[chezlaw]

Continuing despite the enormous interest.

Assuming the following have been established: (past two threads if you want to discuss please)

1.
Any rational person whose moral sense tells them that god as described by some religon is morally repugnant must believe that at least one of the following is true:

they are being deceived by their moral feelings
god isn't good
that religous view is mistaken

although they may not know which of the three to believe'

2.
If a religous type god exists and is absolutely good then my moral sense is evidence of what is abolutely right or wrong.

it then follows that

If a religous type good god exists and my moral sense tells me some view of him is morally repugnant then

the moral evidence misleads me or the religous view is mistaken (or both)


------------------

Consider a religous view that claims it should be believed because of the evidence, and that requires a very high degree of belief.

No evidence of something that may have happened many years ago can possibly overcome the immediately received moral evidence to the extent that I can believe a morally repugnant religous view with the required degree of belief.

Define a MRE Religon as one that:
causes some people moral repugnance
demands a high degree of belief based on evidence.
believes in a good god

then

No rational person who is morally repulsed by an MPE religon can accept that religon.


That's the theory, lots of exciting applications: showing some religous beliefs are irrational, Pascal's wager and many more.

chez