commentary. If god exists, it surely isn't translatable into scolls...
This is a little off topic but in an earlier post you mentioned that moral necessary truths don't require God because they are necessary. You gave this as an example:
it is wrong for someone to inflict significant pain on someone without a sufficient reason.
I put this up on Craig's site and I was told that it is circular because it defines what is moraly wrong by using what is morally wrong.
Others say that it's not a necessary truth because sufficient reason and significant pain are relative to the individual. What do you think?
2 comments:
that book made my brain degenerate into a puddle of frustration. How do we really know what is from what is merely a commentary. If god exists, it surely isn't translatable into scolls...
Hey Ex,
This is a little off topic but in an earlier post you mentioned that moral necessary truths don't require God because they are necessary. You gave this as an example:
it is wrong for someone to inflict significant pain on someone without a sufficient reason.
I put this up on Craig's site and I was told that it is circular because it defines what is moraly wrong by using what is morally wrong.
Others say that it's not a necessary truth because sufficient reason and significant pain are relative to the individual. What do you think?
Post a Comment