Talk:Natural-law argument
(Difference between revisions)
Sans Deity (Talk | contribs) |
|||
| 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 17:22, 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)
