Originally posted by dj2becker There obviously has to be a universal standard, else everyones view is equally valid. You obviously believe that your view is more correct than Kelly's but that would require a universal standard. But you have a problem proving that standard because because you have no God figure to back up your proposed standard. So there's your problem.
We discussed this before. I see no point in discussing it again.
Originally posted by dj2becker There obviously has to be a universal standard, else everyones view is equally valid. You obviously believe that your view is more correct than Kelly's but that would require a universal standard. But you have a problem proving that standard because because you have no God figure to back up your proposed standard. So there's your problem.
Why are you answering for Kelly? Why not let HIM do the talking?
Originally posted by dj2becker There obviously has to be a universal standard, else everyones view is equally valid. You obviously believe that your view is more correct than Kelly's but that would require a universal standard. But you have a problem proving that standard because because you have no God figure to back up your proposed standard. So there's your problem.
You have tried to argue this point before, it is wrong. Morality is governed by consensus, it has ever been so.