Let me reiterate why I do not find it logically consistent.
First is the initial premise, or assumption -- that God exists
and He wants us to behave in a certain way. OK, I'll accept that.
As I have pointed out before, every argument depends on a starting
premise.
Following from this premise, we go directly to another subjective
assumption: that humans *should* follow God's wishes. Why? Because,
that's why.
Or, simplified, it is thus:
1. [Premise] God exists and wants us to behave this way.
2. Therefore, we should behave this way.
I really don't see how or why I am supposed to take this as a logically
compelling argument.
_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|
Tautology
(n) See truism.
Truism
(n) See tautology.