Talk:Natural-law argument

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
I don't think this belongs in "morality arguments".  It is about natural laws, not moral laws. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 14:54, 16 August 2006 (MST)
 
I don't think this belongs in "morality arguments".  It is about natural laws, not moral laws. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 14:54, 16 August 2006 (MST)
 +
 +
The existence of physical/natural laws requiring a law-giver should probably not simply be 'category:cosmological arguments' (first cause) as it's more directly a restatement of the anthropic principle (fine tuning). I suppose we need another article that addresses this same claim with regard to moral laws. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 15:22, 16 August 2006 (MST)

Revision as of 16:22, 16 August 2006

I don't think this belongs in "morality arguments". It is about natural laws, not moral laws. --Kazim 14:54, 16 August 2006 (MST)

The existence of physical/natural laws requiring a law-giver should probably not simply be 'category:cosmological arguments' (first cause) as it's more directly a restatement of the anthropic principle (fine tuning). I suppose we need another article that addresses this same claim with regard to moral laws. Sans Deity 15:22, 16 August 2006 (MST)

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox