That's hardly an excellent defense. Quite frankly, the reason I passed over the claim thaty we can determine morality by refering to the law is that I have a tendency, when I see somebody say something stupid, to say so in terms highly insulting to my interlocutor and I should resist this, and that particular claim is remarkably stupid. I need not, I trust, explain why.
The others make no pretense at being normative. So why bother? They obviously can't provide what is needed apart from some additional element from elsewhere.
But this overlooked defense was not necessary, as the burden of proof is not with proving a negative. The burden of proof lies with them that propose the positive (existence of a supernatural force). Which of course has not been offered as yet.
You may have followed the discussion closely, but you have misunderstood it. Or maybe you would simply prefer to change the subject to something you think is more favorable to your side.
I haven't attempted a proof of the existence of the supernatural (or rather, the truth of the Christian religion, because that's what I would be interested in defending) because that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about whether a worldview which rejects the supernatural can account for morality. Here, the positive claim is that it can.
What part of learning from "personal experience, history, law, and science" is there need for "more specificity" so that the answer can be understood?
Other than law, how are we to derive normative content from these things? Hannibal crossed the Alps: how should this influence my conduct?
You are quite right here. The only problem is that there was no claim that "we can determine morality by referring to the law." The word "law" appeared in a context.
Looking at that context, I immediately saw three very obvious interpretations that did not need clarity at that point in the discussion as such distinction were completely unnecessary to what was being argued.
The only criticism that I might attach to the use of the word "law" in the particular context, is that it was unnecessary, as 'personal experience, history, and science' completely triangulate both the rise of, as well as the means of determining morality as a concept. Admittedly the inclusion of "law" brings a specificity not presented in the other three. On the other hand "law" is a source for determining existing societal rules, and there by qualifies as a source for determining morality by definition.
We're talking about whether a worldview which rejects the supernatural can account for morality. Here, the positive claim is that it can.
I quite carefully addressed my reply to what was being discussed. Morality as a concept is quite capable of being explained without mention of the supernatural by definition. Theoretical explanations for its first cause stand quite independent of the supernatural. It can be seen among grooming practices of non human primates as well as in day to day right and wrong decisions made by humans, all independent of the supernatural. The burden of proof lies with those that say the supernatural is necessary for morality to exist. Such has not been presented.